QuahHawk
Well-known member
Which WR would you rather have for the price
Harvin vs Cruz
- Thread starter QuahHawk
- Start date
Hamhawk
New member
Harvin is so much more of a versatile offensive weapon than either Wallace or Cruz
The Yugoslavian
New member
Harvin hands down. Extra 5 mil a year to play special teams and running back and a better WR on top of that. No question Harvin
dontbelikethat
New member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 0
Really depends on what you have around you on the team. For our specific needs, I think Harvin would be the best option.
Stoned Cold
New member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2013
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd take Cruz if the guaranteed money is prorated at the same amount per year as Harvins.
Blitzer88
Active member
I'll go with Harvin mainly because he is already on our team and he can do more things than Cruz can, but I am also a big fan of Cruz.
Seahawk Sailor
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 22,963
- Reaction score
- 1
Harvin, but Cruz isn't that much behind him for that price. The more talent we accrue for less money leaves us the ability to bring in even more talent. It compounds, and that's worth a lot.
even though he's on our team now I'm still convinced Harvin is overrated and he'll need to prove it to me otherwise before I change my mind.
I feel similar about Cruz, but he's also a guy with 2 1000 yard seasons under his belt in 2 years of real playing time, albeit he's a bit older than Harvin.
At 7 million a year though I think I'd have to go with him, Harvin might be a better all-around weapon, but Cruz has scored 19 TDs in 2 seasons just as a WR, compared to Harvin's 29 as an all purpose guy in 4 years, you clearly can't deny he's a powerful weapon himself, and at a little over half the cost would be the superior pick up. However, I doubt he signs for as little as 7 million
I feel similar about Cruz, but he's also a guy with 2 1000 yard seasons under his belt in 2 years of real playing time, albeit he's a bit older than Harvin.
At 7 million a year though I think I'd have to go with him, Harvin might be a better all-around weapon, but Cruz has scored 19 TDs in 2 seasons just as a WR, compared to Harvin's 29 as an all purpose guy in 4 years, you clearly can't deny he's a powerful weapon himself, and at a little over half the cost would be the superior pick up. However, I doubt he signs for as little as 7 million
I think Eli makes Cruz...NOT the other way around. Eli will always throw for 3,500-4,000...somebody's got to catch them. There's a reason the Giants dont invest in their WR's, they dont have to.
The Hawks will be that way in a year or two. They'll realize Wilson's going to get his yards.
The Hawks will be that way in a year or two. They'll realize Wilson's going to get his yards.
Snohomie
New member
I'm not sure I disagree that Eli can make a WR, but I disagree that the Giants haven't invested at WR. First, they gave Eli Plaxico Burress and Amani Toomer (and Shockey, who was as much WR as TE). Pretty good targets for a new QB, though Toomer was on the decline. Then, they spent a first on Hakeem Nicks (one of my favorite WRs) to replace Plax and just spent a 2nd last year on another WR I love, Rueben Randle (bias alert: LSU is my 2nd favorite team in CFB). Not to mention several midround guys. Eli has always had good targets. That said, I think Cruz is a poor man's Harvin, and with a real QB like Eli Harvin would put up monstrous numbers (hell, he was doing so with Christian Ponder).
Sure, we'd benefit from the extra 5 mil, but I don't think our future cap situation is as dire as some think. I'd rather have the better player for RW's development. Cruz is more reliable, from a personality and a health perspective, but Harvin gives you the higher reward.
Sure, we'd benefit from the extra 5 mil, but I don't think our future cap situation is as dire as some think. I'd rather have the better player for RW's development. Cruz is more reliable, from a personality and a health perspective, but Harvin gives you the higher reward.
hai
New member
This is exactly how i feel, both are at there respective value in the market, Harvin in most people's eye is versatile, therefore he is more expensive, but Cruz as a WR is very productive. And the compound, i feel like that is what happening to good teams who overpay in FA, end up sucking that seaon because they will then lose several key role players(ex. Bills, Cowboys, even 9ers in a way, and next year we will know the affect of having Harvin when we have plenty of key role players as FA next season.Seahawk Sailor":2ab8gli9 said:
hai
New member
The reason the Giants don't have to invest in WR is one, Eli somehow can make throws, maybe not accurate but somehow it gets there. Two, Tom Coughlin was a former WR coach, so he knows his WR and what he wants, for god sakes Cruz was a undrafted FA like Baldwin. Coughlin knows his WR i guess, just a coincidence that the Giants have had a stellar WR corp for awhile now, how many clutch catches and superbowls, crazy.pehawk":wtxywaec said:
Subzero717
Active member
Harvin. Cruz has never been called the best player in the NFL.
Snohomie":37miewo2 said:
Oops - I had zero clue Nicks was a 1st. Even with that, weren't those picks slightly in the rearview? And, it's not going to be something the Giants invest heavily in again?
It's Harvin for the Seahawks which makes the most sense. The best way to assist Wilson is via the RB/HB/Flanker/Bush/Sproles/Cribbs/waterbug type position. The Seahawks will look ALOT like 2009's Saints, IMO.
CamanoIslandJQ
New member
Save money on players & have an average 8-8 team with lots of wonderful cap space.
OR:
Aquire the best players available, paying them with smart contracts & go to the Super Bowl.
Sounds like a simple answer to me.
OR:
Aquire the best players available, paying them with smart contracts & go to the Super Bowl.
Sounds like a simple answer to me.
OP
OP
QuahHawk
Well-known member
I think Harvin is better and got paid what he was worth, and I think Cruz is good but not nearly as valuable as a guy like Wallace or Harvin. For what the Seahawks need Harvin was a perfect fit, and despite his large salary he makes a ton of sense. Cruz would cost much less but would not bring the same level a versatility we are looking for in the slot.
It's too close for me too vote, but I do know Mike Wallace is way overpaid.
It's too close for me too vote, but I do know Mike Wallace is way overpaid.
The Yugoslavian
New member
CALIHAWK1":jw1iz0it said:
This. Nothing more needs to be said. Well done Cali
JesterHawk
New member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 7,666
- Reaction score
- 0
The major fallacy in this poll is that you won't get Cruz for 7 mil/year. You'd send the offer sheet and the Giants would match it. You would end up a lot closer to Harvin's money before the Giants decide they would rather take the first rounder and let Cruz walk.
hawker84
Well-known member
where i love Harvin's versatility and just raw talent, i think i'd choose Cruz... all that guy does is get open down field and make plays... RW loves to throw the deep ball, cruz has an uncanny ablility to get open down field, sounds like the perfect match..
harvin just brings so much more to the offense though.. DC's are going to lose sleep game planning for this guy... i really don't think you can go wrong with either of these guys, just depends on what all you want to do on offense... i chose Cruz only because he comes cheaper, and has less character questions....
harvin just brings so much more to the offense though.. DC's are going to lose sleep game planning for this guy... i really don't think you can go wrong with either of these guys, just depends on what all you want to do on offense... i chose Cruz only because he comes cheaper, and has less character questions....
Similar threads
