Long-Winded Post: Replacing Golden Tate

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Since it is going to be a long, slow off-season I though I would do a series of semi-informative pieces on (possibly) each player that has left during the post Superbowl/Free Agency period and how the team will look to replace that player's production. Note: Keep in mind, I'm using a smart phone so there is bound to be a ton of grammatical errors and I won't always be on 100% in explaining things how I want them to be.

First of all let's do quick comparisons using stat replacement exercises. In 2012, Sidney Rice and Golden Tate were the top 2 WRs they accounted for:

2012 Sidney Rice + Golden Tate
95 Catches, 1436 Yards, 14 TDs

However, with Sidney Rice hobbled and then injured (plus Percy Harvin shelved) Doug Baldwin rose to the challenge of playing outside with Golden Tate stepping into Rice's spot and they produced:

2013 Golden Tate + Doug Baldwin
114 Catches, 1686 Yards, 10 TDs

In 2014, Tate signed with Lions and Rice was cut, their production was the following:

2013 Golden Tate + Sidney Rice
79 Catches, 1129 Yards, 8 TDs

Now the biggest question remains who rises up to replace that production. Percy Harvin is obvious but let's not forget the Seahawks re-signed Anthony McCoy. Their Receiving production value of their two best seasons are:

2011 Percy Harvin + 2012 Anthony McCoy
105 Catches, 1264 Yards, 9 TDs

But then the counter argument becomes: How can the Seahawks depend on Percy Harvin, the glass WR, when Tate has been so durable?

Well, counter counter argument, the surface is shallow, dig deeper for better resul.

Can Percy Harvin really be considered injury prone?

1. Sure he has an injury history in college but..
2. He was relatively healthy in his 4 seasons missing only 3 games to Migraine issues until...
3. Week 9 of 2012 where he tore a ligament in his ankle against a very, physical Seahawks D. His injury was a 4-6 week recovery that in the worst would have returned in the last game but the Vikings decided to shut him down. It marked the first and only time Percy Harvin would miss a game(s) due to an injury he sustained on the field.
4. Then his hip surgery of last year that took him out of 17 of the possible 19 games played. But after coming across this USAToday article:http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...31/percy-harvin-seahawks-hip-surgery/2605795/

I felt much better knowing that this was probably a pre-existing ailment and that the Seahawks knew the risks involved.

Harvin hadn't appeared on an injury report with a hip issue since Weeks 2 and 3 of the 2010 season. But every NFL team that examined Harvin at the 2009 scouting combine knew he had impingement and tightness in both hips as well as weak abductor muscles, two people with knowledge of those examinations told USA TODAY Sports. The people spoke on condition of anonymity since the results were not released.

A study published in January — co-authored by Vikings team physician Christopher Larson, Tennessee Titans team physician Thomas Byrd and hip specialist Bryan Kelly —suggests there is at least a 40% chance a player with those risk factors will eventually require hip surgery or other treatment for degenerative conditions.

Another player from the 2009 draft, Buffalo Bills safety Jairus Byrd, showed similar signs on X-rays at the combine and ended up missing the end of his rookie season to have surgery for a labral tear — the same type of injury Kelly is to fix for Harvin today in New York

.

So I looked up Jairus Byrd, a safety, a player who players a more viotile position, and possibly a player who has to use his hips a lot more because of coverage than a WR might. Byrd, after having surgery in January returned for 2010 season and was available for all of the next 48 games while starting 45 of them. It wasn't until last year he missed 5 games because of Platar Faciaitis not a hip injury.

Which leads me to believe that Percy Harvin can finally put this hip thing behind him and without that, he's not as injury proned as many people like to say he is. And thus bring us to the 2nd part of this argument:

Is Golden Tate really as durable as many would like to believe or even just compared to Harvin?

