The Golden Tate Situation
by Danny Kelly on Aug 31, 2011 3:39 PM PDT
in Commentary
Email
Print
I wanted to weigh in shortly on this Golden Tate debate going on right now. John Clayton recently raised some eyebrows and stirred up a debate when he said on the Kevin Calabro show that Golden Tate could be flat-out released by the Seahawks when they cut their roster down to 53. This was raised because Tate has been extremely inconsistent thus far and has been perpetually in the doghouse with Pete Carroll over mistakes and perceived lack of effort etc and so forth.
Tate was hoping to have a strong preseason but has had anything but. Against the Vikings he had two dropped passes, including one that was intercepted, and returned a punt in which people thought he looked lackadaisical. Clayton has raised a bit of a sh*tstorm, and this morning Mike Salk went as far as to say that he believes there's an 80% chance that Tate will be one of the roster casualties on Saturday.
Clayton is pretty plugged into the Seahawks organization so I could be way off base on this (wouldn't be the first time I was wrong), but my immediate reaction is to say that this is a bunch of hogwash. Tate is only at the beginning of his second year and without spitting out the statistics off the top of my head, I'll just say that it's extremely common for early-pick receivers to need a couple of years of development before they produce anything consistent at the next level. In other words, Tate is not 'behind' on the track he should be developing at, if you look at it in a NFL-wide scope.
Futhermore, there are people saying that we don't need to keep Tate now that we have Doug Baldwin. Now, nothing against Baldwin, because I love him and think he's destined for big things, but he went undrafted for a reason. Golden Tate was graded in the first round by the Seahawks for a reason - through the roof potential upside and athletic ability. Multiple year production at Notre Dame. Why would they give up on him after one season? Especially in a rebuild year? Win Forever doesn't mean stop planning for the future. I wouldn't think that's what it means anyway.
To add to that, I don't think the Tate/Baldwin thing is an either/or situation. I think that the Seahawks had it in their minds that they'd keep both Tate and Baldwin when John Schneider wrote Doug a personal note essentially begging him to come to the Seahawks. I don't know exactly what was written obviously, but Baldwin was pursued by 16 teams and got $17,500 bucks and a handwritten letter from our GM. If you read between the lines of that situation and that letter my guess is that it said, in effect, "YOU WILL MAKE THIS TEAM, DOUG." Competition blah blah blah. No, they loved the kid, and we now see why.
So my reasoning goes (and Davis and I were talking about this so it's sort of his idea as well): the Seahawks knew they loved Baldwin so much then, but also in the had high hopes for Golden Tate this year as well (and there is ample evidence that they did/do have high hopes for Tate). It seems that the Seahawks front office had plans to make room for both Tate and Baldwin. Basically, they would have to keep six receivers: Mike Williams, Sidney Rice, Ben Obomanu, Kris Durham, and Tate and Baldwin. Now that John Carlson is out, it makes it even more plausible they'll keep six receivers.
I'm beginning to ramble but the thought of jettisoning Tate annoys me. It's not about the wasted pick at all for me. It's about tossing aside talented players and being shortsighted. I know that Pete and John know a lot more about football than me but I just hope they'd have a little patience with this one. Tate may never pan out, but it seems way too early to make that judgement.
Either way, with the re-signing of Patrick Williams and Chris Carter today it appears, as Danny O'Neil pointed out, that this means Golden Tate is going to get good long look on Friday against the Raiders. Sidney Rice and Ben Obomanu are banged up and will likely sit, meaning Tate will likely start. I'm just really hoping he'll put on a show and put this nonsense to rest.
What do you guys think?
236 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rookie WRs seldom do well. Golden Tate was pretty poor by even those standards
but he still has a ton of potential and is cheap. There’s no reason to cut him this year.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 3:42 PM PDT reply actions
I remembering him having some very bright flashes.
His open field moves against the Bronco’s in his debut. He was able to high point the ball a buch of times, like in the above photo, and then come down with it; couldn’t ever quite keep his feet in bounds however. What I seem to most remember about Tate’s rookie year was that he hardly ever seemed to get any targets, but the few times he did, the passes made for incredibly difficult, if not impossible plays.
Not a shinning rookie year by any means, but it certainly was not with out “help”.
by Dizzy Saturn on Aug 31, 2011 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
He ran shitty routes that put him in shitty positions to make plays
For example, when he ran really close to the sidelines which made it very difficult for QBs to put the ball in-bounds in a place where he could catch it but the DB couldn’t. This is a big struggle for many rookie WRs, who don’t have to run pro routes in college, but Tate seemed to struggle even more than most.
The way to help Tate succeed is to put the ball in his hands in space after requiring him to run very, very simple routes.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Do you remember
Adventures in Punt Returning With Golden Tate?
One man show, off Broadway.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Compare his punt return stats last year to Leon's rookie season
Tate: 16ret, 202 yards. 12.6avg. 63 long, 1 fumble
Leon: 13ret, 97 yards. 7.5 avg. 38 long, 1 fumble
by SmartAssCoug on Aug 31, 2011 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd have to watch Leon's film.
The stats don’t tell me how many muffed balls were fell on for no return. They don’t tell me how many fair catches inside the 8 yard line there were.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
It's so weird to look at Tate's numbers and separate them from the player
I remember him being terrible at punt returns but the numbers don’t show that at all.
He was terrible.
That’s why they quit using him.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Those numbers are good though.
He did some retarded stuff and I was always terrified when he fielded a punt, but the numbers don’t lie. He did good things when he was back there.
Yeah, he had some good returns.
It’s the risk vs. reward thing. It seemed like he’d bust one for 20, get us pinned inside the 5, or turn it over.
Coaches hate that shit.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I was always terrified when Burleson fielded a punt too
It always looked like he was either going to break something huge, or cough up the ball.
by SmartAssCoug on Aug 31, 2011 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Remember that terrible QB we had back in 2001?
