PDA

View Full Version : Golden Tate 14% Body Fat!!!


CM4
02-26-2010, 09:23 AM
All this talk about Golden Tate and this morning he is measured 14% for body fat.. wow

wicket
02-26-2010, 09:24 AM
if true he better be quick in the 40 or he is going to drop a bit

CM4
02-26-2010, 09:25 AM
Itstrue theydid the testthis mornin

DoughBoy
02-26-2010, 09:25 AM
Isnt that normal?

superman
02-26-2010, 09:26 AM
wonder if that's more than bruce campbell, an ol

CM4
02-26-2010, 09:27 AM
Not for a small WR.. I would bet Steve Smith, Santana Moss, Wes Welker are all under 10... Vernon Davis was around 6% at his weight.. Mario Williams was less then 14% at 295lbs

DoughBoy
02-26-2010, 09:30 AM
Thanks, I really don't know all that much about body fat tests, but I was really impressed when I found out Ray Lewis was like 5 or 6%.

steelcrew43
02-26-2010, 09:30 AM
body fat vs. game film ... come on now guys Golden is a gamer... plus 6% is crazy as is vernon davis

Morton
02-26-2010, 09:30 AM
I heard DeSean Jackson has 2% body fat. He's just bone, skin, and a tiny bit of muscle.

etk
02-26-2010, 09:47 AM
14% body fat is not good for a WR.

SUP
02-26-2010, 09:52 AM
its really not that big of a deal.

phlysac
02-26-2010, 09:54 AM
You can tell by looking at Golden tate that he wasn't a lean, ripped type of physical specimen. It's just his body type. I don't think it's an issue.

etk
02-26-2010, 09:56 AM
I do think it's a concern that a WR is overweight. It doesn't make him a bad player but it's unnecessary. 200 lbs. with 14% body fa is bad for a WR. If he lost 5 lbs. of fat he'd be faster.

LookItsAlDavis
02-26-2010, 09:57 AM
Alright, so he doesn't look great. This isn't a body-building competition, it's football. Who cares.

steelcrew43
02-26-2010, 10:00 AM
I do think it's a concern that a WR is overweight. It doesn't make him a bad player but it's unnecessary. 200 lbs. with 14% body fa is bad for a WR. If he lost 5 lbs. of fat he'd be faster.

Again there's a difference between football speed and timed speed.. this kid can flat out play.. i wouldnt look to much into this

tjsunstein
02-26-2010, 10:05 AM
I heard DeSean Jackson has 2% body fat. He's just bone, skin, and a tiny bit of muscle.

Essential fat is 3-5% in men. I highly doubt he is 2% body fat.

bitonti
02-26-2010, 10:06 AM
Alright, so he doesn't look great. This isn't a body-building competition, it's football. Who cares.

yes... and there are great football players that don't even get drafted every year

this isn't about finding great football players it's about establishing draft value.

i.e. What price do these teams want to pay?

FUNBUNCHER
02-26-2010, 10:36 AM
Bodyfat percentage measurements can fluctuate wildly depending on how and who's doing the measuring. Still, 14% bodyfat is like USC WR Mike Williams ( BUST).
It means Golden Tate isn't ripped and isn't rocking a six-pack. But again, he may just be one of those odd body type guys whose athleticism and speed don't match their physiques.
Marshall Faulk was a guy who was far from ripped, and the last time Jerome Bettis had a 36 inch waist I bet was in middle school.

I'm starting to think if Tate breaks a 4.5 flat at the combine, it will be a miracle.

How does a skill player who's working out for the NFL draft end up with 14% bodyfat???
Guess will can kill that Santana Moss/Steve Smith comparison for Mr. Tate.

superman
02-26-2010, 10:37 AM
Alright, so he doesn't look great. This isn't a body-building competition, it's football. Who cares.

i guess it says more about how hard he works out/treats his body

FUNBUNCHER
02-26-2010, 10:41 AM
Essential fat is 3-5% in men. I highly doubt he is 2% body fat.
True, but when most people talk about someone's bodyfat percentage, generally they are referring to subcutaneous fat, or fat stores just below the surface of the skin, not specific internal fat.

Jakey
02-26-2010, 10:42 AM
I bet Hines Ward isnt far off of that, and they are similar kinds of player. It wouldnt change my opinion of Tate that much tbh.

umphrey
02-26-2010, 10:43 AM
Maybe people will see it as room to get stronger, faster

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-26-2010, 10:46 AM
I see it as evidence of a piss poor work ethic.

phlysac
02-26-2010, 11:03 AM
I see it as evidence of genetic body-type.

etk
02-26-2010, 11:04 AM
Again there's a difference between football speed and timed speed.. this kid can flat out play.. i wouldnt look to much into this

I agree that he can flat out play, but he could flat out play even better if he dedicated himself to conditioning and trimmed down.

Lendale White looked pretty good in the Rose Bowl, but that doesn't excuse him being 20+ lbs. overweight.

superman
02-26-2010, 11:04 AM
I see it as evidence of genetic body-type.

that's like a fat girl saying she's just big boned

etk
02-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Genetics play a part, but 14% is still high. This thread wouldn't exist if he was 10%.

Morton
02-26-2010, 11:05 AM
that's like a fat girl saying she's just big boned

Yeah anyway. Tate isn't "fat", he's husky.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-26-2010, 11:09 AM
It's glandular!

scpanther22
02-26-2010, 11:10 AM
I hope he falls to my panthers in the 2nd round.

619
02-26-2010, 11:16 AM
People are trying to find every excuse in the book. I'm a big fan of Tate, in either way this will drop him from the late-first to early-second grade I've maintained going back to the end of his season, as it should. On the surface, it appears that he's progressively gotten slower and thicker from the time of his freshman year when he was considered to be a 'speed demon' of sorts.

SenorGato
02-26-2010, 11:30 AM
You can tell by looking at Golden tate that he wasn't a lean, ripped type of physical specimen. It's just his body type. I don't think it's an issue.

Hines Ward 2.0...the Steve Smith comparisons were bad jokes.

