14 replies to this topic

[pappymojo]

It seems to be a common point when looking back over last year or looking forward to next year that Brandon Tate gets called the reincarnation of Bethel Johnson. The comments kind of annoy me.

So, I wanted to post some comparisons.

Bethel Johnson, drafted with the 45th pick of the 2003 draft.

2003 15 games played, 5 started. 16 receptions for 209 yards, 2 touchdowns. 30 kickoff returns for 847 yards, 1 touchdown
2004 13 games played, 1 started. 10 receptions for 174 yards, 1 touchdown. 41 kickoff returns for 1016 yards, 1 touchdown
2005 11 games played, 1 started. 4 receptions for 67 yards, 1 touchdown. 31 kickoff returns for 694 yards, 0 touchdowns.

Brandon Tate drafted with the 83rd pick of the 2009 draft.

2009 2 games played, 1 started. 1 rushing attempt for 11 yards. 4 kickoff returns for 106 yards.
2010 16 games played, 10 started. 24 receptions for 432 yards, 3 touchdowns. 41 kickoff returns for 1,057 yards, 2 touchdowns.

I'm not positive of his 2009 stats. He started that year on the reserve list. He was activated on October 25th, and placed on the injured reserve list on November 14th. I think that the Patriots had a bye week in between the point when he was activated and when he was placed on the injured reserve list.

In essence, Brandon Tate, in his first full year for the Patriots, had a better year than Bethel Johnson ever did. So, please stop with the name calling and give Tate another year to learn, grow, and improve.

[Lose Remerswaal]

"Common Point"?

Since January 1 there's been 1 post comparing Brandon Tate to Bethel Johnson.

Last year there was a thread comparing the two of them, which died in November.

Why this thread, now?

[EddieYost]

I think its in response to a comment made in the Randy Moss wants back in thread.

[Lose Remerswaal]

I see that, and the OP here replied there. I just think if he feels this serious about the issue, this should have bumped the old thread on the very same topic.

[pappymojo]

I don't have the ability to search, so I can't easily find old threads.

[quint]

Perhaps you could utilize the Search function, at the top of the page.

Edited by quint, 17 March 2011 - 12:27 PM.

[Lose Remerswaal]

I don't have the ability to search, so I can't easily find old threads.

You knew there were folks comparing Tate to Johnson, but you can't search? Did it just come to you in a dream?


If it's because of your membership status (I honestly don't know if that matters), why not buy a membership so you can search?

[EddieYost]

I know when I was a lurker search did not work. I am guessing you have to be a paid member for it to work.

[kneemoe]

It also works if you've paid before, but haven't yet paid this years 'dues'

[MainerInExile]

Are we really encouraging someone to bump an ancient thread instead of starting a new one? In Skrub's forum? No one tell him.

[MannysDestination]

Are we really encouraging someone to bump an ancient thread instead of starting a new one? In Skrub's forum? No one tell him.

Yeah, seriously. I don't follow Lose's criticism at all and completely disagree. More threads = good. Bumping 6 month old threads = not good. It's this kind of ticky-tacky bullshit that inhibits people from making new threads.

It's worth noting that most of the "games played" for Tate were not as a receiver but as a returned on special teams. When making comparisons it'd probably be helpful to split out special teams contributions from offensive contributions.

[Zedia]

It's worth noting that most of the "games played" for Tate were not as a receiver but as a returned on special teams. When making comparisons it'd probably be helpful to split out special teams contributions from offensive contributions.

Did you mean to say Johnson? After his lost season in 09, Tate started 10 games and played about 50% of the offensive snaps in 2010.

Edit - clarity

Edited by Zedia, 18 March 2011 - 01:42 PM.

[MannysDestination]

Did you mean to say Johnson? After his lost season in 09, Tate started 10 games and played about 50% of the offensive snaps in 2010.

Edit - clarity

I actually meant Tate, but I seem to be off there. Reiss put up a post a few days ago saying that Tate's value may decline because of the kickoff rule changes next year. Specifically he said:

Part of the reason Tate was active for 16 games was the explosiveness he provided on kickoff returns, but if returns are not as big of a factor in 2011, he could find himself facing a greater challenge for a spot on the 45-man game-day roster.

http://espn.go.com/b...ect-tates-value

But.... according to Reiss' own stats he was the 3rd most used receiver, so that argument doesn't hold much water.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Yeah, seriously. I don't follow Lose's criticism at all and completely disagree. More threads = good. Bumping 6 month old threads = not good. It's this kind of ticky-tacky bullshit that inhibits people from making new threads.

It's worth noting that most of the "games played" for Tate were not as a receiver but as a returned on special teams. When making comparisons it'd probably be helpful to split out special teams contributions from offensive contributions.

it was a 3-4 month old thread, which I wouldn't quite call ancient, and the topic was identical.

The reason I replied to this thread was the OP's claim that it was a common thing here to compare Tate to Johnson, and I just wasn't seeing it at all. Unless you went back to that "ancient" thread. And if that was the point he was trying to refute, then raising that thread and replying to the comments would have made more sense than just throwing out the claims here.

[pappymojo]

The reason I replied to this thread was the OP's claim that it was a common thing here to compare Tate to Johnson, and I just wasn't seeing it at all.

Just to clarify, I did not post that it a common thing here. I meant that it was a common criticism on the internet, including espn chats, comments on boston globe articles, etc. When I saw it mentioned on a post in the Moss thread, I wanted to post comparisons, but I didn't want to do it in the Moss thread.

As for the search function, I just tried again and the search did work. I swear, however, that it didn't work when I was first given the ability to post a couple of months ago. I tried to search a couple of times before and it didn't work.

Edit: Fixed a typo

Edited by pappymojo, 19 March 2011 - 10:02 AM.