I’m glad they quit using him and had Dilfer lead us for the next 9 years.
by SmartAssCoug on Aug 31, 2011 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
We all knew he was raw coming out of Notre Dame
This was expected. I did expect him to be used like McCluster was used with the Chiefs last year, lots of short passes in open space, a couple runs, end-arounds, etc. But so far he hasn’t been able to produce even when given those types of opportunities, which is a little worrisome. I still believe that he can develop into a contributing player though, and the short sightedness amongst fans and professionals alike is very agitating.
I haven't seen him given those opportunities a lot
Including this year.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 3:52 AM PDT up reply actions
I recently posted somewhere on here that I thought with 6 WRs and 4 TEs we might be shopping Tate
If we only keep 3 TEs then Tate could still fit. If we pick up a 4th TE, then I don’t know if Tate is going to be more valuable than a guy like Karney.
Okung - Gallery - Unger - Moffit - Carpenter
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Aug 31, 2011 3:47 PM PDT reply actions
If we were shopping Tate
we would have already sent out a league-wide email already.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Amen to this:
I’m beginning to ramble but the thought of jettisoning Tate annoys me.
So, so irritating.
Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.
When people first said things about releasing Tate, I thought they were joking
I don’t get it at all. Seems highly unlikely.
Its almost as crazy as going into the season with TJ and CW as your top 2 QBs
or signing a high-priced TE in FA or drafting a not-very-popular RT in the first or signing a 6’3" CFL star to be a CB.
I’m not ready to rule out anything at this point.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Good points all --
I should have said, “nothing would surprise me with this FO, but I think it would be ill advised”
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
The fact that it seemed to be a big investment at a position of strength
when there were plenty of holes elsewhere. If nothing else it was unexpected.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Worked out well, though!
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Aug 31, 2011 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions
That's Clayton's reasoning too
“This front office does crazy shit yo!” So, it’s not beyond them to do the unexpected. Nor are they overly loyal even to their own players. But for Tate to be cut, something must be going on we don’t know about, beyond the “talented rookie wide receiver is raw”.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 3:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe he broke in to the donut shop again
Okung - Gallery - Unger - Moffit - Carpenter
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Sep 1, 2011 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I really don't want to cut him now.
For one thing, unlike Mays, he has shown relative among of flashes both last season and this preseason, potentially becoming a factor sooner or later if he can put his mind into it.
For another, injuries are consistently a risk in our WR core. Why would we cut a veteran when there are fewer options available?
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
"Corps"
Corps corps corps corps corps.
"It was a dream come true to be the quarterback in Seattle; Bigger and better than anything I could have dreamed of." -Matthew Hasselbeck
Hannity reference?
It’s coreman, what is a corpseman!?!?
by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 1, 2011 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Just a personal pet peeve.
"It was a dream come true to be the quarterback in Seattle; Bigger and better than anything I could have dreamed of." -Matthew Hasselbeck
He needs more time
and more passes thrown his way. Maybe if the Oline can block better it will give our WR’s a chance to get open and make some plays.
Yes I have a beer in my hand... and I'm ready to watch the Hawks smash the 49ers in week 1.
I guess I just don't understand what the organization has to gain by cutting him.
It’s fine to cut ties with high draft pick that doesn’t pan out, a la Kelly Jennings, but KJ was given six years to show that he wasn’t worth his draft slot. I’m not saying you should put up with a half-decade of ineptitude before cutting ties, but you absolutely shouldn’t do it after one season.
Releasing him outright doesn’t seem to benefit the team in any way, and trading him seems silly too, since his value is relatively low. JS/PC don’t seem like the buy-high, sell-low type, so until I hear one of them say that Tate is on the outs, I’m going to assume he gets a good chance to prove himself this season.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
I think the talk really is just to light a fire under his ass.
Why cut him when you can get the Bengals 2014 7th rounder?
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
2013*
But I’m sure that was just a hyperbole.
by B0w1-of-R1ce on Aug 31, 2011 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
No, not at all.
The Bengals used their 2013 pick on Taylor Mays.
That was the whole set up behind the post.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I don't buy the drafted for a reason argument.
Because the reason they drafted him there was that they thought he’d be good. The reason Baldwin wasn’t drafted is nobody thought he’d be very good.
Both were wrong.
And I heard there would be chips and dip here. WTF?
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Ate them already.
And you’re right, tate hasn’t been good, but since when were unpolished WR prospects one-year propositions?
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Aug 31, 2011 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
The can be one year propositions
when they gets upstaged by UDFA the next year. I look at it like losing money on HP stock, but then the penny stock you bought 10,000 shares in went ballistic.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
So you want to hold onto your penny stock that just went ballistic
while selling low on your HP stock that just dipped? People aren’t stocks but this sounds a lot like the opposite of the old addage “buy low, sell high”.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, when HP says we're dropping our core business...
It’s about cutting your losses. The difference being that no portfolio has a 53 stock roster limit—
and the roster limit makes that spot something of value, perhaps more than riding the stock out to higher values.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
So Tate's quitting the "catching footballs" business or something?
Not all metaphors are perfect.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
No, not all of them are.
My point only was that a loss/sunk cost doesn’t sting so much when you’ve offset it with an unexpected windfall.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Everyone is a sunk cost.
The question is what is the cost of keeping Tate around, and as of right now it’s very little.
Amazing how far you've strung this horrific analogy along.
When are we going to get to the credit default swaps part of the argument? THAT’S WHERE THIS IS ALL GOING TO MAKE SENSE!!!!
It was just intense, and it was ball, and it was juice. The juice level in that room was high, and it was awesome.
by mister bunny on Aug 31, 2011 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the drive by insult.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Aug 31, 2011 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You might be overvaluing Baldwin a bit.
Rice and BMW have been upstaged by Baldwin too. It’s still just the preseason.
by Nate Dogg on Aug 31, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think placing Baldwin over Tate is over valuing him at all.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
It is, because it isn't based on any playing time that matters.
I don’t like judging players in direct comparison without regular season tape.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 3:56 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah....
i don’t like the idea of holding a guys hand forever and when he gets good will want to restructure his contract or something……i would rather use my high picks on guys that are ready to roll….later rounds for the needy…..
