Tate to IR, Stanback to 53

[HarkDawg]

He is on our roster as a Qb!

Patriot Games my boy, Patriot Games.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Let the Stanback era begin.........

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Interestingly, though, the Patriots' press release lists "WR Brandon Tate," but simply says "Isaiah Stanback," no "QB" or "WR."

 

[spacecrime]

Crap, it's like CJ all over again...
...

What? CJ? Because Tate hurt his knee, he is CJ? Edelman broke his arm. Who is he all over again?

Coulda, woulda, shoulda left him on PUP until week 9 and let him practice for 3 weeks and then just IR'd him...

Why? What harm did it do to activate him that you would like to undo?

I'm not following your logic on either of these two statements.

 

[GostkowSKI]

I just hope there's no long term issues with Tate.

 

[Mack Herron]

I just hope there's no long term issues with Tate.

He has now missed two years with knee injuries.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

The kid should never have been playing this season in the first place.

I appreciate your posts, Deus, but c'mon. First of all, you have absolutely no basis for your assertion. The doctors cleared him. He was effective his first game as a returner and runner, and didn't experience any pain. He was something like eleven months into his recovery and rehab at this point, and according to the Patriots he was well able to play.

Second, we don't know the severity of his injury. It is highly likely he was shut down as a precautionary measure; there's no sense in rushing back from a second injury. As others have mentioned, he was using the exercise bike on the sidelines for the remainder of the game. I guarantee you had he sustained significant damage, he would not have been in that situation. He most likely had a sprain similar to Mayo's, and we simply didn't have the roster flexibility to keep him inactive for the next month with so many other injured players. Don't forget that fans don't have access to the medical reports, so my guess here is just as good as yours, as uncomfortable as you may be with that.

Frankly, you just like being contrary. I usually respect your opinion, and appreciate that you don't simply go along with the crowd, but sometimes you're remarkably inflammatory and arrogant. No offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

I appreciate your posts, Deus, but c'mon. First of all, you have absolutely no basis for your assertion. The doctors cleared him. He was effective his first game as a returner and runner, and didn't experience any pain. He was something like eleven months into his recovery and rehab at this point, and according to the Patriots he was well able to play.

Second, we don't know the severity of his injury. It is highly likely he was shut down as a precautionary measure; there's no sense in rushing back from a second injury. As others have mentioned, he was using the exercise bike on the sidelines for the remainder of the game. I guarantee you had he sustained significant damage, he would not have been in that situation. He most likely had a sprain similar to Mayo's, and we simply didn't have the roster flexibility to keep him inactive for the next month with so many other injured players. Don't forget that fans don't have access to the medical reports, so my guess here is just as good as yours, as uncomfortable as you may be with that.

Frankly, you just like being contrary. I usually respect your opinion, and appreciate that you don't simply go along with the crowd, but sometimes you're remarkably inflammatory and arrogant. No offense.

Having been born in October of 1987, Tate is not even 22 years old yet. Let's hope that the Patriots have the sense to make sure that this kid doesn't step out on the field one second before he's completely ready. Given the depth chart at wide receiver, my preference would be for the team to put the guy on IR. He'd still be able to learn the playbook, watch film, pick the brains of the veteran receivers and use the facilities to get his body ready for the rigors of the NFL.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/250234-will-brandon-tate-see-field-2009-a.html#post1428477

Despite what you seem to think, it's not about being contrary. When I do things for just that reason, I usually make it pretty clear, with a picture/emoticon or something. In this case here, you had a young kid who wasn't needed. As I stated months ago, my preference was to IR the kid.

 

[BelichickFan]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/250234-will-brandon-tate-see-field-2009-a.html#post1428477

Despite what you seem to think, it's not about being contrary. When I do things for just that reason, I usually make it pretty clear, with a picture/emoticon or something. In this case here, you had a young kid who wasn't needed. As I stated months ago, my preference was to IR the kid.

Unless he has a serious injury he'll benefit from the month or so on the field that he couldn't have had if he were IRed at the beginning. He'll be better for not being IRed - unless he has a serious injury but if the knee was ready to go that's just the risk of life in the NFL.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Okay. That makes a little more sense. That was your opinion, and it was a valid one at the time. I will say, however, that your post was prior to losing Lewis, Galloway, and Edelman. With all due respect, we did need Tate. Edelman is recovering from injury now; he mitigates the need for receiver depth.

I hope you know that I certainly didn't mean to attack you or anything; I don't believe in insulting or denigrating people. Without context, however, your post in this thread seemed like a very knee-jerk reaction, as though your opinions and views were superior to everyone else's, and we were all foolishly missing the point.

