Brandon Tate's future as a PATRIOT

[BlueThunder]

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.

Looks to me like the TE's became a BIGGER part of the offense since the departure of Moss....those numbers prove it. Thanks !

Branch already had a history with Brady...
Welker and Branch were Brady's binkies ....

Throw in Woody and BJGE for dumpoff passes and I'd say Tate did ok in the big scheme of things.....

Some people would B1tch if they were hung with a new rope....

Edit: BTW- Tate was a third round pick if I recall...

 

[TheSolderKing]

that list is FACT? damn son



I always liked Tate I hope he becomes like 1 of them skill wise

 

[OhExaulted1]

You know it's a SLOW offseason when a Brandon Tate thread get's over 100 posts. Can we move on to Taylor Price now? That's gotta be worth at least 50 argumentative and nit-picky posts.

 

[Deus Irae]

Looks to me like the TE's became a BIGGER part of the offense since the departure of Moss....those numbers prove it. Thanks !

Yes, indeed. Tate wasn't able to step up in Moss' absence and, instead, saw his numbers plummet to an average of just 1 catch per game.

Branch already had a history with Brady...
Welker and Branch were Brady's binkies ....

Branch wasn't even around to start the season. Welker was recovering from injury and slowed.

Throw in Woody and BJGE for dumpoff passes and I'd say Tate did ok in the big scheme of things.....

Some people would B1tch if they were hung with a new rope....

And some people would defend the Patriots if they were discovered to be killing millions.

Edit: BTW- Tate was a third round pick if I recall...

Which, given the realities of what his contemporary WR draftees have accomplished to date, is meaningful in what way?

 

[BlueThunder]

Welker, a veteran who has a history with TB at QB was given a flyer due to his knee injury.....Tate, a neophyte NFL player at 22/23 years old..not so much.



Brandon Tate, North Carolina 6-1, 185

"If given time he could be great. One of the all-time great kickoff returners in college football history, he was on his way to a special year as a receiver as well as a return man before suffering a horrendous knee injury that could still keep him at far less than 100% well into the 2009 NFL season. Before the injury he was tremendously quick, hard to get a hold of, and productive. In time, he’ll be a top-shelf special teamer and a very, very good inside receiver once he’s healthy again.
He might have been a late first rounder if he didn’t have the knee problem."


Can't wait to see what, if anything, Price brings to the table at WR....but that's for another thread.

 

[spacecrime]

This was my direct quote in response to the 2nd rd/3rd rd comment, and came on the page directly after his comment--which was actually a page or two before yours.

Sorry about that. I missed your comment somehow, or I wouldn't have posted. Tate was injured and had the failed drug combine test, or he would have been a much higher pick. I think he was a steal late third round.

I like Tate a lot. But then I liked Chad Jackson a lot, too. Still don't understand what happened to him. Great hands, great speed, strong. Out of the NFL.

Hoping for better things from Tate.

 

[Deus Irae]

Welker, a veteran who has a history with TB at QB was given a flyer due to his knee injury.....Tate, a neophyte NFL player at 22/23 years old..not so much.

Who's giving Welker a pass? This is a thread about Tate. You made a claim about Welker and his rapport/binkiness with Brady. Well, this past year, he was recovering from an ACL injury that he came back very quickly from, and was clearly still being affected by that. That recovery means that in a situation where Brady expected Welker to be 5 yards deep and 4 yards out, Welker might have only made it to 5 yards deep and 2 yards out, or something like that. In other words, the rapport was not the same. Since you were arguing the rapport as being something to take into consideration, I was pointing out a problem with that argument.

Welker had a down year, with a lot of drops. As with your Price comment, that's for another thread.

 

[Oswlek]

Yes, indeed. Tate wasn't able to step up in Moss' absence and, instead, saw his numbers plummet to an average of just 1 catch per game.

Or, maybe, Tate was overshadowed by two Brady Binkies and NE having what looks like two all pro potential TEs?