Not a ton of "ready to roll", high-polish guys at pick 60.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Aug 31, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
There are always a few
but they tend to have very low upsides.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Polished "ready to roll" high-upside players don't end up as UDFAs
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Ahhh, missed the context of the previous post.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Ready to roll was the Ruskell philoshophy.
Polished, major college 4 year starters that we should be able to plug right in. And who were overmatched at this level because they went up against polished athletic freaks like Fitz, Freeney and Namdi.
The new method is to bring in athletic freaks and see if we can polish them up. A much better idea at this level, as all the polish in the world will still get posterized by a polished superior athlete that can beat you physically.
by bleedshawkblue on Aug 31, 2011 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Ruskell is Ruskell...
Don’t draft guys in the 1-2 rounds that will take years to be good… if you have a 4-5 year contract maybe you get 2 good years out of a player….then what…if he is that good he will want a fat contract…no discount for standing by him….sometimes it just makes more since to buy a pizza ready to eat than to make it from scratch…
I think Tate needs to do well this year or bye bye…..freak athletes and good football players are not mutually exclusive…
The freaks we are bringing to polish are lower round guys and udfa’s….i like that..
You can't extend/renegotiate a player until his 3rd year anyway
So if he breaks out in his 3rd year it’s a perfect time to extend. Plenty of players took one or two years to be any good. Carlson Palmer wasn’t good until his 3rd year, for example. There’s always a good chance of you extending them.
Your logic doesn’t really work, I’m afraid. Avoiding high-end talent just because they’re a little raw is a mistake.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions
don't be afraid braw.....
i wasn’t talking about qb’s. ..that is a long term investment….but yeah i didn’t know about the contract details…oops….but how much is it to extend that break out player vs. just picking him up like Rice ?
Players like Rice don't usually hit the market
Exactly because teams want to extend and keep them, and barring disastrous situations like the Cardinals or Bengals, players like to stay in a situation they know as long as the money is right (and it’s usually cheaper than open free agency). Franchise tags help.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 6:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Has this changed?
Because they redid Curry’s contract right after his second season.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
It changed with the new CBA, but didn't grandfather anyone in, so its really just for our rookies
I believe we could renegotiate Tates at any time.
It changed yeah
Used to be after the last regular season game of the 2nd year, now it’s 3rd for drafted and 2nd for undrafted. As stufr said, the old contracts remain under the old rules, apparently.
There’ll be a little refresher course on these details from the CBA up here on FG in a few days.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
The point is that you can't make that judgement so quickly. Or shouldn't, in my mind.
We don’t know that Baldwin is good. He seems to be good. We don’t know that Tate isn’t good. He seems to suck. Tate was drafted because he has a certain skillset that is desirable for a football team (a reason).
Baldwin wasn’t drafted because, well I’m not sure. But there was probably a reason for it.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
by Danny Kelly on Aug 31, 2011 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Are you suggesting that we don't know everything we need to know about Doug Baldwin
from 3 preaseason games and a $15000 bonus check. Harrumph!
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
$17,500 bonus check!
so it’s a bit more serious then that.
by B.B.Finnegan on Aug 31, 2011 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
This shit just got real!
2500 more real
by SGT Lenny on Aug 31, 2011 8:36 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
We don't know how good Baldwin is.
But we know who was getting the ball with the ones last game, and who was in playing in the 4th quarter.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
The post was meant to point out that it's not an either/or situation.
I’m not saying we should cut Baldwin. I like Baldwin. i think we should keep both of them. It’s not either / or to me. Just because Baldwin is good in the preseason doesn’t mean we should cut a guy that has the potential to be great, but just isn’t there yet.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
by Danny Kelly on Aug 31, 2011 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Well, I've never advocated cutting Tate.
I’ve just said I don’t think he’ll pan out, and I don’t see that high of an upside.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I would Rec this 100000000 times
Seriously. Tate and Baldwin aren’t mutually exclusive. John Carlson, Deon Butler, and Seattle Seahawks might be though.
by David Hodgson on Aug 31, 2011 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Butler would be an interesting comparison to Tate
He’s had only two years to prove himself, including a set of games plugged in as the starter, but he has more question marks about whether or not he has a role in the future of this team. He might stick around as a specialist, but his limitations are much more apparent and significant than Tate’s, which are just “being a dunderhead”. At this point Tate is preferable to Butler if you have to gamble on their future. Baldwin I don’t know.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 3:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Nonsense
Butler is a rout runner who has top end speed… There is no comparison. One is a split-end who streaks all day and eventually get balls thrown over the top but always opens up the middle. The other one all they have to do is hang out in the middle to catch the ball and do something after the catch.
A comparison in career development situation, not a comparison in type of player
Also “all they have to do” is silly. It’s not that easy to get open in the middle to catch the ball. It’s crowded in the middle
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 6:01 AM PDT up reply actions
There are a lot of TEs who are bad at it
Which is why the ones that are really good (Miller, VD, Witten) are highly coveted.
And here I thought that they were coveted
Because they can get open in the middle block AND stretch the field? Seem rout anyone? Post corner?
BRO.
Player development. It takes time sometimes.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Aug 31, 2011 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wasn't it so much easier when we didn't have the talent and making the cuts to 53 was pretty easy?
If Tate gets cut, and that is a big if, it will be because he isn’t good enough to claim one of 5 or 6 spots. Or maybe because he isn’t putting in the off field work they want to see out of him. There are reasons besides a couple of drops to cut potential talent, you know.
I can’t wait until we are having discussions like this at nearly every position.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 31, 2011 4:34 PM PDT reply actions
I remember a discussion about the glut of talent at the WR position and how difficult it was going to be to get down to 7 WRs
in the summer of 2008.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
The only people who were worried about getting down to 7 WRs in 2008 were Logan Payne fans.
by Nate Dogg on Aug 31, 2011 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
There were considerably more then
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I was a Courtney "We didn't know he has MS yet" Taylor fan.
