PDA

View Full Version : Golden Tate Sucks


BrabbitMcRabbit
01-25-2010, 05:42 PM
Golden "jumbo thighs" Tate is the most overrated WR in this draft. I have seen numerous people compare him to Steve Smith. My question is this:

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Steve Smith is short, but he's an EXPLOSIVE athlete with low 4.4 speed and elite hops. Golden Tate is also short, but unlike Smith he's slower than a mud sloth covered in molasses. Without great size or burst, Tate will have no advantages against pro corners, who will be faster than him and just as strong. Tate will be a huge bust just like Josh Reed, another college superstar who had neither the size nor speed to beat coverage in the NFL. Can you say slot WR?

prock
01-25-2010, 05:44 PM
Golden "jumbo thighs" Tate is the most overrated WR in this draft. I have seen numerous people compare him to Steve Smith. My question is this:

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Steve Smith is short, but he's an EXPLOSIVE athlete with low 4.4 speed and elite hops. Golden Tate is also short, but unlike Smith he's slower than a mud sloth covered in molasses. Without great size or burst, Tate will have no advantages against pro corners, who will be faster than him and just as strong. Tate will be a huge bust just like Josh Reed, another college superstar who had neither the size nor speed to beat coverage in the NFL. Can you say slot WR?

i agree that he isnt a first rounder, he is getting a lot of hype that is probably more than he deserves. that being said, he definitely doesnt suck. he has great hands, he is a good route runner, and excels in space. thats just what i got out of him in the 2 maybe 3 notre dame games i watched this year. someone who is more educated in terms of irish football should correct me if im wrong.

GoRavens
01-25-2010, 05:45 PM
This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on this website..
Golden Tate is not slow, he's got killer agility, he's EXPLOSIVE and is a total playmaker...
And the Josh Reed comparison is just pathetic.
Watch some tape on him before you open your mouth and make yourself sound like a fool..

CLong4Heisman
01-25-2010, 05:46 PM
Golden "jumbo thighs" Tate is the most overrated WR in this draft. I have seen numerous people compare him to Steve Smith. My question is this:

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Steve Smith is short, but he's an EXPLOSIVE athlete with low 4.4 speed and elite hops. Golden Tate is also short, but unlike Smith he's slower than a mud sloth covered in molasses. Without great size or burst, Tate will have no advantages against pro corners, who will be faster than him and just as strong. Tate will be a huge bust just like Josh Reed, another college superstar who had neither the size nor speed to beat coverage in the NFL. Can you say slot WR?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkVvnfXZK3I

Are we talking about the same guy?

RaiderNation
01-25-2010, 05:48 PM
You can have some of what Im smoking just give me some money.

If you watch him the YAC he has is veyr similar to Steve Smith. I think if hes teamed with a WR with some heigth he will be deadly

ojjuiceman
01-25-2010, 05:49 PM
Golden "jumbo thighs" Tate is the most overrated WR in this draft. I have seen numerous people compare him to Steve Smith. My question is this:

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Steve Smith is short, but he's an EXPLOSIVE athlete with low 4.4 speed and elite hops. Golden Tate is also short, but unlike Smith he's slower than a mud sloth covered in molasses. Without great size or burst, Tate will have no advantages against pro corners, who will be faster than him and just as strong. Tate will be a huge bust just like Josh Reed, another college superstar who had neither the size nor speed to beat coverage in the NFL. Can you say slot WR?

Hopefully all the 1st round teams think like you. So he can slip to my Bucs in the 2nd.

djp
01-25-2010, 05:54 PM
Very unique prospect.. not very often we see somebody of that stature with his skillset. I don't know how much teams are going to value him..

probably the best high-pointer in the draft and he is extremely efficient on the short routes. What I'm concerned about is the intermediate routes. The 10-12 yard digs, the 10-12 yard outs, the curls, the skinny posts, etc. He doesn't seem that fluid to me when running those types of routes. I am downloading a bunch of ND games right now, would love to get a better look if possible because this is just based off the games that I saw live (probably 3-4 total). Yes, he's not a particularly fast runner, but he makes up for that with his ball skills.

I think he brings a lot to the table versatility wise because he's one of the few that you could see inside or outside at the next level.

At this point, I'd say mid 2nd round.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-25-2010, 05:54 PM
You guys probably thought Peter Warrick and Josh Reed were pretty dope too.

Pro tip: 5'10" WRs with 4.6 speed don't make good starters in the NFL.

ThePudge
01-25-2010, 05:57 PM
You guys probably thought Peter Warrick and Josh Reed were pretty dope too.

Pro tip: 5'10" WRs with 4.6 speed don't make good starters in the NFL.

4.6 your estimated time or do you have some inside information that no one else that watches football has access to?

YotoJets007
01-25-2010, 06:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkVvnfXZK3I

Are we talking about the same guy?

That video has backed the original poster.

Tate showed no explosive speed and had trouble to separate defenders on deep route. However, his toughness, YAC ability, stamina/durability, and hands are very solid enough to be a first rounder.

YotoJets007
01-25-2010, 06:17 PM
4.6 your estimated time or do you have some inside information that no one else that watches football has access to?

4.6 is a safe guess since two freaking Wolverine DL caught up on him. Not good. lol. My best guess is 4.52. It is still good speed although.

CLong4Heisman
01-25-2010, 06:23 PM
That video has backed the original poster.

Tate showed no explosive speed and had trouble to separate defenders on deep route. However, his toughness, YAC ability, stamina/durability, and hands are very solid enough to be a first rounder.

the punt return against Pitt? The Hawaii bowl game? The catch in between 2 guys against USC? The making 8 guys miss against Stanford?

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-25-2010, 06:26 PM
the punt return against Pitt? The Hawaii bowl game? The catch in between 2 guys against USC? The making 8 guys miss against Stanford?

Those plays were downright Warrickesque.

Sniper
01-25-2010, 06:34 PM
4.6 is a safe guess since two freaking Wolverine DL caught up on him. Not good. lol. My best guess is 4.52. It is still good speed although.

Those were DBs. Not good ones, but DBs. Unless you're talking about a different time than I am.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-25-2010, 06:36 PM
Warrick started to turn it on until he had some unfortunate injuries.

Splat
01-25-2010, 06:37 PM
Speed is so overrated do you have any idea how many fast WR's have failed in the NFL?

YotoJets007
01-25-2010, 06:39 PM
Those were DBs. Not good ones, but DBs. Unless you're talking about a different time than I am.


not beating dbs on deep route. it was short slant and after broke the first tackle. He could not crank up speed as its evidence is pointed as a lack of explosive speed.

Hines
01-25-2010, 06:41 PM
Hines Ward probably runs a 4.7 and he's the best all around reciever in the NFL. If he's quick, get's open, has solid hands, can block, runs good routes, he'll be successful. I like Golden Tate a lot. Could play multiple positions on offense.

metafour
01-25-2010, 06:42 PM
And the Josh Reed comparison is just pathetic.


How is it pathetic?

Josh Reed won the Biletnikoff Award in the SEC (ie: better competition than anything Notre Lame plays) while putting up 1,740 receiving yards. He holds multiple SEC records including: most yards in a season and most receiving yards in a game.

Sniper
01-25-2010, 06:45 PM
Hines Ward probably runs a 4.7 and he's the best all around reciever in the NFL.

He's not even close to the best all-around receiver in the NFL. Don't be dumb.

YotoJets007
01-25-2010, 06:45 PM
Speed is so overrated do you have any idea how many fast WR's have failed in the NFL?


his game speed is good but not that explosiveness. Some players with 4.4 lack of explosiveness. Go figures.

That is why I want to know all clock timed at 30 yards and 40 yards not 10 yards and 40 yards with rest of them are privileged to only scouts and coaches.

Splat
01-25-2010, 06:48 PM
In Scott's rankings he is listed as having a 4.45 40 time.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/ScoutingReports/WR/Golden-Tate.php

Hines
01-25-2010, 06:50 PM
He's not even close to the best all-around receiver in the NFL. Don't be dumb.

He is in my heart.

YotoJets007
01-25-2010, 06:52 PM
In Scott's rankings he is listed as having a 4.45 40 time.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/ScoutingReports/WR/Golden-Tate.php

So 4.52 wont be way off. wink.

Splat
01-25-2010, 06:56 PM
He is in my heart.

That's what you get when you let your heart win.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2s62gkh.gif

Sniper
01-25-2010, 07:02 PM
In Scott's rankings he is listed as having a 4.45 40 time.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/ScoutingReports/WR/Golden-Tate.php

Scott estimates their times.

Splat
01-25-2010, 07:06 PM
Scott estimates their times.

So does everyone else in this thread. :)

CC.SD
01-25-2010, 07:10 PM
Hines Ward probably runs a 4.7 and he's the best all around reciever in the NFL.

haha come on now Hines.

Anyway to the OT: YUO suck! Golden Tate isn't an amazing prospect but definitely an interesting one and anyone in the 2nd round will be lucky to have him.

BaLLiN
01-25-2010, 07:15 PM
That's what you get when you let your heart win.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2s62gkh.gif

whoaaahoooaaahoooooo

Tate is not Percy Harvin, but he is a legitimate athlete and a matchup problem at WR. He isnt tall, he isn't fast, but you can tell he knows how to get open and is deceptive, he has good body control. I think because of his skillset it will take a bit to transition though

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-25-2010, 07:39 PM
Tate is really pretty raw too, with this only his third year being a true WR. He came to ND a RB in college, and only had one play his freshman year, the go route. He's come a really far way since, but there's still a steep learning curve for him to the NFL.

Iamcanadian
01-25-2010, 07:51 PM
Speed is so overrated do you have any idea how many fast WR's have failed in the NFL?

yeah, about 1/1000 of the # of slow WR's that have failed.

Mayock has Tate as his #2 WR but we will have to see how he holds up in the post season.

wonderbredd24
01-25-2010, 07:56 PM
Peter Warrick was never all that fast... he was insanely quick though and could cut really well. Courtney Brown had a better 40 time than Warrick did.

Warrick did start getting better, but I feel like Warrick, just like Desmond Howard, was never utilized properly. With Howard especially, they tried to make him a conventional wide receiver. Nothing about him was conventional.

I don't think the comparison between Warrick and Golden Tate is any good though. Tate is built like a running back. He should have little to no problem beating the press. His burst could pose a problem though.

bigbuc
01-25-2010, 08:08 PM
You guys probably thought Peter Warrick and Josh Reed were pretty dope too.

Pro tip: 5'10" WRs with 4.6 speed don't make good starters in the NFL.


