I believe he's staying too, as he should. I really don't understand why folks think we would ever trade one of our best weapons when we just got one of the best all around game-changers. Why would you get rid of your AK just because you bought a new 12 gauge? You wouldn't, you would just spend more on ammo, right? If anything it will make our wide-outs even more productive. I just don't see them competing for the same spot as others do.
We can put 5 pro bowl caliber recievers on the field. Which one are you planning on leaving open? Oh, you're going to cover all of them? Okay, well, maybe you didn't notice that our QB runs like a deer. Oh, and maybe you've heard of this dude named Marshawn.
No such thing as too many touchdown makers.
Radish, check your PMs. Man upstairs has an invite for a tail gate up in heaven with your name on it.
Okay to me this is simple. Tate is a cheap (NFL standards) viable replacement for Harvin if he (Harvin) gets hurt and is out completely or a little knocked up and can't do all the things he normally does and is only like 70-80%. For the Hawks to get rid of Tate would be a bad move IMO and I doubt it will happen unless there is ample compensation. Tate is a good/great player and what he can provide for Seattle is basically a Harvin A. and Harvin B., what team in the NFL can hypothetically now have two WRs line up in the backfield like a college offense? Overall, having Tate and Harvin on the field at the same time is a substantial advantage for the Hawks O and can create a lot of mismatches.