PDA

View Full Version : Overwhelming Golden Tate love...


tony hipchest
04-27-2010, 11:25 PM
... or should i say overwhelming manlove for Golden Taint?

seriously... whats the deal? is it because notre dame is on national tv all the time? is it because he has been called the next hines ward?

if he really was the next hines ward (or even jerry rice) wouldnt he be a shoo-in for the first wr drafted and a sure-fire 1st round pick?

it stands to reason that if colt mccoy were called the next joe montana, he woulda gone a round earlier.

is it because we passed on what a ton of steelerfans perceived as the "best player available"? if this is the case, why is nobody upset we passed on jimmy claussen?



is it because he was a "need" and we didnt draft for "need"? a wr was really the least of our needs, plus we addressed it in the next round anyways (not to mention we it in the 3rd round last year and the 2nd round the year before).

so what gives? why do so many people keep bringing him up and why are so many upset that we passed on him? will he always be the golden standard this draft class is held against?

i swear you would think we passed on calvin johnson in the 2nd round.

but in reality is he anything more than what the browns brian robiskie was last year?

wootawnee
04-27-2010, 11:47 PM
Come on Tony....We'd all be loving on some Tate if we drafted him.......

tony hipchest
04-28-2010, 12:01 AM
Come on Tony....We'd all be loving on some Tate if we drafted him.......

why?

i wasnt that big of a fan of a wr in the 3rd... let alone the 2nd.

im a much bigger fan of legitimate back ups to the 2 most important positions in dick lebeaus defense. :tt:

MattsMe
04-28-2010, 12:17 AM
I don't get it either. It's gotta be the name.


Question: Why doesn't Tate look all sweaty like the other players when he talks to the media after the game?

Answer: Golden showers before every interview.

:chuckle:

Merchant
04-28-2010, 12:37 AM
I don't get it either. It's gotta be the name.


Question: Why doesn't Tate look all sweaty like the other players when he talks to the media after the game?

Answer: Golden showers before every interview.

:chuckle:

LOL

I ain't gonna lie I was crossing my fingers a little hoping we'd nab. He just seemed to fit the Steelers mold, and with Hines not getting any younger, Tate seemed like a good heir. But then again last draft I was crossing my fingers for Ray Malauga, and things turned out for the best with Ziggy Hood, while Ray was getting DUIs. I trust our FO to make the right picks

Galax Steeler
04-28-2010, 03:35 AM
I think Tate would have made us a good receiver but I am not going to cry because we didn't get him. We drafted a very good linebacker in Worlids people threw him to the dogs already and have not given him a chance to play. Just like Emmanuel Sanders people will be jumping on the wagon once this kid gets settled in.

SteelKid212
04-28-2010, 11:07 AM
EMMANUEL SANDERS WILL STEP UP.

TATE WHO?


:tt03:

steelreserve
04-28-2010, 11:38 AM
is it because we passed on what a ton of steelerfans perceived as the "best player available"? if this is the case, why is nobody upset we passed on jimmy claussen?

is it because he was a "need" and we didnt draft for "need"? a wr was really the least of our needs, plus we addressed it in the next round anyways (not to mention we it in the 3rd round last year and the 2nd round the year before).

Those are both reasons for it. I think Tate was probably the BPA at that point in terms of pure talent at his position. Terrance Cody -- although a gamble -- would've been the best "need-based" pick. Although I'm sure others (who are unaware we picked two CBs last year) would say we should've taken the best available CB.
Worilds came as a shock because he wasn't the BPA and he wasn't a need-based pick. When you've already got talent and depth at a position, that's usually when you maybe take a guy in the fourth or fifth round and see if he turns out to be any good, and if not, oh well.

Also, while I don't think many people saw WR as a pressing "need" when Tate was on the board ... the fact that we took one in the next round was a definite WTF. If we were planning on taking a WR, why not take the good one that would be perceived as a major steal?