I'll let you decide for your self:

Percy Harvin
55 Games, 43 Starts
281 Catches, 3319 Yards, 20 TDs
107 Rushes, 683 Yards, 4 TDs
115 Returns, 3241 Yards, 5 TDs

For A Total Of:
503 Touches, 7243 Yards, 29 TDs

Golden Tate
58 Games, 33 Starts
165 Catches, 2195 Yards, 15 TDs
13 Rushes, 39 Yards
72 Returns, 854 Yards

For A Total Of:
250 Touches, 3118 Yards, 15 TDs

Its no argument that Tate's been very durable missing what only 1 game in his career? But Harvin's missed time gave them a comparable of amount of games played Tate's 58 to Harvin's 55. But would Tate be able maintain said durability if he had as many touches as Harvin had in 3 less games. We are talking a big difference, Harvin has had twice amount of touches (503) than Tate has (250). And I'm willing to bet Harvin has seen even more targets than Tate has. So, Harvin has been putting his body out there much much more than Tate has...

Use that information however you'd like but I have a feeling many of you will continue to bash Harvin's health, nonetheless. Which is fine, its your opinion..I'll just conclude this part since we have the Tate/Harvin argument going on is that Harvin is not only a more explosive and agile version of Tate, he's also bigger (in ways), faster, and stronger.

GT: 5'10, 198, 4.42s Forty, 35.0 inch Vertical, 30 1/2 in Arm Length, 9 1/4 Hands, 17 reps
PH: 5'11, 192, 4.39s Forty, 37.5 inch Vertical, 31 5/8 in Arm Length, 9 3/8 Hands, 20 reps

From GT to PH you're looking at almost a +4 inches in total reach, so Percy Harvin is capable of being as much of a jump ball WR Golden was, however, since Percy Harvin can gain consistent seperation the jump ball skill isn't as important to Harvin as it is with Tate.

Harvin can also be a capable down-field blocker, while possibly not as punishing as Tate, still as effective considering more often than not, teams will shade an extra defender on Harvin.

But consider also Kearse, Lockette, and Luke Willson... all three are as good as or better than Tate in terms of blocking ability.

There's also the question was Tate a key contributor or just a product of the system?

Example 1 is a comparison of Tate and Kearse:

Tate's 2nd Year Stat-Line (2011)
35 Catches, 382 Yards, 3 TDs

Kearse's 2nd Year Stat-Line (2012)
22 Catches, 346 Yards, 4 TDs

Example 2 is a comparison of Tate and Baldwin:

Tate's 3rd Year Stat-Line (2012)
45 Catches, 688 Yards, 7 TDs

Baldwin's 3rd Year Stat-Line (2013)
50 Catches, 788 Yards, 5 TDs

In both examples Baldwin and Kearse had similar production despite both being undrafted free agents and Tate being a 2nd round pick.

Also, if the Seahawks had re-signed Tate, it would be fair assessment to say that he would be the 3rd best WR on this team after Harvin and Baldwin.

Golden Tate:
58 games, 33 starts
165 Catches, 2195 Yards, 15 TDs

Doug Baldwin
46 games, 14 starts
130 Catches, 1932 Yards, 12 TDs

In conclusion, I have little doubt that Harvin, Baldwin, Kearse, and Lockette not only can rise to the occasion in replacing Tate but they can also cover Rice's production as well. And if not then Miller, McCoy and Willson can pick up the slack.

Bottom line is as long as health permits, the Seahawks passing game should be upgraded despite the losses of Tate and Rice as Harvin gets fully intergrated. With Wilson entering his 3rd season as pro as well as Baldwin, Kearse, Miller, Lockette, and Willson growing from another year of experience under their belts. Plus, a solid Anthony McCoy coming back.

All the Seahawks are looking at is adding one more play-maker via free agency/draft for quality depth, and they'll be Golden.

 

[olyfan63]

Great analysis!

I loved Tate's RAC skills, and ability to make guys miss. But the numbers you provided don't lie... Baldwin and Harvin have a higher net impact, with Kearse basically replacing a lot of what Tate does. Hell, in the Super Bowl, Kearse's TD, with broken tackles, looked just like a Golden Tate play, breaking multiple tackles and scooting into the end zone!
And yes, with Rice down, if Tate was drawing the #1 cover corner, Tate simply wasn't that good at getting separation from the better cover guys. Tate should do well in Detroit opposite Megatron. How many times, especially against AZ & SF, did we see Wilson hold the ball, hold the ball... nobody open!
Baldwin was simply better at getting separation, and how many key plays did he make this year... probably at least +3 in the W column, with Houston and Tampa Bay games unbelievable catches at key times coming immediately to mind.

