08-02-2016, 01:05 PM
(08-02-2016, 11:21 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Not following this logic...Why is Hester not effective as a WR, at least compared to Tate? If you compare his receiving numbers the past three years to Tate (while very injured in 2015 to boot)....
Hester:
2013 - 0 receptions, 0 yds (all he did this year was returns for Bears)
2014 - 38 receptions, 504 yds, 2 TDs (first year with Falcons)
2014 - 0 receptions, 0 yds (out 11 games, ineffective from toe injury for remaining 5)
------------------------------------------------
total: 38 receptions, 504 yds, 2 TDs
Tate:
2013 - 1 reception, 6 yds
2014 - 17 receptions, 193 yds, 1 TD
2015 - 2 receptions, 59 yds, 1 TD
----------------------------------------------
total: 20 receptions, 258 yds, 2 TDs
So even saying he's not an effective WR in recent years is still far better than what Tate brings. And better production as a returner.
If Alford or one of the other young guys shows quality return abilities this year and consistent contributions at WR in the offseason, obviously go with them, but it wouldn't hurt to bring Hester in to compete for that same role (return specialist and backup WR). If someone outperforms him, cut him before the start of the season. Same with Tate.
and that was out of how many plays they were on the field for the offense your numbers don't paint the whole picture..
At this point tate is more valuable than a 34 year old with a bad foot who was only ever good at one thing. a thing we still have adam jones to do.
