Brandon Tate's future as a PATRIOT

[Ring 6]

Rightio chum. Here's it simplified for you. One is a wide receiver the other is a special teamer who showed glimpses of being a wide receiver.

Their respective performances in the NFL suggest as such too. I'd really like Tate to get it but I'm not sure he will.

I didnt get that out of those blurbs.
I guess you can read whatever you want into it.

 

[goheels22002]

And our passing game has been terrible acquiring old gueezers like Stallworth, Gaffney, Moss, Welker and Branch? Please state where the patriots have placed in passing compared to to other teams over the past 5 years. Please note how much of this success has been by drafted players and how much has been by old geezer free agents. BTW, pointing to free agent failures is irrelevant. After all, we can always bring in several players and cut players that don't work out. The fact is that our production has indeed come from the old gueezers. We've always had youngsters on the squad at WR. Lately, they haven't contributed much.

Thankfully, we have have old gueezers Welker and Branch on the squad!

We have a different definition of "geezer," I think. My post was referring to guys like Fred Taylor, Torry Holt, Kyle Brady etc who are brought in at the tail end of their careers hoping for a final shot at the brass ring. None of the guys you mention were washed up when they arrived and hoping for one last shot at Glory Days to quote The Boss.

Again the key here is to keep all this Brandon Tate discussion focused on him being a piece of the puzzle that is under contract for $455K, works hard, has an upside and is both a proven return man and a solid 3rd or 4th WR in a system that features a host of backs, slot receivers and TEs. This fetish with replacing Moss makes me nuts. The Pats and Brady improved when the diva deep threat left.

There are a boat load of WRs who are free agents including all the divas including Moss (a true geezer in 2011-12), Ochostinko, Plaxico (Just Shoot Me) Burress, and the diva of all divas, TO. The list of free agent WRs has lots of interesting people on it but how many can you get for $450K that bring what Tate has to offer in terms of work ethic, experience in this offense and on special teams, really?

The offensive threat that is intriguing as a multi-faceted guy is Reggie Bush who will get cut by New Orleans before the ink is dry on the CBA. RB/Receiver/Returner but at what cost? He's due $12 million this year from the Saints, but will have to take a huge pay cut. He's a bit of a diva, gets injured all the time but is a tremendous threat to score from anywhere on the field.

 

[DaBruinz]

You are mistaken.



NFL Media Answers: CBA Q & A - Niners Nation

Why not use the real thing?

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Econ/faculty/Vrooman/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

 

[DaBruinz]

It's always funny watching someone who knows they are wrong attempt to save face in an argument.


Because whoever scouted Tate and favorably compared him against someone who is a burner and can actually run routes should be fired on the spot.

Nice to see you agree Wallace was the BPA available in retrospect and a clear number 1 receiver in the NFL.

Ausbacker - How do you know that Tate was compared to Wallace in any way, shape or form? How do you know whether or not Wallace even made the Pats draft board? They may have encountered something that they didn't like and pulled him from their board.

You also seem to have forgotten that the Wallace doesn't play special teams for the Steelers other than 1 kick return in his 2 years. Did you stop to think that MAYBE, just MAYBE the Pats were looking for someone who COULD return kicks and punts and would be at the #3 WR spot behind Welker and Moss?

Also, coming out of college, Wallace was still very raw as a route runner. That was one of the big knocks against him. Unless you have seen the All-22 film from both Tate and Wallace during their college careers, there is no way you can say that the person should be fired. OH, and also, Wallace still runs crappy routes. Many of his longer receptions have been because of Big Ben breaking loose and making something happen more than it has been from Wallace becoming a good route runner.

 

[ausbacker]

Ausbacker - How do you know that Tate was compared to Wallace in any way, shape or form? How do you know whether or not Wallace even made the Pats draft board? They may have encountered something that they didn't like and pulled him from their board.

Nobody knows if he was on or off the board. It just seems more obvious from all the draft profiling that Wallace seemed more like a WR project where Tate seemed more like a ST then WR project.

You also seem to have forgotten that the Wallace doesn't play special teams for the Steelers other than 1 kick return in his 2 years. Did you stop to think that MAYBE, just MAYBE the Pats were looking for someone who COULD return kicks and punts and would be at the #3 WR spot behind Welker and Moss?

Wallace could play special teams. The Steelers worked out very quickly there was no point playing one of their top receivers (when it become apparent he would become a top receiver) in this position.

Also, coming out of college, Wallace was still very raw as a route runner. That was one of the big knocks against him. Unless you have seen the All-22 film from both Tate and Wallace during their college careers, there is no way you can say that the person should be fired. OH, and also, Wallace still runs crappy routes. Many of his longer receptions have been because of Big Ben breaking loose and making something happen more than it has been from Wallace becoming a good route runner.

Forgive me for thinking Mike Wallace is somewhat more productive than Brandon Tate in the NFL.

 

[DaBruinz]

It's all easy after the fact but;

Brandon Tate combine report

Mike Wallace combine report

One described as primarily a return specialist before somewhat of a break out senior season with raw route running ability then injured opposed to a burner (40 yard dash top performer) improving with route running and pass catching in light of ugly drops and press coverage struggles.

Now I'm not going to pretend I'm Albert Einstein but which one sounds like a wide receiver pre-draft?

If you had any unbiased opinion, you'd have to say neither or both.
What the blurbs don't doesn't cover is this:

As a junior, Tate had 25 receptions for 479 yards (19.2 YPC) and 5 TDs.

Tate's junior year, he put up 1765 APY compared to 1779 for Wallace.

Not only did Tate do kick returns, but he did punt returns as well and set an NCAA record in that.

This should enhance the VISION aspect of Tate's ability. Tate isn't a burner by any stretch. He never has been. What he does have is vision to get to the open spots. And vision is something that, like speed, can't be taught.

Again, making the assumptions you are based on a blurb by someone didn't watch the ALL-22 is you making HUGE assumptions. Hell, I don't know how you get that Wallace is "improving with route running" from "Wallace is still a work in progress." In fact, how you can make any determination on Tate's route-running ability from that blurb is really mind-boggling since it mentioned nothing about Tate's route running ability at all. Not even to say that he was raw..

Here are two quotes from another site.. You tell me which is which:

Long, lean build. Good quickness, size and hand strength to get off the line of scrimmage against press coverage. Emerging route-runner with the quick feet and balance to ultimately be quite good in this area. Elusive in the open field and has the vision to set up his blocks and break into the open field. Soft hands. Good body control and flexibility to contort his body for the poorly thrown pass. Can extend to make the diving grab. Good height and long arms and uses the combination well to high-point passes over smaller cornerbacks.

Looks the part. Athletic build with room for additional mass. Smooth acceleration and has a late burst to pull away if being challenged. Can track the ball over his shoulder. Developing into a more reliable route-runner and pass-catcher. Has the foot quickness and balance to be a good route-runner and can sink his hips. Generally uses his hands to make the reception, though he still allows too many into his pads. Has some lateral agility to make defenders miss.

 

[ausbacker]

If you had any unbiased opinion, you'd have to say neither or both.
What the blurbs don't doesn't cover is this:

As a junior, Tate had 25 receptions for 479 yards (19.2 YPC) and 5 TDs.

Tate's junior year, he put up 1765 APY compared to 1779 for Wallace.

Not only did Tate do kick returns, but he did punt returns as well and set an NCAA record in that.

This should enhance the VISION aspect of Tate's ability. Tate isn't a burner by any stretch. He never has been. What he does have is vision to get to the open spots. And vision is something that, like speed, can't be taught.

Again, making the assumptions you are based on a blurb by someone didn't watch the ALL-22 is you making HUGE assumptions. Hell, I don't know how you get that Wallace is "improving with route running" from "Wallace is still a work in progress." In fact, how you can make any determination on Tate's route-running ability from that blurb is really mind-boggling since it mentioned nothing about Tate's route running ability at all. Not even to say that he was raw..

Here are two quotes from another site.. You tell me which is which:

I already know which is which as I debated whether or not to use them both outside of the draft combine scouting reports.

