There are 124 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Golden Tate or Michael Floyd: Better prospect?

Golden Tate or Michael Floyd: Better prospect?

  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
Which ND receiver will have the better NFL career?

Floyd, although Tate has stepped up his game in Michael's absence.
Golden Taint, I mean Tate.
Better prospect ? Michael Floyd.

He received none of the media attention as a freshman like Julio Jones did and he played just as well if not better (it's an arguable point both ways). He came out of the gate REALLY strong this year before breaking his collarbone and now might be back by mid November in time for Pitt. The kid looks like he is a future 1st rounder.

Tate is not a surefire first rounder. However Tate has a very bright future in the NFL. While I won't compare him to Steve Smith there are some similarities in the way they play. Tate shows strong hands (though he had some dropsies earlier this year that should not have been) however last year he showed better hands. He can go up and fight for the ball and come down with it and has shown this repeatedly (he is under 6 feet so that's a little impressive). He has been used a little at HB (he was a HS RB) and has been used to run the wildcat. He also can and has played at all 3 WR spots (X,Y,Z) has shown he can stretch Defenses and is willing to go across the middle. Tate also possesses return ability.

His game definitely needs more refining but he can be a valuable piece to the puzzle when he gets to the next level. For those that watch a lot of ND football you remember the difference between his game last year and his freshman year and have seen the giant step forward he took. FWIW the kid is also on the baseball team.

When both make their combine appearances I expect Tate to run a 4.4 40 while Floyd will likely run a low 4.5.
Originally posted by JDeezy:
Floyd, although Tate has stepped up his game in Michael's absence.

  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
Bump.

I really really like Tate


I'm not picky I'd take either one, I think they're both gonna be pretty damn good in the NFL.
Golden Tate for sure...mmmmmmm!

  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
He's named Golden Tate, he belongs in San Francisco.
Originally posted by crzy:
He's named Golden Tate, he belongs in San Francisco.

hahahaha....I really like his game. And his name!
I like Tate. I think he's more versatile. He could play any receiver position and could even be taught to run the Wildcat.
I like Tate a lot more, but for our team we would need Floyd more.

We have a ton of possession WRs and YAC WRs, but we don't have a Home Run threat type WR.

I think Tate will have a better career, but Floyd would provide a deep speed threat to compliment our current WR core.
  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
Pick two offensive linemen in the first and Golden Tate in the 2nd. Sounds like a plan
  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
We have VD and Crabs, now let's get Golden Taint
Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:
I like Tate a lot more, but for our team we would need Floyd more.

We have a ton of possession WRs and YAC WRs, but we don't have a Home Run threat type WR.

I think Tate will have a better career, but Floyd would provide a deep speed threat to compliment our current WR core.

Tate is clearly faster than Floyd and IS a homerun threat. Floyd looks much faster than he is vs. college D's. IMO he is probably a little slower than Fitz but faster than Boldin.
[ Edited by KRS-1 on Nov 21, 2009 at 8:13 AM ]