There was a guy with 4.6 speed who played in the NFL once, what was his name.. oh wait got it. Jerry Rice!!!!!

derza222
01-25-2010, 08:15 PM
There was a guy with 4.6 speed who played in the NFL once, what was his name.. oh wait got it. Jerry Rice!!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's one of those common misconceptions...didn't he run around a 4.4? Regardless, the concern with Tate would be that he's both small and slow, as most of the slower WR's in the NFL (not all, but most) who have success are bigger receivers. So it doesn't mean he can't succeed, but if he is that slow it's going to stack the odds against him.

Scott estimates their times.

Based on what I remember seeing in the past he's generally very conservative with the estimated 40's also. Obviously he'll have some that are lower than the actual times, but I would almost expect Tate to run in the low 4.4's with that being Scott's estimation. He also looks pretty explosive at times, but just based on the way plays break down if you end up needing to move laterally it's easier to get caught from behind.

Rosebud
01-25-2010, 08:24 PM
Tate reminds me of a smaller Hakeem Nicks, powerful build, deceptive quickness to get open deep, strong hands, tough after the catch, non-elite speed.

BroadwayJoe10
01-25-2010, 09:13 PM
Not the fastest player, pretty easy to see that, however, if used correctly in the right situation, he can be beastly. Used as a wes welker/Julian edelman type, lined up next to Randy Moss, he could absolutely thrive.

He has fantastic YAC ability, will not be brought down by the first CB and keeps his speed in and out of his breaks extremely well. Not to mention, I expect him to run a faster time than 4.52 (edelman) and 4.55/4.6 (welker).


We've come to a time were the short slants, intermediate routes and bubble screens have become a sort of defacto running game. As en extension of the running game, they can keep the chains moving when the running game is slowed down, while taking advantage of easy matchups. It also helps the quarterback pick up the blitz.

If he gets on a team with a #1 WR and a TE who can stretch the field as well, he will make a killing with the underneath stuff. That's why I feel scott predicting him to the Jets is a perfect pick. With Braylon, Cotch and Keller, he'd be able to transition into that slot pretty well.

FUNBUNCHER
01-25-2010, 09:30 PM
Peter Warrick was never all that fast... he was insanely quick though and could cut really well. Courtney Brown had a better 40 time than Warrick did.

Warrick did start getting better, but I feel like Warrick, just like Desmond Howard, was never utilized properly. With Howard especially, they tried to make him a conventional wide receiver. Nothing about him was conventional.

I don't think the comparison between Warrick and Golden Tate is any good though. Tate is built like a running back. He should have little to no problem beating the press. His burst could pose a problem though.

Really?? Peter Warrick ran a 4.48 predraft. I agree Warrick's strength at FSU was his lateral quickness, not long speed.

But the OP is trolling trying to score points by bashing the most electric playmaker in college football last season.

If Tate proves to be a capable route runner, he's gonna be golden(pun intended!) in the pros.
And there's no shame in being a #2/slot WR. Golden Tate would be a mismatch IMO against any team's 3rd corner.

He looks like he has a serious vert, strong, reliable hands, and I think folks will be surprised by his speed. Sure, he may not have Steve Smith's low 4.3 speed, but the comparison between Tate and Smith is still valid. Small(ish) WRs capable of dominating most secondaries.

soybean
01-25-2010, 09:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkVvnfXZK3I

Are we talking about the same guy?

I think that video would have more credibility if the opposing teams in that video werent

Washington
Washington State
Michigan
Purdue
Navy
UNC
Hawaii
Syracuse
Pitt
a shoddy 2009 usc defense

the only good defense in that video was maybe stanford, and even that is pushing it.

NFL DBs will be much much faster and stronger. Unless you got amazing burst and speed ala desean jackson, your chances of being a great pro while short is slim :/

YotoJets007
01-25-2010, 10:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that's one of those common misconceptions...didn't he run around a 4.4? Regardless, the concern with Tate would be that he's both small and slow, as most of the slower WR's in the NFL (not all, but most) who have success are bigger receivers. So it doesn't mean he can't succeed, but if he is that slow it's going to stack the odds against him.



Jerry Rice timed a slight south of 4.7. Yuck! It was his stamina that kept him going well.

FUNBUNCHER
01-25-2010, 10:30 PM
Jerry Rice timed a slight south of 4.7. Yuck! It was his stamina that kept him going well.

Bill Walsh said 49ers scouts before the 1985 draft timed Rice on campus at MVS running under 4.5.

Too much urban sports folklore surrounding Jerry Rice's 40, as if he played against DBs who ran 5 flat. Darrell Green ran a 4.1/4.2 and couldn't cover Rice for an entire game. Think about that; Jerry Rice is the ultimate example of the difference between game speed and timed speed.

Tate has enough speed to take care of business in the NFL, period.

This thread is swiftly careening off into the ditch of the absurd.

GoRavens
01-25-2010, 10:52 PM
The Hakeem Nicks comparison is spot on..

D-Unit
01-25-2010, 10:56 PM
Golden Tate = a young Hines Ward

derza222
01-25-2010, 11:08 PM
Jerry Rice timed a slight south of 4.7. Yuck! It was his stamina that kept him going well.

Too bad, I can't find it now, but I do distinctly remember reading an article by Gil Brandt saying that he actually ran in the 4.4 range. Now that I'm looking for it I can only find stuff from Brandt saying that he ran in the 4.65 range...so clearly my previous comment is completely invalid unfortunately. Wish I could have found that article though, because it certainly was interesting.

Monomach
01-25-2010, 11:11 PM
Bill Walsh said 49ers scouts before the 1985 draft timed Rice on campus at MVS running under 4.5.

Too much urban sports folklore surrounding Jerry Rice's 40, as if he played against DBs who ran 5 flat. Darrell Green ran a 4.1/4.2 and couldn't cover Rice for an entire game. Think about that; Jerry Rice is the ultimate example of the difference between game speed and timed speed.

You can get open against people faster than you. That is why routes exist in the first place. Just because someone got open doesn't mean that the DBs were slower, as you say here.

Darrell Green did not really run a 4.1 or a 4.2. That's just being silly. Are you one of those guys who believes that Bo Jackson ran a 4.12 or a 3.9? Mike Vick a 4.25? DeAngelo Hall a 4.15? Ted Ginn at 4.06?

...and yeah, Rice re-timed at 4.52 and 4.44 (according to Walsh's biased memory some years later). Still not any kind of barnburner. Pretty darned average.

Too bad, I can't find it now, but I do distinctly remember reading an article by Gil Brandt saying that he actually ran in the 4.4 range. Now that I'm looking for it I can only find stuff from Brandt saying that he ran in the 4.65 range...so clearly my previous comment is completely invalid unfortunately. Wish I could have found that article though, because it certainly was interesting.
He was in the 4.6s at the combine.

At a private workout for the niners before the draft, he supposedly ran a 4.44 and a 4.52.

Of course, none of these times were electronic...and the private workout times were from Bill Walsh's 49er-colored memory some years later. There's no telling what they really were. The only official times for the guy were in the 4.6s.

FUNBUNCHER
01-25-2010, 11:35 PM
Darrell Green beat Carl Lewis twice in college, Monomach.

Darrell Green was widely acknowledged as the fastest player in the league for most of his 20 year career. He had absolutely the worst coverage technique in the NFL, but his otherworldly recovery speed is why he's in the HOF.

Go to the SKins board talking that smack!!

No offense, but if you don't know the Redskins history or know Darrell Green's bio, you're just missing the point.

Darrell Green ran a sub 4.3 at 40 yrsold in Skins TC. The reason he was switched to nickel and eventually retired is because he no longer had the quickness laterally or change of direction skills to make plays on the ball.

Get your facts in order, Monomach!!!

BroadwayJoe10
01-25-2010, 11:35 PM
I think that video would have more credibility if the opposing teams in that video werent

Washington
Washington State
Michigan
Purdue
Navy
UNC
Hawaii
Syracuse
Pitt
a shoddy 2009 usc defense

the only good defense in that video was maybe stanford, and even that is pushing it.

NFL DBs will be much much faster and stronger. Unless you got amazing burst and speed ala desean jackson, your chances of being a great pro while short is slim :/

Can't tell if this is sarcasm, but that is not completely accurate. Being a slot guy, which he'd thrive as, is not about straight-lined speed or just your burst off the line, but how fast you can get in and out of your cuts as well as how quickly you can to full speed.


I can't draw the comparison enough to welker and even edelman. The guys aren't the fastest in the world, but they run a handful of great routes and make a killing on the underneath stuff, because they are quick, have good hands and are not taken down easily.

If lined up to a #1 WR a competent #2, he's gonna be a stud.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-26-2010, 12:13 AM
I'm pretty sure that's one of those common misconceptions...didn't he run around a 4.4? Regardless, the concern with Tate would be that he's both small and slow, as most of the slower WR's in the NFL (not all, but most) who have success are bigger receivers. So it doesn't mean he can't succeed, but if he is that slow it's going to stack the odds against him.


Finally someone who gets it. It's okay to be a little bit on the slow side if you have a big body, but there are no successful WRs in the NFL below 6'0" 200 who lack a great burst.

All of the good little guys are burners. Santana Moss. Steve Smith. Eddie Royal. DeSean Jackson. Laveranues Coles. Santonio Holmes. Lee Evans. Percy Harvin. These guys have 4.3 speed.

The only successful smurf type WR who bears a slight resemblance to Tate is Derrick Mason, but he's a much better athlete than most realize. I don't know what kind of speed he had coming into the league. I'm guessing he was faster than Tate.

Tate is a tweener. He's not fast enough to be a speed WR and he's not big enough to be a possession WR. I stand by my Josh Reed comparison. Both have bizarre bodies that are short, but heavy. Both are converted RBs who looked good in college because they exploited bad defenses after the catch. Neither has the physical tools to be a frontline starter in the NFL.

Some of the comparisons tossed around in this thread are absurd. Hakeem Nicks? Are you joking? He plays nothing like Tate and is built completely differently at at a long 6' 214. Tate looks to be about 5'10". I dare you to show me a good possession WR in the NFL who's 5'10" with 4.5+ speed.

There aren't any.

Tate is nothing but an overhyped version of Josh Reed or Davone Bess.

descendency
01-26-2010, 12:50 AM
But the OP is trolling trying to score points by bashing the most electric playmaker in college football last season.
He didn't say anything about CJ Spiller...

Monomach
01-26-2010, 12:56 AM
Darrell Green beat Carl Lewis twice in college, Monomach....and they never once raced in the 40. I don't think I need to explain why the 100 yard dash is in no way similar to a 40. That should be evident on its own.

Darrell Green was widely acknowledged as the fastest player in the league for most of his 20 year career. He had absolutely the worst coverage technique in the NFL, but his otherworldly recovery speed is why he's in the HOF.That doesn't make him a 4.1-4.2 runner.

Go to the SKins board talking that smack!!
Ask homers their opinion about one of their longtime players? A player old enough that most of them only know him from urban legends about how he outran a cheetah and killed a pack of rabid dingoes with one hand tied behind his back? Sounds like a great way to get an unbiased answer.

No offense, but if you don't know the Redskins history or know Darrell Green's bio, you're just missing the point.I do know his bio. Do you think I started watching football last year or something?

NONE OF THIS MAKES HIM A 4.1-4.2 RUNNER. Show me a single instance of him running a 4.1-4.2 under electronically timed conditions.

Darrell Green ran a sub 4.3 at 40 yrsold in Skins TC. The reason he was switched to nickel and eventually retired is because he no longer had the quickness laterally or change of direction skills to make plays on the ball.So there is completely anecdotal evidence that he ran a completely unofficial time under completely unscientific conditions. Awesome. My dad timed my 40 at 2.62. Now he and I have equal "evidence" of our timed speed.

Get your facts in order, Monomach!!!
You're confusing facts with "facts." I have facts. You have "facts."

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-26-2010, 01:00 AM
He didn't say anything about CJ Spiller...

+1

Joke to call Tate the most electric player in this class.

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 01:23 AM
Monomach, you are one arrogant dude to not be a Skinsfan and talk on something you don't know.

There is local sports news coverage from Channel 7, 9, and 4 in Washington, DC taping Darrell Green beat Champ Bailey as a rookie in the 40 at age 40 at Skins TC.

As for Darrell Green beating Carl Lewis in college, google 'Darrell Green', 'Carl Lewis' and sophomore and read the results.

This is a known fact among SKinsfans, not opinion.

Also, not opinion, D Green ran a 10.08 in college. I'm giving skeptics the benefit of the doubt by saying D Green was a 4.1/4.2 player in his prime.
The Skins organization claims he was timed UNDER 4.1 seconds in his rookie TC.
Hand timed or not, he was easily a 4.2 DB.

Im not some teenybopper here big upping D Green, just a fan attempting to set the record straight.

Brown Leader
01-26-2010, 01:25 AM
Finally someone who gets it. It's okay to be a little bit on the slow side if you have a big body, but there are no successful WRs in the NFL below 6'0" 200 who lack a great burst.

All of the good little guys are burners. Santana Moss. Steve Smith. Eddie Royal. DeSean Jackson. Laveranues Coles. Santonio Holmes. Lee Evans. Percy Harvin. These guys have 4.3 speed.

The only successful smurf type WR who bears a slight resemblance to Tate is Derrick Mason, but he's a much better athlete than most realize. I don't know what kind of speed he had coming into the league. I'm guessing he was faster than Tate.

Tate is a tweener. He's not fast enough to be a speed WR and he's not big enough to be a possession WR. I stand by my Josh Reed comparison. Both have bizarre bodies that are short, but heavy. Both are converted RBs who looked good in college because they exploited bad defenses after the catch. Neither has the physical tools to be a frontline starter in the NFL.

Some of the comparisons tossed around in this thread are absurd. Hakeem Nicks? Are you joking? He plays nothing like Tate and is built completely differently at at a long 6' 214. Tate looks to be about 5'10". I dare you to show me a good possession WR in the NFL who's 5'10" with 4.5+ speed.

There aren't any.

Tate is nothing but an overhyped version of Josh Reed or Davone Bess.

How bout Henry Ellard?...the guy that'll probably coach him next season.

814 rec. for 13,777 yards-third all-time when he was done-65 touchdowns. 1,527 yards returning punts, 364 yard returning kickoffs-4 punts returned for a td. Overall-15,718 total yards. That was pretty good.

Monomach
01-26-2010, 02:25 AM
Monomach, you are one arrogant dude to not be a Skinsfan and talk on something you don't know.
ONLY WE SKINZZZ FANZZZ KNOW THAT UNCONFIRMED 40 TIMES RECORDED BY INACCURATE METHODS ARE 100% CORRECTZZZZZ

By the standard of evidence you require, we have to believe every time any player claims they've run. Are you ready to credit Ted Ginn as a 4.06 runner?

There is local sports news coverage from Channel 7, 9, and 4 in Washington, DC taping Darrell Green beat Champ Bailey as a rookie in the 40 at age 40 at Skins TC....and that in no way proves that he ran a 4.1-4.2. For all we know, Champ could have run a 4.7 that day.

Willie Gault ran a hand-timed 4.27 at age 47. Do you think I believe that was accurate? Do you think that makes me believe he ran a 3.8 when he was 20something (the actual claim is that he ran a 3.75!)? Hell, no, and I love Willie Gault.
As for Darrell Green beating Carl Lewis in college, google 'Darrell Green', 'Carl Lewis' and sophomore and read the results.

This is a known fact among SKinsfans, not opinion.I never said he didn't beat him. You're having yourself a nice little straw man argument.

You're also trying to pretend that beating Carl Lewis in a 100-meter dash means something about his 40 yard dash.

He beat Carl Lewis one day. Hooray. Doesn't mean Carl ran at his best or that any world records were set.

Also, not opinion, D Green ran a 10.08 in college.
...and again, inaccurate methods were used back in the day.

...and that's a 100 meter, which still has zero to do with a 40 yard dash. Fun fact of the day: In a 100 meter sprint, top speed is not reached until approximately the 70 meter mark, thereby making them worthless when trying to extrapolate a 40-yard time.

This is why no one on earth knows Usain Bolt's 40 time.

I'm giving skeptics the benefit of the doubt by saying D Green was a 4.1/4.2 player in his prime.
The Skins organization claims he was timed UNDER 4.1 seconds in his rookie TC.Again, completely anecdotal evidence for a completely unofficial time recorded by completely unscientific means.

Hand timed or not, he was easily a 4.2 DB.
Proof, please. If we don't need proof, my 1.3 second 40 yard dash still stands as the world record.

Im not some teenybopper here big upping D Green, just a fan attempting to set the record straight.
You're just some guy who doesn't have a single shred of actual evidence to back up your claims.

In other words, you're just some hot-air blowing hump on the intarwebz.

nhlkdog411
01-26-2010, 06:35 AM
Finally someone who gets it. It's okay to be a little bit on the slow side if you have a big body, but there are no successful WRs in the NFL below 6'0" 200 who lack a great burst.

All of the good little guys are burners. Santana Moss. Steve Smith. Eddie Royal. DeSean Jackson. Laveranues Coles. Santonio Holmes. Lee Evans. Percy Harvin. These guys have 4.3 speed.

The only successful smurf type WR who bears a slight resemblance to Tate is Derrick Mason, but he's a much better athlete than most realize. I don't know what kind of speed he had coming into the league. I'm guessing he was faster than Tate.

Tate is a tweener. He's not fast enough to be a speed WR and he's not big enough to be a possession WR. I stand by my Josh Reed comparison. Both have bizarre bodies that are short, but heavy. Both are converted RBs who looked good in college because they exploited bad defenses after the catch. Neither has the physical tools to be a frontline starter in the NFL.

Some of the comparisons tossed around in this thread are absurd. Hakeem Nicks? Are you joking? He plays nothing like Tate and is built completely differently at at a long 6' 214. Tate looks to be about 5'10". I dare you to show me a good possession WR in the NFL who's 5'10" with 4.5+ speed.

There aren't any.

Tate is nothing but an overhyped version of Josh Reed or Davone Bess.

Gee I dunno...what about that Wes Welker guy who grabs like 110+ catches a year?

SeanTaylorRIP
01-26-2010, 07:23 AM
Golden Tate is a Rich man's Randle El.

Notredameleo
01-26-2010, 09:26 AM
Not explosive? Slow? Weak? What are YOU smoking??? This is the most ridiculous thread i have seen. You provided no facts, you just tore into a guy saying stuff that is completely false...

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 09:50 AM
Ever heard of the word 'extrapolation', Monomach??? Darrell Green's 10.08 100 meter in college was an NCAA electronic time, not by stopwatch.

I'll give you that whenever D Green was timed in the 40 in the 1980s, probably 99% of the time it was done by stopwatch. Still, if those stopwatch times are consistently in the 4.15 - 4.22 range, even a high adjustment of .07 seconds gives D Green a 4.22 - 4.29 time.

It would be great if all times in football were measured electronically, but most teams don't at their practice facilities. To argue that D Green was not a a sub 4.3 player because he didn't run an 'official' 40 electronically is bogus and you getting hung up on a technicality.

Almost like saying you didn't personally see Apollo 11 land on the moon, so to claim that it did is not credible.

If you asked Bill Parcells or John Madden who's the fastest player they've even seen on a football field, other than Bob Hayes, (who also was never electronically timed in the 40, but is widely believed to be a 4.1/4.2 WR who did run an electronic time of 10.0 in the Tokyo Olympics), the next name is D Green.

And yeah, if three news camera crews and five position coaches are at the Skins practice facility track timing Champ and D Green as a part of the organization's offseason training regimen, IMO that's a 'legit' time, more so than you saying your daddy timed you running a 2.62 for the sake of being obnoxious.

All this smack talk because an outlier like yourself doubts that D Green could run a sub 4.3??!!!

D Green was one of the 5 - 10 fastest players ever to suit up in the NFL.
Deal with it.

yourfavestoner
01-26-2010, 10:05 AM
Finally someone who gets it. It's okay to be a little bit on the slow side if you have a big body, but there are no successful WRs in the NFL below 6'0" 200 who lack a great burst.

All of the good little guys are burners. Santana Moss. Steve Smith. Eddie Royal. DeSean Jackson. Laveranues Coles. Santonio Holmes. Lee Evans. Percy Harvin. These guys have 4.3 speed.

The only successful smurf type WR who bears a slight resemblance to Tate is Derrick Mason, but he's a much better athlete than most realize. I don't know what kind of speed he had coming into the league. I'm guessing he was faster than Tate.

Tate is a tweener. He's not fast enough to be a speed WR and he's not big enough to be a possession WR. I stand by my Josh Reed comparison. Both have bizarre bodies that are short, but heavy. Both are converted RBs who looked good in college because they exploited bad defenses after the catch. Neither has the physical tools to be a frontline starter in the NFL.

Some of the comparisons tossed around in this thread are absurd. Hakeem Nicks? Are you joking? He plays nothing like Tate and is built completely differently at at a long 6' 214. Tate looks to be about 5'10". I dare you to show me a good possession WR in the NFL who's 5'10" with 4.5+ speed.

There aren't any.

Tate is nothing but an overhyped version of Josh Reed or Davone Bess.

I agree with most of what you say, but the Hakeem Nicks comparison really is spot on. Their measurables aren't comparable, but their playing styles are very, very similar. Tate plays much bigger than he is. Whether this translates to the NFL with his small stature remains to be seen.

prock
01-26-2010, 10:43 AM
well, funbuncher and monomach, you guys are missing the point. we can argue technicalities about timed 40s all day, the point you are arguing over is this: darrell green is fast as ****. i believe that is a consensus. what he officially ran doesnt matter. back to golden tate...