He'll also probably run a 4.48-4.55...not a big deal...but closer to Ward than Smith.

descendency
02-26-2010, 11:32 AM
Hopefully this isn't a result of being out of shape for the combine. He had such a good year for some odd bulk to keep him down.

SenorGato
02-26-2010, 11:35 AM
Hopefully this isn't a result of being out of shape for the combine. He had such a good year for some odd bulk to keep him down.

Not a problem...Tate was always built more like a RB than a small WR.

619
02-26-2010, 11:36 AM
Not a problem...Tate was always built more like a RB than a small WR.

Wasn't that his position in HS? I believe it was.

SenorGato
02-26-2010, 11:40 AM
Wasn't that his position in HS? I believe it was.

Yea...the 14% shouldn't surprise anyone...the guy's got big legs like any RB.

My Lee Evans comparison and the Steve Smith one should be laid to rest...

619
02-26-2010, 11:52 AM
Yea...the 14% shouldn't surprise anyone...the guy's got big legs like any RB.

My Lee Evans comparison and the Steve Smith one should be laid to rest...

I know the Hines Ward comparison is a common one every year for receiver prospects, however, this guy fits the billing for what a Ward-type receiver should embody better than anyone in recent memory (4-5 years). With his mentality and tenacity - displayed unequivocally in his fight for jump balls, impressive at his size, and bullish-like character once he has the ball in his hands - there is no reason to believe it won't translate to becoming an all-around receiver at the next level.

CC.SD
02-26-2010, 12:12 PM
I wonder what % Terrence Cody is.

PossibleCabbage
02-26-2010, 12:20 PM
I wonder what % Terrence Cody is.

I once saw a container of shortening at the grocery store that weighed 100 grams, there were 20 servings per package, and each serving contained 6 grams of fat. I imagine it's sort of like that.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
02-26-2010, 12:23 PM
I think I have 14% body fat. It doesnt look great.

ericzedwards
02-26-2010, 12:52 PM
When Randy Moss was a young receiver with the Vikes, I'm pretty sure I remember MNF commentators raving about how he had 3% body fat. Of course that's why they called him The Freak. Obviously 14% is far from ideal for a smaller, quicker receiver, but I think Tate has shown his ability enough times on the field to still warrant all of the positive reviews of this guy.

CLong4Heisman
02-26-2010, 01:00 PM
I wonder what % Terrence Cody is.
Depends on what he had for lunch. 85% if he had a salad and 92% if he had mickey d's

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 01:01 PM
He might just not have a muscular frame. Some people could train all the time but never really show the signs of it but could be the strongest mofo's out there. Its just how some people are built genetically

I bet this guy needs to trim off some of his fat too....
http://mmafrenzy.com/files/2009/01/fedor-emelianenko.jpg

superman
02-26-2010, 01:10 PM
He might just not have a muscular frame. Some people could train all the time but never really show the signs of it but could be the strongest mofo's out there. Its just how some people are built genetically

I bet this guy needs to trim off some of his fat too....
http://mmafrenzy.com/files/2009/01/fedor-emelianenko.jpg

nah i don't think he has a future as an nfl wr even if he did trim a lil

SKim172
02-26-2010, 01:14 PM
Complete speculation here, but I'll bet he's been trying to bulk up and gain weight for the Combine. Small receiver, he wants to show he's got the build to take a pounding. Building real muscle takes time - eating Big Macs is cheap and easy. And you normally don't think about fat percentage numbers when you're talking draft stock.

Not great, but I'll guess he can easily lose the weight.

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 01:25 PM
nah i don't think he has a future as an nfl wr even if he did trim a lil

I get the sarcasm but my point that some people just dont carry muscle like body builders still stands. Tate may just have a soft body.

Personally, I spent all of high school in the weight room making up for my lack of height for football. I was one of the strongest kids on the team. But it never showed up in muscle tone because of my body type. It happens.

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 01:25 PM
14% does seem a bit high for a professional WR, but for a normal person it's not that bad. Some of the talk about 6% BF in here is silly. Bodybuilders get down to 5-6% for competitions using diuretics and not drinking water. It's dangerous health-wise to be at that level for very long. I would guess even the most ripped like Davis are carrying around 8-9%. 14% is not "fat". It seems a bit high for a WR but I'm sure there are others in the NFL around that same level.

scpanther22
02-26-2010, 01:31 PM
I know the Hines Ward comparison is a common one every year for receiver prospects, however, this guy fits the billing for what a Ward-type receiver should embody better than anyone in recent memory (4-5 years). With his mentality and tenacity - displayed unequivocally in his fight for jump balls, impressive at his size, and bullish-like character once he has the ball in his hands - there is no reason to believe it won't translate to becoming an all-around receiver at the next level.

I think thats where the Steve Smith comparison comes in.Thats how smiths game is.I am not comparing them just saying thats what I hear when the argument comes up.Weis has said the samething in the past on about Golden tate being like SS.

thetedginnshow
02-26-2010, 01:32 PM
14% does seem a bit high for a professional WR, but for a normal person it's not that bad. Some of the talk about 6% BF in here is silly. Bodybuilders get down to 5-6% for competitions using diuretics and not drinking water. It's dangerous health-wise to be at that level for very long. I would guess even the most ripped like Davis are carrying around 8-9%. 14% is not "fat". It seems a bit high for a WR but I'm sure there are others in the NFL around that same level.

Yeah, you can be skinny and still have 14% body fat. But he is [attempting to be] a professional athlete, in which case that probably means he hasn't been working out hard enough.

superman
02-26-2010, 01:42 PM
I get the sarcasm but my point that some people just dont carry muscle like body builders still stands. Tate may just have a soft body.

Personally, I spent all of high school in the weight room making up for my lack of height for football. I was one of the strongest kids on the team. But it never showed up in muscle tone because of my body type. It happens.

im the same way. did hs weightlifting, dominated my 154 lbs weight class but was no where near the most ripped. fedor works out like a heavyweight fighter should and im sure is strong where he needs to be strong, and that extra weight if anything would help him. tate is a short wr where he needs to be as fast as possible and an extra 10 lbs would hurt him.

