Mock Draft Better - Draft Insiders

[Deus Irae]

Good thing he's not a starting wide receiver, then. He's the #3 receiver in a 2WR offense.

10 starts on the season, and 8 of the 10 starts came after Moss was traded.

 

[MaineMan]

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

Tate tore both his ACL and MCL in October 2008. He started the 2009 season for the Pats on the PUP, played in 1 game at the end of October, re-injured his knee and went to IR. To say that represents a "first season" is being pretty technical, doncha think?

2.) The reality is that Maineman is comparing Tate to an earlier bust. Beating out Bethel Johnson is not exactly a tremendous accomplishment.

I was comparing Tate to WR/KRs that Pats had drafted previously. OTOH, what follows are the rookie seasons of some "starting WRs" who haven't done too poorly since (none of whom were drafted as primarily a KR, AFAIK):

YEAR -- Pk# - PLAYER -----------GAMES -- REC/YDS - TDs - Catch Rate
2003 -- 3 -- Andre Johnson ----- 16 gms - 66/976 - 4 TDs - 55%
2004 -- 3 -- Larry Fitzgerald ---- 16 gms - 58/780 - 8 TDs - 51%
2005 -- 27 -- Roddy White ------ 16 gms - 29/446 - 3 TDs - 43%
2010 -- 83 -- Brandon Tate ------ 16 gms - 24/432 - 3 TDs - 52%
2001 -- 30 -- Reggie Wayne ------ 13 gms - 27/345 - 0 TDs - 55%
2001 -- 36 -- Chad Ochocinco ---- 12 gms - 28/329 - 1 TD -- 47%
2005 - 119 -- Brandon Marshall --- 15 gms - 20/309 - 2 TDs - unk
1997 -- 98 -- Derrick Mason ------ 16 gms - 14/186 - 0 TDs - 47%
2001 -- 74 -- Steve Smith (CAR) -- 15 gms - 10/154 - 0 TDs - 50%
2007 -- 51 -- Steve Smith (NYG) -- 5 gms -- 8/63 -- 0 TDs - 57%
2010 -- 90 -- Taylor Price --------- 1 gm --- 3/41 -- 0 TDs - unk
2001 -- 16 -- Santana Moss ------- 5 gms -- 2/40 -- 0 TDs - 12%

3.) Tate had only 24 catches, even with Moss getting traded away. As a matter of fact, he had 11 of his 24 catches in the 4 games that Moss played for the Patriots, and both 4 catch games he had were in the first 4 weeks of the season. Essentially, once Moss was gone, Tate became a 1 catch per game player. That sucks for a starting wide receiver.

"Starting WR"? When did THAT happen? AFAIK, he was the KR and #5 WR (and even further down the list of pass-catching targets if you include Hernandez and Gronkowski). Essentially, once Branch came on board and started sucking up so many targets, Tate became a 1 catch/game player.

4.) His success track in the return game followed a similar path.

Coincidentally, after week 4, teams started kicking away from Tate. In the first four weeks, Tate touched nearly 100% of kickoffs. After that, he only touched about 50%. The result of those avoidance kickoffs was an average FP beyond the 30 - the result of 3 OB KOs and numerous returns by the up-men, including Connolly's majestic scamper.

The entire point of my post was that Tate should be compared to other WRs who were drafted as KRs, NOT to Randy Moss or any other "starting WR", which Tate clearly is not - YET. To think so, or to expect so, seems a bit unreasonable to me, that's all.

 

[Sciz]

10 starts on the season, and 8 of the 10 starts came after Moss was traded.

Tate was on the field for just under half the snaps last season. That is less than Welker, Branch, Gronkowski, and Crumpler. He played 16 more snaps than Hernandez in two more games. Had Hernandez stayed healthy, then Tate more than likely would have been on the field 6th most of the WRs and TEs. For every purpose other than the official "starts" stat, that makes him not a starter.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tate tore both his ACL and MCL in October 2008. He started the 2009 season for the Pats on the PUP, played in 1 game at the end of October, re-injured his knee and went to IR. To say that represents a "first season" is being pretty technical, doncha think?

