Much rather have Tate then Harvin

[plyka]

The more I think about it the more sick I get .

Tate is better then Harvin . I know Harvin is more explosive and blah blah blah . The guy just can't stay healthy .
Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made .

Just imagine for a moment that we had Tate for 5/31m and Cordelle Patterson on the rookie pay scale . We would still have 7m a year in cap room to extend the likes of Sherman/Thomas/Wilson/Wright/Wagner/Okung and the list goes on .

In stead we have a player who many of you think will stay healthy. What.A.Joke. I really wish it were true but he just can't . Did Tate ever get hurt ? Did Tate break many tackles ? Did Tate basically Catch everything ? Yes.

I hated the trade a year ago and I hate it more so now . I love John Schnieder to death but I have a feeling he would agree with me . I like everything we did this offseason including not resigning Tate .. But only because we have soo much money tied up into Harvin

This is the very definition of fan insanity. Emotions rule the day and logic and reason are thrown to the wayside.

It's one thing to say that the hawks overpaid for Percy, but to say that Tate is better than Percy is beyond ridiculous. The lions guaranteed $13 million to Tate. No other team offered more or even a competing offer from what I heard. The total contract is irrelevant, it's the yearly plus guarantee that's important. The lions gave Tate 2 years at $13milliom, because after the first two years they can cut him at little to no cost. No other team would beat this offer the hawks included.

Tate says that the hawks offered such a tiny deal that one year in detriot at around $6 million would take multiple years in Seattle! So the hawks offered him $3 million later taking up their offer to perhaps $4.

Percy is obviously in another league altogether.

 

[BlueBlood]

Tate is a Detroit Lion.

Who is better, more explosive and brings dynamic to our wideout position that we don't already have in Kearse and Baldwin?

Ask for the salary cap fears. Which free spending team this off season has a chance to unseat us? Nobody! Keep the core, fill the gaps and rely on Lynch, Wilson, Harvin, Miller, Baldwin, Kearse, Willson, Okung, Unger, Bennett, Avril, Irvin, Wagner, Smith, KJ, Earl, Maxwell, Sherman and Kam to lead the way. We are still loaded and will add more.

Detroit won't win 9 games.

 

[Anthony!]

I re watched all the games yesterday, and I focused a lot on 2 players, Tate and Kearse. I do not think we will miss Tate much as a WR, I think those opportunities will go to Kearse and Harvin and we will be more than fine, presuming Harvin can stay healthy which is a big if. Were I believe we will miss Tate is as a punt returner, he was a top 5 and now we really do not have a answer. Yet.

 

[Scottemojo]

Tate isn't consistent at all. Tate doesn't pull coverage off of other guys to open them up for big plays. You can't run a Jet sweep with Tate and put the fear of God in your opponent.

Harvin is game planned for. Tate is covered by whichever corner is on that side. There is a MASSIVE difference.

This might be the best Harvin thread yet. I love the 3 picks stuff. The first rounder is Harvin, essentially. The 7th rounder last year? Cmon. Who cares? So an extra 3rd for a top 5 playmaker in the NFL. I don't look at the salary at all. This front office has salary cap scenarios laid out and if they say they can afford to have him taking up that much cap, it's good enough for me.

I would have thought the Super Bowl proved why he's so elite, but I guess some people can't evaluate the players they watch. It's cool guys, uneducated posts are what keep this forum going.

Uhh wrong. We gave a first, a third, and a seventh. Thats three picks we could have had plus Tate and still about 4 or 5 million in cap room. It takes some real reality warping to say it only cost a third.

Well, the first round pick was Harvin. Or the third. Or the 7th. However you want to spin it, Harvin is one of those three picks.

No, Harvin is Tate in this discussion. Keep Tate because you didn't pay Harvin, save a bunch of money AND have all three picks. It's not rocket science, well, except for some obviously. :roll:

How does not trading for Harvin guarantee Tate stays here? What if they traded for Harvin because they kind of knew Tate wanted to leave? What if the front office traded for Harvin specifically to upgrade Tate's position, never planning on really trying to keep him?

the assumption that if Harvin were not here Tate still would be requires me to assume both that this front office would outbid all bidders for Tate, probably overpaying for him, and to assume that Tate really wants to be in Seattle.

 

[HawkFan72]

Harvin did far more in 2 Postseason games than Tate did in 3.

When healthy, there is no comparison about who the better player is.

 

[MVP53]

At the time of the actual trade, Percy Harvin had played in 54 of 64 games in his career (84%).

 

[BlueBlood]

Tate was overpaid. If we HAD that kind of cap space I'd be sore at the team for signing him for 31 million dollars.. Top shelf DE is at a premium and Bennett didn't even get a deal like that.

 

[BlueBlood]

At the time of the actual trade, Percy Harvin had played in 54 of 64 games in his career (84%).

so 16% less playing time than Tate and mostly without a quarterback and still 100% more productive? Not bad

 

[SouthSoundHawk]

I both love and despise the off season...