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 01:56 PM
im the same way. did hs weightlifting, dominated my 154 lbs weight class but was no where near the most ripped. fedor works out like a heavyweight fighter should and im sure is strong where he needs to be strong, and that extra weight if anything would help him. tate is a short wr where he needs to be as fast as possible and an extra 10 lbs would hurt him.

If he took off that extra 10, people would ***** about him being "undersized".
It obviously doesnt effect his play.
If youre the same way, you know how hard it would be for him to add it back in muscle. I would rather have him be a little soft around the edges than ripped, robotic and injury prone.

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 01:56 PM
Muscle size does not necessarily equal strength. There are guys who powerlift ridiculous weight but are so skinny you wouldn't believe they knew what a barbell was. Likewise there are huge guys I see at the gym who do lots of lighter weight reps to grow muscles.

superman
02-26-2010, 02:03 PM
If he took off that extra 10, people would ***** about him being "undersized".
It obviously doesnt effect his play.
If youre the same way, you know how hard it would be for him to add it back in muscle. I would rather have him be a little soft around the edges than ripped, robotic and injury prone.

it didn't affect him in college. you get by with it there. ask lendale white.

Addict
02-26-2010, 02:07 PM
Muscle size does not necessarily equal strength. There are guys who powerlift ridiculous weight but are so skinny you wouldn't believe they knew what a barbell was. Likewise there are huge guys I see at the gym who do lots of lighter weight reps to grow muscles.

I agree. If he's fast, jumps well and lifts well this is not a problem. Now if he's slow and weak it will be. But I don't see it being one.

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 02:13 PM
I agree. If he's fast, jumps well and lifts well this is not a problem. Now if he's slow and weak it will be. But I don't see it being one.

Yeah. If he's "fat" AND he sucks in the drills, sound the alarm. If he's fat but still jukes DBs and catches balls well, then I guess it'll be that much harder to bring him down.

prock
02-26-2010, 02:27 PM
I believe I am like 4 or 5%. But I am 170 pounds. And I play soccer, not football. Tate needs to get in the weight room.

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 02:41 PM
I believe I am like 4 or 5%. But I am 170 pounds. And I play soccer, not football. Tate needs to get in the weight room.

I highly doubt your BF% is 4 or 5%.

batsandgats
02-26-2010, 02:47 PM
where did you find out his body fat percentage?

nyqua
02-26-2010, 03:23 PM
This could be a positive since he was pretty good in college at that percent. Image if he gets it lower with a NFL training regime.

Finnegans Wake
02-26-2010, 03:25 PM
Tate was quite the playmaker at 14%. Too bad he stinks now. He should never have let them measure his body fat, he would have still been a top receiver in the draft.

</sarcasm>

Addict
02-26-2010, 03:30 PM
where did you find out his body fat percentage?

I'm guessing the combine or somethin'

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-26-2010, 03:35 PM
He might just not have a muscular frame. Some people could train all the time but never really show the signs of it but could be the strongest mofo's out there. Its just how some people are built genetically

I bet this guy needs to trim off some of his fat too....
http://mmafrenzy.com/files/2009/01/fedor-emelianenko.jpg

Did you just compare a heavyweight fighter to an NFL WR?

Two things wrong with that:
1. Different sports.
2. Fedor shows up in the form he can best dominate his craft in. Apparently having a little extra weight helps with jiu jitsu defense, I dunno how but it's what I hear. Tate isn't in that situation. Maybe having a low weight hurts him on the field, but he's not playing football at the combine. At the combine you do everything you can to impress scouts and that's it. Linemen might lose weight to get faster and then put it right back on. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you put the effort forward. That's it.

nhlkdog411
02-26-2010, 03:37 PM
14% does seem a bit high for a professional WR, but for a normal person it's not that bad. Some of the talk about 6% BF in here is silly. Bodybuilders get down to 5-6% for competitions using diuretics and not drinking water. It's dangerous health-wise to be at that level for very long. I would guess even the most ripped like Davis are carrying around 8-9%. 14% is not "fat". It seems a bit high for a WR but I'm sure there are others in the NFL around that same level.

This is full of misinformation; diuretics and not drinking water cut water weight not fat.

wordofi
02-26-2010, 03:38 PM
You can tell by looking at Golden tate that he wasn't a lean, ripped type of physical specimen. It's just his body type. I don't think it's an issue.

How lean you are has nothing to do with you're body type. Anyone (barring some rare disease) can have a six pack if they eat right and exercise.

BlueGoldGreen
02-26-2010, 03:48 PM
Link to the bf%? I want to see what Shipley came in at.

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 03:49 PM
How lean you are has nothing to do with you're body type. Anyone (barring some rare disease) can have a six pack if they eat right and exercise.

Thats not true at all. They would have to train like body builders which is unrealistic to ask.

This is full of misinformation; diuretics and not drinking water cut water weight not fat.

True but it does also increase the "cut" muscle look which I think is the point Killswitch

nhlkdog411
02-26-2010, 03:51 PM
Thats not true at all. They would have to train like body builders which is unrealistic to ask.

This is full of misinformation; diuretics and not drinking water cut water weight not fat.

True but it does also increase the "cut" muscle look which I think is the point Killswitch

My post about the misinformation was responding to someone saying bodybuilders stop drinking water to get the body fat % down which as I said is total BS. He was defending 14% bodyfat not saying anything about a "cut" look.

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 03:54 PM
Did you just compare a heavyweight fighter to an NFL WR?

Two things wrong with that:
1. Different sports.
2. Fedor shows up in the form he can best dominate his craft in. Apparently having a little extra weight helps with jiu jitsu defense, I dunno how but it's what I hear. Tate isn't in that situation. Maybe having a low weight hurts him on the field, but he's not playing football at the combine. At the combine you do everything you can to impress scouts and that's it. Linemen might lose weight to get faster and then put it right back on. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you put the effort forward. That's it.

Thats fine. Maybe he wants to be a better football player than combine freak. All you proved is he doesnt give a **** what scouts think about him and will just prove it on the field.
You say it like its a one way street. If he comes in a little bigger and runs a hair slower it will hurt him. But coming in under playing weight wont?