Or maybe I'm just overly sensitive.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unless he has a serious injury he'll benefit from the month or so on the field that he couldn't have had if he were IRed at the beginning. He'll be better for not being IRed - unless he has a serious injury but if the knee was ready to go that's just the risk of life in the NFL.

They could have kept him on PUP, allowed him to practice with the team for the 3 weeks to get the patterns going in his mind, and then IR'd him.

Unfortunately for these players, there's an overwhelming pressure to get them back on the field immediately. That sometimes leads to problems, sometimes minor or temporary, and sometimes major or lasting/permanent. Hell, even supposedly 'healthy' people can end up favoring the old injury and ending up with a new one as a result, without even realizing how it happened. In this particular case, given the extremely young age (22), I thought it would have been smarter to give that leg the year plus to recover, rather than pushing the envelope just to get a rookie on the field.

For all we know, he could just have tendonitis and they don't want to push it, or he could have blown out the ACL. Hell, it could be something totally unrelated to the earlier injury, for all we've been told. So far, we're getting the expected Gillette silence on the issue. No matter what it is, though, I prefer to err on the side of caution, especially with young players. I learned that the hard way, with something that left me permanently injured and getting worse by the year.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

No matter what it is, though, I prefer to err on the side of caution, especially with young players. I learned that the hard way, with something that left me permanently injured and getting worse by the year.

I didn't know that. I am sincerely sorry for your pain and suffering. Thank you for some much-needed human perspective.

 

[BelichickFan]

For all we know, he could just have tendonitis and they don't want to push it, or he could have blown out the ACL. Hell, it could be something totally unrelated to the earlier injury, for all we've been told. So far, we're getting the expected Gillette silence on the issue. No matter what it is, though, I prefer to err on the side of caution, especially with young players. I learned that the hard way, with something that left me permanently injured and getting worse by the year.

If he were healthy they did the right thing. If he wasn't they didn't but the idea that they should have kept him out as a precaution is silly. I guess they could have sat Brady out this year as a precaution too.

 

[Deus Irae]

If he were healthy they did the right thing. If he wasn't they didn't but the idea that they should have kept him out as a precaution is silly. I guess they could have sat Brady out this year as a precaution too.

Brady had his full year in an NFL rehab program and, more importantly, we're talking about a veteran, and a QB, in comparison to a 22 year old rookie WR. I don't consider them to be the same animal.

 

[BelichickFan]

Brady had his full year in an NFL rehab program and, more importantly, we're talking about a veteran, and a QB, in comparison to a 22 year old rookie WR. I don't consider them to be the same animal.

Tate was re-habbing hard too, Division 1 programs aren't like some backwoods high school - and his knee is 10 years younger which generally means it will heal better.

It's all moot IMO, the facts that Tate stayed on the sideline, rode a bike and wasn't IRed for 2 weeks all say it's very likely he has no new structural issues.

 

[HarkDawg]

is Stan the man a valid option in the return game??



Losing Tate..... hurt with yardage gained after kicks....



No one has mentioned that yet but me....?

Am I the only one to notice his strength as a returner more so than a WR?

I know some ppl have me ignored.... which is silly. No one has commented on this aspect... why???

 

[Deus Irae]

Tate was re-habbing hard too, Division 1 programs aren't like some backwoods high school - and his knee is 10 years younger which generally means it will heal better.

I played sports for a division 1 school. It was good, but not pro team good.

It's all moot IMO, the facts that Tate stayed on the sideline, rode a bike and wasn't IRed for 2 weeks all say it's very likely he has no new structural issues.

We don't know what is "very likely". However, given that I don't agree with your premise that he should have been on the field "if healthy", we're not going to end up changing our positions on this, so there's really no need to keep going with it.

 

[JSn]

I know some ppl have me ignored.... which is silly. No one has commented on this aspect... why???

I don't have you ignored. I don't know about "The Prophet" on KR's. I'd like to see Wheatley back there, actually. Slater is good, but as a lead guy, he's brilliant.

Likely KR's are Wheatley, Maroney and maybe one of the DB's we don't have much info on so far (Lockett/Arrington).

 

[HarkDawg]

Likely KR's are Wheatley, Maroney and maybe one of the DB's we don't have much info on so far (Lockett/Arrington).

That is how Maroney gets hurt thou..... he is fragile and should not return kicks.

 

[HarkDawg]

Punt returns are so much different tha KICKOFF returns. If you want your team to stay healthy.... Welker/Maroney do not get roles as kickoff returners.