I thought that, with a sissy first name like Courtney, he’d make up for it with stellar receiver play. Then again, there was a lot of things I thought I knew to be true in 2008. Sigh.
I watched Bumpus at the scrimmage thing
they did at Qwest Field at the end of training camp. He looked great. People in the row behind me were getting progressively more excited with each catch about the progessive certainty that Bumpus was going to make the team and buy them a motor home.
by EthelGemerman on Aug 31, 2011 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Tate's start to last year left a taste in people's mouths that might not be incredibly accurate.
Getting busted stealing donuts and then being inactive for week one were bad signs and as the season went on we got to see why those things happened, but I don’t think Tate has been as bad as people think. He had a better year than guys that were drafted around him, like Eric Decker, Damian Williams, and Marty Gilyard and was only slightly outperformed by Demaryius Thomas. He had a better rookie season than Deon Butler but the attitude towards both of those players going into their second year was vastly different. Of the 49 receivers drafted in the second round since 2000, Golden Tate ranks 25th in receptions and yards.
Combine that with the expectations that he’d be raw, being on a bad offense and playing with a quarterback who demands exacting precision from his receivers and I think that how bad Tate was as a rookie is being overblown.
by Nate Dogg on Aug 31, 2011 4:34 PM PDT reply actions 16 recs
Nice research.
Shows just how steep the adjustment for college to the NFL can be for a WR.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Aug 31, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Good Point
He has far less polish. But when does it get to the point where you can’t polish a turd?
When it stinks. But this guy doesn’t stink it up, yet.
Win Forever: Live, Work and Play Like a Champion
He is good besides the fact that he is raw and unpolished
He has the talent to be good.
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 31, 2011 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Tate's problem
is with his hands. I’m not sure that can be fixed.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Its pretty common:
… he’s raw and struggling with the things rookie receivers tend to struggle with: mastering the playbook, running crisp routes, catching the ball consistently, etc
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/44197/thoughts-from-seattle-seahawks-practice
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Haha, just came here to post the same link.
Scooped by the Lord Humongous.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Aug 31, 2011 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know, it seems like he gets a ton of tough passes to catch.
Like the one in the picture for this post.
It looks like a tough catch.
But I’m picturing Rice or BMW reaching up and grabbing it easily. (in my head of course)
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Yeah, they're 5 inches taller
That’s kind of a silly comparison to make
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 4:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's more questioning
why Bates liked to throw corner fades to the shortest guys on the team. Now with twin towers on the corners he’s going to have to make the real tough catches across the middle where he’s going to get whallopped after the catch.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
He doesn't really have the kind of bodily strength or smarts to do so either
I don’t love him as a slot receiver, he’s a pretty unusual player to figure out a position for.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Half of the problem is him running routes that put him in a bad position
That leads to reduced targets and balls that are harder to catch. If he’s running a route down the sideline with no room to spare, before the ball’s even thrown, then he’s going to struggle to stay inside when the ball does get there.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 31, 2011 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Regulate.
It was just intense, and it was ball, and it was juice. The juice level in that room was high, and it was awesome.
by mister bunny on Aug 31, 2011 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think statistics are a good way to measure Tate's performance
A counterpoint would be that Tate was worth -36 DYAR in only 40 pass attempts last year. If given the same workload as Mike Williams, Tate would have had the 4th worst DYAR in the league. And that was while being covered by #3 or #4 corners, safeties, and LB. He wasn’t the worst rookie WR last year (he was close), but I don’t think that excuses how bad he was.
If Tate was a prototypical WR, I’d be right there with most everyone else saying that he needs at least 3-4 years of opportunities. But Tate isn’t really a natural born WR at all, more like a RB trying to convert to WR. He struggles with routes, mental concentration, improvisation, hands, toughness… pretty much everything but run after catch. Almost any pass targeting him more than 5 yards downfield feels like a wasted play. He looks so unnatural as an NFL WR that the player I’m most reminded of watching him is Jordan Kent.
I’m not saying the Seahawks should cut Tate, but they need to quit trying to make him into a “normal” WR. Use him on screens, end arounds, trick plays, and the like, but stop trying to turn him into a vertical WR running go routes. Obomanu, Durham, and Baldwin all fit much better into that role, and I’d be pretty surprised if that’s not still true by this time next year.
The team needs to identify the plays that Tate is capable of making a positive impact at and increase those while shedding the plays where he is a liability. Its very possible they just don’t have the patience for it, or Tate basically hasn’t been what they signed up for. If they do release him, I’m not going to protest. He really does look like a failed experiment so far, but further patience is not unreasonable either.
by Kip Earlywine on Aug 31, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I think I pretty much completely disagree with everything you said except for cutting out the jump balls on vertical go routes :)
The screens and end arounds they tried to use him on last year didn’t work. Working off memory they tended to be blown up for no gain, I would suspect that’s where a lot of his negative value came from. And the fact that he isn’t a natural born receiver, that he’s a converted running back, just makes me think he should be given more time, or at least more patience, not less.
And I guess I should say
that I think Tate is going to provide the most value on shorter routes, working underneath the first down marker and using his run after the catch ability to pick up big gains. I just don’t see him as a gimmick only kind of guy. If he’s going to make it he’s going to have to be an actual receiver.
I agree that he's been bad on the end arounds
but if there anything clearly GOOD about Tate, its what he can accomplish with the ball in his hands. Its getting to that part that’s been tricky.
by Kip Earlywine on Aug 31, 2011 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I see things differently in terms of patience
Tate has more work to do, which requires more time, sure.
But everything we’ve seen so far from his game tape screams “not a WR,” instead of a guy who has the building blocks and just needs to put it together. Obomanu took some time to produce, but he was never a bad WR. He had the fundamentals down, he just hadn’t put it all together yet. By contrast, Jordan Kent was a guy who really struggled with the basics of the position and was about as physical on deep passes as you would expect any random NBA guy to be if playing WR in the NFL.
