Seahawks Insider

A couple thoughts on Tate, Stanback

Post by Eric Williams on Feb. 26, 2011 at 8:23 am with 14 Comments »
February 26, 2011 8:23 am
Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Golden Tate (Ted Warren/AP)

Seattle Seahawks general manager John Schneider had some interesting things to say about receiver Golden Tate, who did not live up to his potential in his rookie season, finishing with just 21 catches for 227 yards.

Schneider said that he has high expectations for the Notre Dame product moving forward, and believes he can develop into a consistent playmaker.

Tate failed to get on the field on a regular basis because of his struggles with route running and picking up the intricacies of a pro-style offense. But during practices last year, he showed the most ability out of any receiver to consistently make plays deep down the field.

“I think Golden is a very talented player,” Schneider said. “I think he recognized that he needs to improve as a route runner, and with his preparation. He was a young guy that never had spring ball, and was just out there just playing on pure ability.

“And so for him to come into camp and have all this stuff thrown at him, different route combinations and all that, was a lot for him. But I think guys like Ben Obomanu and definitely (Brandon) Stokley when he came in, those guys really helped him out in terms of helping him recognize what he needs to work on. My expectations are high for him. I think he’s a very good player.”

Schneider also had some interesting things to say about University of Washington product Isaiah Stanback, a player who intrigued him coming out of college. Stanback suffered an Achilles tendon tear during training camp in the middle of a battle to earn a spot at receiver. But Stanback recently signed a deal to be on Seattle’s roster this season, and Schneider believes because of his athleticism and leadership ability that he can develop into a core player for the Seahawks.

“Isaiah had a great camp when he was healthy,” Schneider said. “And if he can get over the injuries, he’s a big, strong, physical run-after-the-catch, take-the-ball-out-the-air core guy that’s played quarterback. And he just has a very strong, natural leadership aura about him. He’s a great guy in the building. He’s a great guy in the community. He wants to be there. He wants to be a really good player.

“I can’t get over the fact that several years ago I was out there scouting him, and I fell in love with the guy.”

Categories:
NFL Draft
Leave a comment Comments → 14
  1. It’s no secret that I love the physical skills of Golden Tate. If the Seahawks wouldn’t have traded down in the 2nd round last year and we would have had the high pick in that round… I would have still taken Tate if I would have been the GM. I still feel that he’s going to be a special player.

    I find it ironic that Charlie Weis ran a pro-style offense at Notre Dame and we’re reading comments like: “because of his struggles with route running and picking up the intricacies of a pro-style offense.”

    When Holmgren was here, we heard many times that it takes awhile for WRs to develop. Now, with Tate, he seems to be going into a more challenging system for developing as a WR with the addition of Bevell. On a positive note, Bevell was able to get some big plays out of Percy Harvin and I see Tate being a bigger/better version of Harvin. He just needs polish.

    I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see Tate challenge for a Pro Bowl berth in ’13 or ’14. I think he’s going to be a good one.

  2. Dukeshire says:

    What is frustrating about Tate, is that we have heard about his need to improve his route running since rookie camp, it seems. And during various points throughout the summer and into the season, we heard he had recognized that and had “re-dedicated” himself. Either with the help of Housh, the week one inactive “wake up” or the addition of Stokley. Every rookie has “all this stuff thrown at him, different route combinations and all that…” why was it “a lot for him”? That is, are we talking about a dedication issue or an ability to apply what he’s been taught? It does feel as though there was very little development with him over the course of a year. Perhaps that’s wrong, but it feels that way. He is definitely one of the guys I’ll be concerned about coming back in shape if there is an extended lockout.

    Matt Bowen (National Football Post) had a piece not long ago about practice heros in NFL camps. He said that every year there is a guy in almost every camp that makes play after play yet when the games start, he are nowhere. He said that athleticism can dominate in practice but you need discipline on game day. Lets hope Tate discovers and applies that discipline. Soon.

  3. Dukeshire says:

    Bobby – I agree with what you said except that Tate is a better Harvin I don’t by that. My eyes tell me Tate’s not in Harvin’s class athletically. Not even close.

  4. Come on. I’m trying to be a homer believing in “my” guy. Let me dream a little:)

    At least we don’t have to worry about Tate missing every other day with a migrane.

  5. Dukeshire says:

    True, true. But you know me; no dreaming allowed.

  6. OCHawkFan says:

    Harvin seems to be more of an underneath route runner and it sounds like Tate is more of a downfield threat. Either way I’m hoping Bevel can tap into his potential.