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 10:53 AM
Gotcha.

Tate is one of my top sleepers, look for him to play a big role for some team his rookie year.

descendency
01-26-2010, 11:59 AM
Gee I dunno...what about that Wes Welker guy who grabs like 110+ catches a year?

Welker ran 4.6.

brasho
01-26-2010, 01:10 PM
Really?? Peter Warrick ran a 4.48 predraft. I agree Warrick's strength at FSU was his lateral quickness, not long speed.

.

I recall Warrick running in the 4.6 range on a basketball court because the FSU Pro Day was rained out and the athletes all had to work out in the gym.

brasho
01-26-2010, 01:12 PM
Golden Tate to me is a lot like old Redskins Gary Clark. Maybe he's not as tough as Clark was going over the middle but he's a guy that is more quick than fast, sturdy, and a threat after the catch.

Crickett
01-26-2010, 01:18 PM
All of the good little guys are burners. Santana Moss. Steve Smith. Eddie Royal. DeSean Jackson. Laveranues Coles. Santonio Holmes. Lee Evans. Percy Harvin. These guys have 4.3 speed.

HE may have timed that fast, but there's absolutely no way Laveranues Coles was that fast in the NFL, especially after that toe injury in Washington.

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 01:45 PM
I recall Warrick running in the 4.6 range on a basketball court because the FSU Pro Day was rained out and the athletes all had to work out in the gym.
I think you're right. Apparently Warrick didn't go to the combine. I think I 'misremembered' an estimate of Warrick's 40, not his actual time, unless he ran at a later date.

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 01:46 PM
Golden Tate to me is a lot like old Redskins Gary Clark. Maybe he's not as tough as Clark was going over the middle but he's a guy that is more quick than fast, sturdy, and a threat after the catch.
Too old skool for most, but that is the PERFECT comparison. If he's half as tough as Gary Clark, Tate will be a pure stud in the NFL!!

nofalcons10
01-26-2010, 01:50 PM
Welker ran 4.6.

/end thread.

I_C_DeadPeople
01-26-2010, 01:54 PM
Golden Tate = a young Hines Ward

With or without the cheap shots and the *** grin?

descendency
01-26-2010, 01:56 PM
/end thread.

Well, maybe not. Welker has ELITE change of direction and explosion out of his cuts.

His lack of break away speed is masked by his elite skills in other sets, but he does have a *minimum* speed requirement for the NFL (given the quality of his other skills). Welker is also ELITE at finding holes in zones.

Also, Wes Welker was cut by San Diego. He "re-dedicated" himself to getting into shape and probably runs fairly fast now.

CashmoneyDrew
01-26-2010, 02:02 PM
I wouldn't be disappointed at all if the Titans took this guy in the first round. I love me some Golden Tater.
I partied with him once. Cool guy.

Splat
01-26-2010, 02:13 PM
I have thought for awhile that the Chiefs might look at him in the second round and now that Weis is their OC I think there is a even better chance.

IrishBrowns
01-26-2010, 02:14 PM
Tate should be a first rounder, and if he isn't explosive I don't know who is..people trying to pinpoint the defenses he played in the video..you're ridiculous...he's never been shutdown...he had an absolute freak on the other side of the field (Floyd, another first rounder when he comes out) and dominated. When Floyd missed most of the year, Tate dominated even more...SOMEHOW!...dont give me all this he can't be a number 1 receiver...get over the fascination of speed, because he has plenty of it, and has great GAME SPEED. its unfortunate he wasnt two inches taller so he could be a top 10 pick, but he'll prove he can be a number 1 or a number 2 by whoever drafts him

CLong4Heisman
01-26-2010, 02:36 PM
I think it all depends on his height at the combine. 5-11 and he's a first round guy. 5-9 and he'll slip into the second.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-26-2010, 02:40 PM
HE may have timed that fast, but there's absolutely no way Laveranues Coles was that fast in the NFL, especially after that toe injury in Washington.

He was early in his career. Obviously he has lost a step or two over the years.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-26-2010, 02:41 PM
Also, Welker is basically a product of a friendly system where a HoF WR draws away most of the coverage and a HoF QB feeds him lots of short targets.

When he was on the Dolphins he was just a guy. That's what Tate will be in the NFL.

brasho
01-26-2010, 02:57 PM
Coles ran a "4.1" according to Bobby Bowden at FSU... nobody really believes that... at the combine Coles than a rather disappointing 4.43.... which was still pretty good (just not 4.1). Coles hasn't really been an explosive WR at any point in his career but he has been a good route runner and always seemed to play bigger, or at least stronger than his size suggested.

Rosebud
01-26-2010, 03:33 PM
The Hakeem Nicks comparison is spot on..

They do play so much alike, Tate's just shorter and thus a little smaller.

Monomach
01-26-2010, 04:00 PM
Ever heard of the word 'extrapolation', Monomach??? Darrell Green's 10.08 100 meter in college was an NCAA electronic time, not by stopwatch.

I'll give you that whenever D Green was timed in the 40 in the 1980s, probably 99% of the time it was done by stopwatch. Still, if those stopwatch times are consistently in the 4.15 - 4.22 range, even a high adjustment of .07 seconds gives D Green a 4.22 - 4.29 time.

It would be great if all times in football were measured electronically, but most teams don't at their practice facilities. To argue that D Green was not a a sub 4.3 player because he didn't run an 'official' 40 electronically is bogus and you getting hung up on a technicality.

Almost like saying you didn't personally see Apollo 11 land on the moon, so to claim that it did is not credible.

If you asked Bill Parcells or John Madden who's the fastest player they've even seen on a football field, other than Bob Hayes, (who also was never electronically timed in the 40, but is widely believed to be a 4.1/4.2 WR who did run an electronic time of 10.0 in the Tokyo Olympics), the next name is D Green.

And yeah, if three news camera crews and five position coaches are at the Skins practice facility track timing Champ and D Green as a part of the organization's offseason training regimen, IMO that's a 'legit' time, more so than you saying your daddy timed you running a 2.62 for the sake of being obnoxious.

All this smack talk because an outlier like yourself doubts that D Green could run a sub 4.3??!!!

D Green was one of the 5 - 10 fastest players ever to suit up in the NFL.
Deal with it.
Keep on shoveling that anecdotal "evidence."

I'm not going to bother owning you yet again until you have something new. You're just recycling the same old garbage and complete lack of evidence now.

LMFAO that you try to use extrapolation one post after I explained why it's not possible to accurately extrapolate a 40 time from a 100 time.

descendency
01-26-2010, 05:28 PM
Also, Welker is basically a product of a friendly system where a HoF WR draws away most of the coverage and a HoF QB feeds him lots of short targets.

When he was on the Dolphins he was just a guy. That's what Tate will be in the NFL.

No. Welker is a pro bowl caliber slot WR who is basically supporting a team with a speedy HoF WR who has lost a step and a QB who has forgotten how to throw accurately. Wes is underappreciated and it makes me sad.

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 05:47 PM
I've jacked this thread enough engaging in a drooling match with you Monomach.

Obviously you're maybe 18, ( no one I know personally says 'owned', just a generational thing), and never saw D Green play so you have no point of reference.
If you can't project what D Green would have 'officially' run in the 40 having been electronically timed in an NCAA track and field event running a 10.08 while in college, there's no common ground between us.

Football fans above the age of 30 would surely believe anyone who thinks D Green wasn't a true 4.2 athlete is just wasting their time arguing with a brick wall.
Since according to you Monomach, if D Green wasn't timed electronically in the 40 at the NFL combine, that means he must have been incapable of running a sub 4.3 40.

Just useless.

10.08 100 meter dash = 4.4/4.5 football player LOL
RIIIGGGHHT

brasho
01-26-2010, 05:53 PM
I don't think a fast 100 meter necessarily guarantees a great 40. There's 40 yard start speed and then there's long speed. All 100 meter runners have long speed, some great 40 yard times have come from guys with great starts but not much long speed.

If I recall correctly, Tim Dwight of Iowa was 3rd in the Big 10 in the 100 meters in his senior or junior year... yet when he ran at te combine eh ran a 4.61... yet there is nobody that watched him play that would suggest he was not an extremely fast player.


For the record:

Darrell Green was running in the 4.3 range at 38, there is no way that he wasn't running in the 4.2's for the better part of 10 years in the league. He ran down Dorsett without an angle and then Dorsett ran a 4.35 for the Broncos 4-5 years later.... Green made Willie Gault's speed look ordinary.

Malaka
01-26-2010, 05:56 PM
Um guys... sorry to but in but wtf exactly does Darrell Green have to do with Golden Tate?

Average OT LB
01-26-2010, 06:05 PM
Um guys... sorry to but in but wtf exactly does Darrell Green have to do with Golden Tate?

I think they're trying to make some use of this thread, because the opening opinion is so ridiculous is doesn't warrant rebuttal.

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 06:16 PM
Darrell Green came up because I made the point that D Green could not cover slow ass Jerry Rice for an entire game, even though DG was a 4.1/4.2 player in his prime.
Monomach doubts the veracity of the claim that D Green could run a sub 4.3 40 because there is no verifiable electronic time that shows him running this fast.

The point being, Golden Tate has excellent game speed and every game last season he looked like the fastest player on ND's roster.
I think Tate is just one of those odd bodytypes for a WR; kinda thick and barrel chested, but with outstanding quickness and game speed.
IMO he's gonna be a huge sleeper pick for someone and have a Percy Harvin type impact in 2010.

brasho
01-26-2010, 07:22 PM
For those that doubt the accuracy of handheld timers, they should know that only half of an electronic 40 is actually electronic. The watch is started by hand hand and ended by timer. There was a big study done done to compare accuracy of the two and the end result was that handheld timers aren't off by more than .16-.24 and even then less than 70% of the time... and this study was done by complete and total novices, not experienced coaches and scouts, and factor in that only 1/2 of electronic times is actually elctronic... http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2008/11000/Reliability_and_Accuracy_of_Handheld_Stopwatches.3 5.aspx


Anyway, the point is, far too many experienced scouts and coaches have timed Green in the 4.2's to say they were all wrong.

descendency
01-26-2010, 07:27 PM
It's not hard to run 4.2' on a track. On a grassy field or on sand, it's harder.

P-L
01-26-2010, 07:32 PM
QB who has forgotten how to throw accurately.
Umm... Brady still completed 60%+ of his passes that weren't thrown to Wes Welker.

descendency
01-26-2010, 07:41 PM
Umm... Brady still completed 60%+ of his passes that weren't thrown to Wes Welker.
I know. He was erratic throughout the year though. Lots of those passes were not pretty at all.

