What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ben Tate release ! (1 Viewer)

And tidbit for those playing at home:

Tate has more than 4 years service so technically he isn't waived, he is released (can sign as a FA immediately). However, there is an exception that states that since he is released after the trade deadline, he must pass through the waiver system, regardless.

I bring that up not as a trivia/trivial thing but to opine if, because of this subtlety, if it is possible that the 24 hour "waiver" period isn't an exact, firm 24 hours in this case.
Are we sure that he has been credited with 4 years of service?

He was on IR the entire 2010 season. I seem to remember with Michael Bush, that his 1st year didn't "count" because he never played; as a result he entered FA 1 year later than he would have otherwise.

Not that it matters though, because I tend to think that your 1st post is spot on, and the 24 hour "clock" starts with the end of the NFL's business day in NY, so we might know something around 5 pm.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And tidbit for those playing at home:

Tate has more than 4 years service so technically he isn't waived, he is released (can sign as a FA immediately). However, there is an exception that states that since he is released after the trade deadline, he must pass through the waiver system, regardless.

I bring that up not as a trivia/trivial thing but to opine if, because of this subtlety, if it is possible that the 24 hour "waiver" period isn't an exact, firm 24 hours in this case.
Are we sure that he has been credited with 4 years of service?

He was on IR the entire 2010 season. I seem to remember with Michael Bush, that his 1st year didn't "count" because he never played; as a result he entered FA 1 year later than he would have otherwise.

Not that it matters though, because I tend to think that your 1st post is spot on, and the 24 hour "clock" starts with the end of the NFL's business day in NY, so we might know something around 5 pm.
I guess we could look at his original contract to get an idea but my knee-jerk guess on that is since he hit FA, it was accredited as a year of service (based on the thought that I THINK he signed a 4 year deal as a rookie). Seems like Bush was a PUP or special list guy since he came into the league already rehabbing and MAYBE (just guessing) that may be the difference.

And, yeah, the more I think about it, the timing makes more sense to what I said in the 1st post because when a player is waived, a 24 hour clock starts but when they are released, the player becomes an immediate FA "when the release paperwork is approved by the NFL office".

So maybe its a scenario where the news broke yesterday but it took 3-4 hours for the paperwork to get approved or something (speculation...just saying that would kind of make sense in this case).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And tidbit for those playing at home:

Tate has more than 4 years service so technically he isn't waived, he is released (can sign as a FA immediately). However, there is an exception that states that since he is released after the trade deadline, he must pass through the waiver system, regardless.

I bring that up not as a trivia/trivial thing but to opine if, because of this subtlety, if it is possible that the 24 hour "waiver" period isn't an exact, firm 24 hours in this case.
Are we sure that he has been credited with 4 years of service?

He was on IR the entire 2010 season. I seem to remember with Michael Bush, that his 1st year didn't "count" because he never played; as a result he entered FA 1 year later than he would have otherwise.

Not that it matters though, because I tend to think that your 1st post is spot on, and the 24 hour "clock" starts with the end of the NFL's business day in NY, so we might know something around 5 pm.
I guess we could look at his original contract to get an idea but my knee-jerk guess on that is since he hit FA, it was accredited as a year of service (based on the thought that I THINK he signed a 4 year deal as a rookie). Seems like Bush was a PUP or special list guy since he came into the league already rehabbing and MAYBE (just guessing) that may be the difference.

And, yeah, the more I think about it, the timing makes more sense to what I said in the 1st post because when a player is waived, a 24 hour clock starts but when they are released, the player becomes an immediate FA "when the release paperwork is approved by the NFL office".

So maybe its a scenario where the news broke yesterday but it took 3-4 hours for the paperwork to get approved or something (speculation...just saying that would kind of make sense in this case).
Good point about Bush. He was hurt in college & didn't even get to practice his 1st year when he got drafted. Tate got hurt during TC, IIRC.

 
And tidbit for those playing at home:

Tate has more than 4 years service so technically he isn't waived, he is released (can sign as a FA immediately). However, there is an exception that states that since he is released after the trade deadline, he must pass through the waiver system, regardless.

