Golden Tate

[HawkFan72]

Throw another suitor into the mix...

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 2m

Hear Lions have interest RT @mchappell51: I think WR Golden Tate would look good catching passes from #colts QB Andrew Luck. Just a thought

 

[KiwiHawk]

Oh, let's not forget who led the league in missed tackles forced despite only having 64 receptions, too. (He also was covered by the #1 corner half the year after Sidney went down.)

However, yeah, let's not offer him more than $5m/year at the most. :roll:

Guys, we need to admit as a group of fans that Tate is worth more than $5m/year. We may not give it to him, but the dude is cash money as a receiver. If he saw 160 targets/year from Brady, he'd be an instant household name.

Your argument is a non-sequitur, which for those playing at home, means the conclusion is not supported by the premise.

The premise is he has the best YAC and missed tackles and the conclusion is he's worth more than the $5 mil we're offering.

The WR market is not decided by stats, but by supply and demand. This year the supply is high because the draft is very deep in WR talent. The demand is reasonably low, because teams are loading up on the defensive side of the ball in order to be like the Seahawks, because the sheep always flock to the formula that worked for the last SB champion.

As far as the stats go, one stat I don't see there is ability to get separation, which is a knock not just against Tate but against all our receivers. It's not a terrible thing because we have a QB who can extend plays, but for teams with a traditional pocket passer, that severely devalues Tate. The primary reflection of lack of separation is red-zone TDs, which was a problem area for us last year.

Given the competition coming in the form of all those college WRs in this deep draft class, most of which will be very cap friendly when taken in rounds 2-4, Tate will not likely demand more than the $5 mil we're offering. The reality of the new CBA is that new draftees lower the market value for vets unless those vets are at the very top of their position. It's a bad year to be a 2nd-tier free agent WR.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

His argument isn't a non-sequitur because he hasn't changed the topic from Tate's value, which we are discussing. A non-sequitur is a fallacy in which the arguer changes the topic altogether.

A conclusion not supported by the premise is just a poorly-defended argument, which Roland does have here. Using one data point (YAC) in order to argue potential value is just sloppy work. He needs more data points. But then again, this is just a football message board, so I also have low expectations.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Your point about separation is valid, but overrated. Nobody gets separation regularly, which is why you need to be able to pass to receivers that are covered. I think your red zone TD point is a little off the mark, I would say there are other larger reasons for our comparable lack of production there, with play calling being one of them.

You also have a valid point to an extent about supply and demand. However, it's not all about that, because that varies wildly every year. If circumstances allow you to low-ball the hell out of a guy this year, he might be annoyed with his contract next year and make an issue of it, for example. Similarly, you overpay for a guy one year, then might end up having to cut him the next year. *shrug*

 

[RolandDeschain]

Also, let me clarify; I'm not saying it's the only stat that matters, or the only one to look at. I would say that, arguably, yards after the catch per reception is more valuable than receptions, average yards per reception, and # of TDs, though.

On a national level, Tate is underrated most specifically when it comes to yards after the catch and missed tackles, which are directly related to each other.

 

[Laloosh]

Is it possible that the FO thinks, "hey, we got there with Tate and Baldwin, why can't we get there with Harvin and Baldwin?"

Add some depth at the position through the draft. Make Lockette earn a spot if he can.

Harvin
ADB
ChopChop
Lockette
Rookie
Rookie

Preferably a rookie in there with size and speed that can compete for a spot this year.

 

[Dtowers]

I think no news is good news on the Tate front. If it takes a few days for Tate to get some real interest then I think he winds up coming back.

 

[AbsolutNET]

I think no news is good news on the Tate front. If it takes a few days for Tate to get some real interest then I think he winds up coming back.

Yeah, I figured he would be among the first in Schefter's tweet blast of new signings

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Is it possible that the FO thinks, "hey, we got there with Tate and Baldwin, why can't we get there with Harvin and Baldwin?"

Add some depth at the position through the draft. Make Lockette earn a spot if he can.

Harvin
ADB
ChopChop
Lockette
Rookie
Rookie

Preferably a rookie in there with size and speed that can compete for a spot this year.

This is a real possibility. I don't think anyone in their right mind would think a combination of Harvin and Baldwin wasn't better than Tate and Baldwin. No hack on Tate, it just is what it is.

In reality, I think (for the right money, of course) they'd much rather see something like:

Harvin
Baldwin
Tate
Kearse
Lockette/Rookie
Rookie

 

[KiwiHawk]

Also, let me clarify; I'm not saying it's the only stat that matters, or the only one to look at. I would say that, arguably, yards after the catch per reception is more valuable than receptions, average yards per reception, and # of TDs, though.

On a national level, Tate is underrated most specifically when it comes to yards after the catch and missed tackles, which are directly related to each other.

From my perspective, he hasn't distinguished himself from Baldwin or even Kearse. I know the "pedestrian" meme has been made plenty fun of, but there is a kernel of truth in that we were using 3/4 undrafted free agents at WR toward the end of last season, the only non-UFA being Tate.

If Tate really is an upper-echelon receiver, there should have been clear daylight between him and Baldwin or Kearse, unless you accept the premise that our UFAs are also upper-echelon receivers. Of course, if you accept that premise, then it logically follows that you don't need to pay 5 mil for Tate when you can pick up a UFA on the cheap.