It wasnt about sports. It was about having to be ripped and all muscle to be an athlete. Being a little soft is an advantage for some players. Its about body types.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-26-2010, 03:57 PM
Thats fine. Maybe he wants to be a better football player than combine freak. All you proved is he doesnt give a **** what scouts think about him and will just prove it on the field.
You say it like its a one way street. If he comes in a little bigger and runs a hair slower it will hurt him. But coming in under playing weight wont?

It wasnt about sports. It was about having to be ripped and all muscle to be an athlete. Being a little soft is an advantage for some players. Its about body types.

So you're saying he's just saying "ah, screw you guys" to the scouts. That's what the combine is about. It has or had nothing to do with him being a football player, but this is gonna hurt his draft stock for the very reason you just said. It's the combine, you get into peak shape for 40 yard sprints and quickness drills. Not for playing football. Ain't no football played at the combine.

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 04:02 PM
So you're saying he's just saying "ah, screw you guys" to the scouts. That's what the combine is about. It has or had nothing to do with him being a football player, but this is gonna hurt his draft stock for the very reason you just said. It's the combine, you get into peak shape for 40 yard sprints and quickness drills. Not for playing football. Ain't no football played at the combine.

Im saying he cares more about playing football than putting up arbitrary numbers.
ESPN did a little feature on him and he clearly is not lazy or just in bad shape and works hard at his craft.
He doesnt have huge questions about his size/speed/strength like some players do so he doesnt need to come in and tear it up.
If he is out there training by running routes and other things to advance his game at the pro-level then who cares? Its a mole hill being turned into a mountain.
Its not like he sloppy fat like a Terrence Cody.

Saints-Tigers
02-26-2010, 04:19 PM
This could be a positive since he was pretty good in college at that percent. Image if he gets it lower with a NFL training regime.

That's what I was thinking.

He won't be on a college diet anymore, he'll have trainers and money to get in epic shape.

jayceheathman
02-26-2010, 04:24 PM
Terrance Cody could beat 14%.

prock
02-26-2010, 04:49 PM
I highly doubt your BF% is 4 or 5%.

6'5", 170 lbs, in very good physical condition, there is no way im more than 4 or 5.

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 04:54 PM
6'5", 170 lbs, in very good physical condition, there is no way im more than 4 or 5.

I think anything under 5 or 6 is almost unhealthy so I am guessing you are closer to 5 or 6.

prock
02-26-2010, 04:58 PM
I think anything under 5 or 6 is almost unhealthy so I am guessing you are closer to 5 or 6.

well 5 or 6 is pretty god damn close to 4 or 5. the point is, golden tate has too much body fat. he needs to get in the weight room. it shouldnt effect his draft stock at all though unless it causes him to time poorly in the 40.

descendency
02-26-2010, 05:30 PM
So you're saying he's just saying "ah, screw you guys" to the scouts. That's what the combine is about. It has or had nothing to do with him being a football player, but this is gonna hurt his draft stock for the very reason you just said. It's the combine, you get into peak shape for 40 yard sprints and quickness drills. Not for playing football. Ain't no football played at the combine.

You mean you can't judge someone's football skills when football isn't being played??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

(Yea, I find the combine stupid except for one thing: It shows how committed players are to jump through hoops to do what you want...)

contento
02-26-2010, 05:58 PM
If Tate's BF% was measured at the combine how come we haven't heard about any of the other players BF%?


I'd love to know what Mount Cody's is just out of morbid curiosity...

descendency
02-26-2010, 06:03 PM
If Tate's BF% was measured at the combine how come we haven't heard about any of the other players BF%?


I'd love to know what Mount Cody's is just out of morbid curiosity...

Mount Cody is 95%.

SenorGato
02-26-2010, 07:01 PM
14% really isn't a big deal or 4 page worthy...he was never really a first round prospect anyway and he'll still go in the 2nd or early 3rd...this was more of a "fun fact" than anything else.

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 07:02 PM
14% really isn't a big deal or 4 page worthy...he was never really a first round prospect anyway and he'll still go in the 2nd or early 3rd...this was more of a "fun fact" than anything else.

Could be on Cash Cab one day...

gsoturf
02-26-2010, 07:05 PM
Not for a small WR.. I would bet Steve Smith, Santana Moss, Wes Welker are all under 10... Vernon Davis was around 6% at his weight.. Mario Williams was less then 14% at 295lbs

14% body fat is normal for an athlete that doesn't take HGH like Veron Davis and a lot of the NFL does.

YAYareaRB
02-26-2010, 07:31 PM
Maybe thats the secret to being a beast after the catch. Be flabby. Golden knows more than you

YAYareaRB
02-26-2010, 07:31 PM
14% body fat is normal for an athlete that doesn't take HGH like Veron Davis and a lot of the NFL does.

http://cdn.mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/o_rly.jpg

Complex
02-26-2010, 07:40 PM
14% body fat is normal for an athlete that doesn't take HGH like Veron Davis and a lot of the NFL does.

I have 12% body fat (they checked in GYM class) and I know i'm not in top shape. So if i'm not he probaly not either. So its not normal for a pro athlete

YAYareaRB
02-26-2010, 07:44 PM
I have 12% body fat (they checked in GYM class) and I know i'm not in top shape. So if i'm not he probaly not either. So its not normal for a pro athlete

Are you a division 1 athlete?

niel89
02-26-2010, 07:44 PM
Could be on Cash Cab one day...

Ohhhh.......





YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT!

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/celebrity-pictures-ben-bailey-cash-cab.jpg

Bengals78
02-26-2010, 07:48 PM
Ohhhh.......





YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT!

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/celebrity-pictures-ben-bailey-cash-cab.jpg

That show makes me feel smart sometimes.