I know you think Worilds "wouldn't have been there" for us in Round 3, but I completely disagree on that one. I'm not saying he's a bad player by any means, but I really saw nothing that makes him stand out from the rest of the crowd that went in rounds 3-4. At worst, if someone else had their eye on him before our turn in the third, we could've traded up if he was that valuable to us.

A lot of this overall frustration is because every year, there are a couple top-level talents who fall into the second round, and we're rarely in a position to catch them. Either they don't fall low enough, or they're not at all compatible with what we're doing (See: Clausen). This year, we were extremely fortunate in several ways - we had a higher pick than normal ... the talented players fell further than normal ... there was more than one of them ... more than one was a decent fit for our needs, and one was an excellent fit ... and we had a ton of lower draft picks available to trade up with. It's pretty rare for all of that to come together for us. And then we go take a guy who's not that highly rated, who we might've gotten later, at a position where our future is not really in doubt, and we stand pat instead of making a move with our other picks.

Yeah. That got me kind of pissed.

Sharkissle29
04-28-2010, 12:42 PM
He's awesome, and i hate notre dame

BigBen'sSwagger
04-28-2010, 12:46 PM
I was pretty high on us taking tater as well because of the comparisons to Hines. Hey any chance we get to find another Hines I'm all for it. I am not so shocked that we didn't get Tater but that we probably coulda moved back to get Worilds and maybe had a few more picks to bolster our team. I must say that I am also concerned with past draft picks like Sweed who have not panned out.

I was preplexed why we would go after so many OLB's but hey what do I know???

All in all the draft is a crap shoot and if you are lucky a few come in and contribute in year one. Good luck to the new Steelers hope to see some of you on the field soon.

Fire Haley
04-28-2010, 12:53 PM
I would have been pretty pumped had we taken Tate and Cody in rds 2 & 3.

7willBheaven
04-28-2010, 01:13 PM
I was preplexed why we would go after so many OLB's but hey what do I know???




Probably because OLB was one of the weakest positions on the team, as far as depth? If Woodley or Harrison was to go down....would you want Patrick Bailey or Andre Frazier to replace them...esp if its for a few weeks or longer? I think not...now we dont have to worry about that as we will have 2 solid LBs behind them.

kirklandrules
04-28-2010, 02:11 PM
Worilds came as a shock because he wasn't the BPA and he wasn't a need-based pick. When you've already got talent and depth at a position, that's usually when you maybe take a guy in the fourth or fifth round and see if he turns out to be any good, and if not, oh well.

How do you know Worilds wasn't the BPA? Last I heard, no one is given the Steelers board before or after the draft. And you think the Steelers have depth at OLB? That statement is a little bit of a stretch.

And then we go take a guy who's not that highly rated, who we might've gotten later, at a position where our future is not really in doubt, and we stand pat instead of making a move with our other picks.

Yeah. That got me kind of pissed.

Again, who says he wasn't highly rated? I'd say the Steelers FO thought he was highly rated. With a large number of teams playing the 3-4, a run on players that can become OLBs in that system would have happened at some point (or at least it does every year).

When watching the draft and either seeing Kiper's BPA list or hearing those analysts tell us the Steelers selected someone in the 2nd when the player was "projected" as a 3rd rounder, just know that the FO has it's own board that consists of players they think best match the Steelers style and culture ... not Mel's analysis from an overall NFL level. I can and do scratch my head at some picks, but also understand that I've never been to a pro day, never attended a combine interview session with these guys and do not have a small army of Mel Kipers who scour the college ranks looking for players that best fit the Steelers mold.

The same Mel Kiper who said (immediately after the Steelers selected Worilds) that the Steelers might have stretched on this pick because he was projected as a 3rd rounder, has said this guy is a perfect fit for a OLB with the Steelers and that the Steelers would be very happy with this pick.

SteelKid212 might be right on with the thought that the Steelers drafted the receiver they thought fit their mold best ... waited until the 3rd round to get him and we can all forget about Tate (who just might have said something stupid in his combine interview ... such as "I like to take college coeds into a dark bathroom and ....").