Branch wasn't even around to start the season. Welker was recovering from injury and slowed.

Perhaps that's why he was on a pace to catch 44 passes after 4 games and his production dropped off? Branch returned, Welker improved and the TE's emerged?

And some people would defend the Patriots if they were discovered to be killing millions.

Yes, because defending Tate is tantamount to defending Hitler.

The funny thing is, I'm not even all that high on Tate. I said in this very thread that my hope is he becomes another 600-700 guy like Patten. But, apparently, if you aren't willing to tear every young player to shreds for not immediately being an impact player you aren't objective. :bricks:

 

[randomk1]

You know it's a SLOW offseason when a Brandon Tate thread get's over 100 posts. Can we move on to Taylor Price now? That's gotta be worth at least 50 argumentative and nit-picky posts.

Well...this discussion would be relevant nonetheless. Our flankers do require an upgrade from last year. Branch can be good enough in his role but the lack of a downfield threat is still there.

Right now it looks like it's going to be Tate/Price

 

[Deus Irae]

The funny thing is, I'm not even all that high on Tate. I said in this very thread that my hope is he becomes another 600-700 guy like Patten. But, apparently, if you aren't willing to tear every young player to shreds for not immediately being an impact player you aren't objective. :bricks:

Well, no. If you're not willing to be objective, you aren't objective. The amusing thing is that the homers really believe they're objective. The entire country knew, and talked about, the Patriots problems (pass rush/lack of downfield threat, inability to get off field on 3rd down, etc...), yet the Patriots homers who never seem to find anything wrong with anything related to the Patriots somehow think they are the objective ones.

Reality check:

1.) I'm not anti-Tate. I defended the draft pick, and I've said repeatedly that it's too early to just cast him aside. However, he's not demonstrated the ability to be a team's deep receiver and/or starting outside receiver, or anything near to that:

The team either needs to spend money in free agency to bring in a receiver who's more likely to succeed, to trade for a quality receiver, or to draft someone who's got the skill set to get open more than 10 yards downfield, against good corners, with some consistency. They didn't have that receiver last year, once they traded Moss away*.

*I acknowledge that it's possible that Tate or Price could become something along those lines this year. I just don't feel the team should be gambling yet another season of Brady's career away needlessly.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/13/737044-draft-mock-fails-patriot-picks.html#post2486133

I've mentioned several possible receivers, and pointed to the option of Slater getting cut while the other receivers remain on the team, in order to make the numbers work.

2.) Tate was not a rookie. He had an NFL season under his belt. No, he didn't play the full season. He did, however, have access to the rehab programs, the weight and workout programs, the medical staff, the coaching staff/playbook, other teammates, and more. He did get in some practices with the team, and Brady's passing game was far more prolific with that pair than it had ever been with Branch.

3.) Even with the Moss games included (as they should be, even though people are trying to argue "but Branch!"), Tate still had fewer receptions in his second season than most of his draft contemporaries that are still in the league were as true rookies. Without the Moss games, his projections would have been for 16 catches. No doubt, you'd still be defending him.


So, the homers really have no real argument unless there was a hidden injury, but they're acting as if they're being honest and objective. it's amusing and pathetic at the same time.

As for your Hitler comment, it was the other poster who brought up the death thing, with the hanging comment. Your snarky retort should have been directed there.

 

[DaBruinz]

What the hell? Wasn't Tate a starter or am i missing something? And like Deus said...Tate had more catches when Moss was on the team.

No way in hell could Tate do what Collie, Wallace or Nicks do for their teams. It's not even close. Those guys are #1 receivers.

Clearly you have issues reading as my point was that Tate had other receivers in front of him while the others didn't. And Collie is NOT a #1 receiver on the Colts.

Deus and you are both wrong. Tate had more receptions after Moss left. 13 is more than 11.

 

[BlueThunder]

Deus is busier here than a one legged man in an ***** kicking contest :attention:

 

[BradyFTW!]

Deus and you are both wrong. Tate had more receptions after Moss left. 13 is more than 11.