Malaka
02-26-2010, 07:55 PM
Well I am 13% body and fairly athletic compared to the rest of my age group... I honestly believe that Body Fat is a pretty bad way to judge a player honestly, we need to see what he benches and runs to see if he's athletic not look at his body fat measure, which throws in height, weight (water weight), muscle mass, etc. in there. I never liked these things, although a bit more accurate than going by just weight, over half the NFL is considered obese so to me this is irrelevant.

nhlkdog411
02-26-2010, 08:06 PM
No ones saying it means he's not a good athlete or he'll be a bust in the pros, we're saying it means he's either not working hard enough, or he didn't take the combine seriously. As others have pointed out, you can be in only OK shape and have lower body fat than that. Do I think it means he won't succeed in the NFL? Hell no I don't think that but I certainly think it should raise a few eyebrows potentially about his work ethic.

Malaka
02-26-2010, 08:07 PM
No ones saying it means he's not a good athlete or he'll be a bust in the pros, we're saying it means he's either not working hard enough, or he didn't take the combine seriously. As others have pointed out, you can be in only OK shape and have lower body fat than that. Do I think it means he won't succeed in the NFL? Hell no I don't think that but I certainly think it should raise a few eyebrows potentially about his work ethic.

Then I completely agree with everyone who was saying genetics may be involved a lot of things go into the body fat measurement much more than just being fat or not.

Jimmy
02-26-2010, 09:16 PM
this is where the combine starts to bother me. a guy measures in at a completely average body fat (for a non-player) and everyone starts to panic? I mean come on, whats the worst case scenario here? this isn't a miss america pageant, this is the nfl. if you can play, you can play.

Me Likey Rookies
02-26-2010, 09:42 PM
I like how this thread went 4 pages without even a source for the original claim. (unless i missed it somewhere)

SenorGato
02-26-2010, 09:42 PM
this is where the combine starts to bother me. a guy measures in at a completely average body fat (for a non-player) and everyone starts to panic? I mean come on, whats the worst case scenario here? this isn't a miss america pageant, this is the nfl. if you can play, you can play.

Boredom plays a pretty large role in this stuff...

WCH
02-26-2010, 09:51 PM
He's a little bit on the heavy side for a 5'10" WR. He may be doing some off-season bulking. Look for an NFL training regimen to shave off 10 pounds or so.

Let the Derrick Mayes comparisons begin...

energizerbunny
02-26-2010, 10:11 PM
This is kind of rediculous, first of all there is no link.

Second of all there is no comparison to other players at his position.

Third of all he got tested in the bod-pod, which usually produces slightly higher results then calipers which is how most people calculate bodyfat %, which is totally irrelevant if this isn't true to begin with.

wordofi
02-26-2010, 10:19 PM
Thats not true at all. They would have to train like body builders which is unrealistic to ask.

This is full of misinformation; diuretics and not drinking water cut water weight not fat.

True but it does also increase the "cut" muscle look which I think is the point Killswitch

Anyone who doesn't have some rare weight condition can get a six pack if they eat right and exercise. Having a six pack has nothing to do with having Arnold Schwarzenegger like muscles.

ErikG803
02-26-2010, 10:49 PM
I have 12% body fat (they checked in GYM class) and I know i'm not in top shape. So if i'm not he probaly not either. So its not normal for a pro athlete

You realize this means nothing right? It's not like if you dropped a few percentage points off your bodyfat you'd be much more athletic.

gsoturf
02-27-2010, 12:53 AM
The only way you're going to be 240 and have 6% body fat is if you take HGH. Go look at what HGH actually does and you will start to agree. You can't even test HGH in the NFL so it's not like I'm reaching here.. I bet half the players have or do take it.

WCH
02-27-2010, 12:56 AM
This is kind of rediculous, first of all there is no link.

Second of all there is no comparison to other players at his position.

Third of all he got tested in the bod-pod, which usually produces slightly higher results then calipers which is how most people calculate bodyfat %, which is totally irrelevant if this isn't true to begin with.

This rant isn't related to your post but was inspired by it:

The caliper test is flawed to a ******** extent, even if it is the industry standard.

It's like hand-timed 40's compared to electronically timed 40's. Only quasi-pedantic scouts still trust figures that have been gathered by such primitive, pseudo-scientific means of measurement.

I don't know what's wrong with the NFL...in most fields, people get fired for making multi-million dollar decisions based on this type of modern-day pseudo-voodoo. Maybe they wouldn't draft so many first-round busts if they would join the rest of us in the 21st century (or, hell, they could even adopt 20th century methods, and it would be an improvement).

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-27-2010, 01:13 AM
I thought they measured bodyfat in a like, water tank at the combine. The players all climb into this pod thingy, I thought. Caliper test is fail.

But seriously I think people are overreacting to the people who say this is an issue. This doesn't make him a bust or a bad player or anything, but body fat % is something players should try to lower at the combine. It probably hurts his stock a little, and that's it. It's probably good for teams picking in the late 2nd or early 3rd, as it becomes more likely he'll be there.

Of course, if he performs better than expected at the combine, it won't be an issue. As it stands though, before other tests, it raises eyebrows.

GoHuskers
02-27-2010, 11:48 AM
body fat doesn't measure athletic ability, especially for football. 14% would be solid for a non-freak of nature RB and if you think they're out of shape you're crazy. 10% or so would be better for a WR but its not a big deal, it just means he has a naturally higher % and cares more about improving his strength speed and skills more than doing some useless fat burning.

CLong4Heisman
02-28-2010, 11:01 AM
He just ran an unofficial 4.36.

superman
02-28-2010, 11:03 AM
i stand corrected. 4.36? bottom of the 1st?

ALP1987
02-28-2010, 11:04 AM
He actually slipped a little at his start. Wow this guy is fast. Unlike DHB last year this guy is actually a productive WR so he speed is just the icing on the cake.

619
02-28-2010, 11:09 AM
People are trying to find every excuse in the book. I'm a big fan of Tate, in either way this will drop him from the late-first to early-second grade I've maintained going back to the end of his season, as it should. On the surface, it appears that he's progressively gotten slower and thicker from the time of his freshman year when he was considered to be a 'speed demon' of sorts.

I take all this back. He is that 'speed demon' I was once thought he was. Late first rounder again for me. :o

Closer to Steve Smith than Hines Ward as well. I have confessed all my sins.

