RolandDeschain":4ustyxwt said:
Also, let me clarify; I'm not saying it's the only stat that matters, or the only one to look at. I would say that, arguably, yards after the catch per reception is more valuable than receptions, average yards per reception, and # of TDs, though.
On a national level, Tate is underrated most specifically when it comes to yards after the catch and missed tackles, which are directly related to each other.
From my perspective, he hasn't distinguished himself from Baldwin or even Kearse. I know the "pedestrian" meme has been made plenty fun of, but there is a kernel of truth in that we were using 3/4 undrafted free agents at WR toward the end of last season, the only non-UFA being Tate.
If Tate really is an upper-echelon receiver, there should have been clear daylight between him and Baldwin or Kearse, unless you accept the premise that our UFAs are also upper-echelon receivers. Of course, if you accept that premise, then it logically follows that you don't need to pay 5 mil for Tate when you can pick up a UFA on the cheap.
So I am saying Tate is good enough for us, but perhaps not good enough to distinguish himself from a group of pedestrian receivers to the extent that teams would be willing to break the bank for him when they can get cap-friendlier players out of the draft. I think $5 million is appropriate if not generous for a player with Tate's resume.