Brandon Tate's future as a PATRIOT

[NinjaZX6R]

LOL..I was rooting for the Giants too...sad..
Yeah. The press conference UGH..."i'm going to The University of Ohio State"...When I heard that...smh.

 

[Oswlek]

It's an indictment of the starting WR who finishes the year with 24 receptions.

2003: Branch, Givens, and Brown all had more receiving yards than Faulk did
2004: Givens, Patten, and Branch all had more yards (as did Graham)
2005: Branch, Givens, Brown, and Dwight (and Watson) had more yards than Faulk.

A starting WR managing 24 catches over a full season is unprecedented in the Belichick era. Being sixth on the team in receptions with the same qualifiers is also unprecedented. Of the five guys ahead of him, three were in their first year on the team, and two were rookies altogether. You folks can claim that it was because he was buried on the depth chart all that you want, but at no point in the season were we swimming in WR talent. What he ostensibly is--an edge receiver who can stretch the field and beat single coverage--is exactly what we were lacking, and lacking that might be the single biggest reason why we lost to the Jets in the playoffs. If he was a good player, the team would have looked to him more, because they needed him. But they didn't, because in 2010 he simply wasn't a good receiver.

To this point in his career, it's self-evident that Tate is not a good WR. He might become one, and I hope that he does- as far as I'm aware, nobody on this thread has said that it won't or can't happen. We're all Pats fans, and we're all rooting for him. But acting like his progress to date is normal and fine and not something to be concerned about is pure, blind homerism. Hopefully he can pull it all together and become a solid WR option. Even if not, he's still a good KR, so hopefully some combination of Taylor Price and a FA WR can do the job instead.

In either case, it's a simple fact that Tate has not produced to date, and, compared to other guys in his draft class and other Patriots who are younger than he is, there isn't a whole lot to be encouraged about. Hopefully that will change this year, but we haven't seen much of anything from him on the field to indicate that that will happen... yet.

Honestly, I think this whole debate is indicative of two different ways of looking at young Pats players: there's a camp that assumes that they will be good until they've definitely proven that they won't/can't be, and there's another camp that will assume nothing that they haven't already shown the capacity to do. The former tends to overestimate players, and the latter tends to underestimate them. The difference, especially when you're talking about, for example, a 3rd round pick with a pretty devastating injury history, is that players in that position are far more likely to wash out than become productive NFL starters. Just on odds alone, the latter camp is far more likely to be correct, and that's exactly why we see things the way that we do. I'll believe that Tate is capable of being a solid NFL starter the day that he shows on the field that he is physically and mentally capable of it. Until then, I'll hope for the best and assume nothing.

You use receptions to denigrate, but when I point it out that RB receptions are quite common you use yards to push Faulk's numbers down. Using your own rationale, Tate had more yardage than Woody, so it shouldn't have ever been an issue to begin with.

You are also being remarkably disingenuous with this comment:

A starting WR managing 24 catches over a full season is unprecedented in the Belichick era. Being sixth on the team in receptions with the same qualifiers is also unprecedented

In the very first season I checked, 2003, David Givens had 34 receptions for 510 yards. Are you really trying to say that Tate's 24 for 432 is vastly beneath that level of production? Or that there is some major significance to David just barely sneaking into 5th in receptions by having 6 more than Christian Fauria?

In either case, it's a simple fact that Tate has not produced to date, and, compared to other guys in his draft class and other Patriots who are younger than he is, there isn't a whole lot to be encouraged about.

Tate's production is in line with many of those supposedly superior players. I commented earlier why White and Wallace aren't comparable and that Nicks/Harvin were picked much earlier. I personally went through the remainder, and only Britt/Knox have clearly outperformed Brandon.

I don't disagree with your final point. It is a classic glass half full/empty debate. That said, this comment couldn't possibly be more wrong:

But acting like his progress to date is normal and fine and not something to be concerned about is pure, blind homerism.

A guy getting 24 receptions for 432 in his first season is pretty much the definition of "normal progress".

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

It's an indictment of the starting WR who finishes the year with 24 receptions.

2003: Branch, Givens, and Brown all had more receiving yards than Faulk did
2004: Givens, Patten, and Branch all had more yards (as did Graham)
2005: Branch, Givens, Brown, and Dwight (and Watson) had more yards than Faulk.