Well argued post... I'm in!

 

[kearly]

Harvin's going to get dinged and miss games playing HAM all the time in that undersized body, just like Doug Baldwin.

I'm not really expecting much production from Harvin next year, he's going to be the focus of the defense all year unless we get another #1 type WR. That's okay though, Harvin will earn his paychecks just by being on the field and opening things up for everyone else.

I would not be surprised if we get some decent year 1 contribution from a rookie WR. There are quite a few very talented WRs in this draft who look polished enough to hit the ground running in the NFL. I think Kearse could end up with a nice chunk of yardage too with all the attention going to Harvin when Kearse runs his deep routes.

 

[Tokadub]

Also, if the Seahawks had re-signed Tate, it would be fair assessment to say that he would be the 3rd best WR on this team after Harvin and Baldwin.

In conclusion, I have little doubt that Harvin, Baldwin, Kearse, and Lockette not only can rise to the occasion in replacing Tate but they can also cover Rice's production as well.

Bottom line is as long as health permits, the Seahawks passing game should be upgraded despite the losses of Tate and Rice as Harvin gets fully intergrated.

It's not a fair assessment at all that Tate would the 3rd best (or most valuable) WR, especially considering he was our punt returner. Even without returning punts I think a fair assessment would be that they were tied for #1 receiver last season. Tate was also virtually tied for #1 receiver in 2012 with a "true #1" Sidney Rice, they had almost the same exact yards per catch, and if Tate had as many targets as Sidney Rice he would of statistically been slightly better if my memory serves me. Even without averaging the target totals Tate was only about 64 total yards behind Sidney Rice in 2012 if I remember exactly.

So a fair assessment would be that as receivers Tate and Baldwin would be #2a and #2b, they are too closely matched to FAIRLY conclude one is better than another. If you factor in punt returning, overall athletic skill, and their max potential I think the edge goes quite easily to Tate. If there's one area you can knock Tate it's his mental focus and discipline, if he improves that to anywhere close to what Baldwin has I think it'd be pretty obvious who's better.

But anyways I think a fair assessment is that they are pretty much tied as receivers, although some may think Tate has more potential and adds additional value with his punt returns especially, some would just focus on Baldwin in the playoffs recently instead of their past 2 seasons as a whole.

I wouldn't question anyone who thinks they are very closely skilled or valuable to our team, but if anyone thinks Baldwin is far superior to Tate when there's nothing to back that up I have to doubt their opinion. Maybe a slight edge for personal preference, but this OP has been a Tate hater for quite some time if I remember correctly.

And your bottom line is "if health permits"?! Ok, well what if Harvin gets injured again since that Hip will never quite be the same... He looked fine vs. the Vikings but it knocked him out multiple more months. Those hip injuries do not have a history of fully healing, I just think he's gonna be a risky guy to stay healthy for the rest of his career. Plus he has a ton of migraine issues in the past and he seems to get concussions every time he takes a real hit.

So if Harvin DOES get injured which is VERY likely in my opinion, then you just WASTED A WHOLE LOT OF TIME arguing a mute point. Doesn't matter how good he is if he's injured, only time will tell.

As a Seahawks fan I want Harvin to stay healthy so we have a chance to repeat Superbowl. But from a logical standpoint I'm kind of expecting him to get injured and it will make a lot of people including our front office look VERY stupid when they undervalued Tate and let him walk.

At first I thought front loading the Michael Bennett contract to 10 million this year was brilliant to make room for next year, but I was assuming we would keep Tate too and we would be in a great situation. Now that we lost Tate and you just look at our current cap space situation paying Bennett so much this year is looking like a pretty dang stupid move to me. We really have very limited options now and if we don't get Jared Allen losing Chris Clemons is gonna look pretty stupid too since he got signed for 4.5 mill a year.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

@ Tokadub.

TL: DNR (seriously after the first paragraph.)




....... crickets.......





LOL (bc of the irony).

 

[Tokadub]

That's funny because yours was TLDR for me 8)

Luckily I can speed read and breeze through it and see how stupid it was :th2thumbs:

 

[cockeyhawk]

Harvin stays healthy, golden replaced this year and more yay!