 

[MVP53]

This is reality. We gave a first, third, and seventh pick plus a massive contract which cost us the ability to re-sign Tate. We gave up four players, one a proven quality player in Tate for a guy who has hardly played. The fantasy of Harvin is strong here it seems. I hope Harvin can stay healthy next year but its doubtful in my mind. Even if he does I'm not sure if its worth it.
I'll be rooting that he stays healthy and has a positive impact but I do think the trade was a mistake.

You can't say that for certain. It could just as easily be argued Michael Bennett, or Earl Thomas, or Richard Sherman are the reasons Tate was not resigned.

And also, the front office could have just felt Tate was not worth getting into a bidding war with Detroit, Percy Harvin on the roster, or not. Simply having Harvin's money freed up would not necessarily mean the front office would make a poor financial decision on Golden Tate.

 

[onanygivensunday]

What's done is done.

Harvin is lighting in a bottle and we get to figuratively play with that tremendous power source whenever we (Pete/Bevell/fans) want and experience the thrills of watching it doing amazing things for the next five years.

That is easily worth the extra $4.5M/year that Percy makes in average salary over Tate.... easily!!

 

[Throwdown]

Rather have Harvin, Harvin had practically a brand new hip re shaped during his surgery as well, I heard this on Brock & Danny right before the divisional round when the Harvin buzz was going on again. I'll reserve my judgement on him, but based on what I've seen I think I'd rather have Percy.

 

[Hasselbeck]

The more I think about it the more sick I get .

Tate is better then Harvin . I know Harvin is more explosive and blah blah blah . The guy just can't stay healthy .
Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made .

Just imagine for a moment that we had Tate for 5/31m and Cordelle Patterson on the rookie pay scale . We would still have 7m a year in cap room to extend the likes of Sherman/Thomas/Wilson/Wright/Wagner/Okung and the list goes on .

I love when people immediately assume the Seahawks would have drafted Cordarrelle Patterson just because he wound up going to the Vikings.

 

[MVP53]

At the time of the actual trade, Percy Harvin had played in 54 of 64 games in his career (84%).

so 16% less playing time than Tate and mostly without a quarterback and still 100% more productive? Not bad

Actually, at the time, Tate had played in 87.5% of his career games. So, 3.5% fewer appearances.

 

[Natethegreat]

This is reality. We gave a first, third, and seventh pick plus a massive contract which cost us the ability to re-sign Tate. We gave up four players, one a proven quality player in Tate for a guy who has hardly played. The fantasy of Harvin is strong here it seems. I hope Harvin can stay healthy next year but its doubtful in my mind. Even if he does I'm not sure if its worth it.
I'll be rooting that he stays healthy and has a positive impact but I do think the trade was a mistake.

You can't say that for certain. It could just as easily be argued Michael Bennett, or Earl Thomas, or Richard Sherman are the reasons Tate was not resigned.

And also, the front office could have just felt Tate was not worth getting into a bidding war with Detroit, Percy Harvin on the roster, or not. Simply having Harvin's money freed up would not necessarily mean the front office would make a poor financial decision on Golden Tate.

We did not have the roster spot or money for Tate because of Harvin. If we did not have Harvins MASSIVE contract we could have offered Tate somewhere in the 5 to 5.5 range and had him. He was obviously disappointed in not coming back and stated he would take a little less to stay here but we already had Harvin and at this point he is somewhat redundant. Therefore we didn't even make an offer.
The original point is not just about Tate straight across for Harvin but rather the totality of what it costs to have Harvin on this team.
As I have stated we could have four other players on this roster, one of whom is a proven quality commodity, plus at least 4 or 5 million in cap space or an oft injured player thats been a head ache both in the NFL and college for his coaches.
That 4 or 5 million (every year)would serve us well in extending Thomas and Sherman or even getting a player like Jared Allen or Melton. He has cost this team A TON and so far has contributed very little.

 

[RolandDeschain]

A mod should rename the subject of this thread to "Rather have a Lexus than a Lamborghini".

Excuse me; "then", rather.

 

[captSE]

Fine timing on this subject. Lets all piss off Harvin, shall we?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The more I think about it the more sick I get .

Tate is better then Harvin . I know Harvin is more explosive and blah blah blah . The guy just can't stay healthy .
Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made .

Just imagine for a moment that we had Tate for 5/31m and Cordelle Patterson on the rookie pay scale . We would still have 7m a year in cap room to extend the likes of Sherman/Thomas/Wilson/Wright/Wagner/Okung and the list goes on .

I love when people immediately assume the Seahawks would have drafted Cordarrelle Patterson just because he wound up going to the Vikings.

Well it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that if we didn't acquire Harvin, we might have taken Patterson ahead of the Vikings.

A better argument is Patterson isn't even in the same class as Harvin. Dude played 16 games, and only had 450 yards and 4 TD's. So to think we'd have the same production out of a 6'2'' WR vs. a guy like Harvin who when healthy is going to be involved in like 30-40% of our offensive plays? Ludicrous.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

You're describing the Dallas Cowboys. You never overpay mid tier players you pay your core players and use FA and draft picks and rookie contract players for the rest.

 

[HawkFan72]

A mod should rename the subject of this thread to "Rather have a Lexus than a Lamborghini".

Excuse me; "then", rather.

Yeah, technically we DID have Tate "then" Harvin.