Don't teams usually get rid of their LEAST valuable players when cut time comes around?
Y'all sound like they cut from the top. Tate and Baldwin ain't goin' nowhere. Review the depth charts.
JSeahawks wrote:Neither. They're both on their rookie contracts. There's absolutely no reason to get rid of either.
Its probably the end of Obamanu though.
DavidSeven wrote:Harvin, Rice and Baldwin come with injury concerns. It would be foolish to get rid of any of the top-level depth at receiver. Keeping the four best WRs ensures that Seattle isn't put in a rough spot if anyone goes down. All four are on the roster next year, and I guarantee that depth is going to be crucial for Seattle at some point in the season.
Scottemojo wrote:Baldwin can get a RFA tag next year, so why is he part of this question? And Tate is going to want paid. But by the end of this year he just could warrant a good payday too. Tag him if need be.
Way too soon to start worrying about crap like this.
SeaTown81 wrote:With his improve production last year, Golden Tate is going to want to get paid. How much, who knows for sure. But I can tell you for certain, he's going to want more than most of us think he's worth. I remember having the conversation with some friends during the season as to whether or not you re-sign Tate when his deal is up. Most agreed that they wouldn't mind having him back. But that his improved stats playing with Wilson would probably make him want too much for what he's truly worth. With Harvin on board, no way I see the Hawks re-signing Tate. We just got a better version of him.
kearly wrote:Scottemojo wrote:Baldwin can get a RFA tag next year, so why is he part of this question? And Tate is going to want paid. But by the end of this year he just could warrant a good payday too. Tag him if need be.
Way too soon to start worrying about crap like this.
I imagine Seattle will place a 2nd round RFA tag on Baldwin next year and hope a team steps up to help them recoup that mid rounder from the Harvin trade.
JSeahawks wrote:kearly wrote:Scottemojo wrote:Baldwin can get a RFA tag next year, so why is he part of this question? And Tate is going to want paid. But by the end of this year he just could warrant a good payday too. Tag him if need be.
Way too soon to start worrying about crap like this.
I imagine Seattle will place a 2nd round RFA tag on Baldwin next year and hope a team steps up to help them recoup that mid rounder from the Harvin trade.
Tate is going to be a restricted free agent as well I believe? Or will he be unrestricted? He'll be 4 years into his career, dont you need 5 to be unrestricted?
Tech Worlds wrote:Both will be on the team.
Why would we want to go and weaken a position that we just shored up? Crazy talk.
redhawk253 wrote:get somethin for tate while we can... he is now redundant as a poor mans harvin... plus we wont be able to pay him when his contract comes due...
DJrmb wrote:I think we all agree that Obo is gone. However keep in mind that Obo was one of our best special teams players and will have to be replaced. You aren't going to put your starting WR's out there on Special teams to get hurt making tackles so that means the WR's you keep as backups need to be assets on Special teams. That doesn't bode well for Baldwin.
Rice
Harvin
Tate
Kearse
Bates
Williams
Missing_Clink wrote:After this season, I expect one of Baldwin or Tate to be gone. Tate seems more valuable and plays outside while Harvin plays more inside possibly leaving Baldwin as the odd man out
WestcoastSteve wrote:DJrmb wrote:I think we all agree that Obo is gone. However keep in mind that Obo was one of our best special teams players and will have to be replaced. You aren't going to put your starting WR's out there on Special teams to get hurt making tackles so that means the WR's you keep as backups need to be assets on Special teams. That doesn't bode well for Baldwin.
Rice
Harvin
Tate
Kearse
Bates
Williams
Are you kidding, Baldwin is a stud receiver. Kearse hasn't shown any ability to consistently get open and catch the ball. Your #4 WR is primarily a receiver, the #5 guy is the special teamer.
Rice, Harvin, Tate, Baldwin. Kearse/Martin battle it out as the ST guy.
SeaTown81 wrote:Davis Hsu made a good point on Twitter. The team still doesn't have that BIG tall wr threat that they like. Maybe they could add one in the draft. But who knows. Adding Harvin to a group that includes guys like Tate and Baldwin makes for a rather small wr corps. Who knows what they do this year. But I really can't see Harvin, Tate, and Baldwin as 3 of your top 4 wr's for too long. Be it this year or the next, I think we should expect to see the team add a wr that is a bit different than they guys they currently have.
DJrmb wrote:Tech Worlds wrote:Both will be on the team.
Why would we want to go and weaken a position that we just shored up? Crazy talk.
You weaken the position by keeping too many of the same type of player. There are 3 different WR spots. With 3 different responsibilities and ideal attributes. You can't just keep all slot guys...
It's crazy talk to think that you can just throw a slot WR out as a flanker and be fine.
People realize there is a difference between a SS and a FS. You wouldn't play Kam Chancellor in Earls role. Well same with WR...
w00t wrote:WestcoastSteve wrote:DJrmb wrote:
who's Martin? We still got Ruvell?
JSeahawks wrote:kearly wrote:Scottemojo wrote:Baldwin can get a RFA tag next year, so why is he part of this question? And Tate is going to want paid. But by the end of this year he just could warrant a good payday too. Tag him if need be.
Way too soon to start worrying about crap like this.
I imagine Seattle will place a 2nd round RFA tag on Baldwin next year and hope a team steps up to help them recoup that mid rounder from the Harvin trade.
Tate is going to be a restricted free agent as well I believe? Or will he be unrestricted? He'll be 4 years into his career, dont you need 5 to be unrestricted?
Basis4day wrote:It suggests to me that it's the end of Ben Obomanu and his 2.3 million contract next year.
DJrmb wrote:Tech Worlds wrote:Both will be on the team.
Why would we want to go and weaken a position that we just shored up? Crazy talk.
You weaken the position by keeping too many of the same type of player. There are 3 different WR spots. With 3 different responsibilities and ideal attributes. You can't just keep all slot guys...
It's crazy talk to think that you can just throw a slot WR out as a flanker and be fine.
People realize there is a difference between a SS and a FS. You wouldn't play Kam Chancellor in Earls role. Well same with WR...
It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:00 am
Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]