Stop sitting on the fence and have an opinion. You're going around in circles attempting to confuse the issues as per usual. I'm not going to bite at that.

 

[DaBruinz]

Nobody knows if he was on or off the board. It just seems more obvious from all the draft profiling that Wallace seemed more like a WR project where Tate seemed more like a ST then WR project.

I don't know if Wallace was off the board. That's the point. Neither do you. So for you to be making such rash statements is dumb. And for you to be claiming "all the draft profiling" made Wallace seem more like a WR project and a Tate a ST project, that's just not true either. Tate was a ST Star in College who had a good junior year as a receiver and was on his way to having a stellar senior year before his injury.

Wallace could play special teams. The Steelers worked out very quickly there was no point playing one of their top receivers (when it become apparent he would become a top receiver) in this position.

Then why did they use Holmes as their punt returner? Holmes was their #2 receiver in 2009. Yet he was out there on Punt Returns.

Forgive me for thinking Mike Wallace is somewhat more productive than Brandon Tate in the NFL.

No. Why should anyone? You are the one who talked out your arse and made comments regarding the scout and other things based on 20/20 hindsight. Heck, you even went so far as to say that Wallace was a better route runner when, in fact, he's not. You'd know that if you watched the any of the Steeler games. Wallace uses his speed, only, to get open. Wallace doesn't run timing routes the way the Pats WRs do. If you can't tell the difference, then how can you expect to be taken seriously?

And Tate is a better route runner, now, than he was in college. And yes, I watched a few of his games. Is he as good as Welker or Branch? No. But he's not Bethel Johnson either.

 

[ausbacker]

I don't know if Wallace was off the board. That's the point. Neither do you. So for you to be making such rash statements is dumb. And for you to be claiming "all the draft profiling" made Wallace seem more like a WR project and a Tate a ST project, that's just not true either. Tate was a ST Star in College who had a good junior year as a receiver and was on his way to having a stellar senior year before his injury.

Yeah rightio. One projects as a WR with the ability to play special teams the other a special teams stud who can play receiver coming off a serious injury. If you can't see any red flags there then that's on you.

Then why did they use Holmes as their punt returner? Holmes was their #2 receiver in 2009. Yet he was out there on Punt Returns.

I can't answer that because I don't know.

No. Why should anyone? You are the one who talked out your arse and made comments regarding the scout and other things based on 20/20 hindsight. Heck, you even went so far as to say that Wallace was a better route runner when, in fact, he's not. You'd know that if you watched the any of the Steeler games. Wallace uses his speed, only, to get open. Wallace doesn't run timing routes the way the Pats WRs do. If you can't tell the difference, then how can you expect to be taken seriously?

According to you and only you. Forgive me for not putting a whole heap of stock in your opinion when it comes to what players do or don't do.

How do you know Wallace can't run a timing route if required? What you're basically saying is if Wallace was on the Patriots he wouldn't be able to do what's required in our system because of your observation? That's perfectly fine apart from the fact that you don't know that would be the case.

And Tate is a better route runner, now, than he was in college. And yes, I watched a few of his games. Is he as good as Welker or Branch? No. But he's not Bethel Johnson either.

If you're comparing college Tate to NFL Tate then you can make that argument. If you are making the comment that he's a good route runner in the NFL then that's laughable, because he isn't.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't care how bad Wallace is at running routes (I don't think he's as terrible as DaBruinz says, fwiw), he would instantly make the team miles better if he was suiting up in Brandon Tate's place.

That said, hindsight is 20/20, nobody really knew that Wallace was going to turn into the player that he's turned into, etc. etc. But it's hard to ignore the fact that he excels at exactly what our WR corps lacks, and Tate has yet to show any consistent ability to stretch the field like he does.

Drafting Tate over Wallace was a mistake. Every team in the league makes them, even the Patriots. It sucks, but it's not the end of the world, and the team's overall body of work over the past few years is still very impressive. It's not some huge organizational indictment to acknowledge that yes, on this one specific pick, hindsight shows that they chose the wrong guy.

 

[DaBruinz]

I already know which is which as I debated whether or not to use them both outside of the draft combine scouting reports.