No. It wasn't his first season.

I was comparing Tate to WR/KRs that Pats had drafted previously. OTOH, what follows are the rookie seasons of some "starting WRs" who haven't done too poorly since (none of whom were drafted as primarily a KR, AFAIK):

YEAR -- Pk# - PLAYER -----------GAMES -- REC/YDS - TDs - Catch Rate
2003 -- 3 -- Andre Johnson ----- 16 gms - 66/976 - 4 TDs - 55%
2004 -- 3 -- Larry Fitzgerald ---- 16 gms - 58/780 - 8 TDs - 51%
2005 -- 27 -- Roddy White ------ 16 gms - 29/446 - 3 TDs - 43%
2010 -- 83 -- Brandon Tate ------ 16 gms - 24/432 - 3 TDs - 52%
2001 -- 30 -- Reggie Wayne ------ 13 gms - 27/345 - 0 TDs - 55%
2001 -- 36 -- Chad Ochocinco ---- 12 gms - 28/329 - 1 TD -- 47%
2005 - 119 -- Brandon Marshall --- 15 gms - 20/309 - 2 TDs - unk
1997 -- 98 -- Derrick Mason ------ 16 gms - 14/186 - 0 TDs - 47%
2001 -- 74 -- Steve Smith (CAR) -- 15 gms - 10/154 - 0 TDs - 50%
2007 -- 51 -- Steve Smith (NYG) -- 5 gms -- 8/63 -- 0 TDs - 57%
2010 -- 90 -- Taylor Price --------- 1 gm --- 3/41 -- 0 TDs - unk
2001 -- 16 -- Santana Moss ------- 5 gms -- 2/40 -- 0 TDs - 12%

I'm sure you think have a point here, but, but you fail to state what you think it is, and it's certainly not evident from what you posted, so I don't really know where you're trying to go with this stuff and can't really give a specific response to it as a result.

"Starting WR"? When did THAT happen? AFAIK, he was the KR and #5 WR (and even further down the list of pass-catching targets if you include Hernandez and Gronkowski). Essentially, once Branch came on board and started sucking up so many targets, Tate became a 1 catch/game player.

Again, he started 10 of 16 games. He started 8 of those 10 in the games after Moss was traded. He played 49.6% of the team's offensive snaps, while Branch played 51.5% of them. It's not as if Tate wasn't on the field. He just wasn't getting the job done.

Coincidentally, after week 4, teams started kicking away from Tate. In the first four weeks, Tate touched nearly 100% of kickoffs. After that, he only touched about 50%. The result of those avoidance kickoffs was an average FP beyond the 30 - the result of 3 OB KOs and numerous returns by the up-men, including Connolly's majestic scamper.

The entire point of my post was that Tate should be compared to other WRs who were drafted as KRs, NOT to Randy Moss or any other "starting WR", which Tate clearly is not - YET. To think so, or to expect so, seems a bit unreasonable to me, that's all.

Ok, then your argument's just wrong, because Tate was not drafted just to be a KR. Well, assuming Belichick wasn't lying when he said that he thought Tate had first round talent, since you don't draft pure KRs in the first round. And, AGAIN, Tate was clearly a starter, since he started 10 of the 16 games.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tate was on the field for just under half the snaps last season. That is less than Welker, Branch, Gronkowski, and Crumpler. He played 16 more snaps than Hernandez in two more games. Had Hernandez stayed healthy, then Tate more than likely would have been on the field 6th most of the WRs and TEs. For every purpose other than the official "starts" stat, that makes him not a starter.

Yes, if you take away the fact that he was a starter, then he wasn't a starter. However, since he was, in fact, a starter, that argument fails. If you take away the games that Brady has started in his career, he's not a starter, either. That applies to every player who's ever started a game. This is not a case of a 1-down defensive player who happens to get on the field only on first down. He was starting and playing in about half the offensive snaps.

In Tate's case, he started in 1/2 of the team's games when Moss was on the squad, and 2/3 of the team's games after Moss left. In other words, he had a higher percentage of starts post-Moss. It's a small sample size, but the numbers are there. Adjustments after the start of the games are impacted by how the games play out. Tate had his chance, game after game, to earn more snaps. He failed to do so, in the eye of the team.

