Training Camp Observations 8/5

[MoLewisrocks]

Wasnt Branch kind of brought in because Tate wasnt really doing it or is that just my feeling from last season ?

Thats why they are bringing in Mr 85 this year too maybe ?

Branch was brought in because Moss wasn't really doing it. Tate was essentially a rookie last season. 85 was brought in because while 14-2 is all well and good the jury remains out on Tate and Price and getting bounced in the playoffs when TFB is your QB sucks.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I suggest anyone who has any doubts between the relative receiving differences between Tate and Price, to check out any short 2010 highlight video of each. I think the one i saw was on PatsPulpit, but I'm sure you can find them anywhere.

It was eye opening. While viewing the vids, Price dominated Tate in all the most important WR skills. I no longer had any doubt that in 2011 Price was he real deal and a possible breakout player. Tate..., well let's just say Tate might want to start looking for real estate agent. When you watch, it's tough to describe, but it's almost like a textbook breakdown of A vs B, good vs bad, receiving fundamentals, measurables and intangibles of two WR's against pretty much the same game competition.

That said, I expect big things from Price this year. From the vid and early TC reports he definitely bulked up, improved his route running and is more comfortable with the playbook and has better communication with TB. Much less can be said of Tate. Still, maybe BB gives him a short leash just to see if he can pull it together with the injury a bit further behind him, IMO his only saving grace at the moment. No way I see him sticking over Price -who will surprise-, but good luck to both.

I dont think there's any question that Price is better than Tate at this moment, the big question is how Tate compared to other WRs coming out of college that year, especially Mike Wallace.

 

[sbpatfan]

Tate has had a very odd camp. No one writes about him and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing. And I'm saying that because it seems like the majority of the WR talk is about dropping balls. Troy might not like Tate but Deion does:

http://www.nesn.com/2011/07/patriot...s-about-teammate-brandon-tates-potential.html

 

[unoriginal]

I dont think there's any question that Price is better than Tate at this moment, the big question is how Tate compared to other WRs coming out of college that year, especially Mike Wallace.

I think there are many questions about who is the better receiver at this moment, in addition to many other questions about what roles the team is looking to fill and how many receivers the Pats will be carrying.

The forum consensus smacks of falling in love with whoever's new because the "old" guy isn't living up to expectations. Plus every year camp followers rave about a receiver who won't stick. Bam Childress, C.J. Jones, Terrence Nunn and Darnell Jenkins have all gotten positive reviews the past few years; some have even been called the surprise of camp. Rave reviews for the young receiver hanging onto the roster bubble typically translates into going to the practice squad or getting claimed off of waivers by a bad team.

Who really knows what any of this means other than people are disappointed Tate doesn't look like a credible route runner and people are relieved Price can tie his own shoelaces and run around on a field. I doubt reports are that biased but all we really can do is wait until we see what ST units these two end up playing on and who Brady and Hoyer are throwing to in preseason games two and three.

 

[Ring 6]

I think if we dump a WR this year Tate (assuming we value Slater's ST contributions that much) loses out and Price takes over a KR. I've heard nothing but great things about his TC so far, him and Gronk are also the only ones I don't recall reading about getting a case of the dropsies at all.

From what I've read so far it sounds like:
1a Welker
1b Ochocinco
2 Deion
3a Edelman (PR)
3b Price
4 Tate (KR)
5 Slater (ST only really)

Honestly have nothing against Tate, he just sounds like he's having a quiet (not even bad) TC in comparison to guys like Price.

How weird is it calling Gronk our veteran TE, too? Oldest on the roster and has 2 more games under his belt than Hernandez. I'm expecting a breakout (is that even possible after last season?) season for Gronk and I expect Price to see plenty of playing time, he sounds like the fastest guy on the roster, is this wrong? If he has good enough hands and runs his route he could fight his way into the top 3 before the season ends.

I'm curious why you have Edelman ahead of Price and Tate

 

[Ring 6]

I dont think there's any question that Price is better than Tate at this moment, the big question is how Tate compared to other WRs coming out of college that year, especially Mike Wallace.

I don't get your assessment. It sounds as if you are saying Price can be better than he was last year but Tate can't.
Tate was judged to be better last year. Are you comparing Prices potential to Tate of 2010? Thats not a fair comparison.

 

[DaBruinz]

I suggest anyone who has any doubts between the relative receiving differences between Tate and Price, to check out any short 2010 highlight video of each. I think the one i saw was on PatsPulpit, but I'm sure you can find them anywhere.