Stop sitting on the fence and have an opinion. You're going around in circles attempting to confuse the issues as per usual. I'm not going to bite at that.

I have an opinion. Clearly you don't understand that. I voiced it earlier in the thread. And, I am not the one attempting to confuse the issue. The initial issue was Tate's future as a Patriot. I have the issue firmly in hand. You, on the other hand, went on a tangent and made the following claim:

Because whoever scouted Tate and favorably compared him against someone who is a burner and can actually run routes should be fired on the spot.

I was the one who brought up ample questions to show that you didn't know what you were talking about. That you had no information that the Pats scouting staff, in fact, compared Tate's abilities to Wallace's abilities. And that there was information that no one but the Pats staff had. My speculations have much more plausibility than your little rant did.

As for the quotes from NFLDraftscout.com, why won't you just say whether they talk about Tate or Wallace? Or are you afraid of being wrong again?

Looking at those quotes, I don't understand how any, unbiased person could make the claims you are making. Or how the you could even say:

It just seems more obvious from all the draft profiling that Wallace seemed more like a WR project where Tate seemed more like a ST then WR project.

.

Clearly, it doesn't seem like "all the draft profiling" had Wallace as a WR Project and Tate as a ST Project. That is only what YOU decided based on your 20/20 hindsight, with little to no real support to that claim.

 

[ausbacker]

I have an opinion. Clearly you don't understand that. I voiced it earlier in the thread. And, I am not the one attempting to confuse the issue. The initial issue was Tate's future as a Patriot. I have the issue firmly in hand. You, on the other hand, went on a tangent and made the following claim:

Stop talking about Mike Wallace then. The fact is you live off arguments because you've very little to offer elsewhere.

I was the one who brought up ample questions to show that you didn't know what you were talking about. That you had no information that the Pats scouting staff, in fact, compared Tate's abilities to Wallace's abilities. And that there was information that no one but the Pats staff had. My speculations have much more plausibility than your little rant did.

Only according to you.

As for the quotes from NFLDraftscout.com, why won't you just say whether they talk about Tate or Wallace? Or are you afraid of being wrong again?

Looking at those quotes, I don't understand how any, unbiased person could make the claims you are making. Or how the you could even say:

Because I don't have to and I'm not wrong. Everybody who doesn't share your opinion is wrong according to you.

Clearly, it doesn't seem like "all the draft profiling" had Wallace as a WR Project and Tate as a ST Project. That is only what YOU decided based on your 20/20 hindsight, with little to no real support to that claim.

You're right it is easy after the fact and I don't know 5% of what BB knows about football, what I do know is how to conduct in-depth research and make my own opinions from there.

 

[BlueThunder]

Can't we all just get along

 

[Deus Irae]

Can't we all just get along

You hush!


I'm almost tempted to take people off ignore so that I can watch the show.

 

[BlueThunder]

you hush!


i'm almost tempted to take people off ignore so that i can watch the show.

lmao .......

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah rightio. One projects as a WR with the ability to play special teams the other a special teams stud who can play receiver coming off a serious injury. If you can't see any red flags there then that's on you.

Nowhere does it say that. You have made up that statement and now use it as the evidence to support your argument.
I do not see a single place where it says Tate is a special teams player who can be a WR.
The mention of his ADDITIONAL st skills is a positive, and you are using that as a negative that implies because he can return kicks that diminishes his WR play, which is not said anywhere, except by you.

The source you listed appeared to indicate Tate would be drafted higher than Wallace. Do you have one that lists Wallace as a better prospect before the draft? Your rates him somewhere from round 4 on. My memory is that when the Pats took Tate the commentary was he would have been a 1st rounder if he was not injured.

So far, there is no question Wallace would have turned out to be the better pick. I don't understand why you feel you must revise history to make it seem that this was widely agreed upon before the draft.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yeah rightio. One projects as a WR with the ability to play special teams the other a special teams stud who can play receiver coming off a serious injury. If you can't see any red flags there then that's on you.

Except that is not how they were written. The only "red flag" was the injury to Tate. One that several players had already come back from and been at 100%.

