Bobblehead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,251
- Reaction score
- 868
https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahaw ... ts-rumors/
Maybe, maybe not.. how will this work out with Russ?
Maybe, maybe not.. how will this work out with Russ?
“To me, as of now, where I am today, I think Stafford’s been the best quarterback I’ve played with,” Tate said. “The guy can flat-out play. He’s tough, his attitude is amazing and he just wants to play ball. For me, I have nothing but praises for him. It’s almost unfair that he’s such a good player and doesn’t have playoffs or a ring to show for it. That kind of hurts my heart that I wasn’t able to help change that.”
“I think over his career, if you put him in another organization, maybe things are different. I don’t know. Because I’ve played with some guys over my years that I’ve won playoff games with that I don’t think are as good,” Tate said.
TwistedHusky":500eodpl said:Losing Tate was stupid.
Probably cost us a SB win, if not a dynasty.
But this move helps nothing.
Might as well bring Unger back and we can try to pretend the moves to get rid of those 2 were not the worst in Seahawk history. Even worse than trading Hutch.
TwistedHusky":2dnm4ymx said:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
HHawk121":2f6xmv67 said:TwistedHusky":2f6xmv67 said:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
TwistedHusky":1a9q0ejf said:Losing Tate was stupid.
Probably cost us a SB win, if not a dynasty.
But this move helps nothing.
Might as well bring Unger back and we can try to pretend the moves to get rid of those 2 were not the worst in Seahawk history. Even worse than trading Hutch.
HHawk121":1e6o0xwv said:TwistedHusky":1e6o0xwv said:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
chris98251":2qq1ftty said:HHawk121":2qq1ftty said:TwistedHusky":2qq1ftty said:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
Ruskell used the Transition tag not the franchise tag, Vikings made him an offer that could only be offset by making him paid equal to our highest lineman If memory serves.
The Poison pill contract.
He's a good route running, and may find success as our number 3 slot receiver. He also has very good hands, he could be money on third down. I don't think he's the YAC monster he once was, but I think there could be a role for him.Maelstrom787":2x38o0sc said:Tate would be an upgrade to Moore at WR3, but don't expect the old Tate. He'd probably help out mainly on third down.
If Tate's willing and wouldn't be a dumpster fire for team chemistry, I'm for it.
chris98251":3twk7si2 said:HHawk121":3twk7si2 said:TwistedHusky":3twk7si2 said:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
Ruskell used the Transition tag not the franchise tag, Vikings made him an offer that could only be offset by making him paid equal to our highest lineman If memory serves.
The Poison pill contract.
Bobblehead":f2mltd8p said:https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahawks/golden-tate-giants-rumors/
Maybe, maybe not.. how will this work out with Russ?