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

That's funny because yours was TLDR for me 8)

Luckily I can speed read and breeze through it and see how stupid it was :th2thumbs:

Okay, since you're being nice.

1. Punt returners can be replaced rather easily.
2. Losing Tate + Rice is balanced out by gaining Harvin + McCoy and more reps to Baldwin, Kearse.
3. Baldwin has almost the same amount of production in 3 years than Golden Tate has had in 4 years. IMO, that makes Baldwin the better WR. And just with an eye test alone you can come the conclusion that Baldwin is a better pure WR.
4. Harvin isn't going to be the same? Is that for you to decide, I gave you a pretty good example in Jarius Byrd who had the same exact surgery as Harvin in 2010, what did Byrd go on to do but be available for the next 48 games while starting 45 of them in the following 3 years establishing himself as one of the best young, safeties in the NFL. He finally lost 5 games in 2013 but not because of hip related issues but because of Plantars Fasciitis, a foot injury.

Byrd is a safety, he plays a more viotile position and like I said I would think defensivebacks have to use their hips more than a WR as the term "flipping the hips" is used a lot in describing DBs pros and cons. The fact that Byrd has been relatively healthy and still very successful leaves me the Optimist that Harvin can fully recover... Remember he only has played about 2 games of work in what is going to be a 20 month time span. 12 of which will be post-hip surgery. It only took Byrd, 9 months to recover and he's had minimal if any issues with it.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Harvin's going to get dinged and miss games playing HAM all the time in that undersized body, just like Doug Baldwin.

I'm not really expecting much production from Harvin next year, he's going to be the focus of the defense all year unless we get another #1 type WR. That's okay though, Harvin will earn his paychecks just by being on the field and opening things up for everyone else..........

Logically, your last sentence above makes sense. But Percy's speed/burst may well throw logic out the door leading to a bigger season than you expect despite heavy focus from opposing defenses. I do agree he'll likely miss a game or two though. Hope we're both wrong about that.

 

[RichNhansom]

Tokadub you need to lighten up a litle. Your post comes accross spitting anger or bias. I can't tell if you l9ove Tate or hate Harvin or maybe the op but your post reads as anything but an even keel view.

To me this is real simple. If Tate, Baldwin and Kearse were all FA's asking for the same contract Tate may be the one that gets it or one of two but they would not resign all three because you don't need 3 #2's on your roster especially paying all three. The fact you can't conclusively say Tate would be 1 of those two selected and that Baldwin and Kearse still have cheap years makes the decision real easy and Tate is my personal fovorite of the three.

Ultimately I think Pete wants to have a true #1, a true speed guy and two #2's. That means one of Tae, Baldwin or Kearse wasn't going to get paid.

Just my view.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

Percy replaces Tate, Kearse replaces Rice, Baldwin remains mannn.

Lockette replaces 2012 Kearse + Rice back (maybe) or a Rook for depth.

Miller, Willson and McCoy improves the TE.

We are fine without Tate.

 

[tom sawyer]

Tate was a trememdous talent, sad to see him go, but we have limits. We will do fine!!

 

[scutterhawk]

Example 2 is a comparison of Tate and Baldwin:

Tate's 3rd Year Stat-Line (2012)
45 Catches, 688 Yards, 7 TDs

Baldwin's 3rd Year Stat-Line (2013)
50 Catches, 788 Yards, 5 TDs
quote]

Hmm, ok, so what was Baldwin's 2012 Stat-Line?

Crickets

 

[plyka]

Also, if the Seahawks had re-signed Tate, it would be fair assessment to say that he would be the 3rd best WR on this team after Harvin and Baldwin.

In conclusion, I have little doubt that Harvin, Baldwin, Kearse, and Lockette not only can rise to the occasion in replacing Tate but they can also cover Rice's production as well.

Bottom line is as long as health permits, the Seahawks passing game should be upgraded despite the losses of Tate and Rice as Harvin gets fully intergrated.