But if anyone wants to say Wes Welker was made by someone, it was Tom Brady. Not Randy Moss.

prock
01-26-2010, 07:46 PM
It's not hard to run 4.2' on a track. On a grassy field or on sand, it's harder.

i cant run a 4.2, can you? even if you run a 4.2 on a track, you are still pretty ****** fast. 40 time is so overrated. the guy plays fast. he is very quick, elusive, and explosive. he has sticky hands. who gives a flying **** what his 40 time is? if he runs a 4.4 compared to a 4.6, it wont matter, because he has fast game speed. wes welker runs like a 4.6, and you wouldnt know it from watching him play. same goes for tate. he is a burner, he isnt slow. he is fast enough, and thats what matters.

ElectricEye
01-26-2010, 07:52 PM
I know. He was erratic throughout the year though. Lots of those passes were not pretty at all.

But if anyone wants to say Wes Welker was made by someone, it was Tom Brady. Not Randy Moss.

Maybe this year. We've seen receivers Tom Brady has made before. It's not as effective as it is with Moss. Our offense was at it's worst when we were forcing the ball to Welker again and again. In years past, Moss made Welker. Moss allows Wes Welker to be Wes Welker. None of the stuff he catches after five yards would be available to him if Moss weren't the most dangerous deep ball receiver in the past twenty years.

Iamcanadian
01-26-2010, 08:18 PM
Jerry Rice timed a slight south of 4.7. Yuck! It was his stamina that kept him going well.

Rice ran his 40 in the 4.4 range at the combine. Gil Brandt was the Director of Scouting for the Cowboys at the time and this is his report on Rice.





By Gil Brandt

The 1985 NFL Draft was held on April 30, and on that day I was in my office in Dallas prepared to add a new member to our team. One of the players I was hoping to select was a wide receiver out of little-known Mississippi Valley State by the name of Jerry Rice. We had the 17th pick, and using it on him was certainly a possibility.

The draft began with Buffalo picking first and taking Bruce Smith, followed by Atlanta taking Bill Fralic. There was only one wide receiver taken in the first 10 picks, and it was Al Toon going to the New York Jets. Things were looking good.
Houston, San Diego, Cincinnati, Buffalo and Kansas City all made their picks, and none of them were Rice. I remember getting excited as I hoped to catch the steal of the draft with our selection. New England came up on pick No. 16, and I sure didn't figure them to take a wide receiver since they took Irving Fryar the year before.
And then I heard the words that haunted me for a long, long time: "There has been a trade involving this pick, and San Francisco is now on the clock."
The Patriots got San Francisco's first-, second- and third-round picks for pick No. 16. Moments later, Rice was selected and was on his way to Northern California. Had the 49ers not traded up or taken someone else, Rice would have probably been our choice.

As is the case today, Rice was in great physical shape. According to the report, he had a "very big, strong pair of hands, long arms, tapered body, a well-developed upper body and arms." It did cite his lower legs for needing some development, but he had plenty of "natural strength."



In the 40-yard dash he ran in the 4.4 range, which is excellent. Even with that good of a number, the report felt that Rice, "Plays better and runs better in game and on practice field than his 40 time. He has pro speed."
Equally impressive was his character. He had a "family that worked hard for everything," read the document. He was labeled as mature, soft spoken and respectful. I'd say that was correct.
So were there any negatives? There seemed to be a focus on his blocking that concerned the scouts. "He will not make an effort to cut or even push block," said the report. It also said Rice prefered to work along the right sideline and would need work on running patterns and reading the coverage. I'm pretty sure he's improved in all of these areas.
Also, he wore leather gloves until our scout asked him why he did. Since then, he didn't wear gloves. Maybe it helped his game.
When rating Rice on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the highest and 3 being average, he scored 6s, 7s and 8s in character, competitiveness, strength and explosion, speed, short-yardage receiving, running ability after the catch, catching in a crowd and of course hands. Why no 9s? Because for some reason, we never gave out any 9s. We probably should have had the scale go from 1 to 8. And as you may expect, his worst grade came in blocking, a 3.
Our summary read as follows: "He could be a starter in this league in his second season for a contender. ... He has consistently been productive and durable in the past two seasons. He can be the type of player to play for a team in the NFL for a long time. The more I talk to him the more I am impressed with his character. He has big-play ability."
Sounds like Rice, doesn't it?

You have to also remember that back then, players didn't workout before the draft with some track guru to improve their speed. They just showed up and ran.
Think about it people, do you really believe the myth that a WR from that football power house Mississippi Valley State(joke) got drafted in the middle of round 1 after running a 4.6 or a 4.7.

CC.SD
01-26-2010, 08:47 PM
I'm not hugely in favor of 40 times as a determining factor, but I do feel like using Rice as the example of a 'slow' time leading to a successful career is played out. I mean, no matter what he ran, can we agree that an exception must be made for unquestionably the greatest receiver of all time? No other prospect could possibly live up to what Rice left behind.

ElectricEye
01-26-2010, 09:24 PM
I'm not hugely in favor of 40 times as a determining factor, but I do feel like using Rice as the example of a 'slow' time leading to a successful career is played out. I mean, no matter what he ran, can we agree that an exception must be made for unquestionably the greatest receiver of all time? No other prospect could possibly live up to what Rice left behind.

I agree. Same deal with saying every short quarterback is going to be Drew Brees. Profiles can be overcome, but there's generally more guys falling in line with the rules than there are exceptions.

Staubach12
01-27-2010, 09:42 AM
Yeah, the whole notion of Tate lacking speed or quickness or an ability to get to the ball is ridiculous. That's all I'm going to say, this doesn't warrant any more of my time.

Staubach12
01-27-2010, 09:45 AM
I think they're trying to make some use of this thread, because the opening opinion is so ridiculous is doesn't warrant rebuttal.

DING DING DING

nicker
01-27-2010, 05:11 PM
I tend to agree with the original poster some what, I don't think he sucks, but I wouldn't spend a first round pick on him. I think Malcom Floyd was a better receiver personally... Tate doesn't really do anything special IMO. He's got decent speed, but its not game breaking. His run after the catch doesn't mean a whole lot with the defenses he played. I just don't see him being a number 1 receiver in the NFL. And IMO if you draft a receiver in the first round, he needs to be a number one. I'd take Benn over him all day.

Splat
01-27-2010, 05:16 PM
I would agree about him maybe not being a first round pick but he is easily a early second round pick.

SeanTaylorRIP
01-28-2010, 07:36 AM
I tend to agree with the original poster some what, I don't think he sucks, but I wouldn't spend a first round pick on him. I think Malcom Floyd was a better receiver personally... Tate doesn't really do anything special IMO. He's got decent speed, but its not game breaking. His run after the catch doesn't mean a whole lot with the defenses he played. I just don't see him being a number 1 receiver in the NFL. And IMO if you draft a receiver in the first round, he needs to be a number one. I'd take Benn over him all day.
Anthony Gonzalez says hi.

Caddy
01-28-2010, 09:36 AM
I tend to agree with the original poster some what, I don't think he sucks, but I wouldn't spend a first round pick on him. I think Malcom Floyd was a better receiver personally... Tate doesn't really do anything special IMO. He's got decent speed, but its not game breaking. His run after the catch doesn't mean a whole lot with the defenses he played. I just don't see him being a number 1 receiver in the NFL. And IMO if you draft a receiver in the first round, he needs to be a number one. I'd take Benn over him all day.

I think a handful of teams can easily get away with drafting a #2 wide receiver in the 1st round. That's why Reggie Wayne was brought to Indy and look how well that turned out. The same thing goes for guys like Santonio Holmes and Anthony Gonzalez.

Bengals78
01-28-2010, 09:47 AM
Hmm...receiver who plays a lot faster than he times, may not be blazing by DBs but finds ways to get open, great hands....no receiver has ever succeeded as a number one guy like that....

http://www.everyjoe.com/emqb/files/2009/06/20060708_jab_ts1_779-chad-ochocinco.jpg
Child Please.

brasho
01-28-2010, 10:07 AM
I think a handful of teams can easily get away with drafting a #2 wide receiver in the 1st round. That's why Reggie Wayne was brought to Indy and look how well that turned out. The same thing goes for guys like Santonio Holmes and Anthony Gonzalez.

Yeah, why not? Team should be just as likely to draft a #2 WR in round 1 (Colts with Wayne, Gonzalez) as other teams will be to draft a RT when they already have a franchise LT, another RB when they already have a great one (Carolina with Stewart and Williams) another DE or DT when they already have a great one, or a 2nd CB.

A #2 WR is on the field for nearly 90% of the average teams' plays. Why not pick up a good one to complement and free-up your #1?

nicker
01-28-2010, 03:13 PM
Anthony Gonzalez says hi.

Anthony Gonzales career numbers, 3 years, 96 receptions, 1240 yards, and 7 touch downs.... Thanks for making my point for me, haha. But seriously, this is exactly the kind of pick I'm talking about, a guy that IMO isn't talented enough to ever be a number one. Its a waste of a pick.

Bengals78
01-28-2010, 03:14 PM
Anthony Gonzales career numbers, 3 years, 96 receptions, 1240 yards, and 7 touch downs.... Thanks for making my point for me, haha. But seriously, this is exactly the kind of pick I'm talking about, a guy that IMO isn't talented enough to ever be a number one. Its a waste of a pick.

Well its more like 2 years because of injury. And you cant say injury is exclusive to guys who arent #1 WRs.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-28-2010, 04:00 PM
Hmm...receiver who plays a lot faster than he times, may not be blazing by DBs but finds ways to get open, great hands....no receiver has ever succeeded as a number one guy like that....

http://www.everyjoe.com/emqb/files/2009/06/20060708_jab_ts1_779-chad-ochocinco.jpg
Child Please.

Such a terrible comparison. Chad is taller, leaner, and a lot more explosive vertically. He's a lot like Reggie Wayne or Torry Holt.

Tate is a fat little midget who couldn't beat a corpse in a foot race.

CLong4Heisman
01-28-2010, 04:15 PM
show me some evidence of that and I dont mean that clip of him being tripped up twice during the michigan game 2 years ago and then being tackled by a defensive bak.

Sniper
01-28-2010, 04:17 PM
Such a terrible comparison. Chad is taller, leaner, and a lot more explosive vertically. He's a lot like Reggie Wayne or Torry Holt.

Tate is a fat little midget who couldn't beat a corpse in a foot race.

Which would certainly explain how he averaged over 16 ypc last season, or over 18 ypc the year before. :rolleyes:

dabears10
01-28-2010, 04:35 PM
Hyperbole is the best way to win an argument.

CC.SD
01-28-2010, 04:37 PM
His name is Brabbit McRabbit. Your argument is invalid.