 

[BradyManny]

I'm with Deus - you can't call Tate's first season a red-shirt. He came off PUP and played plenty in his first game against Tampa - they viewed him as ready to go. Granted, the need was high, but the fact was even at that point, the team viewed him as a legitimate option to get plenty of receiver reps. He had learned the system enough to that point.

Tate and Brady seemed to have a solid chemistry during training camp, I don't know why that didn't translate to the field in the season.

Either way, to bank on Tate going into next season - whether you call his first season a redshirt or not - is not wise. He and Price are both question marks. I think realistically, one of them turns into a viable option. But you can't bank on it.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm with Deus - you can't call Tate's first season a red-shirt. He came off PUP and played plenty in his first game against Tampa - they viewed him as ready to go. Granted, the need was high, but the fact was even at that point, the team viewed him as a legitimate option to get plenty of receiver reps. He had learned the system enough to that point.

Tate and Brady seemed to have a solid chemistry during training camp, I don't know why that didn't translate to the field in the season.

Either way, to bank on Tate going into next season - whether you call his first season a redshirt or not - is not wise. He and Price are both question marks. I think realistically, one of them turns into a viable option. But you can't bank on it.

The bolded part is really the key, IMO. It's not that there's no chance that Tate (or Price) will break out next season. It's that the team shouldn't rely on it, especially with the injury history of Branch, because failure means another Brady season wasted.

 

[MaineMan]

O.K. I don't get it. Are you saying pick the one who rots the least? I was not a Bethel fan although he was faster than Tate. Tate was chosen because of his return skills add to what he could do at WR. He is fine for a #5 WR.

This is exactly what I'm saying. In response to your rhetorical question, I'm merely showing that, in terms of a KR who "doubles" as a low-rung WR, we're doing much, much better with Tate than we've done with previous attempts.

In three years at NC and injured one of those, Tate stats show:
46 receptions 927 Yards 8 TDS
Not earth shattering. His biggest season at UNC he had only 25 catches.

In three years at Texas A&M and ironically injured one of those, Johnson's stats are:
90 receptions 1226 Yards 8 TDS

Johnson was bigger at 5'11" and 200 lbs and faster at a 4.2 40.

Versus Tate who is a shade under 6' and 190 lbs and a speed of 4.41 40.

By the way. Here is a shock. Woodhead is faster than Tate. Danny ran a 4.33.

At the end of the day Cousin, Johnson had double the catches of Tate in college.

I reiterate, Tate was an average WR at UNC. He was known for his return prowess. He is what he is. He is a fine #5 WR option. Forcing him into the #3 option was not as successful as hoped.

Reinforces the point that Tate was drafted as a KR and that anything we get out of him at WR should probably be considered a bonus. Also proves the point that raw 40-speed by itself does not make for a good KR.

In an non-perfect world, there are two or three options to upgrade our passing attack in 2011. TB can not wait for years while some of these kids ....."Get it"....The window gets smaller. I say in my humble opinion that there are a few choices that will help TB now.

I want to start with Branch and what to do. He is NOT a true #1 WR and is more effective as a #2 and Welker as the slot man. We still need a taller WR who can draw coverage from that Safety's side of the field. That guy is NOT Tate. He is easily covered by a single mediocre NFL caliber CB at this point.

My options would be of course Fitzgerald above any to win right now. Others could be Sidney Rice who is a great talent but has been dinged and could still cost bucks, Steve Smith who isn't that big either but could easily play #1 WR if you can spring him from Carolina where he wants out, Santana Moss who is a FA, still smaller but could play #1 and had 93 receptions and 6 TDs for the complete chaos of the Redskins passing attack, or...... I like Chad Johnson with 67 catches, with as miserable of an offense as the Redskins with the Bengals, who is 6'1" and has great route running ability and cannot be handled by a one on one DB.......and he wants to play for BB. Is he a bad person? No. Chad is a fun guy who would have to tone it down(see Wes Welker) and if he can co-exist with T.O. taking his catches, he is not going to feel he needs to get into TB's ears every down. He wants to prove to BB that he is a winner here which is the chip you saw when Moss got here.