A starting WR managing 24 catches over a full season is unprecedented in the Belichick era. Being sixth on the team in receptions with the same qualifiers is also unprecedented. Of the five guys ahead of him, three were in their first year on the team, and two were rookies altogether. You folks can claim that it was because he was buried on the depth chart all that you want, but at no point in the season were we swimming in WR talent. What he ostensibly is--an edge receiver who can stretch the field and beat single coverage--is exactly what we were lacking, and lacking that might be the single biggest reason why we lost to the Jets in the playoffs. If he was a good player, the team would have looked to him more, because they needed him. But they didn't, because in 2010 he simply wasn't a good receiver.

To this point in his career, it's self-evident that Tate is not a good WR. He might become one, and I hope that he does- as far as I'm aware, nobody on this thread has said that it won't or can't happen. We're all Pats fans, and we're all rooting for him. But acting like his progress to date is normal and fine and not something to be concerned about is pure, blind homerism. Hopefully he can pull it all together and become a solid WR option. Even if not, he's still a good KR, so hopefully some combination of Taylor Price and a FA WR can do the job instead.

In either case, it's a simple fact that Tate has not produced to date, and, compared to other guys in his draft class and other Patriots who are younger than he is, there isn't a whole lot to be encouraged about. Hopefully that will change this year, but we haven't seen much of anything from him on the field to indicate that that will happen... yet.

Honestly, I think this whole debate is indicative of two different ways of looking at young Pats players: there's a camp that assumes that they will be good until they've definitely proven that they won't/can't be, and there's another camp that will assume nothing that they haven't already shown the capacity to do. The former tends to overestimate players, and the latter tends to underestimate them. The difference, especially when you're talking about, for example, a 3rd round pick with a pretty devastating injury history, is that players in that position are far more likely to wash out than become productive NFL starters. Just on odds alone, the latter camp is far more likely to be correct, and that's exactly why we see things the way that we do. I'll believe that Tate is capable of being a solid NFL starter the day that he shows on the field that he is physically and mentally capable of it. Until then, I'll hope for the best and assume nothing.

You don't need to assume anything. just accept the reality of reality.

Tate played essentially a rookie season after a two year hiatus.

In the four games played with the offense practiced in the off season, he was a productive contributing player.

The offense was materially changed and he wasn't as good.

He did materially contribute to wins against Miami, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh.

Assuming he is or isn't going to be good is dumb because he has and hasn't contributed.

Comparing him to his "peers" is dumb because just about everyone on the "peer" list would be terrible in the Patriot's system.

 

[randomk1]

Comparing him to his "peers" is dumb because just about everyone on the "peer" list would be terrible in the Patriot's system.

I don't get that comment...how would guys that have put up far better numbers suddenly struggle in the pats system. What special abilities does Tate have exactly that he is such a good receiver for us...even though he hasn't been anything special.

 

[Deus Irae]

In the very first season I checked, 2003, David Givens had 34 receptions for 510 yards. Are you really trying to say that Tate's 24 for 432 is vastly beneath that level of production? Or that there is some major significance to David just barely sneaking into 5th in receptions by having 6 more than Christian Fauria?

In the 34 reception year you're citing to, Givens only played in 13 games, and he only started 5 of them. Tate played in all 16 games this past year, and started 10 of them. Pro rating Givens' numbers over the course of 16 games would give him 42 catches for 628 yards so, yes, Tate's numbers were, indeed, vastly beneath the Givens level of production in the year you referenced.

Tate's production is in line with many of those supposedly superior players. I commented earlier why White and Wallace aren't comparable and that Nicks/Harvin were picked much earlier. I personally went through the remainder, and only Britt/Knox have clearly outperformed Brandon.

No, they're not. Furthermore, your arguments about the other players (i.e. Wallace) were weak sauce, to put it kindly. To this point in their respective NFL careers, Tate isn't fit to hold Wallace's jock.

A guy getting 24 receptions for 432 in his first season is pretty much the definition of "normal progress".

Again:

1.) It wasn't Tate's first year

2.) Tate's year produced fewer catches than the rookie seasons of almost all the other receivers taken in his draft that have managed to stay in the league to this point.

 

[BlueThunder]

Not sure but didn't Tate have an injury that dropped him down the draft?...Pats got him at a bargain - they drafted him for his value in the 3rd round. Didn't he sit out 2009 season?

Last year would have been his rookie year..but didn't he get hampered by an injury also??....( not positive but seems like he missed a couple games due to inj).

If truly the case, Tate would be expected to show improvement THIS season.

