Hey guys, I've silently read your discussions for a while now but had to ask your thoughts after a post about Sidney being a number 1 receiver.
To me Tate is the better player. First off he compares pretty closely on paper. Faster 40 time and I'm sure he has more strength. Yes his vertical is shorter and his routes are not as good.
The more important thing is his game is his tape.
When I think back to his bone crushing block on Sean Lee (I think that's who it was) I see a willing blocker.
When I think back to who got more jump balls I remember Tate with the hail marry vs Green Bay and earlier in the game the TD pass which looked a lot like Rices vs the Pats. Also that spinning TD catch vs the Jets, that was amazing.
When I think about yards after the catch. I remember Tate breaking and eluding lots of tackles and diving into the end zone for TD's. He is far better with the ball in his hands than Rice is. I actually don't remember Rice breaking any tackles.
Tate also can play special teams as a returner.
I also fear for Rice every time he takes a hit from his injury history. That overtime catch vs the Bears i thought was his last of the season. Thankfully not though.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Rice is not worth his 8 million/year salary or #1 receiver money. I would be happy with Tate, Harvin and Baldwin. Yeah its a smallish core but the Hawks have never cared about prototypical size at anything. Teams would have more problems covering those three finesse guys because most teams don't have that many quality db's that can cover these types of guys.
does anybody else think that Tate is better than Rice? If not would you agree that Tate would be the better value in price/skill.
I know, I shouldn't be concerned with the cap but after seeing how much Flacco got and how much Rodgers is going to get I wouldn't be surprised to see Wilson getting close to 20million/year. Especially if he comes away with a SB.