Nobody said otherwise. Deus mentioned that Tate had far more receptions per game before Moss left. 11 in 4 games vs. 13 in 12 games.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

A "starting" WR is a major misnomer with the Pats offense. How about you look at what Tate got for SNAPS in comparison to the other 5 receivers (Moss/Branch, Welker, Hernandez, Gronkowski, Faulk/Woodhead). That actually means something.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Typical Deus over-exaggerations on what people say because he can't actually talk about what was said..

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Getting 6 snaps in ONE game after only 3 weeks of actually practicing is hardly what one would consider "a rookie year". What did he do in camp? He watched film. He did not run routes. He did not get a chance to actually practice. Why? Because he was REHABBING his knee. Learning the play-book is different than actually putting it into use with BRADY telling you how he wants you to run it. People like yourself clearly don't understand the difference between theory (playbook) and reality (practice/games).

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Really? That's funny because I pointed out how most of them DIDN'T have to compete with other receivers. That they were the #1 or #2 guy.

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.

And the Pats ran MORE 2-TE sets with Tate not being on the field.

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.

Again, the Pats used more 2 TE sets than they did Multi-WR sets. But god forbid you take that into consideration.

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

Tate didn't have a year under his belt. He had 3 weeks of practice and a half-dozen snaps in one game. That is significantly different than the others you compared him to.

Also, Tate did not have as many snaps because the Pats were using Deion Branch more. But, again, god forbid you take reality into consideration.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, indeed. Tate wasn't able to step up in Moss' absence and, instead, saw his numbers plummet to an average of just 1 catch per game.

False. Branch was put in the #2 Receiver postion opposite Welker because of Branch's history with Brady. Also, the Pats stated, from Training camp, that the TEs were going to be a bigger contributor.

Branch wasn't even around to start the season. Welker was recovering from injury and slowed.

Branch wasn't around, but Moss was. And Gronkowski wasn't used as often early. Hernandez was. Again, the TEs were used more because that was the PLAN by the coaching staff.

And some people would defend the Patriots if they were discovered to be killing millions.

Pure nonsense on your part. Typical of a Deus Irae post.

Which, given the realities of what his contemporary WR draftees have accomplished to date, is meaningful in what way?

Which "contemporary WR Draftees" missed almost the entirety of 2 straight seasons with a knee injury? Yeah. NONE. That's what I thought.

How many of those "contemporary WR Draftees" that you mentioned were the 5th or 6th receiver on their staff? How many of them played in an offense where the coaches stated, from day 1, that the TEs were going to be a major focus in their offense, thereby taking receptions away from guys like Tate and Edelman?

 

[Sfpat]

I think it's reasonable to claim last season was Tate's "rookie" season. For those of you who don't remember, Tate was on the PUP list his first season meaning he could not participate in any practices. After removal from the PUP, he had a few weeks where he could practice, but it's highly likely that he got few, if any, reps during mid-season practices. Then he gets in for six plays, blows the knee again, and is placed on IR. No OTA's, training camp and very few, if any, practice reps. I'd call it a red-shirt season.

And another angle on Tate's reduced production after the Moss trade. As has been stated, Tate's job was to run the deep routes, and let's face it, TB is not one of the better QB's in throwing the deep ball. IMO, Brady was as culpable as Tate in their inability to connect. Tate is not Randy Moss, but few are. I'd let BB decide Tate's future, which I still believe will be promising.

 

[Shelterdog]

Which "contemporary WR Draftees" missed almost the entirety of 2 straight seasons with a knee injury? Yeah. NONE. That's what I thought.

The whole "contemporary WR draftees" point is also flawed because the 2009 WR draftees played well unusually early; just because Collie, Knox and Wallace played at a high level in their first two years doesn't mean that that is the norm for a third round rookie--and it's not, WR usually take a few years to really get up to speed.

(It may mean that Collie/Knox/Wallace are better picks than Tate but that's a different question.)