I'll take the wait and see approach this year before throwing him under the bus ..after all, like others have pointed out, he is competing with a few other good receivers and RB's for balls thrown to him....maybe he needs to get on the Jugs machine like Givens did to help his hands....just sayin

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't get that comment...how would guys that have put up far better numbers suddenly struggle in the pats system. What special abilities does Tate have exactly that he is such a good receiver for us...even though he hasn't been anything special.

You have to understand how this works. No player that wasn't specifically drafted by the Patriots could possibly work for the Patriots. This is 100% guaranteed, except when the Patriots go out and sign free agents from other teams. The process of them using a pen to sign the contract magically transforms them into a player who's capable of playing in the Patriots system. In fact, at that point, those players transform into players who can't fail in the Patriots system. That, too, is 100% guaranteed, until those players wash out. Then, the blame is entirely on the player.

All those 3-4 DE/OLBs? 100% guaranteed to wash out of the Patriots system. Shawn Crable? He'll be terrorizing Patriots opponents for years as the Patriots pass rusher from the OLB spot. Mike Wallace (Football Outsider's overall #1 statistically rated WR last year btw*), who's asked to beat opponents deep in the Pittsburgh offense and is averaging better than 20 y/c in his first two seasons, couldn't possibly run deep routes in New England, while Tate's never blown a route and has been perfect for the job and held back by tight ends, who are apparently running the deep posts and go routes right alongside of Tate.

I hope this clarifies things for you.





*http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr

 

[Oswlek]

You have to understand how this works. No player that wasn't specifically drafted by the Patriots could possibly work for the Patriots. This is 100% guaranteed, except when the Patriots go out and sign free agents from other teams. The process of them using a pen to sign the contract magically transforms them into a player who's capable of playing in the Patriots system. In fact, at that point, those players transform into players who can't fail in the Patriots system. That, too, is 100% guaranteed, until those players wash out. Then, the blame is entirely on the player.

All those 3-4 DE/OLBs? 100% guaranteed to wash out of the Patriots system. Shawn Crable? He'll be terrorizing Patriots opponents for years as the Patriots pass rusher from the OLB spot. Mike Wallace (Football Outsider's overall #1 statistically rated WR last year btw*), who's asked to beat opponents deep in the Pittsburgh offense and is averaging better than 20 y/c in his first two seasons, couldn't possibly run deep routes in New England, while Tate's never blown a route and has been perfect for the job and held back by tight ends, who are apparently running the deep posts and go routes right alongside of Tate.

I hope this clarifies things for you.





*FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | WIDE RECEIVERS 2010

I'd respond, but you're just trying to stir the pot with this post!

 

[patsinthesnow]

Enough with this "Well, it was basically Tates Rookie year."

Yes, because going to camp, learning the game/playbook, playing in a regular season game, having 1 year of NFL Experience is the same as a rookie.

 

[Metaphors]

For those drawing conclusions on Tate after his 19th game, I have a couple of questions for you:

- What specific areas of his game contribute the most to your negative assessment of him?

- For each of these areas, is it completely unexpected/unacceptable that someone of his age/experience would have work to do to improve them?

- Are these areas chronic (for example, small hands, body catching, no burst, etc.) or can them be improved with coaching?

- Do you give Tate any slack for not having a "normal" (PUP, rehab, lockout) offseason yet? Noting that teaching is replaced by game planning in practices once the games start.

- How many flat out drops do you think he had in 2010? Why do you think those drops happened?

- How many passes should he have been expected to get in 2010? To achieve that difference, should Brady have passed more or should targets been taken from another receiver? Is so, which one?

- In which games would having Tate catch more passes made a material difference in the outcome? In which games would throwing to Tate have made more sense than the targets Brady did throw to?

- Are there any other areas of Tate's game besides pass catching and kick returns that deserves being part of his evaluation?

Tate's resume looks pretty meh (not great, not awful) when you remove all context. Even worse when you substitute in another unrelated context (Pittsburgh or Chicago offensive systems). I'll give my answers to the above questions in a later post but didn't want to muddy the waters before the Tate critics can give their perspective.

 

[TheSolderKing]

Not sure but didn't Tate have an injury that dropped him down the draft?...Pats got him at a bargain - they drafted him for his value in the 3rd round. Didn't he sit out 2009 season?

yes... he was a supposed to be Early 2nd rounder... (not su7re late 1st..... but a DEFINITE EARLY 2 if he had not hurt himself at UNC

 

[Oswlek]

Enough with this "Well, it was basically Tates Rookie year."