It was eye opening. While viewing the vids, Price dominated Tate in all the most important WR skills. I no longer had any doubt that in 2011 Price was he real deal and a possible breakout player. Tate..., well let's just say Tate might want to start looking for real estate agent. When you watch, it's tough to describe, but it's almost like a textbook breakdown of A vs B, good vs bad, receiving fundamentals, measurables and intangibles of two WR's against pretty much the same game competition.

That said, I expect big things from Price this year. From the vid and early TC reports he definitely bulked up, improved his route running and is more comfortable with the playbook and has better communication with TB. Much less can be said of Tate. Still, maybe BB gives him a short leash just to see if he can pull it together with the injury a bit further behind him, IMO his only saving grace at the moment. No way I see him sticking over Price -who will surprise-, but good luck to both.

How can you tell that Price, in his ONE GAME "dominated" by comparison? You had ONE game at the end of the season?

And people seemed to have glossed over the fact that it was Price who was getting an arse chewing from Brady the first day of camp. Repeatedly.

That being said, I have said I expect Price to be the #2 receiver by the end of the year, supplanting Branch.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I don't get your assessment. It sounds as if you are saying Price can be better than he was last year but Tate can't.
Tate was judged to be better last year. Are you comparing Prices potential to Tate of 2010? Thats not a fair comparison.

Price looked better in 2010 than Tate did in the same year, so far it appears that Price is looking very good in camp and that doesnt appear to be the case with Tate.

So, apples to apples, from 2010 and 2011, it appears like Price will be very solid, Tate not to much.

That's how things are now, my big question is regarding the decision to draft Tate as opposed to other receivers, I am still baffled that he was chosen, knowing that his injured knee would cause him to lose a season, over Wallace. Was 4yrs of Tate projected to be better than 5yrs of Wallace?

 

[Snake Eyes]

And people seemed to have glossed over the fact that it was Price who was getting an arse chewing from Brady the first day of camp. Repeatedly.

Why do you necessarily view this as a bad thing? It means that Price wasn't doing things like Brady wanted but it also means that Brady thinks Price is worth his time. If a young receiver who hasn't done that much yet and was thought to be on the bubble WASN'T getting chewed out by TFB I'd be more likely to write him off.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Price looked better in 2010 than Tate did in the same year, so far it appears that Price is looking very good in camp and that doesnt appear to be the case with Tate.

So, apples to apples, from 2010 and 2011, it appears like Price will be very solid, Tate not to much.

That's how things are now, my big question is regarding the decision to draft Tate as opposed to other receivers, I am still baffled that he was chosen, knowing that his injured knee would cause him to lose a season, over Wallace. Was 4yrs of Tate projected to be better than 5yrs of Wallace?

It was a mistake. Plain and simple. I think the organization also factored in Tate's ST return abilities too in making that pick. But the Pats made a similar mistake a few years before picking Chad Jackson over Greg Jennings. Perhaps picking receivers is just not a strong suit for our scouting department. Who knows. Then again hindsight is 20/20. Try not to let it keep you up at night.

 

[Ring 6]

Price looked better in 2010 than Tate did in the same year, so far it appears that Price is looking very good in camp and that doesnt appear to be the case with Tate.

How? Tate played ahead of him all year. Price played 1 game. How do you get that Price looked better?

So, apples to apples, from 2010 and 2011, it appears like Price will be very solid, Tate not to much.

Apples to apples Tate was on the field, Price wasn't even dressed.

That's how things are now, my big question is regarding the decision to draft Tate as opposed to other receivers, I am still baffled that he was chosen, knowing that his injured knee would cause him to lose a season, over Wallace. Was 4yrs of Tate projected to be better than 5yrs of Wallace?

We could spend a lifetime discussing one draft choice vs another. Maybe thats a better offseason topic, especially after we see how Tate develops. I would imagine there are a lot of guys who had injured rookie years, soso 2nd years that looked like a bad draft pick and went on to do pretty well.
Hindsight being 20/20 its hard to discuss the decision made then based on what we know today also. Unless you want to hold drafters to that standard, then they all suck.

 

[strngplyr]

I'm curious why you have Edelman ahead of Price and Tate

Only ahead of Tate. I have him and Price listed as 3a and 3b depending on the role required. If I thought Tate was ahead of Price he would be part of 3a/3b and Price as 4.

Honestly, it should be 4a/4b and Branch as 3 with Tate as 6 but I didn't skip the number as I should have when labeling two #1's and two #3's.

Again, I think there will be times where Edelman's skillset is preferred on the field over Price/Tate which is why I have him listed with the "winner" of the Tate/Price role. I am assuming they basically fill the same offensive and ST purpose, but that is obviously yet to be seen, I'm just speculating.


edit: reading the above posts I want to clarify that I am putting Price ahead of Tate not based on what Price did last year, but from all reports from TC so far. Price's name is getting tossed around quite a bit in a positive way and I haven't heard a single thing about Tate. I don't know if that means he has been quietly good or quietly ...not noticeable.