It's not a fair assessment at all that Tate would the 3rd best (or most valuable) WR, especially considering he was our punt returner. Even without returning punts I think a fair assessment would be that they were tied for #1 receiver last season. Tate was also virtually tied for #1 receiver in 2012 with a "true #1" Sidney Rice, they had almost the same exact yards per catch, and if Tate had as many targets as Sidney Rice he would of statistically been slightly better if my memory serves me. Even without averaging the target totals Tate was only about 64 total yards behind Sidney Rice in 2012 if I remember exactly.

So a fair assessment would be that as receivers Tate and Baldwin would be #2a and #2b, they are too closely matched to FAIRLY conclude one is better than another. If you factor in punt returning, overall athletic skill, and their max potential I think the edge goes quite easily to Tate. If there's one area you can knock Tate it's his mental focus and discipline, if he improves that to anywhere close to what Baldwin has I think it'd be pretty obvious who's better.

But anyways I think a fair assessment is that they are pretty much tied as receivers, although some may think Tate has more potential and adds additional value with his punt returns especially, some would just focus on Baldwin in the playoffs recently instead of their past 2 seasons as a whole.

I wouldn't question anyone who thinks they are very closely skilled or valuable to our team, but if anyone thinks Baldwin is far superior to Tate when there's nothing to back that up I have to doubt their opinion. Maybe a slight edge for personal preference, but this OP has been a Tate hater for quite some time if I remember correctly.

And your bottom line is "if health permits"?! Ok, well what if Harvin gets injured again since that Hip will never quite be the same... He looked fine vs. the Vikings but it knocked him out multiple more months. Those hip injuries do not have a history of fully healing, I just think he's gonna be a risky guy to stay healthy for the rest of his career. Plus he has a ton of migraine issues in the past and he seems to get concussions every time he takes a real hit.

So if Harvin DOES get injured which is VERY likely in my opinion, then you just WASTED A WHOLE LOT OF TIME arguing a mute point. Doesn't matter how good he is if he's injured, only time will tell.

As a Seahawks fan I want Harvin to stay healthy so we have a chance to repeat Superbowl. But from a logical standpoint I'm kind of expecting him to get injured and it will make a lot of people including our front office look VERY stupid when they undervalued Tate and let him walk.

At first I thought front loading the Michael Bennett contract to 10 million this year was brilliant to make room for next year, but I was assuming we would keep Tate too and we would be in a great situation. Now that we lost Tate and you just look at our current cap space situation paying Bennett so much this year is looking like a pretty dang stupid move to me. We really have very limited options now and if we don't get Jared Allen losing Chris Clemons is gonna look pretty stupid too since he got signed for 4.5 mill a year.

I understand fan fascination with Tate. He is "our guy," etc. For the sake of argument, let's say that Tate/Baldwin are equal, despite the fact that you think Tate is superior and I think Baldwin is superior. Kearse is just coming on as a WR. We are not paying people for what they have done, but for what they will do.

Going forward, I think the Hawks made a wise decision. Money will be tight, you cannot afford to pay mediocre players significant contracts. The mediocre players are the ones that are set up to be replaced by rookie contracts. It is the elite players on the team that you must keep. Wilson, Earl, Sherm, Chance, Wagner, Bennett, Lynch, Percy, Okung --these are your elite bunch. You have to pay these guys, attempt to keep as many of the rest as possible on value oriented contracts, or replace them with up coming talent.

All that said, I would not be in favor of breaking the bank for Kearse or Baldwin. I hope we can keep both, but they are not elite players. They are players that you can replace, just like Tate. They don't have the special/elite talent or production. Despite them not having the elite talent, let's say that Kearse/Baldwin turn into something special production wise --100+ catches, 1200 yards, 10 tds, etc. In that case you have to add them to your elite bunch because they have elite production.

Tate was a mediocre player on this team. The team is a run heavy offense. Tate was 1 of 4 5'10'' speedy type WRs you had on your team. You already are paying one an immense amount of money because he has special talent (percy), you can't afford to waste your cap space on Tate in this circumstance.

 

[Snakeeyes007]

And your bottom line is "if health permits"?! Ok, well what if Harvin gets injured again since that Hip will never quite be the same... He looked fine vs. the Vikings but it knocked him out multiple more months. Those hip injuries do not have a history of fully healing, I just think he's gonna be a risky guy to stay healthy for the rest of his career. Plus he has a ton of migraine issues in the past and he seems to get concussions every time he takes a real hit.