I guess to say it more succinctly, some guys need to develop, but other guys just “are who they are.” Because of that, I’m generally more patient with Obomanu types than Kent types.
Anyway, the whole reason Tate was a 2nd round pick because of a productive college career, but that was in an infamous checkdown offense that masked his flaws and made every player in it look better than they actually were, including Jimmy Clausen. Maybe if Whitehurst was our QB and Bevell adopted a 1 read checkdown role for Tate, I could see some potential success. Seriously. But, everything I’ve seen so far from PC/Bevell seems to indicate they are trying their utmost to avoid that though.
I guess we’ll see. To be clear, I’m on the fence here. If the FO decides to give Tate more time, it won’t bother me at all. And if they don’t, then I get that too.
by Kip Earlywine on Sep 1, 2011 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions
As a Husky fan that watched Tate destroy the UW secondary in '09.
Tate has the ability to be an NFL WR.
I watched every game that Tate played in college
And for whatever my subjective observations are worth, he was every bit as dangerous in the vertical passing game as he was in the underneath routes. I attended the Hawaii Bowl game in which his six catches amassed 177 yards and three looong touchdowns. And even though there weren’t any NFLers in the UH secondary that day, it was comical how much faster Golden was than everyone else on that field.
I’m not saying he’s going to be a viable downfield threat in the League, but I will definitely defend that his collegiate production came from much more than a byproduct of an “infamous checkdown” offense.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Sep 1, 2011 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It was a couple years back
I read an article that basically charted some ND games, and a decided majority of pass attempts were under 10 yards. Its the reason why Jimmy Clausen ran a 28/4 TD/INT ratio his final college year despite being a so-so QB.
The problem with Tate, and many other NFL hopefuls, is that their flaws are exposed against NFL competition. Some players are extremely productive in college but hit a wall in the pros, because simply put, the NFL is a different game. Guys like Tim Tebow and Nick Reed dominated NCAA, because they were not punished for their innate limitations.
I think Tate is pretty much in the same boat. The reason he looked competent on deep balls in college was because college defenses did not disrupt him the way even preseason defenses do. Everything I’ve seen of Tate so far hints that he’s not a guy who’s struggling but more a guy who’s been exposed for what he really is. I could be wrong, but that’s how it looks to me.
by Kip Earlywine on Sep 1, 2011 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm okay with that analysis.
I disagree, but definitely see where you’re coming from. My only point here was to say in college, Tate was a dangerous deep threat, despite having a safety play over the top of him. Still, many of the other throws to Carlson, Rudolph, Kumara, McKnight, etc were shorter routes, which may have accounted for the charting.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Sep 1, 2011 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Go figure
I talk down Tate and he owns Oakland, including a few deep passes. : )
by Kip Earlywine on Sep 2, 2011 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
RE: end arounds / negative value
I forgot to add that failed end-arounds and other running plays would not impact Tate’s receiving DYAR.
by Kip Earlywine on Sep 1, 2011 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Kip, I mostly agree with what you say.
Where I differ is this part: “I don’t think statistics are a good way to measure Tate’s performance” after which you launch into: “A counterpoint would be that Tate was worth -36 DYAR in only 40 pass attempts last year”
Yeah, those are statistics. You say you can’t measure him by stats, and then try to use stats to show how much he sucks.
You’re solid gold after that though.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
"A counterpoint would be" = "Here's another demonstration of why statistics aren't a good measure" is how I read it.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Imma gonna have to reconsider
posting drunk. Reading comprehension takes a nose dive.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I could talk for a long time about this myself
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
I'm sure Kip means "traditional counting statistics" (are not a good way to measure Tate's performance)
The greater point is that the missed or “bad” plays (drops, failures, etc.) don’t show up in his yardage and touchdown numbers — and those need to be considered, too. Something like DYAR accounts for things like that.
More specifically, every time they throw it to Tate and he doesn’t catch it, that’s a missed opportunity to throw it towards Mike Williams, etc. Value stats attempt to measure what you did with the opportunities you had, whereas counting stats are much more heavily influenced by how many opportunities you got.
Nate Dogg’s point above that he’s in the 50th percentile for rookie receivers in yards and receptions shows that the Seahawks got him decent/average stats for a first-year player at his position. Great, that’s helpful information. Really. It shows us he’s not useless. But it doesn’t show us how many offensive plays it took to get him those numbers, and that’s a valuable limitation to consider, too, as Kip points out. Good discussion all around.
by busplunger on Aug 31, 2011 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with both of you
He needs more time to develop, but we aren’t using him right either.
Screens haven’t worked yet, but we kinda suck at them no matter who we are throwing to. The bubble screen and variations of it need to be used a lot to Washington and Tate this year. Both of those guys need to get the ball in their hands in open space with a blocker or two.
There are some limitations to this reasoning
Tate is hardly the only RB to WR conversion in college or NFL history, and while some of his value indeed comes from specifically designed plays, he doesn’t lack the physical ability to play as an NFL wide receiver, he just lacks polish. Both his route running and hands catching will improve over this year and next. That’s not to say he should be our deep ball go guy, but he has value as a traditional WR as well.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 4:08 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd say its more like he lacks innate WR talent than polish.
Watching Tate, I can’t help but feel he’s like the Carlos Peguero of the WR corps. Exciting potential, fun to watch, and worth keeping probably longer than he should, but unnatural for his sport, deeply flawed and has a long way to go just to reach replacement level.
The more I think about it, the more I lean towards Tate getting a roster spot though. Not because I have much faith in Tate or the team’s ability to make him effective, but because there really isn’t much of a logjam at WR right now, especially with Butler likely on the PUP list. Its a chance for some upside with very little downside, so why not.
by Kip Earlywine on Sep 1, 2011 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
This story is the epitome of preseason nonsense.
It’s the preseason. I don’t care how great an UDFA was, he’s an UDFA playing in the preseason. You know how many players have done far better in the preseason and never done anything ever in the NFL? Too many to count. I can’t imagine the FO is foolish enough to cut Tate after one year. I don’t care how bad he’s been or what his attitude is. He’s 23. 23! And in his second NFL year. Cutting him would be…something Al Davis would do.
