In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 760
Online now 198 Record: 6507 (2/14/2012)
The place for Irish fans to engage in hardcore discussion about Notre Dame athletics
Talk with Irish fans from around the globe about college football's most storied program
The spot for anything on your mind outside of Notre Dame athletics
The place for Notre Dame fans to trade and exchange tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Who was the better receiver Micheal Floyd or Golden Tate?
I love Floyd but believe Tate was the more talented. Whats your opinion?
Golden Tates' career stats: Rec-157 Yds-2707 Avg.-17.2 TDs- 26 + 3 rushing TDs
And he only played for 2 seasons and a couple games his freshman year
Micheal Floyd career stats: Rec- 271 Yds- 3686 Avg- 13.6 TDs- 37 + 1 rushing TD
Floyd played all four years and was sidelined for 5 games his sophmore season with a broken clavicle
If you were to give Tate the same amount of time his stats would be more than doubled. If he would have stayed his senior year Floyd and tate would have been the best combo in decades. Too bad.
This post was edited by 19BlueAndGold85 23 months ago
5 Time POTW--Gringo Mafia Director of Guerrilla Warfare
They are different type of receivers and played to an extent with different signal callers. They were both great college receivers but I think Floyd will do better in the pros.
I always loved Tate. Whenever JC threw it deep, Tate could turn the jets on and break away. I think both were great catchers. Floyd was a better blocker, but I think Tate was harder to bring down (I would live to know the number of tackles he broke, he was a beast). Floyd was more polished and a better route runner, but he was also a pure wr while Tate was a rb. I enjoyed Tate more but love them both
Floyd created more match-up problems. Easy choice for me.
Yeah but Tate was more productive
Tate had Clausen and Floyd had Rees for 2 years and still put up record numbers. Floyd easily gets my nod
Floyd. Tate more production? See Notre Dame football record book...
While Floyd played all 4 years Tate only played 2. Tate was more productive and would still hold the records if he played his freshman or senior seasons. And for the record he had 6 receptions as a freshman with seeing limited action in 2 games. USC and someone else. And he had 3 rushing TDs and a lot of return yards like 1195 or something.
Tate would have been better if he played all four years like Floyd. Tate is far more talented in my opinion. I have a number 23 jersey in blue, white, and green because of Tate.
POTW June 4, 2012 - June 11, 2012
Samardzija was better than either of them!
But the question is difficult; Tate was more productive but it's hard to compare directly because of the difference in their systems. Would rather have Floyd on my team as he seems like more of a team player and would be more of a matchup problem. Skill wise it might be a true washout.
The shark was the shit. Best highlight I can remember was the catch and run up the sideline against UCLA in 2006? for the win. Awsome.
Gotta go Floyd as a wr. If we are talking athlete I probably give a slight nod to Tate then.
Gringo Mafia Strength Coach
Floyd is the better receiver Tate better with the ball in his hands Tate had a really good qb to work with during his time. Both very different wrs. Excited to see what Floyd is capable of with an nfl qb
I would go with floyd if i had to choose.
Two time Poster of The Week, 2011 and 2013.
Hard to compare since they played in completely different offenses their final years here. Floyd missed some games due to injuries and Tate left early so their games played are kinda even. I'd give the nod to Floyd but not by much.
Golden was the closest thing to Rocket we've had since #25 left. You could line him up in the backfield, at receiver, or let him return a KO or punt and you knew he could score anytime he touched the ball. Floyd and Tate both were special at ND.
My luck w/the Irish 20-6...GO IRISH!!!
When they were both on the field, the opposing team placed their top DB on Floyd. Tate was a great athlete, but I do not think he was a skilled receiver. Until his last season, he was primarily relegated to running fly patterns. Even during his breakout season, Tate was not a great route runner. Floyd was a talented and skilled receiver from his first game.
“Notre Dame? Relevant? Of course. Call me in 90 years, and I’ll give you the same answer.” Neal Pilson, former president of CBS Sports
I have to go with Floyd too. I think what MF did with the QB he had the last 2 years was incredible. Tate had an awesome QB. Floyd, not so much. I wonder if Tate could have put up the same type of numbers, with TR at QB, that Floyd did?
Great question. Thanks.
It's almost like comparing Rocket with Tim Brown. I'd take either one.
Like Tate, Rocket was the better all-around threat and an electric performer, but Tim Brown was the better receiver with the much stronger NFL career.
Tate's junior year here was the best I've seen from an Irish wideout, especially with Floyd injured a good portion of the year. I've always believed that once both were in the NFL, Floyd would distinguish himself more because of his size, range and physicality, including as a good blocker.
What makes it more apples and oranges is that Tate had a seasoned junior in Jimmy Clausen getting him the football.
I would have to go with Floyd. This is about 2 guys playing the WR position, and MF is the better WR. Tate sure was fun to watch, but as a WR, route running is very important. Can't really say that Tate would be the record holder if he had played more. Lots of people could have records if they played their sports longer. Both were excellent college players, but I see Floyd having a better career in the NFL. Watch out for Goodman though
3 time POTW
Don't forget how dominant Michael Floyd was in Tate's junior season before that injury. His injury history robbed him of even great stats in his first 2 seasons. Tate became dominant even without Floyd to draw coverage but I still believe that Floyd was the better receiver overall but you are splitting hairs in this debate really. Golden Tate would have benefited from returning for his SR year and learning how to run routes properly much the way that Floyd improved his draft stock.
That play STILL gives me goosebumps!
That it does
Tate did play his freshman year, he just wasn't very good until he learned how to run more than one route.
I know he did. He saw action during 2 games, USC and another team I can't remeber.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports