Some might say that the 5'11 195-pound Tate isn't the best receiver on his own team, which might not matter as he and teammate Michael Floyd (6'3, 225 soph.) are two of the nation's best. But in any event, we see it differently. Not only does Tate consistently play mistake-free football and make game-changing plays for the Irish nearly every week, he seems to possess certain intangible characteristics that make for legitimate NFL stars. With WR being a glaring need for the 2010 Cleveland Browns, we've been keeping an especially close eye on Tate. Of course, there's a good chance that the junior, who stars on the Notre Dame baseball team and is in position to shatter every Notre Dame receiving record if he sticks around for his senior season, will not enter the 2010 draft. But CBS Sportsline's draft tracking service has him ranked as the second best receiver if he comes out in 2010. Others have expressed concern that Tate's size will keep him in the second or even the third round, which on one hand portends well for the Browns' chances at grabbing him there in 2010, but on the other suggests that he might stay in school to improve his stock. If he stays in school, we'll of course be keeping a close eye on him heading into 2011. But if he does come out, we're sure he'd be an absolute steal in the second round, and that his football skills and intangibles make him a perfect fit for Eric Mangini's Cleveland Browns. Here are a few excerpts we've come across recently that support this point, for your enjoyment:
From AOL Fanhouse:
It was only eight weeks ago -- one day after the Nevada game -- that a reporter asked Charlie Weis if Michael Floyd could be the best wideout in Notre Dame history. Weis quickly replied, "I think Golden would argue with you."
At the time it seemed like lip service. Today, it seems prophetic.
When is the last time the Irish had a player with this much swagger as No. 23? Okay, Jeff Samardzija (who, like Tate, also played baseball for the Irish). If Tate remains at Notre Dame for his senior season, he will break every career receiving record that Samardzija set just three years ago. . . .
[G]o back and watch Tate's second touchdown catch against USC. He takes a full-on blast from designated assassin Taylor Mays, but it is the USC safety who crumbles to the turf. Tate bounces off the blow and into the end zone, still on his feet. He shoots the 6-3, 225-pound future top-five pick a quick glance as if to say, "Is that all?"From NBC's South Bend Affiliate, WNDU, after last week's Notre Dame loss to Pitt:
For most fans, this season is lost and they are wondering what the future holds, but for Irish receiver Golden Tate, he views things differently.
"I don't' see it as the season is over with or whatever you guys may think it is," Tate said after the game Saturday. "I'm coming out, looking to get better. I'm looking to come out next week and get a win."From the Chicago Sun-Times, again after last week's loss at Pitt:
Asked what the team needs to do to be better prepared at the start of games, Tate pointed a thumb rather than any fingers.
Impressive, no? And don't forget to watch the 2008 highlight package if you didn't get a chance to yesterday.''In the first half, I didn't get open,'' he said. ''I've got to run better routes. I've got to figure out a way to get the quarterback's vision to get the ball in my hands.If the entire team took Tate's lead, the Irish would be rolling rather than resilient.
''Put it on me. I have to make more plays.''
That's all for now. We'll provide profiles of potential 2009 Draft targets like this periodically up until Draft Day. Your submissions on who you'd like to see profiled are welcome and appreciated.
And don't forget about the Frownie Challenge. So far, the best anyone has done is to come up with some historically bad football teams, like the '99 Browns, or the '76 Bucs. It doesn't strike us as persuasive to say that Mangini and Daboll should be doing better with their bunch because another team that won 2 (or zero!) games had better offensive stats. The point remains that Mangini and Daboll are working with historically bad offensive talent. We'll think and talk about this much more later this week, but in the meantime, please keep the submissions coming.
----------
Thanks to NationalChamps.net for the photo.
Posts
28 comments:
I am the hugest ND fan in the world---and I love Tate, but Floyd is going to be a beast and a better pro. I have seen every game they have both played and part of the reason Tate stands out so much is that Floyd draws the double coverage. He is really, really good and I love the guy. I hope they can both be good pros, but Floyd is just unstoppable.
we obviously just spent 2 of our first 3 picks on WR this past draft, do you really want to spend another 2nd rounder on a WR? there are plenty of other needs that are equally or of more importance. especially when there are quite a few serviceable free agents who we can bring in.
but yeah, Tate is very good, i just doubt the new Browns management will want another early round rookie in the receiving corps.
Floyd is a man among boys. Tate is a nice college receiver.
And you can't just dismiss the teams I proposed because they were notoriously terrible. These were historically inept offenses with less talent than the Browns currently have that scored more points. That was your challenge. It has been met. Either make a real argument or stick by your bargain.
I say go with Freddie Barnes. I don't care what his 40 time will be at the combine. He runs good routes, gets open, and catches the ball. He also cuts well, and sees the field very well.
i'm with you on tate frowner. he's "real brown" material.
Hey P! What exactly is "real brown" material now a days?
I'll give you a hint: Sometimes it floats.
Winner of the Smart A$$ Comment of the Year ... Biff!
Not saying Floyd is bad. Just saying Tate has demonstrated certain qualities that Floyd might lack, which might make him a better all around asset in the end. Braylon was a man among boys too, right?
Anyway, I don't quite understand the point about double coverage when you can look at how Tate (and the Irish) did in the five games that Floyd was out.
Biff, while point scoring might certainly be a factor, the challenge was not to find teams with less talent that "scored more points." I will do a full analysis some time this week, but it's quite telling that the only candidates you have found are from "historically inept/notoriously terrible" teams. You are helping to prove that every team that you can even argue has had as little talent as these Browns (again, I'll have to take a look there) has each been "historically inept/notoriously terrible."
I hope for Tate's sake he doesn't get drafted by the Browns. The Browns have already ruined enough promising domers.