So if Harvin DOES get injured which is VERY likely in my opinion, then you just WASTED A WHOLE LOT OF TIME arguing a mute point. Doesn't matter how good he is if he's injured, only time will tell.

As a Seahawks fan I want Harvin to stay healthy so we have a chance to repeat Superbowl. But from a logical standpoint I'm kind of expecting him to get injured and it will make a lot of people including our front office look VERY stupid when they undervalued Tate and let him walk.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you didn't absorb the health history and Byrd example from the original post. To be clear, doctors speculated that if Harvin didn't have this surgery, he was likely looking at an eventual hip replacement. He did have the surgery though, and ended up spending much of the year adjusting to his new flexibility. What Carroll referred to multiple times throughout the season as a "setback", wasn't a re-injuring of Harvin's hips, but rather, him dealing with discomfort and uncertainty while adjusting to his new range of motion, but that's getting into facty stuff.

For reassurance/therapy:

It is ok to opine that the correction Harvin received to fix the impingement in his hips will fail, and that the doctors and hip specialists are wrong in their experience and opinions that the correction actually 'improves' him in the long term, not simply 'fixes' him. It is also ok to be short-sighted when looking at his past two years and label him as "injury prone" - because = injury to leg in 2012, hip correction/adjustment last season, concussions in Saints game, plays hard. It is also ok to refute the charge of 'short-sighted' by sighting old migraine issue that hasn't resurfaced in years.

It is ok to miss Tate. (I certainly do.) It is ok to be upset that the Hawks paid a ton for a guy from outside who was out most of last year, thus leaving them short on dollars to give to Tate to keep him here. It is ok to use that upset feeling to magnify all of Harvin's issues, USE CAPS to make your opinions feel REALLY valid.

Lastly, it will be ok to hold on to all the upsettedness and erupt next year if Harvin gets another concussion, sprains an ankle, slips in the shower, gets in a car accident, etc. And if Harvin miraculously makes it through the whole season? Just use the upsettedness to say he was LUCKY, and say you expect him to get injured the year after.

Did that help at all? Bring it in for a hug? Tissues? Or was this whole exercise a 'moot' point? I know I could use some camomile tea and some Enya right now myself. :thcoffee:

 

[EntiatHawk]

I think most Hawk fans loved what Tate brought to the table but this team will have to make some tough decisions. That was one of them.

Harvin is one of those elite talents with a special skill set. You do not find those guys everywhere. We have seen, in very limited action, how he can change the game in various ways. So we know the Harvin is here, Tate became expendable unless you can ge him at a team friendly deal. Tate taking money in Detroit is great for Tate, I wish him much success there. I think he will be good in that system also.

I also do not buy that Harvin is that injury prone. We will see though. I expect a full year out of him next year and some very special plays.

I think we will have to get used to seeing some of our favorite move to greener $$$ pastures because other teams will want players from our system. It is obvious this coaching staff is very good at player development which will be coveted by other teams.

 

[jeremiah]

Letting Tate go without paying him the little bit more that Detroit is offering, is a Mariner style move. They should have kept him, they could have cut him or restructured next year or the year after, but every team needs a player like him, and 5-6 mil a year is pretty basic.

 

[Escamillo]

Example 2 is a comparison of Tate and Baldwin:

Tate's 3rd Year Stat-Line (2012)
45 Catches, 688 Yards, 7 TDs

Baldwin's 3rd Year Stat-Line (2013)
50 Catches, 788 Yards, 5 TDs
quote]

Hmm, ok, so what was Baldwin's 2012 Stat-Line?

Crickets

What's that got to do with anything? How about Tate's 2011 stat line? How about his 2010 stat line? Baldwin has had better numbers than Tate in each of their respective 1st and 3rd seasons, and their 2nd seasons are pretty similar with a slight edge to Tate.

 

[olyfan63]

To me this is real simple. If Tate, Baldwin and Kearse were all FA's asking for the same contract Tate may be the one that gets it or one of two but they would not resign all three because you don't need 3 #2's on your roster especially paying all three. The fact you can't conclusively say Tate would be 1 of those two selected and that Baldwin and Kearse still have cheap years makes the decision real easy and Tate is my personal fovorite of the three.