Now with more lemon bars!
Even Harbaugh has the excuse that crapmonster was someone else's pick.
Tate was PC’s man all the way.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Aug 31, 2011 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions
They can blame him on Singletary, too.
Also, they can blame it on their own incompetence, what with the faxing stuff to the entire league and all that.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Aug 31, 2011 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions
He's still blamed on Singletary
Story is they wanted either Clausen (Baalke) or Mays (Singletary). Either pick would’ve been pretty bad.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 4:10 AM PDT up reply actions
The FO is still on the hot seat.
They don’t get a free pass with a new coach. I could see them keeping Harbaugh and getting rid of their talent eval guys if when they shit the bed this year.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 1, 2011 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Please no! I like having a pansy in the division!
At least bring back Mike Nolan in some fashion. The suit thing always struck me as a particularly classy way of losing, like Connie Mack in the 1940s.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
Harbaugh got to see him for the 4 years prior too.
Like Pete, wasn’t interested.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Nah, Davis likes to collect other teams cast offs hoping to find a gem.
As far as his own picks…he’s stubborn about them. JaCarcas comes to mind.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I meant in the manner of sheer stupidity.
Like taking Heyward-Bey early in the 1st round, when no one wanted him in the top 2 rounds.
Now with more pessimism!
The Raiders cut bait with JaMarcus about as fast as any team would with the 1st overall QB
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions
After they fired the coach
who didn’t want to play him. I felt bad for Kiffin at the time, before the world learned of his complete douchieness.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Bring back Art Shell!
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
You read Kiffin's recent thoughts on his Oakland tenure?
Among the nuggets: apparently Sark turned Davis down first. To me, that was news.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Bahahahaha @ Sark turning down the Raiders in favor of the Huskies
How far has the team of Madden fallen?
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
'Lil' Man Tate
Would be stupidly foolish to cut “Silver Sticks” ! Its only preseason. Though he needs to show more consistency this upcoming game and earn his roster spot. He is a little careless. I think this ‘threat’ hopefully would tighten him up a bit.
BTW: We will not have 4 TE’s this year. Carlson is out with a season ending Shoulder injury. More room for whomever
Tate will stick
at least for this year… if he does not show improvement this year… he will be playing for one of our NFC west rivals.
Yes I have a beer in my hand... and I'm ready to watch the Hawks smash the 49ers in week 1.
Tate will stay. There's no way they give up on him just yet. I don't care what people are saying
He may be inconsistent or downright ‘slow’ learning offenses but he is still useful and worthy of keeping to develop this year and if he’s still terrible by next year, he can be cut at that point.
Do you really want to be part of a winner?
That’s the question Pete should be asking. A guy who had a first round grade and dropped to a second round pick should be motivated to prove his fall in the draft was a slight. He’s shown not a glimpse of his potential displayed at Notre Dame. Maybe he’s just not physical enough for Pete’s liking. If that were really the case, Pete and John would’ve weeded that out when scouting him. The guy lacks passion. It started with the red-handed swiping of whatever tasty treats at a closed store in Seattle. He lacks focus and commitment. I don’t care where he was picked or what round. If the guy doesn’t want to win his spot, then there’s 4 guys willing to take it and more than likely deserve it. Pete’s got no problem telling guys to get off his team if they aren’t on board. I love it! Mediocrity won’t be accepted, no matter what. Pete’s not playing favorites. He wants guys who want to win and are concerned about team success. Golden’s not buying into that plan right now.
I love the guys potential and I loved the pick to take him. Imagine Percy Harvin in Bevell’s offense, just a little less talented, but far less injured. That was my vision. You’re seriously gonna let an UDFA from Stanford take your spot? Golden’s not stupid. He went to Notre Dame. So WTF? Quit being a giant pussy and claim your spot. Otherwise, GTFO because Doug Baldwin wants the spot you don’t seem to want!
by Homeygc on Aug 31, 2011 5:45 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
You're right, I need to be a better man!
(seriously, though, i felt kind of pumped up by that.)
It was just intense, and it was ball, and it was juice. The juice level in that room was high, and it was awesome.
by mister bunny on Aug 31, 2011 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions
There's a lot of speculation here with no basis that I know of
What do you know about Tate’s focus, commitment, effort or desire to win his spot?
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 4:12 AM PDT up reply actions
As much as I'd like to believe that's the case
Professional athletic decisions involve way more than “manning up” and not being a “giant pussy.” We have no idea what Tate’s work ethic/desire/commitment is, but I do know that it’s much easier to over-simplify a very complicated case and just chalk it up to the lack of some intangible quality.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Sep 1, 2011 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"Dear Doug...
We’re planning on drafting your old roommate next year. Here’s 20 G’s.
Sincerely, John"
by DJ C-Raig on Aug 31, 2011 5:53 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
And then we're gonna sign our UDFA Doug, and then we're gonna give him a UDFA hug
Doug, Doug Dougy Doug Doug Dougy Dougy Doug, Dougy Doug Doug…….
…………but if he gets signed by the Pittsburgh Steelerrrrrssss, well then we’re shit outta luck.
by jhmg16 on Aug 31, 2011 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
It's comments like this
That make me wish SBN let you rec something more than once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48aFJVMh_8Q
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Sep 1, 2011 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I realize its not just Clayton
But John Clayton has lost a lot off his fastball in recent years, this isn’t the same guy that wrote for the TNT and did some work for ESPN. He’s all ESPN now, and though it didn’t happen over night, its changed his reporting for the worse. I think his comments are geared toward the ESPN soundbyte, high on drama and low on substance.
by Steen on Aug 31, 2011 6:03 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
How can he help it?