That being said, Tate will be a good pro. Floyd, on the other hand, has the size, skills, and talent to be a hall of famer. Before the injury they weren't even close. Again, not taking away from Tate but Floyd, with apologies to AJ Green, is the best receiver in college.
So let me get this straight: You want me to find better offenses with worse talent, but they can't be on terrible teams? Certainly, you see the inherent problem here, right. Teams that don't score tend to win fewer games than their scoring counterparts.
Let me try to say it differently then:
The point of football is to win games. If you're going to criticize Mangini and Daboll for not doing more with what they have, it would help if you could find someone who did more with less, by way of winning football games. I'll take a closer look, but I'm pretty sure you haven't done that.
Looking at points or yardage alone doesn't do it because, leaving aside all of the other season-to-season variables, games flow differently. If a team's defense is routinely getting pasted, the offense is likely to score more points just from the other team's defense letting up.
Anyway, the point is winning, isn't it? I don't see how that's not the standard.
And I think it's worth one more reminder that Mangini cleaned house on purpose. In hindsight it would have been better to get rid of Braylon at the beginning of the season and do something to replace him then, but I think one can at least understand why Mangini might have wanted to give Braylon the benefit of the doubt coming in. I know I did the same thing myself.
And I don't think it helps to point out that there are rookies who were drafted after ours who are doing better, because I think it's safe to assume that they all play with a better receiving corps than our rookies do.
So the point is to try to find someone who sucks more than the 2009 Browns under Mangini to prove that Mangini doesn't suck?
"If a team's defense is routinely getting pasted, the offense is likely to score more points just from the other team's defense letting up."
Not necessarily. If a team's define is routinely getting pasted, it takes away the running game and makes it even harder to score in many cases because you're quickly made one-dimensional.
"Anyway, the point is winning, isn't it? I don't see how that's not the standard."
You didn't say the point was winning. You said the point was:
"Whoever's so sure that anyone could be expected to do significantly better with an offense whose pass-catchers include the Robert Royal at tight end, possession receiver Mike Furrey and special teams specialist Josh Cribbs sharing the slot, a rookie second-round reach as the number one, and an even bigger second-round reach of a rookie as the number three, should at least be able to establish some precedent. That is, you should at least be able to find a team somewhere in recent NFL history that's been able to do better with worse."
The focus of your comments was strictly on the offense. The best gauge of an offense is how many points it scores.
Agree?
the issues on offense is only a small part of the case against mangini.
again, we all are under the assumption that we are getting a new GM/Pres of Operations correct?
why won't any of you Mangini supporters, particularly you Frownie, answer this question: will a new GM want to co-exist with Mangini??? no one seems to want to answer that question.
This blog used to be fun. It's turned into a Mangini apologue that elicits hater speech from the Frownie faithful.
Agreed this blog is all about mangini and how he is a sweet person. fuck him and fuck what he is doing. then you have Biff doing cavs games which sucks even more. because all he does is moan about mike brown in losses. Where is the writeup today Biff you piece of poop.
poopy poop.
I was only able to catch the 4th quarter:
The Cavs sort of mailed it in on defense but prevailed because the always-mailing-it-in-on-defense Warriors mailed it in even more. They travel to Washington tonight in what looks like the classic "shorthanded Cavs get beat on second night of back-to-back in DC by 10, Tom Knott writes a ridiculous rant in the Washington Times" type game.
There you go. A writeup.
I'm sad.
CHEER UP EVERYBODY
Plus we have a 4 game losing streak down there, let's see how the guys respond shorthanded.
First game back for Jamison, let's see how JJ responds against his fellow ACC brethren.
I'm not sad anymore (nor am I really in Sagamore Hills). I was just being a jerk, and I apologize. Just because I disagree with this blog's proprietor about Eric Mangini, doesn't mean I still don't have tons of fun here. I just get frustrated sometimes because Frowns makes so much sense and I feel bad that I just didn't see it sooner, like Frowns did.
Suddenly it all makes sense.
Nice in depth analysis of the game, this is exactly what im talking about here guys, he has no actual knowledge of the game. Only "Lebron played good"..."fire mike brown"..."shaq is old"...laughable stuff.
This blog has been terrible about the mangini ranting and it needs to stop. Although Biff isn't that strong in the Basketball IQ dept. he does a good job summarizing the game until others take notice to the cavs. I am not sad, just disappointed with the cavs guy biff. He needs to learn the game.
Agreed
Biff:
So you'd entirely eliminate ball control as an element of a successful offense? And you'd completely disregard the notion that football teams tend to let up on defense when they have a big lead? And you're doing all of this so you can point to the '76 Buccaneers or '99 Browns as proof that Mangini and Daboll should be able to do better with what they have? Just want to be clear here.
The challenge can be boiled down to one sentence: "That is, you should at least be able to find a team somewhere in recent NFL history that's been able to do better with worse."
You see the word "team" there, right? And that the challenge asked you to find a "team" that's been able to "do better" with worse [talent on offense].
A football team has one objective. To win football games. The way a team "does good" is by winning. You haven't found a team that's done significantly better on this front with worse offensive talent than the Browns have, and to make up for that, you're asking us to willfully ignore the fact that teams use their offenses and defenses in different ways to accomplish that objective (of winning, see Tressel, for example) so that you can point to some extra points or yards that the '76 Bucs gained that didn't end up helping them win.
There are serious problems with making the criteria of "goodness" anything other than winning football games. I don't see how arguing strenuously against this doesn't hurt your credibility on the larger point. Nor do I see how the fact that the 99 Browns and 76 Bucs, etc., are the best anyone can do doesn't help mine.
Will think more about this tomorrow, but in the meantime, will look forward to considering any additional submissions.
I didn't type that last comment FYI. Now people are impersonating me?
Post a Comment