ErikG803
02-28-2010, 01:08 PM
Wow, I think I'm probably Tate's biggest fan and even I didn't expect 4.36

If only he could drop down to the NFL average 4% bodyfat he'd probably run a 3.2 :rolleyes:

SeanTaylorRIP
03-01-2010, 06:34 AM
He actually slipped a little at his start. Wow this guy is fast. Unlike DHB last year this guy is actually a productive WR so he speed is just the icing on the cake.

Agree and disagree. Agree that Tate and DHB can't be compared as receivers. IMO Tate was the best collegiate WR last year. Amazing ball skills, and run after the catch. I do disagree though about them having comparable speed. Tate might have tested well, but one thing you can't deny is DHB's speed. DHB has 4.2 game speed when he is in open field. He can't run routes yet so that negates his speed but no doubt when he's playing he's 4.2 speed. Tate might have tested 4.3's in the combine, but his game speed is 4.5+. He does a lot of great things on the field but his speed is not 4.3. He struggles to get separation from corners. Tate is the strongest receiver but definitely in the NFL doesn't have burner speed like his time might have suggested.

J52
03-01-2010, 09:49 AM
Just gotta comment:
14% body fat on 200 pounds means he is capable of losing 15-20 pounds of pure fat. Take 20 pounds off of somebody running a 4.42 and you are talking low 4.3s.

brasho
03-01-2010, 12:48 PM
I see it as evidence of a piss poor work ethic.

I would hope that it was because he was trying to put on weight to impress the scouts and not look too small.

Considering he ran an official 4.42, at 14% body fat (I don't remember his weight but if it was 190 ) he has about 27 lbs of body fat. If he dropped 10 lbs of fat he'd be under 10%, which is perfectly fine, even for a WR, and he would probably be a little faster and quicker. The true test will be at his pro day to see if he drops the weight.

brasho
03-01-2010, 12:51 PM
Wow, I think I'm probably Tate's biggest fan and even I didn't expect 4.36

If only he could drop down to the NFL average 4% bodyfat he'd probably run a 3.2 :rolleyes:

You think 4% is an average NFL player? I'm sure the average CB (probably the most in-shape position on a team) probably averages 5-6% at best... besides that, do you know how hard it is to get down to 4% without losing significant strength (which is also needed for speed)? If he gets under 10% he'd be fine.

brasho
03-01-2010, 12:53 PM
14% body fat is normal for an athlete that doesn't take HGH like Veron Davis and a lot of the NFL does.

No, it isn't. 14% is at the borderline of ideal for a male non-athlete, a professional athlete's BF% is usually considered ideal at 5-7%.

wogitalia
03-01-2010, 08:44 PM
I heard DeSean Jackson has 2% body fat. He's just bone, skin, and a tiny bit of muscle.

You forgot that he is like 95% pure speed and awesomeness!

As for the 14%... that is what a normal healthy male should be at. 8-10% is what you would expect/hope to see from an elite athlete but some people just have higher bf%, those guys that look like Tate but are just athletic and in sport like football it is massive asset as far as staying healthy, essentially if you aren't sacrificing speed to have it, its a protective layer for the whole body.

Also... it's a complete non-issue for me, it's like saying that Tate and just about every RB in the NFL is "overweight" or "obese" using BMI. It shows you nothing without any context to its usage. In this case it shows that Tate is an exceptional player and athlete with a healthy bf% but not a freakish bf%.

GoHuskers
03-01-2010, 10:31 PM
No, it isn't. 14% is at the borderline of ideal for a male non-athlete, a professional athlete's BF% is usually considered ideal at 5-7%.

5-7% isn't really that great for a contact sport, unless its wrestling. Granted he's a receiver but as shown you don't need to look like a bodybuilder to have pro skills.

wogitalia
03-01-2010, 10:56 PM
5-7% isn't really that great for a contact sport, unless its wrestling. Granted he's a receiver but as shown you don't need to look like a bodybuilder to have pro skills.

It might be for some. I would say that Chad Johnson would be in that range but 5-7% is where most body builders sit between competitions and is not an ideal number for basically anyone to be in. For a sport like football that would be a very rare number I dare say, only the guys with ridiculous muscle mass and skinny really get there. Really it is the freaks that would be in that range. 8-12 is far more likely imo for most of the NFL skill position types. RBs I would expect in the 10-14 for the most part. The body fat is a protective layer for basically the whole body, joints, muscles and the such.

big daddy russ
03-02-2010, 01:17 AM
Oliver Miller, anyone?

Body fat may or may not be a good way to determine a player's future, but I know this: when I met my future wife I played hoops twice a week, had a Sunday afternoon football ritual with the boys, and went surfing three to five times a week. Being that active, I was 170 lbs and my body fat was about 15% (I used work at a sporting goods store and played with those electronic body fat estimators--not overly accurate, but close enough).

I was 23 when we met.

We're married now. I'm 29 years old. It's been a mere six-and-a-half years. I currently weigh 260 and have given new meaning to the "big" in my username.

Granted, I haven't been consistently active in some five years and moved away from the coast not too long after we met, but I knew my natural build and knew I'd be a big boy one day because of genetics. No matter how active I was and how good I ate, I had a hard time getting below 12% body fat.

Golden Tate, who plays collegiate football, is at least as active as I was. If he falls off the wagon for even a little bit, it'll only make it harder for him.

If a world-class soccer player... a soccer player... can get to this point:

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/54/544/544910/ronaldo320_stella_1219825318.jpg

...then a receiver easily can.

FUNBUNCHER
03-02-2010, 07:19 AM
You think 4% is an average NFL player? I'm sure the average CB (probably the most in-shape position on a team) probably averages 5-6% at best... besides that, do you know how hard it is to get down to 4% without losing significant strength (which is also needed for speed)? If he gets under 10% he'd be fine.

Yeah, NFL CBs followed closely by WRs are the leanest players in the NFL with most probably under 8% bf.
After watching him workout, I agree that Tate's allegedly high bf # is a non-issue, unless he starts to gain weight.

etk
03-02-2010, 07:29 PM
Pretty sure TO is like 3-4% body fat. Last year during football season I was below 9% body fat. I was 6'1 185ish and I was far from skinny.

JoeFerg
03-02-2010, 10:33 PM
He really needs to learn to eat right, it will make a big difference even with the speed he showed at the combine.

Bucs4242
03-02-2010, 11:23 PM
body fat vs. game film ... come on now guys Golden is a gamer... plus 6% is crazy as is vernon davis


6% isnt crazy for someone under 250 lbs, and in the NFL 6% is pretty much common place fpr anyone under 250 lbs. If you are in the NFL and under 250 lbs and your body fat is higher than 10% something isnt right

I was at 8% when I was 19, it doesnt take that much work. Just a commitment to diet and exercise for a matter of months

Bucs4242
03-02-2010, 11:25 PM
He really needs to learn to eat right, it will make a big difference even with the speed he showed at the combine.



yea he must just eat fast food and pizza whenever he wants. its not that rare. Its kind of surprising how many pro athletes dont know how to feed their body until they are in the pros though

WCH
03-02-2010, 11:52 PM
yea he must just eat fast food and pizza whenever he wants. its not that rare. Its kind of surprising how many pro athletes dont know how to feed their body until they are in the pros though

It's not that surprising, considering that we're talking about 21 year old kids, who are genetic freaks of nature.

WCH
03-03-2010, 12:00 AM
Body fat may or may not be a good way to determine a player's future, but I know this: when I met my future wife I played hoops twice a week, had a Sunday afternoon football ritual with the boys, and went surfing three to five times a week. Being that active, I was 170 lbs and my body fat was about 15% (I used work at a sporting goods store and played with those electronic body fat estimators--not overly accurate, but close enough).


Kudos to your commitment to sport and exercise, but in all fairness, that's not the same as being a professional athlete. If you get to the NFL, football is a 40+ hour/week job, and has been since you were a kid. Sterling Sharpe was easily able to fight off the hamburgler until he retired.

pickup games != professional athlete.

brasho
03-03-2010, 06:07 PM
5-7% isn't really that great for a contact sport, unless its wrestling. Granted he's a receiver but as shown you don't need to look like a bodybuilder to have pro skills.

Fat does not cushion athletes as some might think. Body fat % are lower in elite athletes (CBs) not just because they are quick twitch athletes that have to be in great shape but also because they are constantly running sprints (anaerobic) and also need a lower weight to maximize speed and quickness.

brasho
03-03-2010, 06:13 PM
Pretty sure TO is like 3-4% body fat. Last year during football season I was below 9% body fat. I was 6'1 185ish and I was far from skinny.

6'1 185 is fairly thin. You might not have seen yourself as skinny because at 9% body fat you were sporting at least a 4-pack and could see definition in your shoulders.

Perhaps I'm too critical, I'm 5'7 200 lbs with 14% body fat and I still see myself as skinny while other people think I'm pretty big----regardless....

I'm 95% sure that Tate wanted to bulk up to 200 lbs and his playing weight at ND was more likely 185-190 and put on some bad weight. If he got down to 190 he would probably be much faster.

brasho
03-03-2010, 06:15 PM
6% isnt crazy for someone under 250 lbs, and in the NFL 6% is pretty much common place fpr anyone under 250 lbs. If you are in the NFL and under 250 lbs and your body fat is higher than 10% something isnt right

I was at 8% when I was 19, it doesnt take that much work. Just a commitment to diet and exercise for a matter of months

8% at 19 isn't a surprise, most people are in their best shape during or right after high school... then the extra calories and inactivity catches up with you. Try dropping down to 8% without much work with just a simple commitment to diet and exercise. Our bodies change quite a bit with age. I couldn't gain weight when Ii was 19, now I have a hard time losing it despite my best efforts.

big daddy russ
03-12-2010, 01:20 AM
Kudos to your commitment to sport and exercise, but in all fairness, that's not the same as being a professional athlete. If you get to the NFL, football is a 40+ hour/week job, and has been since you were a kid. Sterling Sharpe was easily able to fight off the hamburgler until he retired.

pickup games != professional athlete.

Good call on the pro athlete bit, but I was trying to say that it's still a tough row to hoe. Just like your body has muscle memory, it also remembers fat. He's already at 15% as a 22-year-old who plays football 30 hours a week.

The picture that I was trying to post was of Ronaldo. Dude's fat and he plays pro soccer.

SOCCER!!!

If a soccer player can get fat, anyone can get fat. Those dudes don't do anything but run.

wicket
03-12-2010, 01:53 AM
Good call on the pro athlete bit, but I was trying to say that it's still a tough row to hoe. Just like your body has muscle memory, it also remembers fat. He's already at 15% as a 22-year-old who plays football 30 hours a week.

The picture that I was trying to post was of Ronaldo. Dude's fat and he plays pro soccer.

SOCCER!!!

If a soccer player can get fat, anyone can get fat. Those dudes don't do anything but run.

dude also became pretty much useless when he became fat

bitonti
03-12-2010, 09:58 AM
i just dont know what to make of Golden Tate

fast 40... terrible gauntlet

not tall, not in great shape

great returner, great film

not a #1 but can be a great slot for years

everyone and his brother has him going to the Jets...

i just dont know what to think about that.

wouldn't Damian Williams, who is taller, and already worked with Mark sanchez for years at USC be a better fit?

FUNBUNCHER
03-12-2010, 10:04 AM
If anyone saw Tate work out during the combine on NFL Network, he looked tight and lean, nothing at all what I thought he would look like at 14% bodyfat.
For comparison, I bet G Tech RB Jonathan Dwyer was between 14-18% bf at the combine and he basically had a gut.
Tate didn't, and if someone had asked me to guess off a sight read, I'd have said Tate was somewhere between 8-10% bf.

nepg
03-12-2010, 04:13 PM
OH NOES!!! Not an endomorph! Endomorphs can never succeed in athletics, just look at Fedor Emelianenko...that guy sucks!

...

