Rockne's Roundtable

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.

Floyd created more match-up problems. Easy choice for me.

Tate had Clausen and Floyd had Rees for 2 years and still put up record numbers. Floyd easily gets my nod

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.

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.

Gotta go Floyd as a wr. If we are talking athlete I probably give a slight nod to Tate then.

I would go with floyd if i had to choose.

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.

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.

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 it does