SouthSoundHawk":ccdoyxtz said:
The plan should of been pretty simple, keep Tate and improve O-line = Superbowl repeat (if Seattle falls apart because they don't have golden tate....they don't deserve to win shit).
Well Tate did win us multiple games the last 2 seasons...
Is everyone really that confident Harvin will play every game?
Just imagine our offense if Harvin get's hurt... if that happens our only really good receivers will be Baldwin and Kearse.
I just think we need either Harvin OR Tate to win a Superbowl, last year it WAS Tate. Without Tate "filling in" for Harvin last season we would of lost more games, probably lose to SF on the road without our home field advantage (if we even make playoffs).
I think Tate was our best receiver to bail out Wilson from our offensive line problems. When Harvin get's injured and we have no Tate to save Wilson we will lose games.
Example from our worst offensive line performance all season:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=331028014
Week 8 @ St. Louis: Seahawks win 14-7
Wilson Sacked 7 times...
2/2 of our touchdowns were Golden Tate:
Golden Tate 2 Yd Pass From Russell Wilson
Golden Tate 80 Yd Pass From Russell Wilson
Golden Tate had 93 out of 139 receiving yards
Our next best receiver Robert Turbin (no joke) 16 yards...
So in the worst case scenario for our offensive line Wilson targeted Tate 7 out of 18 attempts. He only attempted Baldwin once, Kearse twice, and Zach Miller/Sydney Rice each had three. I don't think that was by design, Tate was bailing him out when nothing was there and won us the game.
I don't feel very confident Harvin can fill Tate's role when he is probably gonna get very seriously hurt.
I really hope I'm wrong and Harvin stays healthy and we improve our O-line. We are in big trouble if Harvin goes down, which wasn't the case when we had Tate.