I noticed that after he got his ten billion twitter followers, his Saturday show has almost no Seahawks content. And it’s a call-in show. In Seattle. It was a full 45 minutes last week before an Eagles fan askes about Seattle. When he does get a chance to talk, he knows what he’s talking about. It wouldn’t shock me to see Tate get cut. I don’t think it would be a super smart move but Carroll is always going to err on the side of cutting your ass.
by EthelGemerman on Aug 31, 2011 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Danny, your piece has Tate as a first-round pick in the fourth paragraph.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Not an error
There were rumors that the Hawks had Tate graded as a 1st round talent. He was of course drafted in the 2nd.
I personally think that Tate is a long shot at success with the Hawks. Not saying he has no chance at NFL success if he gets his head on straight, works hard, learns to run decent routes and lands in a program where he can get hit in stride and in space.
Yeah I read "drafted" for "graded". Thanks.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Conspiracy theory
Maybe some(one) in the Seahawks brass kinda, sorta implied that this is a possibility to maybe register their displeasure in a public way.
I don’t consider Tate a disappointment in the sense of violating my expectations (or, reasonable expectations) for where he’d be at this point. I do think the team has, at times, not been happy with his professionalism and perhaps even effort.
This strikes me as the kind of story that someone in a front office allows to get out there in the “ether” just to make a player feel a little less comfortable.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Tate has never been a true wide receiver.
He’s a converted running back. I’m not sure the right way to evaluate him is by comparing him to other wide receivers and what they might do in their second or third years. I guess I thought we were getting a hybrid-type skillset that the team would find a way to exploit. So far, meh. While I think it would be a boneheaded move to ship him, neither am I all that jazzed on him anymore.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
He was converted a long time ago.
Very few players stay at the positions they were from HS on up. The best athletes play qb or RB in HS becuase it’s easier to get them the ball.
by Steen on Aug 31, 2011 8:47 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Since you ask what I think...
I think the most maddening part of all of this is we have a receiver we clearly don’t need instead of having taken a quarterback with that pick. Or any pick, really.
As for cutting Tate, they are absolutely not going to do that. However adventerous they are in their moves, that’s not happening. Not yet, anyway.
If there's anyone who sadly has no future with the Seahawks
It’s Deon Butler not Golden Tate.
I went whale watching the other day. I think. There were a lot of people in that lake.
by SSreporters on Aug 31, 2011 6:32 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I have a selfish reason for being ok with that.
A good buddy is a Steelers fan and never fails to remind me that Mike Wallace and Deon Butler were both 3rd round picks the same year, and look at how Wallace has turned out dontcha know, yadda yadda, and where has Butler been? Tedious. I hate the Steelers so much.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
If Butler played for Pitt
He would have the Mike Wallace status.
I think it has more to do with Wallace being well on his way to being a number one wideout.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
I don't think so, but perhaps
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 4:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Butler's speed was about the only thing he had going for him
If his leg break saps any of that strength he’s frankly not not long for the league.
Tate must have value.
How about Craigslist.
Right or wrong
The simple fact is that Tate has been in carrolls doghouse for over a year. I don’t know any Hawks that have survived a stint that long. Typically it’s been 3-4 months.
by m_b on Aug 31, 2011 6:54 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Carroll's not allowed to keep doing that though, as per the new CBA
Article 15 chapter 4:9 Concerning the use of doghouses: It shall henceforth be forbidden for any player to be forced to live in a doghouse no matter how much said player gets on a coaches nerves and also that no accommodations similar in nature that is built on the coaches property for the express use of a player shall measure less then 10′×10′, have a minimum 7’ high ceiling, shall contain at least one item of sittable furniture sized to a human being (not a dog), and shall contain appropriate means of egress. Furthermore, should it start to rain, snow, or the temperature fall below 50 degrees, the coaches are required to bring player into the house within thirty minutes of sunset (though they are not required to pat them on the head (but they are free to do so should they feel such an urge)).
by B.B.Finnegan on Aug 31, 2011 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 12 recs
Starting to see these provisions in marriage contracts too.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
That could have saved Mike Leach's job.
But, 10×10 is more than the Jame’s kid deserved anyways.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Not that this is a serious way to gage a players potential but...
In the 5th season of my Seahawks franchise on NFL ’11 Tate is my #1 receiver and has a player rating of 90 LOL.
Personally I like Tate but without full-time reps it’s impossible to see how good or bad he may be.
The New York Islanders....they make opposing goalies look gooooood.
clearly
GMs should play more Madden NFL 11…then try to explain to the fans why exactly they’re playing real life like a video game.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Aug 31, 2011 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions
One almost expects that Jerry Jones was doing just that
Circa 2008, and his acquisition of Roy Williams.
Then he traded his PS3 to Al Davis for a 7th-round pick in his fantasy draft.
In one Madden11 Franchise I had with friends
Tate was NFL offensive ROY.
by David Hodgson on Aug 31, 2011 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure where all the Tate hate(heh that rhymes) comes from.
We all knew he was raw coming out of ND. There is a reason Jimmy Clausen fell as far as he did in the draft, he wasn’t a good QB and Tate bailed his ass out a ton. There are some reports that Tate’s route running is so poor because he constantly had to adjust in able to help Jimmy out. I just don’t understand why you would cut bait with a 2nd round pick in year 2 just because he’s not sniffing the pro-bowl. Year two we should see strides and more glimpses, year three should be break-out.
Remember, there’s a reason why you can’t accurately grade a draft until 3 years later. It takes that long to know if a guy is really going to sink or swim in the NFL.
You post cracks me up, because a couple of years ago if you had said that Clausen sucked and that Tate was bailing him out
You would have had about a hundred Jimmy lovers jumping down your throw. I know because Tate’s YAC capabilities were my argument for drafting him back then and not drafting Clausen.
Yeah, I was never really sold on Clausen.
There’s a reason Carolina drafted another QB this year.
by David Hodgson on Sep 1, 2011 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions
People on this site in particular had pretty high expectations because he was a Morgan favorite.
When he didn’t light the world on fire as a rookie, apparently that meant that he will never become a valuable player and that he sucks forever. Because, you know, every rookie plays to their full potential. Duh.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Aug 31, 2011 8:43 PM PDT reply actions
"Everything is a situation." -- George Carlin
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Source
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7uMom9N5-I&t=73
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Indubidably.