TheWarDen86
04-28-2010, 02:13 PM
Golden Tate is a play maker. No question about it. HE is the reason Claussen was even an early round consideration IMO. I would love to have him.

BigBen'sSwagger
04-28-2010, 02:43 PM
Probably because OLB was one of the weakest positions on the team, as far as depth? If Woodley or Harrison was to go down....would you want Patrick Bailey or Andre Frazier to replace them...esp if its for a few weeks or longer? I think not...now we dont have to worry about that as we will have 2 solid LBs behind them.

Actually I am pulling for Bailey (Defensive Rookie of the year when we went to the Superbowl) due to the fact that he is a local kid from San Antonio. :tt03:

xXTheSteelKingsXx
04-28-2010, 03:04 PM
Actually I am pulling for Bailey (Defensive Rookie of the year when we went to the Superbowl) due to the fact that he is a local kid from San Antonio. :tt03:

Bailey was far from DRoY. He won the Steeler's award for most outstanding rookie in 2008 but that was because nearley none of the other rookies were active. Bailey probably didn't even play a defensive snap that season only special teams.

xbroughneck
04-28-2010, 03:10 PM
IMHO Tate was the best player on Notre Dame's team. He would have been a nice pick up but he wasn't drafted by the Steelers.


Time to move on.

solardave
04-28-2010, 03:19 PM
I'll be honest with you. I think we will see that we missed a real good player in Myron Rolle. I'm tellin' when I look at this guy I see Carnell Lake and we could have got him in the 7th. I've been wrong before but I 'd rather have seen him as a Steeler than Tate. Of course I halfway got my wish cause we didn't draft either one.

steelreserve
04-28-2010, 03:34 PM
How do you know Worilds wasn't the BPA? Last I heard, no one is given the Steelers board before or after the draft. And you think the Steelers have depth at OLB? That statement is a little bit of a stretch.


Again, who says he wasn't highly rated? I'd say the Steelers FO thought he was highly rated. With a large number of teams playing the 3-4, a run on players that can become OLBs in that system would have happened at some point (or at least it does every year).

When watching the draft and either seeing Kiper's BPA list or hearing those analysts tell us the Steelers selected someone in the 2nd when the player was "projected" as a 3rd rounder, just know that the FO has it's own board that consists of players they think best match the Steelers style and culture ... not Mel's analysis from an overall NFL level. I can and do scratch my head at some picks, but also understand that I've never been to a pro day, never attended a combine interview session with these guys and do not have a small army of Mel Kipers who scour the college ranks looking for players that best fit the Steelers mold.

The same Mel Kiper who said (immediately after the Steelers selected Worilds) that the Steelers might have stretched on this pick because he was projected as a 3rd rounder, has said this guy is a perfect fit for a OLB with the Steelers and that the Steelers would be very happy with this pick.

SteelKid212 might be right on with the thought that the Steelers drafted the receiver they thought fit their mold best ... waited until the 3rd round to get him and we can all forget about Tate (who just might have said something stupid in his combine interview ... such as "I like to take college coeds into a dark bathroom and ....").

So what this basically boils down to is, you're willing to give the Steelers front office a lot of blind trust because they're pros, and I'm not. Fine, but not an argument worth having.

Pretty much every issue you can talk about inevitably draws a number of responses along the lines of, "Well, you have no right to second-guess the front office because they do this for a living and they have more information than you." Sorry, but that argument is an auto-throwaway for me. If people took that advice to heart, it would basically defeat the whole purpose of having a message board or debating sports with your friends in the first place.

So if the Steelers had someone at the top of their draft board and I liked a different guy(s) better, I don't think I have any obligation whatsoever to defer to their judgment. NFL teams screw up all the time. Sometimes that "inside information" helps them make a good choice, and sometimes it's all bullshit and they end up outsmarting themselves. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong too, but I'm not going to discount my own opinion because I'm "just a fan."