I bring that up not as a trivia/trivial thing but to opine if, because of this subtlety, if it is possible that the 24 hour "waiver" period isn't an exact, firm 24 hours in this case.
Are we sure that he has been credited with 4 years of service?He was on IR the entire 2010 season. I seem to remember with Michael Bush, that his 1st year didn't "count" because he never played; as a result he entered FA 1 year later than he would have otherwise.

Not that it matters though, because I tend to think that your 1st post is spot on, and the 24 hour "clock" starts with the end of the NFL's business day in NY, so we might know something around 5 pm.
I guess we could look at his original contract to get an idea but my knee-jerk guess on that is since he hit FA, it was accredited as a year of service (based on the thought that I THINK he signed a 4 year deal as a rookie). Seems like Bush was a PUP or special list guy since he came into the league already rehabbing and MAYBE (just guessing) that may be the difference.And, yeah, the more I think about it, the timing makes more sense to what I said in the 1st post because when a player is waived, a 24 hour clock starts but when they are released, the player becomes an immediate FA "when the release paperwork is approved by the NFL office".

So maybe its a scenario where the news broke yesterday but it took 3-4 hours for the paperwork to get approved or something (speculation...just saying that would kind of make sense in this case).
Good point about Bush. He was hurt in college & didn't even get to practice his 1st year when he got drafted. Tate got hurt during TC, IIRC.
Broke his ankle in the first preseason game. Had drafted him in a bunch of leagues and was pretty disappointed. Foster took the job and has been awesome ever since.

 
At least he'll be behind a good offensive line, right? McKinnon is expected to be the future back, but he still needs work. Tate should step in and be the lead back in the mean time.

 
At least he'll be behind a good offensive line, right? McKinnon is expected to be the future back, but he still needs work. Tate should step in and be the lead back in the mean time.
Really? Because he's shown to be better than McKinnon thus far?

 
Makes sense to me. This may lead to the departure of ADP even if he is reinstated next year. It might be best for the Vikings and ADP to both get a fresh start, Minny can evaluate Tate and determine if they would need to go after a RB either in the draft or free agency next year.

 
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.

 
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.
That's quite a leap from one FA pickup. Couldn't it just be that they are opportunists at upgrading the Asiata role and have the money/cap space to do it? I hear Asiata is in concussion protocol as we speak.

 
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.
Asiata has a concussion.

 
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.
McKinnon has shown great progress over the past month or so and the guy appears legit.

He is however a little banged up and Asiata may not play this weekend.

This is nothing more than picking up a veteran on the cheap who can step in and produce if need be.

 
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.
I don't own either of these guys in my leagues but I think Minnesota has been happy with McKinnon. It probably speaks more to their RB depth and may suggest they might not want to have ADP come back. A backfield of McKinnon & Asiata isn't very deep.

 
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.
Asiata has a concussion.
And McKinnon has been dealing with a lower back issue. Neither have been practicing this week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have Tate and he is being picked up as a warm body to take on a bit of work if need be........IMO

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe they see McKinnon as a change of pace 3rd down guy. Tate potentially starts and Asiata is the short yardage goal line guy.

 
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.
Asiata has a concussion.
And McKinnon has been dealing with a lower back issue. Neither have been practicing this week.
Joe Banyard may be a sneaky claim for a week?

 
Tate was in Turner's offense last year, so it should be easy for him to get acclimated as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
steveski said:
Dondante said:
steveski said:
At least he'll be behind a good offensive line, right? McKinnon is expected to be the future back, but he still needs work. Tate should step in and be the lead back in the mean time.
Really? Because he's shown to be better than McKinnon thus far?
Throughout his career? Yes I'd say so.
Oh yes, the "great" Ben Tate.

Houston basically let him walk despite having the banged-up Arian Foster then the Browns signed him for a 2 years (2nd not-guaranteed) 6.2 milion contract (2.5 guaranteed)

And then they cut him after 10 weeks, he must be a hell of a player.

 
Pretty much safe to drop in redraft unless you're desperate.
Huh? No way
2 carries for -9 yards last week. But now he has to learn a new offense on a bad team on top of not really being a good player. Should work out great.
RBs can usually sign off the street and play in a game the same week (Silent G, Peyton Hillis last year). There really isnt much to learning a new offense for a RB unless your name is TRich. He may not be a good player but hes better than Asiata and at the very least should be in a timeshare with McKinnon going forward. Why else would Minny claim him?