I'm with RichNHansom. I loved Tate's game, especially the run-after-catch-breaking tackles part, plus the punt return part, but he's not overall better than Baldwin (a wash, I say), just different, and he's only a little better than Kearse, and Kearse also is an awesome special-teamer (punt-block, anyone?).

The FO keeps the good and cheap guys, and the good and expensive guy (Tate) walks. It's how it has to be. Besides our obvious stars, we won the Superb Owl in large part due to our quality, inexpensive, ready-to-plug-in depth all up and down the roster. Lemuel JeanPierre, Jermaine Kearse, Malcolm Smith, Michael Bowie, McDaniel and McDonald, Luke Willson, Alvin Bailey, Byron Maxwell, Walter Thurmond, or even an O'Brien Schofield. (I'm on the fence about Left Turnstile Paul McQuistan). We had plenty of injuries, but "next man up" was able to step up, nearly every time. Instead of spending $6M on Tate, better for Wins and Losses to spend $4M on 4 good "next man up" guys and $2M on a Kearse or a Baldwin.

Tate had to go. He'll do well with the Lions. We'll miss him (I sure will) when we see him busting out on Lions highlights. Can't fault Detroit for signing him; Tate could very well turn out to be a good value for them. Tate would have been a horrible value for us at $6M. For the extra #4M, Pete and John can get a lot more team value for W's and L's out of 4 rookies and $1M players and guys off the scrap heap reviving their careers, than they could spending that money on Tate.

 

[Hawks46]

I like the analysis of the different production from different players. As for replacing Tate, we probably won't really be able to replace him, but we can definately replace his production. Tate was a different player. I'd refute a few things you claimed about Tate:

Tate is actually more agile than Harvin. Harvin is more explosive. You're going to see them make many of the same plays (Harvin had one, I think it was against Tampa...where he made 3 guys miss and got into the endzone...Tate had one in the same part of the field against Minn where he bounced off of guys and made them miss. Harvin did it with hesitation, Tate did it with strength and lateral agility) and I think Harvin will be more productive if he can stay healthy all year. I'm splitting hairs but Tate is a different player that will make plays that no one else will, except Harvin.

Someone said punt returners are easy to replace. That's true, but Tate was the 2nd best in the NFL. That's not going to be easy to replace, and it's that production I'm actually worried about.

Tate has VERY sure hands. He had the best drop rate/catch efficiency rate in the NFL. Harvin also has very good hands, and I concur about the jump ball point: Tate needs it while Harvin doesn't.

Harvin is going to be more productive because he can get separation in just a few steps. The guy is a born blitz beater, which will tremendously help our offense. Go to Harvin with the hot route, and try to stop it. I just hope Harvin can stay healthy.

Another factor in replacing Tate's production will actually be whether we pick Finley up, and how McCoy comes back. If we have 3-4 very good TE receiving options, we could see us going with a lot more 2 TE sets and passing and running from the same sets. It becomes even more difficult to beat with Harvin matched up on the outside and Lynch being able to catch out of the backfield. Also imagine Harvin motioning into the backfield in 2 TE sets. yeesh.

I don't think we've seen Kearse's ceiling by a long shot, and I think he can be a better receiving option than Tate. What bothers me about Tate is that he matches up well against some guys like Janoris Jenkins from the Rams...who is a very good CB but Tate seems to own him. Tate also owned Petersen in his first matchup (not the 2nd), but get owned by the 49ers average CBs which is odd. Harvin matches up with damn near anyone.

Personally, I like Baldwin's fit on this team better than Tate's. I don't think he's necessarily a better WR, but he has better chemistry with Wilson when the play breaks down, which is importan for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure I'd claim Harvin will be as good of a down field blocker as Tate. Tate was an elite downfield blocker for a WR and we're going to miss that aspect of his game.

Overall, I'm not really worried about losing Tate, as I think Kearse will replace his production on the field. Tate is a unique talent that I wish we could've kept, but I understand why we did and I'm glad we didn't over pay for him.