You seen Stewart Lee’s “41st Best Standup” routine?
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Maybe I'm too optimistic
But I’m reserving any and all judgment on Tate until the coaches open up the Percy Harvin part of the playbook, which may not happen until the games count in the standings.
If/when he’s getting ignored in the regular season offense, or dropping everything, or is cut, or traded, then I will change my mind and become alarmed that either he sucks or the coaches can’t figure out how to maximize his abilities.
Until then, I assume he’s just working on other things (i.e. regular wideout stuff) in the preseason. That’s what it’s for: shoring up your weaknesses. He certainly has some, so rehearse downfield routes now and save the clever touchdowns for San Francisco.
by busplunger on Aug 31, 2011 9:32 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I like the optimism, I share it.
Even if we are off in fantasy land ;)
I remember
Complaining on draft day about the Charlie Whitehurst trade because that seemed a reach and the loss of 2 rd placement even more than 3 rd pick seemed very costly, however many here talked me back off of my ledge when I was ready to jump stating that we still got the guy in Golden Tate that we wanted earlier in the 2 nd rd. I find it disappointing that we are still suffering for a trade of a player that they never plan to use, and this situation once again makes me call into question the talent rating the the FO has been using.
But we're not still suffering, we would've/might've got Tate with the 40th pick as well
Whether or not we have good college talent scouts is another question, hard to judge in short order.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 4:29 AM PDT up reply actions
so, i lurk, but never post...
… but with the apparently deep talent in the wr corps, i’m less worried about Maple Bars Tate and just hoping the o-line will do something, ANYTHING! frankly, you can’t discern anything from pre-season ball… but better pre-season ball than lockout-shortened season.
Corps! Thank you!
You have trouble capitalizing but can use the word “corps” in a sentence! I’ll bet you even pronounce it like “core”! We need to be friends.
"It was a dream come true to be the quarterback in Seattle; Bigger and better than anything I could have dreamed of." -Matthew Hasselbeck
If he'd thrown in a "would have" I'd have joined in with a leg-hump.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
well... Well... WELL.. welL?
heh, it’s just a style thing, the capitalization… years of ee cummings and nine inch nails :)
You can come out of the shadows now
That was a nice post.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Sep 1, 2011 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Note mastery of the subject line, kids
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
I know, right?!
"It was a dream come true to be the quarterback in Seattle; Bigger and better than anything I could have dreamed of." -Matthew Hasselbeck
Tate's only newsworthy moment in Seattle
I know I’m in the minority but Golden Tate’s main Seattle story will be the Top Pot Doughnuts story…..After Seattle finally releases him he will play for the UFL’s Omaha Night Hawks
Factually incorrect
Golden’s main Seattle story will be turning a 2-yd dumpoff into a 67-yd TD reception, causing the Ospreys to beat the Steelers 35-31…in the Superbowl.
Even that will be overshadowed by the play that happened 2 plays before.
When Red Bryant pulled Ben Rofflesberger’s spinal cord out of his body, stripped him of the ball, and then batted the football with the spinal cord between the goal posts. The referees didn’t know what to do but everyone agreed that it was so awesome that the Seahawks were awarded both a touchdown and a field goal on the play, the first time that happened in NFL history.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Sep 1, 2011 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry that the doughnut incident still haunts you...
For me, I only had a couple nightmares of Golden Tate prowling the high-rises of Bellevue. Luckily, he caught two sweet passes last year and I gasp completely stopped giving a shit about it.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 1, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait, did he steal donuts from that Top Pot next to the Panera?
OMG I go there ALL THE TIME. Well, not all the time. I went there last month though. And the month before.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
They need to cut Tarvaris before they cut Golden.
by Wilder. on Sep 1, 2011 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
But Tarvaris NEVER GOT A FAIR CHANCE
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 1, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
If someone caught Tarvaris with a bunch of stolen donuts, he'd just jump up in the air and throw them away.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Sep 1, 2011 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Either Way, Both
Have been a disappointment. Hopefully it gets turned around.
Win Forever: Live, Work and Play Like a Champion
This is a viewpoint that I will disagree with as strongly as possible
While still defending your right to say it.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Sep 1, 2011 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Why?
I hope Tarvaris is long gone before Golden is. Like…next year.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 1, 2011 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
If Wilder's point was that he wants Jackson and Tate to stay around through this year
Then I re-tract. I did not read it that way. If Wilder’s point is that Jackson should be cut now, or even this year, then I stand beside my statement. Cutting TJ based on what we’ve seen so far would not seem to do the organization any good at all.
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Sep 1, 2011 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Even if he ends up being an epic failure, picking him at 60 was a worthwhile bet. You can't win every time
I still haven’t given up hope yet. There’s just something about him when he gets the ball in his hands, I’m dying to see him with space in front of him
Apparently Pete Carroll doesn’t like how Charlie Whitehurst holds a clipboard
It really seems to me like he's a great athlete and all who needs to have a team willing to carve out a place for him.
So far, PC and the OCs have been lukewarm about doing this. He is going to be a bust if this doesn’t happen, I’m sorry. He’s just not a prototypical WR. Devin Hester from earlier was a good comp. Personally I’d stick him in there as a PR and let him make his dumb mistakes; frankly, starting field position at the 8 instead of the 20, while not optimal, is not as bad as people make it out to be, and the constant threat of him breaking off a lot more is something which teams would have to start worrying about.
Another good comp I think is Reggie Bush, although technically they (sort of) play different spots. I think he’s something like a striker in soccer, where what you need to do is find him ways to be creative with the football and live with the risk-taking. If the team keeps him as a #4 guy running #4 guy routes, I don’t care if they give him 10 years to succeed, he’s not going to.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
Agreed. If we cut him loose, I could easily see him finding success elsewhere
But he isn’t likely going to succeed here if something doesn’t change regarding his role.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