Bengals78
01-28-2010, 05:56 PM
Such a terrible comparison. Chad is taller, leaner, and a lot more explosive vertically. He's a lot like Reggie Wayne or Torry Holt.

Tate is a fat little midget who couldn't beat a corpse in a foot race.

I wasnt comparing the players.
I was comparing how just because a player doesnt run a 4.30 forty he can still be a #1 WR. Chad didnt exactly light the track on fire.
But his game speed is much higher.
You =
http://socialmediabuildingblocks.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/tools.jpg

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-28-2010, 06:07 PM
I wasnt comparing the players.
I was comparing how just because a player doesnt run a 4.30 forty he can still be a #1 WR. [/img]

Yea, if he's built like Dez or Bay-Bay. Tate is built like a midget rodeo clown.

Chad Johnson has very good game speed. There are no similarities between him and Tate.

Look how slow Tate is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvGvj_JTiuc

He runs like he's got a diaper full of crap. Really not an impressive athlete and the Steve Smith comparisons are LOL bad.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-28-2010, 06:10 PM
Which would certainly explain how he averaged over 16 ypc last season, or over 18 ypc the year before. :rolleyes:

Josh Reed had 1,700 yards receiving in his final college season.

Therefore he's obviously a stud and there's no way he could suck in the NFL.

CC.SD
01-28-2010, 06:19 PM
Josh Reed had 1,700 yards receiving in his final college season.



Those are not even the same stats.

Bengals78
01-28-2010, 06:57 PM
You know it is easy to be caught from behind by players when they are moving in a straight line for you and you are moving laterally to avoid other tackles right?

STsACE
01-28-2010, 07:14 PM
Um.....is this thread serious.

Tate doesn't suck. He's good in his own right. He does what he can with what he was given.

He'd make a good #2 on a bad team and a good slot on a great team with a Prolific #1 and #2.

Say he sucks in 3 years if he isn't on a roster, it's not his fault this draft isn't loaded with Monster WR prospects, besides, some people think this is a Defense heavy draft.

prock
01-28-2010, 07:22 PM
Yea, if he's built like Dez or Bay-Bay. Tate is built like a midget rodeo clown.

Chad Johnson has very good game speed. There are no similarities between him and Tate.

Look how slow Tate is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvGvj_JTiuc

He runs like he's got a diaper full of crap. Really not an impressive athlete and the Steve Smith comparisons are LOL bad.

what are you trying to prove in this video? were you referring to all of the defenders he outran? all of the tackles he broke? all of the hits he took and held on? sure he doesnt to everything perfect. this is really dumb of you to post and really you defeat your own argument. fail.

prock
01-28-2010, 07:24 PM
Josh Reed had 1,700 yards receiving in his final college season.

Therefore he's obviously a stud and there's no way he could suck in the NFL.

why do you think tate sucks and why do you keep bringing up josh reed? he is irrelevent. he is josh reed, not golden tate. golden tate is his own prospect, his own player. you are struggling to make valid points.

wogitalia
01-28-2010, 07:45 PM
why do you think tate sucks and why do you keep bringing up josh reed? he is irrelevent. he is josh reed, not golden tate. golden tate is his own prospect, his own player. you are struggling to make valid points.

This seems amazingly relevant to me.

Tate is a good solid prospect who is receiving late 1st to mid 2nd grades, which is a fair grade. There is certainly a chance he busts, he probably won't have elite timed speed and he is small, but he is also very powerful, has some great hands and adjusts to the ball really well and has shown marked improvement over his last couple of years, which to me at least indicates a willingness to improve and the work ethic to do it, which are great signs.

FUNBUNCHER
01-28-2010, 09:14 PM
Golden Tate looked like a top 10 pick in that clip; powerful, fast, strong, explosive, elusive, excellent concentration when the ball is in the air, vice like hands.
I dunno, but Tate just might blow up in the 40; maybe he barely cracks 4.5 flat, but I could see him running solid 4.4s too.

He's got everything I would want in a WR except height.

gpngc
01-28-2010, 09:47 PM
Golden Tate looked like a top 10 pick in that clip; powerful, fast, strong, explosive, elusive, excellent concentration when the ball is in the air, vice like hands.
I dunno, but Tate just might blow up in the 40; maybe he barely cracks 4.5 flat, but I could see him running solid 4.4s too.

He's got everything I would want in a WR except height.

That's what I gathered from the youtube clips too. (Also thought the same while watching Notre Dame this year)

Maybe he's just trying to see if people will really watch the video? Maybe he's conducting an experiment.

Bengals78
01-28-2010, 10:33 PM
There is a clip of him running a slant I believe against USC and the mighty Taylor Mays tries to deliver a big hit and Tate just takes it and goes to the endzone. That is concentration, determination, strength, balance and awareness.
Id take that in a WR.
It takes a lot of talent to take a hit right as you or after you catch the ball and hang on with the ability to recognize where you are and field position. Crazy stuff.

All this thread has pointed out according to the OP:
DHB is fasterzzzz so he iz betterrzzzzz

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-28-2010, 11:17 PM
This will be fun to bump in a couple years when he's a slot WR for the Bills putting up 500 yards every season.

A good rule of thumb with WR prospects:

- If you're small, you'd better be fast.
- If you're slow, you'd better be big.

Tate is both small and slow. He will be eaten alive by NFL corners who will be faster than him and just as strong.

I'm not surprised that some people can't see it in the highlights. One thing I've noticed following the draft throughout the years is that two people can watch the exact same footage and draw opposite conclusions. No biggie. I don't doubt that Tate will be a pretty high pick. I just think he's destined for mediocrity in the NFL. He's not one of the top 5 WRs on my board and maybe not even one of the top 10. I think he's a classic example of a college star whose lack of ideal physical skills will relegate him to a supporting role at the next level. We'll just have to wait and see.

GoRavens
01-28-2010, 11:40 PM
straight hater you are kid

D-Unit
01-28-2010, 11:48 PM
A good rule of thumb with WR prospects:

- If you're small, you'd better be fast.
- If you're slow, you'd better be big.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolspotters2_development/photos/1535/Hines_Ward_profile.jpg

TitansCJftw
01-28-2010, 11:50 PM
ms rabbit must have had her team victimized by tate this year this thread gets me weak hahah

prock
01-29-2010, 12:01 AM
This will be fun to bump in a couple years when he's a slot WR for the Bills putting up 500 yards every season.

A good rule of thumb with WR prospects:

- If you're small, you'd better be fast.
- If you're slow, you'd better be big.

Tate is both small and slow. He will be eaten alive by NFL corners who will be faster than him and just as strong.

I'm not surprised that some people can't see it in the highlights. One thing I've noticed following the draft throughout the years is that two people can watch the exact same footage and draw opposite conclusions. No biggie. I don't doubt that Tate will be a pretty high pick. I just think he's destined for mediocrity in the NFL. He's not one of the top 5 WRs on my board and maybe not even one of the top 10. I think he's a classic example of a college star whose lack of ideal physical skills will relegate him to a supporting role at the next level. We'll just have to wait and see.

if you think all their is to being an NFL wide receiver is size and speed, you are sadly mistaken. learn football please.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-29-2010, 12:19 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolspotters2_development/photos/1535/Hines_Ward_profile.jpg

Ward is listed at 6'0" 205. That is not undersized.

People are in denial about Tate. They constantly compare him to players who really don't resemble him (Hakeem Nicks, Steve Smith, Hines Ward, Chad Johnson). And then they accuse me of not understanding football.

Rosebud
01-29-2010, 12:20 AM
Ward is listed at 6'0" 205. That is not undersized.

People are in denial about Tate. They constantly compare him to players who really don't resemble him (Hakeem Nicks, Steve Smith, Hines Ward, Chad Johnson). And then they accuse me of not understanding football.

Have you seen Hakeem Nicks play? Tate plays exactly like a smaller version of Nicks.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-29-2010, 12:21 AM
ms rabbit must have had her team victimized by tate this year this thread gets me weak hahah

Actually, that's true. I'm a Stanford fan and he definitely had a good game against us. Of course, this is the same secondary that made Ryan Broyles (another midget scrub) look like Jerry Rice.

I don't look at stat lines as much as I look at how a player got those stats. Neither one of these guys really showed me next level physical tools.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-29-2010, 12:28 AM
Have you seen Hakeem Nicks play? Tate plays exactly like a smaller version of Nicks.

Yes, I was a big fan of Nicks last season. I had him ranked as the #3 WR in the class behind Crabtree and Harvin.

Saying Tate plays exactly like a smaller version of Nicks is about as helpful as saying Jarret Dillard plays like a smaller version of Sidney Rice. It might be true, but it's missing the point. Size is part of what makes Nicks effective. At a long 6'0.5" 212, he has the size and strength to physically overpower defensive backs. Add in good hands and athleticism, and you've got a great possession WR in the mold of Cotchery/Ward/Boldin. Take away Hakeem's size and he wouldn't be on an NFL roster.

Tate might have the same hands/toughness as Nicks, but he's missing the size. So what you're looking at is a 5'10" possession WR. Those guys don't tend to fare very well in the NFL (see: Josh Reed). You could point towards Derrick Mason as a cause for optimism, but I don't think Tate can match his burst. He has a small frame and he doesn't have the raw athletic gifts to overcome it. He's not Steve Smith or Santana Moss. He doesn't have that kind of juice. He's basically an overhyped version of Davone Bess or Josh Reed.

Dark Knight01
01-29-2010, 12:30 AM
Golden "jumbo thighs" Tate is the most overrated WR in this draft. I have seen numerous people compare him to Steve Smith. My question is this:

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Steve Smith is short, but he's an EXPLOSIVE athlete with low 4.4 speed and elite hops. Golden Tate is also short, but unlike Smith he's slower than a mud sloth covered in molasses. Without great size or burst, Tate will have no advantages against pro corners, who will be faster than him and just as strong. Tate will be a huge bust just like Josh Reed, another college superstar who had neither the size nor speed to beat coverage in the NFL. Can you say slot WR?







I see Tate as more of a Hines Ward type of WR.

Certainly not like Steve Smith.

Bengals78
01-29-2010, 10:19 AM
I see Tate as more of a Hines Ward type of WR.

Certainly not like Steve Smith.

But he is shortzzzz
must be Steve Smithzzz

prock
01-29-2010, 10:38 AM
Yes, I was a big fan of Nicks last season. I had him ranked as the #3 WR in the class behind Crabtree and Harvin.

Saying Tate plays exactly like a smaller version of Nicks is about as helpful as saying Jarret Dillard plays like a smaller version of Sidney Rice. It might be true, but it's missing the point. Size is part of what makes Nicks effective. At a long 6'0.5" 212, he has the size and strength to physically overpower defensive backs. Add in good hands and athleticism, and you've got a great possession WR in the mold of Cotchery/Ward/Boldin. Take away Hakeem's size and he wouldn't be on an NFL roster.

