I thought the headline might grab your attention. Earlier this week, former Seattle Seahawk and Detroit Lion Golden Tate said in an interview that “as of now, where I am today, I think (Matthew) Stafford’s been the best quarterback I’ve played with.”
That rose some eyebrows, as Tate’s quarterback in Seattle, Russell Wilson, is often viewed as an elite-tier quarterback and led Tate and the Seahawks to a Super Bowl win in 2013. Thus, it begs the question of how much truth there is to that statement, and whether you buy Golden Tate’s claim.
Question of the day: Is Matthew Stafford better than Russell Wilson?
My answer: Of course not, but that doesn’t mean Tate’s lying either.
That’s no knock on Stafford, as he most certainly is an above average starting quarterback whom the Lions are lucky to have. Wilson, however, has solidified himself as one of the game’s best quarterbacks with his unique combination of elusiveness and arm ability. There’s a reason the Seahawks have stayed afloat despite their roster getting turned upside down in recent years, and it’s him.
At the same time, I’m certain that Golden Tate meant what he said. While Wilson was good from the start of his career, Tate only played alongside Wilson for two years, wherein he hadn’t quite reached his current elite level yet.
Likewise, from a performance standpoint, Tate has every reason to believe in what he said. After putting up 688 and 898 receiving yards in each of his first two seasons, respectively, Tate went on to average receiving 1056 yards per season in his four total seasons with Detroit, setting him up for his $37.5 million payday with the New York Giants this offseason. All things considered, it’s no surprise he remembers Stafford and Detroit so fondly.
Is Matthew Stafford better than Russell Wilson?
This poll is closed
What do you think? Did Golden Tate mean what he said? Is Stafford in the elite tier with Wilson? Let us know in the comments.