No, my position is that Weis did a great job of developing Tate. And Michael Floyd has nothing to do with that. Of course Michael Floyd wasn't a polished receiver. He was only a sophomore. And, regardless of whether or not Tate was ready for the NFL (after only three years of playing WR; don't forget that he was a RB in High School), the progress he made from his first year to his last was incredible. And if Weis is going to get the blame for all of the guys who didn't develop, then you have to give him credit for the guys who did.
For the life of me I can't remember what I was watching, but someone, perhaps a scout was really laying into Tate and the ND coaching staff. Why?
*Overall lazy route runner. Not very precise, gets by on athleticism. They kept showing slant routes and how he rounded them off, causing a lot of incompletions, and if he did catch it he was too close to the defenders to be even more dangerous after the catch.
*Poor blocker. Huge criticism of all the Irish receivers under Weis.
There's not much else, but those are two huge negatives for a receiver going to the next level.
Also, both of these are fundementals that should have been taught from day one. A little different than the criticism of Floyd, where it was him not running complicated routes and being dominant at every thing a polished elite reciever should be.