Tate might have the same hands/toughness as Nicks, but he's missing the size. So what you're looking at is a 5'10" possession WR. Those guys don't tend to fare very well in the NFL (see: Josh Reed). You could point towards Derrick Mason as a cause for optimism, but I don't think Tate can match his burst. He has a small frame and he doesn't have the raw athletic gifts to overcome it. He's not Steve Smith or Santana Moss. He doesn't have that kind of juice. He's basically an overhyped version of Davone Bess or Josh Reed.

tate has masons burst for sure. and really, 2 inches doesnt make that much of a difference. if you dont draft a guy solely because he is two too short, that is ignorant. you admit he has all the exact same skills as nicks, but only two inches shorter. that really doesnt make that big of a difference. the guy is a football player. dont get hung up on the measurables and watch the tape.

yourfavestoner
01-29-2010, 10:49 AM
When we refer to Steve Smith, are we referring to the diminutive receiver for the Panthers, or the diminuitve, slow, possession Pro Bowl receiver for the Giants?

Giantsfan1080
01-29-2010, 11:01 AM
Golden Tate reminds me of Steve Smith(Giants). I think most people are comparing to Steve Smith(Panthers) though.

H.O.O.D
01-29-2010, 11:22 AM
Ward is listed at 6'0" 205. That is not undersized.

People are in denial about Tate. They constantly compare him to players who really don't resemble him (Hakeem Nicks, Steve Smith, Hines Ward, Chad Johnson). And then they accuse me of not understanding football.

So let me get this straight, Tate is small and slow. Tate is 5"11 195. Ward is 6"0 205 pounds. So if Tate was 1 inch taller and 10 pounds heavier he would not be undersized ?

I hope he gets drafted to your favorite NFL team and when he blows up you can sign up under the new guise Cheddar Bob.

FUNBUNCHER
01-29-2010, 11:30 AM
Some around here are seriously underrating Tate's pure athleticism, IMO.
He wasn't catching 5 - 10 yard hitches all season. Weis had Tate running deeper 20 + yard routes and he torched entire secondaries, things that a possession receiver simply cannot do.

The dude is a game breaker, point blank. Josh Reed doesn't have near the physicality or deep speed that Tate has.
He was switched to WR at ND for a reason, and it wasn't because he was slow.

H.O.O.D
01-29-2010, 11:40 AM
Also, Welker is basically a product of a friendly system where a HoF WR draws away most of the coverage and a HoF QB feeds him lots of short targets.

When he was on the Dolphins he was just a guy. That's what Tate will be in the NFL.

Just a guy who caught nearly 70 balls for almost 700 yards with Joey Harrington as his QB during his last year in Miami.

Finz99
01-29-2010, 11:44 AM
This will be fun to bump in a couple years when he's a slot WR for the Bills putting up 500 yards every season.

A good rule of thumb with WR prospects:

- If you're small, you'd better be fast.
- If you're slow, you'd better be big.

Tate is both small and slow. He will be eaten alive by NFL corners who will be faster than him and just as strong.

I'm not surprised that some people can't see it in the highlights. One thing I've noticed following the draft throughout the years is that two people can watch the exact same footage and draw opposite conclusions. No biggie. I don't doubt that Tate will be a pretty high pick. I just think he's destined for mediocrity in the NFL. He's not one of the top 5 WRs on my board and maybe not even one of the top 10. I think he's a classic example of a college star whose lack of ideal physical skills will relegate him to a supporting role at the next level. We'll just have to wait and see.


Yea man! Exactly! I mean, look at Ted Ginn, he obviously shows that speed is the total win of football!

I'm guessing you had Ted Ginn in the top 3 when he came out? Because your love for speed is crazy.

Everyone is so gung-ho on speed in the NFL, yet there are plenty of WR's/other players that have made it work without this 4.0 speed that everybody seems to want. If you don't believe that physicality is a major importance for a WR to exceed then you are mistaken. And that physicality will allow Tate to be a good WR in the NFL.

And also, when you argue, try not to say childish things like "diaper full of crap," or "midget rodeo clown." It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

wogitalia
01-29-2010, 11:47 AM
Be interested to see the reach on Tate.

Height is such a trivial thing for players. Outside of the QB who does need to see over his line, it basically means nothing(TE I can see the same need in reverse). Reach is far more important, it's not like you catch the ball with the top of your head, normally anyway. You use your hands away from your body.

Tate to me screams of a guy who does just that, he catches the ball away from his body, which effectively nullifies the height he may give up. In that regard he is similar to Steve Smith of the Panthers. Also... since when is 5'11 undersized anyway, that is just about spot on average for a WR and as big as the average CB.

Saints-Tigers
01-29-2010, 11:47 AM
Tate doesn't look slow to me.

Vox Populi
01-29-2010, 12:08 PM
I'm guessing you had Ted Ginn in the top 3 when he came out? Because your love for speed is crazy.

Not really saying much... pretty sure a massive majority had Ginn as a top 3 receiver. I know I had him as my 2/3 with Sidney Rice behind Megatron and most of this board was pretty much in agreement that he was a top 3 receiver. I didn't have this account back then obviously.

H.O.O.D
01-29-2010, 12:15 PM
Not really saying much... pretty sure a massive majority had Ginn as a top 3 receiver. I know I had him as my 2/3 with Sidney Rice behind Megatron and most of this board was pretty much in agreement that he was a top 3 receiver. I didn't have this account back then obviously.

Maybe top 5 but the consensus on the top 3 was Megatron, Meachem and Bowe.

Finz99
01-29-2010, 12:31 PM
Not really saying much... pretty sure a massive majority had Ginn as a top 3 receiver. I know I had him as my 2/3 with Sidney Rice behind Megatron and most of this board was pretty much in agreement that he was a top 3 receiver. I didn't have this account back then obviously.

I meant top 3 overall in the draft...you misread what I meant by that line.

BrabbitMcRabbit
01-29-2010, 03:13 PM
No, I never liked Ginn. He was purely a straight line guy with very poor change of direction and route running. He was too long-legged. I also had Crabtree, Harvin, Nicks, and Maclin ranked ahead of DHB last year even though he was big and fast on paper. I'm not someone who only looks at the measurables.

Just because I acknowledge that small receivers don't excel in the NFL unless they have elite speed doesn't mean I think speed is everything. Obviously that's not the case.

However, when you are only about 5'10" and you don't have the frame of a possession WR, you have to compensate with exceptional burst and mobility. The reason guys like DeSean Jackson, Santana Moss, and Santonio Holmes can be successful at their size is because they're very explosive. I don't see that same elite burst in Tate. I think he's a size/speed tweener. He's not big enough to be a possession WR and he's not fast enough to be a speed WR.

I'm aware that this is a controversial opinion. A lot of people have Tate ranked as one of the top 2-3 receivers in this draft. I think they're mistaken. I think Tate is the most overrated skill player in this draft (outside of the QBs). If I had said the same thing about Peter Warrick and Josh Reed when they were prospects, I'm sure there would've been plenty of people insisting that I was wrong. Only time will tell.

afftbl10
01-29-2010, 03:19 PM
Yea, if he's built like Dez or Bay-Bay. Tate is built like a midget rodeo clown.

Chad Johnson has very good game speed. There are no similarities between him and Tate.

Look how slow Tate is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvGvj_JTiuc

He runs like he's got a diaper full of crap. Really not an impressive athlete and the Steve Smith comparisons are LOL bad.

Are we watching the same video? He looks very explosive to me.

CC.SD
01-29-2010, 03:33 PM
No, I never liked Ginn. He was purely a straight line guy with very poor change of direction and route running. He was too long-legged. I also had Crabtree, Harvin, Nicks, and Maclin ranked ahead of DHB last year even though he was big and fast on paper. I'm not someone who only looks at the measurables.


I feel like everyone except Al Davis felt this way as well.

Staubach12
01-29-2010, 04:12 PM
I think it'd be a good idea for people to let this die. Either Rabbit doesn't understand football or he's trollin'. Either way, he doesn't deserve attention.

J-Mike88
01-29-2010, 04:18 PM
No, I never liked Ginn. He was purely a straight line guy with very poor change of direction and route running. He was too long-legged. I also had Crabtree, Harvin, Nicks, and Maclin ranked ahead of DHB last year even though he was big and fast on paper. I'm not someone who only looks at the measurables.

Just because I acknowledge that small receivers don't excel in the NFL unless they have elite speed doesn't mean I think speed is everything. Obviously that's not the case.

However, when you are only about 5'10" and you don't have the frame of a possession WR, you have to compensate with exceptional burst and mobility. The reason guys like DeSean Jackson, Santana Moss, and Santonio Holmes can be successful at their size is because they're very explosive. I don't see that same elite burst in Tate. I think he's a size/speed tweener. He's not big enough to be a possession WR and he's not fast enough to be a speed WR.

I'm aware that this is a controversial opinion. A lot of people have Tate ranked as one of the top 2-3 receivers in this draft. I think they're mistaken. I think Tate is the most overrated skill player in this draft (outside of the QBs). If I had said the same thing about Peter Warrick and Josh Reed when they were prospects, I'm sure there would've been plenty of people insisting that I was wrong. Only time will tell.
True, only time will tell.
Every year, there are a large handful of busts. If we knew ahead of time they'd become busts, then they wouldn't take him in the first or second round. I respect a guy here going out on that limb ahead of time and not after the fact.

brasho
01-29-2010, 04:58 PM
Anthony Gonzales career numbers, 3 years, 96 receptions, 1240 yards, and 7 touch downs.... Thanks for making my point for me, haha. But seriously, this is exactly the kind of pick I'm talking about, a guy that IMO isn't talented enough to ever be a number one. Its a waste of a pick.

Reggie Wayne was drafted as a #2... for that matter the Rams picked Torry Holt when they already had Isaac Bruce. What about Plaxico Burress AND Santonio Holmes, didn't the Steelers already have Ward? Alvin Harper was taken to be a #2, and he was a good... #2.

brasho
01-29-2010, 05:23 PM
I just watched the clip and I will restate again... Golden Tate is VERY similiar to former Redskin/Cardinal WR Gary Clark. Clark had a fantastic career and perhaps he was never a #1, but he was a go-to WR his entire career making a living being tough and running every route.

H.O.O.D
02-28-2010, 11:09 AM
Golden "jumbo thighs" Tate is the most overrated WR in this draft. I have seen numerous people compare him to Steve Smith. My question is this:

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Steve Smith is short, but he's an EXPLOSIVE athlete with low 4.4 speed and elite hops. Golden Tate is also short, but unlike Smith he's slower than a mud sloth covered in molasses. Without great size or burst, Tate will have no advantages against pro corners, who will be faster than him and just as strong. Tate will be a huge bust just like Josh Reed, another college superstar who had neither the size nor speed to beat coverage in the NFL. Can you say slot WR?