Yes, because going to camp, learning the game/playbook, playing in a regular season game, having 1 year of NFL Experience is the same as a rookie.

I'll grant you that he had the playbook, but what camp did he attend in 2009? How exactly did he have "1 year of NFL Experience" when all he did was have a few weeks practice and a handful of snaps in a single game?

I think you don't quite understand understand how little Tate was able to work on his game (route running, techniques, timing with Brady) in 2009. 2010 was, for all intents and purposes, his rookie year.

 

[BlueThunder]

I believe that Tate's value to the team not only comes as a receiver, but you also have to evaluate his contributions as a ST return man.....

Glad to see Brandon contributing and looking forward to a solid season for him in 2011.....

Wanted to repost his 2010 season link for those who didn't get to watch it earlier....

No. 19 WR Brandon Tate 2010 Season. Games from the Patriots 14 wins minus the Indy game (he had 0... - Pats Pulpit

Enjoy and watch the improvement in 2011 (If they EVER get an agreement signed!!)

 

[BradyFTW!]

You use receptions to denigrate, but when I point it out that RB receptions are quite common you use yards to push Faulk's numbers down. Using your own rationale, Tate had more yardage than Woody, so it shouldn't have ever been an issue to begin with.

Two sides to the same coin. I used receptions to point out the simple fact that Tate wasn't used much. You used receptions to point out that it's normal for a RB to be in the top 5 for the team- a point that I never disputed in the first place. Still not sure what you're trying to argue, unless you're claiming that a starting WR managing only 24 catches isn't an issue.

You are also being remarkably disingenuous with this comment:



In the very first season I checked, 2003, David Givens had 34 receptions for 510 yards. Are you really trying to say that Tate's 24 for 432 is vastly beneath that level of production? Or that there is some major significance to David just barely sneaking into 5th in receptions by having 6 more than Christian Fauria?

Yeah, actually, I am claiming that. Givens started 5 games in 2003, and he still significantly outperformed Tate in 2010.

Tate's production is in line with many of those supposedly superior players. I commented earlier why White and Wallace aren't comparable and that Nicks/Harvin were picked much earlier. I personally went through the remainder, and only Britt/Knox have clearly outperformed Brandon.

The reasoning that you gave for Wallace made no sense. Wallace was the #1 WR last year because he earned it. The Steelers traded Plaxico because Wallace had demonstrated that he was fit to take over, and indeed he was.

I don't disagree with your final point. It is a classic glass half full/empty debate. That said, this comment couldn't possibly be more wrong:

A guy getting 24 receptions for 432 in his first season is pretty much the definition of "normal progress".

It wasn't Tate's first season. That might be normal progress for an actual rookie who is not starting on one of the most prolific passing offenses in the NFL with the MVP quarterback. It is also normal progress for a second-year role player who is not, and is not expected to become, an above-average NFL starter. It's not normal progress for someone in Tate's position, assuming that you're projecting him to become a starter-caliber player.

Once again, I've never said that the leap can't happen this year. It might, but I've seen nothing from him to indicate that we can reasonably expect it in the way that I expect to see improvement from, for example, Cunningham. The jury is still out on Tate, but the longer the jury remains out on a guy, the more likely it becomes that the outcome will not be favorable. He was given a prime opportunity to step up and be an impact player, and, for whatever reason, he was unable to consistently get open and had questionable hands when he did. This translated to a lack of production, and eventually Brady all but stopped looking for him. That isn't a death sentence for him as a WR, but let's not pretend that it's an encouraging sign. He was the only vertical threat that we had, and he was still the sixth option in the passing game. Do most of you really think that that isn't a negative sign?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I believe that Tate's value to the team not only comes as a receiver, but you also have to evaluate his contributions as a ST return man.....

Definitely, I'd agree with that. Even if he ends up being the #5 WR, I still think he's worth keeping around for his skills as a KR. People who are doubting him on this thread are doubting his track record to date as a WR, not as an overall player.

 

[Oswlek]

Yeah, actually, I am claiming that. Givens started 5 games in 2003, and he still significantly outperformed Tate in 2010.

I've always considered you an insightful guy, BFW, but this is ridiculous. A 10 catch 80 yard difference over the course of an entire 16 game season is about as statistically insignificant as it gets.