So I am saying Tate is good enough for us, but perhaps not good enough to distinguish himself from a group of pedestrian receivers to the extent that teams would be willing to break the bank for him when they can get cap-friendlier players out of the draft. I think $5 million is appropriate if not generous for a player with Tate's resume.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

Golden Tate has said in many interviews over the last year that he wants to play in Seattle for the rest of his career. Anyone thinking he won't give extra consideration to a lower contract in Seattle has not been following him very closely. It's not a matter of owing anyone anything, it's that this is a great place to play with the best fan base and we are winning games. That is worth money to players. As we found out with Bennet, those factors and guaranteed money meant the most to him. I think that is the same with many of our players and fully expect to see Seattle set a new trend in player retention.

Well yes and no to this line of thinking. Tate saying he "wants to play in Seattle for the rest of his career" is a lot different than saying he will stay in spite of getting paid less money.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

Also, let me clarify; I'm not saying it's the only stat that matters, or the only one to look at. I would say that, arguably, yards after the catch per reception is more valuable than receptions, average yards per reception, and # of TDs, though.

On a national level, Tate is underrated most specifically when it comes to yards after the catch and missed tackles, which are directly related to each other.

From my perspective, he hasn't distinguished himself from Baldwin or even Kearse. I know the "pedestrian" meme has been made plenty fun of, but there is a kernel of truth in that we were using 3/4 undrafted free agents at WR toward the end of last season, the only non-UFA being Tate.

If Tate really is an upper-echelon receiver, there should have been clear daylight between him and Baldwin or Kearse, unless you accept the premise that our UFAs are also upper-echelon receivers. Of course, if you accept that premise, then it logically follows that you don't need to pay 5 mil for Tate when you can pick up a UFA on the cheap.

So I am saying Tate is good enough for us, but perhaps not good enough to distinguish himself from a group of pedestrian receivers to the extent that teams would be willing to break the bank for him when they can get cap-friendlier players out of the draft. I think $5 million is appropriate if not generous for a player with Tate's resume.

I am starting to think this too. The offseason has given me a little bit of perspective and I am not sure Tate is the type of receiver we need on this team that already has Harvin and Baldwin. Besides we can't give contracts to both of them - one has to go - and I think that will be Tate. Reason being that many of the plays that suit Tate also suit Harvin. Tate's strengths are very similar to Harvin's. His biggest advantage is his durability in my mind. I think we let the FA dust settle on WR pick up a split end and grab another in the draft in the 2nd or 3rd round. If Tate does survive a while in free agency - we can bring him back at 4/20ish.

 

[KiwiHawk]

His argument isn't a non-sequitur because he hasn't changed the topic from Tate's value, which we are discussing. A non-sequitur is a fallacy in which the arguer changes the topic altogether.

A conclusion not supported by the premise is just a poorly-defended argument, which Roland does have here. Using one data point (YAC) in order to argue potential value is just sloppy work. He needs more data points. But then again, this is just a football message board, so I also have low expectations.

No, non-sequitur literally means "it does not follow", not "changes the topic". It means a conclusion not supported by the premise.

e.g:

If A is true, then B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is true.

If a player is a top receiver, he generally has good YAC and breaks tackles well.
Tate has good YAC and breaks tackles well
Therefore Tate is a top receiver.

It does not necessarily follow, hence "non-sequitur".

 

[drdiags]

The problem facing the Seahawks is that though they have paid Harvin well, his health has to give them pause on letting Tate walk since Tate has been very healthy and can give you something on ST as well. Harvin's contract to me forces them to choose between Tate and Baldwin due to financial commitment to the position. I think Harvin's 2014 impact is $3M more than the high-water mark Rice's contract was. This is just my impression. I haven't gone back to overthecap.com so my argument is hollow at best. I am going off memory from prior readings.


Off-topic. Thurmond just signed with Jacksonville.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

His argument isn't a non-sequitur because he hasn't changed the topic from Tate's value, which we are discussing. A non-sequitur is a fallacy in which the arguer changes the topic altogether.

A conclusion not supported by the premise is just a poorly-defended argument, which Roland does have here. Using one data point (YAC) in order to argue potential value is just sloppy work. He needs more data points. But then again, this is just a football message board, so I also have low expectations.

No, non-sequitur literally means "it does not follow", not "changes the topic". It means a conclusion not supported by the premise.

e.g:

If A is true, then B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is true.

If a player is a top receiver, he generally has good YAC and breaks tackles well.
Tate has good YAC and breaks tackles well
Therefore Tate is a top receiver.

It does not necessarily follow, hence "non-sequitur".

Agree to disagree. I'm not going to scan my fallacy textbook pages into this thread because that would certainly take it off on a tangent.

 

[KiwiHawk]

No reason to scan anything - Wiki is linkable for those who are curious about such things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

 

[Cartire]

Haha, this whole, he runs backwards argument is so stupid. I can only remember two times he did this all seas including playoffs. And one of them, he still got the first after going backwards. The Super Bowl was the only failure.

Please enlighten me on all these other times that makes it such a horrible trend.

He had more receptions then Baldwin all year, and yet everyone says Tate disappeared during games, but Baldwin didn't? Does not equate.

Let me reiterate, I love them both, and want them both to remain here. But would the people here stop making up negative trends that don't exist.

 

[SonicHawk]

Tate visiting Detroit.

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter now
Seahawks WR Golden Tate is visiting Detroit tonight.

 

[Rat]

Schefter just took a phone call while on the air. It looks like the call was to report that Golden Tate is visiting the Lions tonight.

Tremendous fit for him.

 

[Hawknballs]

ug.

that sucks.

Tate to Detroit makes too much sense to not happen. Perfect add along side megatron.