 
Pretty much safe to drop in redraft unless you're desperate.
Huh? No way
2 carries for -9 yards last week. But now he has to learn a new offense on a bad team on top of not really being a good player. Should work out great.
RBs can usually sign off the street and play in a game the same week (Silent G, Peyton Hillis last year). There really isnt much to learning a new offense for a RB unless your name is TRich. He may not be a good player but hes better than Asiata and at the very least should be in a timeshare with McKinnon going forward. Why else would Minny claim him?
Depth?

 
Pretty much safe to drop in redraft unless you're desperate.
Huh? No way
2 carries for -9 yards last week. But now he has to learn a new offense on a bad team on top of not really being a good player. Should work out great.
RBs can usually sign off the street and play in a game the same week (Silent G, Peyton Hillis last year). There really isnt much to learning a new offense for a RB unless your name is TRich. He may not be a good player but hes better than Asiata and at the very least should be in a timeshare with McKinnon going forward. Why else would Minny claim him?
Asiata with a concussion, McKinnon banged up.

Tate costs Minny only 350.000 $ for 6 weeks then next year is not-guaranteed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To me this is a big red flag as a McKinnon owner.. The Vikings are obviously not sold on him being a future back as this season is lost and bringing in a vet will only mitigate the young guys chance to learn and grow. This makes zero sense to me unless the Vikes are just not sold on McKinnon.
I guess here's what zero sense looks like:

Vikings OC Norv Turner insists Jerick McKinnon is still the team's top back despite the addition of Ben Tate.

"We’re excited about Jerick and what he’s done and I see him as our running back," Norval said. According to Turner, Tate is just an "insurance" policy with McKinnon resting a back injury and Matt Asiata (concussion) unlikely for Week 12. If Tate is going to threaten McKinnon's No. 1 status, it's not going to be in Week 12 with just four days to learn the playbook. McKinnon will be a boom-or-bust RB2 against the Packers.
 
What's the story with this guy? I always thought he looked great filling in for Foster in Houston, but then again I think lots of RB's would.

Where do the Le'veon Bell owners rate this guy? If waivers were open and he was sitting there, would you put a roster move on him? He'll be 27 when the season begins with not much wear although a history of getting nicked up. I think he got the best FA contract for RB's last year, but went to one of the most dysfunctional organizations in the league... and was then cut, picked up (Minny), cut again and picked up again (Pitts)... right? I could understand the move from both organizations given the Crowell/West/McKinnon development... but I think it may say just as much about his talent.

I can't find any news on him and would assume Pittsburgh is planning on keeping him for Bell insurance this year? Weird things happen when RB's miss the start of the season and Archer isn't an early down back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't figure this out at all. He actually looked good in that first game for Cleveland and then after that minor injury that seemed to sideline him for way too long, it was nuts.

I'm not big in to conspiracy theory but I might be enticed to buy the story that Tate was ready to come back much sooner than they let him and became frustrated by the Browns insisting to try all their other players out in mix and match scenarios. Have to keep in mind, this is a guy that played well in Houston, came to Cleveland expecting and being told he would be the guy. Then the Browns add all these guys and do the opposite, then he starts off really well but (for whatever reason) can't seem to get activated for 4-5 weeks??). He gets upset and gets himself off the team and then finds himself on a team with just as many RB soap operas going on.

So, at the end of the day, I count it up as I liked what I saw in Houston. Didn't think he was a stud like some wanted to make him to be playing behind Foster but definitely thought he could be fantasy viable as a volume guy somewhere. Didn't like him at all after the first month of the season but recognizing he played for a team where NOBODY (not even Josh Gordon and Jordan Cameron) looked decent last year.

 
Maybe Tate just overestimated his talents and can't accept the truth. He's a good back, but not great. No team is going to hand him a starting role and let him keep it if other guys on the team (especially rookies!) are out-performing him.

I always wondered if maybe he saw the superstar treatment that Foster got and he thought it would be his turn as soon as he got out of Houston.

 
All of the RBs looked good through week 6, the week Mack got hurt. Over the next 5 weeks, none of them looked good. Tate got released week 12, and the other two were pretty mediocre the rest of the year. Bottom line, Cleveland's running game was completely inept without Mack.

 
Both rookies looked good week 10. Crowell looked great week 12. That was followed by Manziel and the hip injury. West then looked good week 17.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top