It forces the best cover CB from the other Team like Revis to cover one of these guys who is the #1 and creates openings for Branch who proved he cannot get open as much as we all hoped as the #1. All these options above can stretch the field. Reiss likes Steve Smith. He and Johnson are both passionate about the game which BB loves to see.

I think Branch had his game taken away with the injuries and his Seattle journey (nice job Mr. Agent). He is still capable of production in spots but he was still dinged even here last year. He cannot take the beating anymore. I think at the least, Santana Moss and Chad Johnson are more durable.

Although I'm not necessarily 100% behind each one of your FA suggestions, I understand and accept the principle of what you're saying above - with the exception of your take on Branch's production. In his 11 games with the Pats this season, he put up numbers equal or superior to all of his previous seasons (including those with the Pats) save one - 2005, the only season in which he managed to stay healthy for the entire 16-game schedule.

Now let us consider if we wait on Tate, or pick yet another WR in the Draft and wait on him? Do we hope that Price is ready? Our latest WR picks have been awfully slow to develop. Or...... do we take a legitimate #1 WR option by Trade or FA that can play right now and produce to go out and win the SB this coming year. I want to win right now while TB is still the man.

I like some of the WR in the Draft but after the first few, as you all say......no thanks(is that it? As if we are the chosen chooser). I would leave the Draft picks to upgrade other areas of concern that can develop faster than a Pats drafted WR is able to do. As Terry Holt said in his interview and he saw both Price and Tate, we need possibly two WR in 2011 and his reference was veterans for Tom to trust.

As a fall back, why not Donte Stallworth? As a part time starter here for one year he did have 46 receptions. Then he got dinged and could not get back to starter. Gaffney had an excellent last half of the season.

Stallworth is healthy now. He is a deep threat. He should be cheap. He knows the system and the area. In nine games he caught 46 passes as the #3 WR. In ten games Tate caught 24. In college Stallworth was over 1,700 yards in receptions and his best TD year was 10 with 3 games out for a broken wrist. He is listed at 6'1" and has run a 4.29 40.

DW Toys

Not sure what you mean by "waiting on Tate". He was hired to give us a quality KR and to contribute SOMEthing at WR as the #5 guy and he's done all that. So, wait for what? If you're suggesting (as other have) that we dump Tate and replace him with one of your FA suggestions, what then do we do for a quality KR (without taking up yet another roster spot)?

 

[MaineMan]

Yes, if you take away the fact that he was a starter, then he wasn't a starter. However, since he was, in fact, a starter, that argument fails. If you take away the games that Brady has started in his career, he's not a starter, either. That applies to every player who's ever started a game. This is not a case of a 1-down defensive player who happens to get on the field only on first down. He was starting and playing in about half the offensive snaps.

In Tate's case, he started in 1/2 of the team's games when Moss was on the squad, and 2/3 of the team's games after Moss left. In other words, he had a higher percentage of starts post-Moss. It's a small sample size, but the numbers are there. Adjustments after the start of the games are impacted by how the games play out. Tate had his chance, game after game, to earn more snaps. He failed to do so, in the eye of the team.

Actually, it's exactly this. All pass-catchers are effectively situational players. When you're on offense, you're creating the "situation". With Tate on the field for the first offensive snap - nominally "starting" - the Pats we're attempting to create a specific tactical situation, whether Tate was part of the play-call or not.

I think a lot of folks put too much stock in the "starter" designation as somehow raising performance expectations. I mean, if the Pats played their first snap out of a 5-WR set every game, that would mean that we don't have a "starting TE".

 

[Metaphors]

The bolded part is really the key, IMO. It's not that there's no chance that Tate (or Price) will break out next season. It's that the team shouldn't rely on it, especially with the injury history of Branch, because failure means another Brady season wasted.

We go through this same exercise every year. Can you spell out a depth chart for 2011 that you believe is beyond criticism? Bear in mind:

a) 3 WRs get the vast majority of snaps in games and practice
b) The 4th WR gets sporadic action
c) The 5th WR begs for scraps
d) Anyone lower on the depth chart should rent, not buy...but will save money on uniform cleaning bills

The current depth chart has Welker, Branch, Tate, Edelperson and Price. If you want to move any of them lower, you might as well trade/cut them. Veterans don't react well to this and youngsters are either movin' up or movin' out.

I'm not against upgrading this group. I just think it is silly when some people (not necessarily you) want a WR depth chart that goes 7-8 deep with 4-5 reliable veterans or top draft picks.

 

[Off The Grid]

The bolded part is really the key, IMO. It's not that there's no chance that Tate (or Price) will break out next season. It's that the team shouldn't rely on it, especially with the injury history of Branch, because failure means another Brady season wasted.

We go through this same exercise every year.

Can you spell out a depth chart for 2011 that you believe is beyond criticism?

LMAO!!!

 

[Deus Irae]

We go through this same exercise every year. Can you spell out a depth chart for 2011 that you believe is beyond criticism? Bear in mind:

a) 3 WRs get the vast majority of snaps in games and practice
b) The 4th WR gets sporadic action
c) The 5th WR begs for scraps
d) Anyone lower on the depth chart should rent, not buy...but will save money on uniform cleaning bills

The current depth chart has Welker, Branch, Tate, Edelperson and Price. If you want to move any of them lower, you might as well trade/cut them. Veterans don't react well to this and youngsters are either movin' up or movin' out.

I'm not against upgrading this group. I just think it is silly when some people (not necessarily you) want a WR depth chart that goes 7-8 deep with 4-5 reliable veterans or top draft picks.

1.) None of them can get open deeper than 10 yards out, with any regularity.

2.) Edelman, Tate and Branch have significant, multiple, injury issues in the very recent past.

3.) Price didn't play in a single meaningful snap all season.

4.) Welker's best use is in the slot.

5.) The current Patriots WR corps has Branch, who's a WR3 at this point in his career, playing the role of a WR1, and Tate, who's a WR4 or WR5 right now, playing the WR3.

6.) Slater can be replaced as the WR6 if someone else is brought in.

 

[MaineMan]

I'm with Deus - you can't call Tate's first season a red-shirt. He came off PUP and played plenty in his first game against Tampa - they viewed him as ready to go. Granted, the need was high, but the fact was even at that point, the team viewed him as a legitimate option to get plenty of receiver reps. He had learned the system enough to that point.

Tate and Brady seemed to have a solid chemistry during training camp, I don't know why that didn't translate to the field in the season.

Either way, to bank on Tate going into next season - whether you call his first season a redshirt or not - is not wise. He and Price are both question marks. I think realistically, one of them turns into a viable option. But you can't bank on it.

Let's see....

Tear ACL and MCL in October 2008. Has surgery, begins rehab in November.

Isn't sufficient recovered by the start of 2009 training camp, so he's put on the camp PUP - meaning that he can't practice with the team for that 5 weeks.

Then he's put on the regular season PUP list amid rampant speculation that he's 50/50 or better to go straight to IR afterward. Still can't practice with the team for another 6 weeks. AFA anyone knows, he's yet to run even one full speed route in pads with the team or to catch a pass from Brady under those conditions.

The Pats forgo the allowed 3-week practice period and activate Tate as soon as he's eligible for the week-7 game vs Tampa. He returns two kicks for 22 yds apiece and gets one end-around for 11 yds. IIRC, he's on the field for about 10-15 scrimmage snaps (played plenty?). I think he may have been targeted once by Brady.

After they BYE week, he plays against MIA in week-8. Returns two kicks - one for 28 and another for 34. On their third KO, Miami kicks to the up-man instead who gets a 16-yard return and good FP for the Pats. Some guy named Connolly. During the game, Tate wrecks his knee again and goes on IR where he not only cannot practice with the team, he can't even workout.

So, out of 22 weeks, he gets a max of 3 weeks of practice with the team, two game appearances and 4 KOs, and that's "a season"? Enough of a season to be saddled with the expectations of a 2nd year "starting" WR in 2010 when that's not why he was drafted in the first place?

Seems pretty harsh to me.