Caulibflower
03-12-2010, 05:50 PM
So......who's better, Antonio Gates or Vernon Davis?

Rosebud
03-12-2010, 05:56 PM
OH NOES!!! Not an endomorph! Endomorphs can never succeed in athletics, just look at Fedor Emelianenko...that guy sucks!

...

That's a different sport. Fedor's build actually helps him in his sport since he's still a freaky athlete but he has better stamina because he doesn't need to feed the massive muscles a brock lesnar has to. I don't really disagree with the notion that this isn't a big problem, there were gripes about Nicks last year and he's a stud, hell I've got a similar build to tate myself, used to run 2 miles a day and workout 5 times a week and I still had thick upper body and gut, even though I was actually in good shape, just pointing out that that example is a little flawed, like the ronaldo one because he never had to run much any way because of his inhuman foot-eye coordination and when he did get really fat he fell apart and ended up getting sold to the MLS, that's worse than arena league.

FUNBUNCHER
03-12-2010, 06:21 PM
So......who's better, Antonio Gates or Vernon Davis?


Perfect example as to why Tate's bf percentage may be a non-factor.

Vernon Davis has a bf # in the single digits. Antonio Gates looks like he's 12-15% bodyfat and very underwhelming with his shirt off.

Gerhart is a friggin Spartan!!!:cool:

timewaster
04-12-2010, 07:57 AM
So where does Tate go now?

Seems like 8/10 drafts on this forum had him going to the Jets. That is not happening now.

wicket
04-12-2010, 08:00 AM
So where does Tate go now?

Seems like 8/10 drafts on this forum had him going to the Jets. That is not happening now.

steelers ;)

LookItsAlDavis
04-12-2010, 11:10 AM
Patriots, Broncos in a trade, Chiefs at the top of two. I don't think it'll be the Steelers. They still have Ward, Sweed, Randle El, and Wallace, and O-line is too big of a need

FUNBUNCHER
04-12-2010, 11:14 AM
Patriots, Broncos in a trade, Chiefs at the top of two. I don't think it'll be the Steelers. They still have Ward, Sweed, Randle El, and Wallace, and O-line is too big of a need

The only real threats out of that group you listed are Wallace and Sweed( maybe).

The Steelers will miss Santonio Holmes this season if they don't find his replacement.
ARE is done, and Ward is nearly so.

IndyColtScout
04-12-2010, 11:18 AM
I don't think 15 is too high for Tate. Manningham, Smith, Tate is some good options for Eli. Don't forget this team really hasn't been the same since Plax so I don't think a 1st round WR is out of question. Tate's film is really good come on guys. I'm not going to say Steve Smith (CAR) but maybe Laverneous Coles?

scottyboy
04-12-2010, 11:21 AM
I don't think 15 is too high for Tate. Manningham, Smith, Tate is some good options for Eli. Don't forget this team really hasn't been the same since Plax so I don't think a 1st round WR is out of question. Tate's film is really good come on guys. I'm not going to say Steve Smith (CAR) but maybe Laverneous Coles?

the part about the Giants...might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Eli had his best year last year...oh, and there's this guy Hakeem Nicks, heard of him?

yourfavestoner
04-12-2010, 11:22 AM
I don't think 15 is too high for Tate. Manningham, Smith, Tate is some good options for Eli. Don't forget this team really hasn't been the same since Plax so I don't think a 1st round WR is out of question. Tate's film is really good come on guys. I'm not going to say Steve Smith (CAR) but maybe Laverneous Coles?

I don't think the Giants go WR at all...they've got a ton in the stable ready to break out already, including last year's first round pick Hakeem Nicks. They've already got three receivers with 1000 yard/10 TD potential (Smith, Manningham, Nicks).

They need front seven and o-line depth. I'll be shocked if they take anything other than LB/DL/or OL.

IndyColtScout
04-12-2010, 11:24 AM
the part about the Giants...might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Eli had his best year last year...oh, and there's this guy Hakeem Nicks, heard of him?

oops, forgot about Nicks but still think Tate can go mid teens especially if Bryant is gone.

420

yourfavestoner
04-12-2010, 11:24 AM
oops, forgot about Nicks but still think Tate can go mid teens especially if Bryant is gone.

420

Ha it happens my dude.

IndyColtScout
04-12-2010, 11:25 AM
What about the Coles comparison, I think thats a little more accurate than Steve Smith.

yourfavestoner
04-12-2010, 11:31 AM
What about the Coles comparison, I think thats a little more accurate than Steve Smith.

He's a Chris Chambers clone. Not elite straightline speed, but very explosive for his size with great jumping and ball skills. Chambers is only 5'11 but he plays like he's 6'4 and Tate is the same way.

killxswitch
04-12-2010, 11:48 AM
He's a Chris Chambers clone. Not elite straightline speed, but very explosive for his size with great jumping and ball skills. Chambers is only 5'11 but he plays like he's 6'4 and Tate is the same way.

I remember being shocked when I found out Chambers is under 6'. Based on watching him I would've guessed 6'3 at least.

FUNBUNCHER
04-12-2010, 11:59 AM
He's a Chris Chambers clone. Not elite straightline speed, but very explosive for his size with great jumping and ball skills. Chambers is only 5'11 but he plays like he's 6'4 and Tate is the same way.

Chambers has the arm length of like a 6'4 WR, Tate does not. Also, when Chris Chambers came out, I thought he ran well under 4.5??

molenguinurtle
04-12-2010, 01:10 PM
I remember being shocked when I found out Chambers is under 6'. Based on watching him I would've guessed 6'3 at least.

Yeah I'm shocked reading that right now. I too always figured he was in that 6'3, 6'4 range.

FUNBUNCHER
04-12-2010, 01:40 PM
It's wiki, so take it for what it's worth, but allegedly Chambers ran a 4.3 and had a 45 inch vert at the 2001 NFL combine. I remember him being described as a 4.4 type guy, speed wise.

But that was always my impression about Chambers, that he and Lee Evans was elite prospects as far as speed and explosion were concerned.

I still think Golden Tate is a similar type prospect, he just doesn't have the same reach.