4.36 unofficially 40 yard dash.....How would you like your crow served ?

CLong4Heisman
02-28-2010, 11:10 AM
You guys probably thought Peter Warrick and Josh Reed were pretty dope too.

Pro tip: 5'10" WRs with 4.6 speed don't make good starters in the NFL.

5-10 WRs with 4.36 speed do.

Morton
02-28-2010, 11:18 AM
lol

"told you so" guys sure came out quick

CLong4Heisman
02-28-2010, 11:20 AM
Do you blame us?

Scott Wright
02-28-2010, 02:20 PM
Golden Tate is also short, but unlike Smith he's slower than a mud sloth covered in molasses.

Whoops. :)

yourfavestoner
02-28-2010, 02:32 PM
Hahahahahahahaha.

CashmoneyDrew
02-28-2010, 02:40 PM
Yeah, I never understood the Golden hate. I didn't expect him to be a 4.3's or even a really low 4.4 guy, but I never expected anything worse than a 4.5 flat.

Viper652
02-28-2010, 03:48 PM
Jonathan Dwyer is a bigger fatass than Golden. Let that sink in your mind for a second

ElectricEye
02-28-2010, 04:04 PM
Looks like fat boy can move. Hines Ward my ass.

gsoturf
02-28-2010, 04:07 PM
LOL nice 40 by Tate.. I think he gets a lot of hate cause he plays for ND.. Anyways guys with a lil higher body fat tend to get injuried less than gusy with liek 5 %.

RyanBraun8
02-28-2010, 04:13 PM
Viper your are the definition of a Homer...

He may be a little pudgy but the boy can move!

BufFan71
02-28-2010, 09:39 PM
Golden Tate will be Josh Reed v2

FUNBUNCHER
02-28-2010, 11:20 PM
Tate did not look soft in physique at all, and confirmed that he just possesses and unusual bodytype, but still looked very lean and muscular.

I guess those Santana Moss/Lee Evans/Steve Smith comparisons are back in the mix!!
Does Tate sniff the first round??
With his 40 times and game film the last 2 years, he looks even more beastly than before the combine.

WCH
02-28-2010, 11:31 PM
Looks like fat boy can move. Hines Ward my ass.

I know somebody who dreams of 14% bodyfat, and she runs something like 7 miles per day while methodically restricting her calories. Metabolism obviously comes into play here. A couple days ago, I told her about the Tate debate on draftcountdown.com, and people questioning whether or not fat boy lacked work ethic, and she was disgusted.

When I told her that Tate ran a 4.3 (I think the official time is a 4.42?), she laughed her ass off.

FUNBUNCHER
02-28-2010, 11:37 PM
You can't compare a woman with 14% bodyfat to a man; men and women have completely different distributions of skeletal muscle and fat.

A chick with 14% bf typically has a defined six pack, most guys with 14% bf do not.

Still, if I hadn't heard prior to Golden Tate running the 40 that his bodyfat was relatively high for a WR, I would never have believed it watching him run.

He was toned, lean, no jiggle at all. His midsection was tight too.

WCH
02-28-2010, 11:48 PM
You can't compare a woman with 14% bodyfat to a man; men and women have completely different distributions of skeletal muscle and fat.

A chick with 14% bf typically has a defined six pack, most guys with 14% bf do not.


I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough with the "she dreams of 14%" part. That was not only meant to imply that she's above 14% bf; but it was also meant to imply that she's sufficiently above 14% bf, that she would feel disgusted/insulted by the entire debate.

Supporting Caste
02-28-2010, 11:53 PM
He still isn't that fast.

Peter Warrick ahoy.

YAYareaRB
03-01-2010, 01:10 AM
He still isn't that fast.

Peter Warrick ahoy.

Like Too Short says: WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??? BIYAAAAATCH!!!

thetedginnshow
03-01-2010, 01:31 AM
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough with the "she dreams of 14%" part. That was not only meant to imply that she's above 14% bf; but it was also meant to imply that she's sufficiently above 14% bf, that she would feel disgusted/insulted by the entire debate.

learn to read good

wogitalia
03-01-2010, 09:10 PM
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough with the "she dreams of 14%" part. That was not only meant to imply that she's above 14% bf; but it was also meant to imply that she's sufficiently above 14% bf, that she would feel disgusted/insulted by the entire debate.

Still a big difference between male and female bf%. 14% for a girl is more like 10% for a guy and 10% is a lot rarer in a guy. 14% for a male is pretty much what a normal healthy male should aim for(12-14%). Where as for a female it is like 18-20% or something(not certain). So for your friend she is basically aiming for like 8-10% which is closer to the elite WR and CB prospects. Some people are just never going to be that low, even with perfect nutrition(the biggest part) and running 7 miles a day.

Oh and for the actual topic... Has any prospect increased their stock more by running 40 yards in recent memory? Between Tate showing he not only has good speed, but elite speed and Gerhart's 40 this has been a very lucrative combine for a couple of guys that had real questions over their timed speed.
All that said, a healthy bf% is a good thing, it will certainly help reduce injuries because it means the body has all the fats and oils that are needed to keep the joints fresh and also a protective layer above bones. Have a look into it, too low a bf% can be even worse than too high.

brat316
03-01-2010, 09:17 PM
where are you getting that from Wogitali?

12-19% is what a normal healthy male should have/aim for.

anything under 7% is unhealthy, for males.

BrabbitMcRabbit
03-06-2010, 06:36 PM
Not entirely slow after all.

Still sucks.

Bengals78
03-06-2010, 06:45 PM
Not entirely slow after all.

Still sucks.

WOW. Brilliant argument!
You provided so much evidence to back it up I have no choice but to believe you!

yourfavestoner
03-06-2010, 09:08 PM
He still isn't that fast.

Peter Warrick ahoy.

Similar measurables but completely different playing styles.

Warrick was a poor man's Harvin.

H.O.O.D
03-07-2010, 11:33 AM
WOW. Brilliant argument!
You provided so much evidence to back it up I have no choice but to believe you!

We are talking about a guy who started this thread and claimed Tate sucks because if has thunder thighs and is slow.

He disproved his slow claim at the combine. Every argument anyone made in this thread to the OP was never debated with any rationale and many points that were made he never attempted to even comment on. Why ? Because he had no legs to stand on with his argument.

He obviously dislikes Tate and he truly wants him to fail for whatever reason, and now he doesn't know what else he can say other than "he still sucks".

Starting to wonder if maybe Tate slept with his girlfriend or something of the like.

wicket
03-07-2010, 11:37 AM
We are talking about a guy who started this thread and claimed Tate sucks because if has thunder thighs and is slow.

He disproved his slow claim at the combine. Every argument anyone made in this thread to the OP was never debated with any rationale and many points that were made he never attempted to even comment on. Why ? Because he had no legs to stand on with his argument.

He obviously dislikes Tate and he truly wants him to fail for whatever reason, and now he doesn't know what else he can say other than "he still sucks".

Starting to wonder if maybe Tate slept with his girlfriend or something of the like.

Thats what being a fighting irish does for you, people sometimes flat out hate you

H.O.O.D
03-07-2010, 11:49 AM
Thats what being a fighting irish does for you, people sometimes flat out hate you

You mean like they hate Clausen ?

I would have loved to see what people would have been saying about Joe Montana coming out of ND had the internets existed back then.

wicket
03-07-2010, 12:57 PM
You mean like they hate Clausen ?

I would have loved to see what people would have been saying about Joe Montana coming out of ND had the internets existed back then.

well, there is also a flipside to this, guys like kyle mccarthey are prolly known better than they should given their level of play

wogitalia
03-07-2010, 11:14 PM
where are you getting that from Wogitali?

12-19% is what a normal healthy male should have/aim for.

anything under 7% is unhealthy, for males.

Link below, has a table about halfway down, just the first I found on google, but is pretty standard from everything I have seen.

http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/bodyfatpercentage.html

BuffaloBillsFan
03-08-2010, 01:43 AM
This is the dumbest thread I've ever read since joining this website and I've seen some really stupid ones.

Bengals78
03-08-2010, 01:55 AM
This is the dumbest thread I've ever read since joining this website and I've seen some really stupid ones.

Well RC3 is outdoing everyone but IDK if you were here for the King of Trolls

Saints-Tigers
03-08-2010, 02:05 AM
RC3 is someone's joke account, and the rest of the board all post dumb things in his threads to try and create a HOF type thread, but it's failing hard.

BrabbitMcRabbit
08-22-2011, 05:17 PM
Hey guys, thanks for all the negative rep you gave me in this thread for being DEAD RIGHT about Golden Tate.

This dude is a bum with no future as a starter in the NFL.

Where are all the fanboys now? :lol:

Hate to say I told you soooo.

CC.SD
08-22-2011, 06:08 PM
Hey guys, thanks for all the negative rep you gave me in this thread for being DEAD RIGHT about Golden Tate.

This dude is a bum with no future as a starter in the NFL.

Where are all the fanboys now? :lol:

Hate to say I told you soooo.

Honestly it's posts like these that make me wonder if posting on a message board is the most pathetic thing on earth. I think it could be up there.

Anyway I don't even remember where I landed in this argument but it's nearly impossible to write off a year 2 wideout so your gloating shows you have zero knowledge of how nfl prospects work.

Caulibflower
08-22-2011, 09:58 PM
Hey guys, thanks for all the negative rep you gave me in this thread for being DEAD RIGHT about Golden Tate.

This dude is a bum with no future as a starter in the NFL.

Where are all the fanboys now? :lol:

Hate to say I told you soooo.

He was a second-rounder who caught two passes per game and averaged 12.6 yards per return as Seattle's best punt returner. The "fanboys" you're referring to are no longer talking about him because this is a draft forum and he's not going to be drafted EVER AGAIN. You're dumb.

PossibleCabbage
08-22-2011, 10:31 PM
I fully admit, I was watching the Vikings-Seahawks game the other night and honest-to-goodness at some point I exclaimed "man, Golden Tate sucks." That was my opinion at the time, but it's not the same as "Golden Tate will always suck."

Still, weird necro.

nobodyinparticular
08-22-2011, 10:49 PM
Hey guys, thanks for all the negative rep you gave me in this thread for being DEAD RIGHT about Golden Tate.

This dude is a bum with no future as a starter in the NFL.

Where are all the fanboys now? :lol:

Hate to say I told you soooo.

Bringing up a dead thread that you started in January of 2010 is one thing, but don't try to feed us a bold faced lie.

Of course you are giggling with glee as you say "I told you soooo" when you believe to be proven right. However, let's point out we are talking about a 2nd year player, in preseason, after a lockout, who had a poor game. That's hardly a nail in the coffin for a player.