As for depth at OLB, we had enough. Frazier might be listed as the top backup, but you can bet your ass that if something happened to Harrison or Woodley ... Timmons would be the starting OLB faster than you could say rocks and blocks, and Foote or Fox would take over at ILB. When we re-signed Foote, I we addressed our LB depth for a season or two, not only by adding an ILB but by giving ourselves that added flexibility. I seriuosly thought that signing took LB off the board or at least put it down into the Round 4-6 "project" realm.

AllD
04-28-2010, 03:56 PM
It may be the last season for Farrior as a Steeler, especially if there is a lockout next season. Therefore the need to load up on LBs. The FO also found value in picking up a few juniors coming out early and adding youth to the team at a time when it wasn't critical for them to start immediately and be an impact player.

The last thing we need is another WR controversy, especially one that we didn't even draft. Remember a lot of other teams passed on him too. Thomas and Bryant were selcted ahead of Tate. Same could be said for CBs.

Conventional wisdom would have us take whoever the media ranked highest, but that does not always work. Even when we take obvious prospects they blow up, so what may look great on paper does not look good on the field. Therefore, it is not right to finalize the grade of the draft until the players get some playing time.

Then don't expect the next Eric Dickerson. We would be lucky historically to find three or four starters over the next few years. If we find a hidden gem then so much the better. It will be interesting to see if Wallace keeps his production up. The Steelers develop players and rarely pick a superstar. Even Joe Greene did not experience success early on.

Psyychoward86
04-28-2010, 04:39 PM
To me, my obssession for him is his character and just an absolute lethal combination of speed and hands. He can play at a ridiculously high level at all wide receiver positions and returns balls.Comparison ----> Steve Smith + Wes Welker

I just loved him because i knew what to expect out of him. I have no idea who our two drafted WR's are. That's the only reason i suppose :noidea:

PhantomJB93
04-28-2010, 04:57 PM
First of all, the reason he went in the second is because A. Teams that needed WR's had greater needs at other positions and B. Most teams prefer tall and fast WR's to shorter and more physical receivers like Tate, so Dez Bryant and Demaryius Thomas (who had comparable success to Tate in college) were higher on *most* teams' draft boards. Secondly, if you've ever watched the dude play he is amazing and I have no doubt in my mind he could have been the next Hines had we drafted him.

Now, let me also say that I no longer blame the Steelers for passing on him for Sanders in the 3rd. At first, I was outraged by this, but that was mainly because I knew the success Tate could have brought us but had never heard of this Emmanuel Sanders guy. Now, after having done research, I still think Tate would be a good player to fill Hine's role (not completely, Hines is unique but he would have come close) but Emmanuel Sanders is undoubtedly a VERY close second and I have no problems with him anymore. However, even though I can't really say anything until a year or two from now, Im fine with the Sanders pick but still think the Worilds pick was a bad move with the players still on the board...I could go into a rant about that but Im not going to here so Ill leave it now.

BigBen'sSwagger
04-28-2010, 07:31 PM
Bailey was far from DRoY. He won the Steeler's award for most outstanding rookie in 2008 but that was because nearley none of the other rookies were active. Bailey probably didn't even play a defensive snap that season only special teams.

Sorry my Bad I did not mean to imply that Bailey was the DRoY for the entire NFL rather that he was the DRoY of our team the year we won the Superbowl. Guess I never thought a Steeler fan such as you would have such trouble with what I meant to say, but thank you for pointing out how FAR off the remark was.

Bailey played Special teams that year and made some very big hits including ones in the playoffs and Superbowl. I also admit that there wasn't a lot of competition, but you sound as if he did virtually nothing I guess some people are hard to please.

I also admit that last year he was seldom heard from but I think the same can be said for all the others who were on the field with him.

Regardless of all that I am still pulling for him to make it with the team. Go Bailey!!! Go Steelers!!!:tt03:

The Duke
04-29-2010, 03:08 AM
Never got the Tate love either

Sure he's good. Bu the next hines ward? Not even the next steve largent

Sanders on the other hand was one of the few WRs I liked from the draft. Though it was the same with Sweed in 08....