    Anyone else watching the combine this morning? Nate Solder looks like the most athletic OL out there and a possible fit in ZBS. Another possiblity at 25?

  7. coopersmith says:

    Can anyone explain why we often throw jump balls to Tate. It just frustrates me to watch. Seems like he would be better suited in the slot more like a welker but with the ability to stretch the field.

  8. Based on all the practice reports we get… Tate is usually making acrobatic/great catches in practice. It just isn’t translating into the games. Part of it could be that he’s going up against some guys like Kelly Jennings in pracitce and when he gets in a game, he goes against players with better ball skills and who are able to make sure Tate isn’t making those receptions.

  9. Dukeshire says:

    I think the other part of it is that there are times in practice, especially 7 on 7 drills, throws are pre-determined, unlike a scrimmage where it’s more like a game situation (progressions, reads, etc…) so balls are put up that may ordinarily not be thrown. As a result, he gets opportunities to make an “acrobatic” play.

    Combine? Been on at my place for hours. lol

  10. williambryan says:

    I think there were two problems for tate. One, the coaches didn’t give him enough opportunities (maybe this is mostly tate’s fault…) and two, Hasselbeck didnt seem to like to throw to him. I remember several occasions when Tate would be on a short crossing route running wide open and calling for the ball and Hasselbeck didn’t deliver it to him. I understand a lot goes into where the ball is thrown (called reciever, first read, etc. etc.) but I believe if Tate gets 8-10 targets he will be a big time player for this team. I don’t want the team to draft a WR.

  11. I would kill to be able to sign Sidney Rice (no compensation) and to build our lines via the draft w/high picks (assuming there’s no QB available).

  12. freedom_X says:

    I don’t think we’re seeing Tate’s athleticism because he’s mentally handcuffed. He’s unsure of himself and thinking too much. Once/when/if he learns the route running demanded of him, you’ll see the athleticism pop.

    Until Mike Williams emerged, Tate was the only receiver Seattle had (and has had for years) that will go get the ball instead of letting it come to them. Tate will go after and fight to make the catch. All other Seattle receivers of the past 4 years wouldn’t leave their feet, extend, or stretch to go get a imperfect throw (or fight off a defender also playing the ball.) They were passive.

    That’s probably why they throw him jump balls. He’ll actually jump after the ball unlike the others.

    If Leon Washington hadn’t done such a great job on punt returns, we probably would have seen more of Tate’s natural ability on those returns. But after Tate got hurt and Washington did such a good job, there was no reason to switch back.

  13. Kinda wonder about the difference between the Charlie Weiss offense and the WCO that Tate (and Branch) haven’t had as much success in, after having had some pretty good success in the Weiss offense. Branch goes back to a Weiss offense and bang!, he’s back to being a pro-bowl-type WR. I’d be tempted to say, ‘well, that’s the difference between Brady and Hasselbeck’, but then you look at Claussen’s struggles in CAR. Does anybody have a kinda simple way of saying what the major difference is between the Weiss offense and the WCO, so I can maybe understand why the WRs that change from one to the other seem to struggle more with the WCO?

  14. Dukeshire says:

    klm – First off, if you look at Branch’s career averages, they’re not too dissimilar whether in Seattle or NE (injuries aside).

    That said, Weiss’ basic offense is something like a spread. He loves to stretch the field horizontally as well as vertically. Ideally, creating mismatches where LBs have to cover WRs. Or deeper throws outside the numbers (deep outs, go, fades…) wherever the safety doesn’t help the corner(s). Lots of empty backfields , 5 receiver sets, etc… Throw to score, run to win…

    WCOs typically use much shorter passes to pull safeties and DBs closer to the line, creating opportunities for receivers (typically bigger) to break runs and yards after the catch. (YAC as a stat was developed under Walsh’s 49ers.) And of course, with safeties playing closer to the line, longer passes plays can be set up without having to run it first.

    In typical WCO, more emphasis is placed on timing than in something like Weiss runs. Based on what a QB reads, he may throw it to a very specific spot before the receiver is even out of his break. Weiss’ O, through creating mismatches, does rely on QBs finding holes in zones.

    In any case, this is very, very simple. Of course the philosophies are vastly more complex and you could study each for years. Perhaps another way to think of the difference is Bill Walsh’s 49ers (through Paul Brown) vs Bill Parcells’ Giants (through Ron Erhardt). They’ve evolved and changed with the game, but that gives one a place to study the origins of Bevell’s and Weiss’ offense. Hope that helps…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0