The phrase "2nd year player" doesn't properly describe Tate. Yes, he had access to the playbook, but that was about it. Since he was injured in 2008, that meant he missed OTA, camp and preseason. He couldn't work on techniques, timing, route running, nothing.

Then he practices for a few weeks - the first time he's set foot on a football field as an active participant in a year - and gets hurt again.

And this statement is beyond ridiculous

It is also normal progress for a second-year role player who is not, and is not expected to become, an above-average NFL starter. It's not normal progress for someone in Tate's position, assuming that you're projecting him to become a starter-caliber player.

The league is littered with guys who started just like Tate and became very good receivers.

David Givens
Troy Brown
Steve Smith
Miles Austin
Reggie Wayne
Vincent Jackson
Chad Johnson
Terrell Owens
Donald Driver

You almost have to look harder for guys who didn't start slowly. And those guys weren't coming off two missed offseasons, which some of you apparently think is more than offset by having a binder with some plays in it. :bricks:

As for Wallace, I don't understand why what I said was so controversial. He is a terrific physical specimen which fits in great with Pitt's sandlot offense. He may very well be a terrific fit here, but he could just as easily be another Galloway, a speedster who couldn't quite get the hang of a more regimented offense.

This isn't some glorified "if NE doesn't take him he clearly isn't as good" BS argument like Deus was portraying it. It is recognition that Pitt's offense is one of the least transferable to NE's in the entire league. If Wallace were having that kind of success with SD or NO, then the comparison would have more validity.

 

[Deus Irae]

I've always considered you an insightful guy, BFW, but this is ridiculous. A 10 catch 80 yard difference over the course of an entire 16 game season is about as statistically insignificant as it gets.

As I already pointed out, Givens only played 13 games that season, while Tate played the full 16:

In the 34 reception year you're citing to, Givens only played in 13 games, and he only started 5 of them. Tate played in all 16 games this past year, and started 10 of them. Pro rating Givens' numbers over the course of 16 games would give him 42 catches for 628 yards so, yes, Tate's numbers were, indeed, vastly beneath the Givens level of production in the year you referenced.

 

[BlueThunder]

I again reinterate that 2010 was effectively his rookie season....

Not every receiver will become another Randy Moss...too much to expect...but it sure is too early to tell just how good Tate will become.

Tate had to compete with some pretty decent players for balls ( Welker and Branch )..... add in the TE and RB 's thrown to and not everyone will be targeted a lot...watching the film, TB threw some pretty ****ty passes Tate's way.....a few WERE Tate's drops...some were Brady's errant passes....and Tate saved TB on a couple that should have been INT's and in one case they produced a TD out of either a sack or INC when Tate saw Brady in trouble.....

Give this kid time...too many are too quick to throw players under the bus ( I'm guilty of that myself) ...He's played ONE full season....I said Eric Moore is my binky...Tate will be my binky jr.....

 

[Deus Irae]

I again reinterate that 2010 was effectively his rookie season....

Not every receiver will become another Randy Moss...too much to expect...but it sure is too early to tell just how good Tate will become.

Tate had to compete with some pretty decent players for balls ( Welker and Branch )..... add in the TE and RB 's thrown to and not everyone will be targeted a lot...watching the film, TB threw some pretty ****ty passes Tate's way.....a few WERE Tate's drops...some were Brady's errant passes....and Tate saved TB on a couple that should have been INT's and in one case they produced a TD out of either a sack or INC when Tate saw Brady in trouble.....

Give this kid time...too many are too quick to throw players under the bus ( I'm guilty of that myself) ...He's played ONE full season....I said Eric Moore is my binky...Tate will be my binky jr.....

Tate had to compete with other receivers? The other receivers had to compete with other receivers.

Gronkowski, a true rookie, had to compete with Branch/Welker/Moss/Faulk/Woodhead/Tate/Hernandez. He managed 42 receptions, while also being a big time blocker.

Hernandez, a true rookie, had to compete with Branch/Welker/Moss/Faulk/Woodhead/Tate/Gronkowski. He managed 45 receptions, despite not playing in 2 games.

Tate, with a year under his belt, managed 24 receptions, and only 13 in his final 13 games of the year.

 

[randomk1]

The league is littered with guys who started just like Tate and became very good receivers.

David Givens
Troy Brown
Steve Smith
Miles Austin
Reggie Wayne
Vincent Jackson
Chad Johnson
Terrell Owens
Donald Driver

How many of those guys were week 1 starters? For a "rookie" Tate has definately been put in a great position to succeed.