According to you and only you. Forgive me for not putting a whole heap of stock in your opinion when it comes to what players do or don't do.

All that tells me is that you can't admit that your wrong even when it's shown to you in black and white. You were wrong about what the Combine Blurb said about Tate, you just refuse to admit it.

How do you know Wallace can't run a timing route if required? What you're basically saying is if Wallace was on the Patriots he wouldn't be able to do what's required in our system because of your observation? That's perfectly fine apart from the fact that you don't know that would be the case.

So, now you have trouble actually reading what is said. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand the difference between "doesn't" and "can't". I was comparing what they do NOW on their respective teams. Clearly, that sort of talk is beyond your comprehension.

If you're comparing college Tate to NFL Tate then you can make that argument. If you are making the comment that he's a good route runner in the NFL then that's laughable, because he isn't.

Again, you clearly have problems with reading comprehension because no where did I say that Tate was a "good route runner in the NFL." So, your comprehension is laughable as is your ability to have a legitimate argument that's actually backed up by facts. Hell, you can't even stay on topic. Which was about Tate. Not about Wallace.

 

[ausbacker]

Nowhere does it say that. You have made up that statement and now use it as the evidence to support your argument.
I do not see a single place where it says Tate is a special teams player who can be a WR.
The mention of his ADDITIONAL st skills is a positive, and you are using that as a negative that implies because he can return kicks that diminishes his WR play, which is not said anywhere, except by you.

The source you listed appeared to indicate Tate would be drafted higher than Wallace. Do you have one that lists Wallace as a better prospect before the draft? Your rates him somewhere from round 4 on. My memory is that when the Pats took Tate the commentary was he would have been a 1st rounder if he was not injured.

So far, there is no question Wallace would have turned out to be the better pick. I don't understand why you feel you must revise history to make it seem that this was widely agreed upon before the draft.

Can you re-write that for me so it makes sense please? I haven't got a grasp on hillbilly English just yet.

 

[DaBruinz]

Stop talking about Mike Wallace then. The fact is you live off arguments because you've very little to offer elsewhere.

You're the one who brought him into the conversation. I'm the one who tore your BS argument apart. As for your opinion of me, it's as worthless as your pathetic reading comprehension.

Only according to you.

According to any unbiased person who has even a modicum of understanding about all the different facets of what goes into making a draft board. Hell, I proved that you lied about the NFL Combine Blurb. Yet, you ignore it. That's typical of someone whose opinion is worthless.

Because I don't have to and I'm not wrong. Everybody who doesn't share your opinion is wrong according to you.

*sigh* You're right. You don't have to. But not doing so only reinforces my standpoint AND proves that your schtick about "All the draft blurbs" supporting the idea that Wallace was a Project WR and Tate was only a Project ST is false. And it's not according to just me. As I said. Any UNBIASED person. Clearly you are biased.

Oh, and sorry to burst your bubble. But there are plenty of people on this board who have different opinions than my own who I don't consider wrong. Instead of making stuff up, why don't you just stick to facts. Oh wait. If you did that, you'd have to admit you were wrong about the NFL Combine Blurb and you were wrong about the NFLDraftScout.com quotes.

You're right it is easy after the fact and I don't know 5% of what BB knows about football, what I do know is how to conduct in-depth research and make my own opinions from there.

Clearly you don't know how to conduct "in-depth research" because, if you did, you wouldn't have to make up lies about what sites say. Particularly when the sites themselves contradict you. As did the NFL Combine blurb.

Instead of trying to read into what is said, you should stick to the actual words and you should consider the source. When you decide to put your own words into it and directly misquote a site, you should expect to get taken to task. Especially when you make such decisive statements about something you have really no knowledge of. (Such as your claim that the scout should be fired).

 

[Ring 6]

Can you re-write that for me so it makes sense please? I haven't got a grasp on hillbilly English just yet.

Based upon your comments in this thread it appears you do not grasp any version of English.
Feel free Mr Professor to point out what glaring grammatical errors in my post cause your inability to comprehend, and I will explain it to you slowly.
Or, just go F yourself.