 

[Snake Eyes]

How? Tate played ahead of him all year. Price played 1 game. How do you get that Price looked better?

In the time Price did play he looked better than the time Tate played.

Apples to apples Tate was on the field, Price wasn't even dressed.

See above

We could spend a lifetime discussing one draft choice vs another. Maybe thats a better offseason topic, especially after we see how Tate develops. I would imagine there are a lot of guys who had injured rookie years, soso 2nd years that looked like a bad draft pick and went on to do pretty well.

Hindsight being 20/20 its hard to discuss the decision made then based on what we know today also. Unless you want to hold drafters to that standard, then they all suck.

"Nobody's perfect so let's not try to improve", wonderful attitude but I'll keep looking for ways to be more accurate in drafting.

 

[Ring 6]

Only ahead of Tate. I have him and Price listed as 3a and 3b depending on the role required. If I thought Tate was ahead of Price he would be part of 3a/3b and Price as 4.

Honestly, it should be 4a/4b and Branch as 3 with Tate as 6 but I didn't skip the number as I should have when labeling two #1's and two #3's.

Again, I think there will be times where Edelman's skillset is preferred on the field over Price/Tate which is why I have him listed with the "winner" of the Tate/Price role. I am assuming they basically fill the same offensive and ST purpose, but that is obviously yet to be seen, I'm just speculating.


edit: reading the above posts I want to clarify that I am putting Price ahead of Tate not based on what Price did last year, but from all reports from TC so far. Price's name is getting tossed around quite a bit in a positive way and I haven't heard a single thing about Tate. I don't know if that means he has been quietly good or quietly ...not noticeable.

There was little need for Edelman on the field last year though, even with welker coming off knee surgery. Tate played a lot more than he did.

 

[Ring 6]

In the time Price did play he looked better than the time Tate played.

You were the one who said apples to apples. I don't know how 1 game with the backups is apples to apples to playing an entire season.

See above

see above

"Nobody's perfect so let's not try to improve", wonderful attitude but I'll keep looking for ways to be more accurate in drafting.

That's not what I said, but as soon as you can impact the accuracy of drafting please let me know which team hired you.
My point is criticizing one draft pick in isolation after 2 years by comparing to one other guy available is a ridiculous standard, and you would massive failure at that standard by anyone who has ever drafted.

 

[TheSolderKing]

Why in the world is anyone surprised about Tate, he wasn't considered a good WR in college.

I am a PRICE guy... but this statement is false

1st round selection no doubt if not for injury. Price should beat out Tate b/c of his ability to run more complex routes. Seems like a more intelligent player than tate. Price has impressed greatly so I have heard:rocker:


how can we carry both? it seems like someone is going to be the oddman out. My Hunch says Tate if we have to drop 1 of the WR's. id prefer Slater gone but BB loves his ST's we are using up a ST roster spot in Mallett (kinda sorta for comparison purposes and I see NO need to waste 1 more spot on a useless 1 dimensional player.

 

[Snake Eyes]

You were the one who said apples to apples. I don't know how 1 game with the backups is apples to apples to playing an entire season.

I'm talking quality, not quantity.

That's not what I said, but as soon as you can impact the accuracy of drafting please let me know which team hired you.

I'll do that.

 

[strngplyr]

There was little need for Edelman on the field last year though, even with welker coming off knee surgery. Tate played a lot more than he did.

And with Ochocinco replacing Tate and then some in my opinion, I think Edelman will be called upon first as a better route runner and ball catcher (although admittedly edelman didn't exactly repeat his rookie year in catching ability whether it was rhythm or not). Maybe Price jumps both of them. I don't know what the depth chart looks like in BB's office.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Try not to let it keep you up at night.

I wish I could, Peyton Hillis was a binkie of mine since I first saw him with the Broncos in 2008, with him in a Patriots uniform we might very well have attained Superbowl glory this past year, I can't get that image, as well as Mike Wallace catching passes from TFB out of my mind.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

It was a mistake. Plain and simple. I think the organization also factored in Tate's ST return abilities too in making that pick. But the Pats made a similar mistake a few years before picking Chad Jackson over Greg Jennings. Perhaps picking receivers is just not a strong suit for our scouting department. Who knows. Then again hindsight is 20/20. Try not to let it keep you up at night.

Tony Simmons was another similar experiment. Despite a few spectacular plays, it failed.

Bethel Johnson was another with a few spectacular plays then done.

I'm sensing a pattern in The Force here.