Angry DB EXTENDED.

[Tech Worlds]

Seattle supposedly offered Tate $4 million per, and Baldwin gets roughly $5.5 million per year in those two extra seasons when factoring his would-have-been $2 million 2014 salary. Seattle was willing to go $5 million a year on a longer deal.

I don't hate this deal, but why value Baldwin over Tate? If it's because he was more clutch or better in the playoffs, then that's kinda dumb. Tate brought huge value on special teams that will be difficult to replace, and he has more versatility, more overall production, more pure talent, and far more durability than Doug Baldwin.

My theory is that what tilted the scales in Baldwin's favor was his competitive nature at a time when Seattle wants to make competitiveness a focal point in the program more than ever. Losing one of your fiercest competitors would have a team-wide impact.

Agreed.

Especially the durability part. You just can't teach being out there week in and week out.

We are going to miss Tate.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Once again the FO makes the SMART deal.

Yep. Awesome news.

 

[Largent80]

Jimmy Johnson would be happy about all the Extenz-sions going on around here.

 

[Blitzer88]

Jimmy Johnson would be happy about all the Extenz-sions going on around here.

I see what you did there.....well played.

 

[iigakusei]

Seattle supposedly offered Tate $4 million per, and Baldwin gets roughly $5.5 million per year in those two extra seasons when factoring his would-have-been $2 million 2014 salary. Seattle was willing to go $5 million a year on a longer deal.

I don't hate this deal, but why value Baldwin over Tate? If it's because he was more clutch or better in the playoffs, then that's kinda dumb. Tate brought huge value on special teams that will be difficult to replace, and he has more versatility, more overall production, more pure talent, and far more durability than Doug Baldwin.

My theory is that what tilted the scales in Baldwin's favor was his competitive nature at a time when Seattle wants to make competitiveness a focal point in the program more than ever. Losing one of your fiercest competitors would have a team-wide impact.

You may be right about them valuing the competitive nature of Baldwin. To me it has more to do with Baldwin's performances in big games. Did Tate do anything in the playoffs? I cant remember much. I remember WIlson getting on him a bit for running backwards when he had the 1st down as well. If the decision did ultimately come down to Tate vs. Baldwin, I think the performance in big games tilted it in Baldwin's favour.

 

[sutz]

He earned it. Congrats, Doug! Many happy receptions.

 

[JZ#1]

Doug Baldwin is one of the most under rated receivers in the league. He is clutch and you can't teach that. He flat out abused Carlos Rogers in the NFC Championship game.

 

[bigtrain21]

Doug Baldwin is one of the most under rated receivers in the league. He is clutch and you can't teach that. He flat out abused Carlos Rogers in the NFC Championship game.

That had to hurt.

 

[-The Glove-]

Why would it be dumb to value Baldwin over Tate by using big games and the playoffs as a reference? The clutch factor and the fact he shows up when he counts should tilt things to Baldwin's side

 

[WorcesterHawks]

Important to remember that we offered Doug this money after the draft. We offered Tate money when there were more variables than we have now. Maybe after things have settled the FO feels we need to ensure a steady presence, or we have less options than before - it's all about leverage.

That said, i'm sure we had a thread earlier this year wheteher we'd keep Baldwin over Tate, and my fuzzy memory is sure many of us said Baldwin. Not that i'm disagreeing with anyone who would have preferred we simply offered more for Tate, I think we will keenly feel his loss this year (albeit - in special teams mostly, I'm hoping what we lose on PR we gain with a healthey Harvin on KR).

Personally, I would take Baldwin over Tate - he's a crowd pleaser, a big game player, and he encapsulates our demeanour more than anyone else on offense. Perhaps most tellingly, he's the most developed route runner. If we are expecting Russell to grow like we hope, we're going to want technically gifted WR that will be in the right place at the right time, rather than freaks that will compensate for errant throws.

We want clutch fighters that play with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove, even with a lombardi. We also want those players to instill that same work ethic into the next generation - I can think of no one better on offence than ADB and I am genuinely stoked he is here with us for another 3 years.

 

[sutz]

Important to remember that we offered Doug this money after the draft. We offered Tate money when there were more variables than we have now. Maybe after things have settled the FO feels we need to ensure a steady presence, or we have less options than before - it's all about leverage.

That said, i'm sure we had a thread earlier this year wheteher we'd keep Baldwin over Tate, and my fuzzy memory is sure many of us said Baldwin. Not that i'm disagreeing with anyone who would have preferred we simply offered more for Tate, I think we will keenly feel his loss this year (albeit - in special teams mostly, I'm hoping what we lose on PR we gain with a healthey Harvin on KR).

Personally, I would take Baldwin over Tate - he's a crowd pleaser, a big game player, and he encapsulates our demeanour more than anyone else on offense. Perhaps most tellingly, he's the most developed route runner. If we are expecting Russell to grow like we hope, we're going to want technically gifted WR that will be in the right place at the right time, rather than freaks that will compensate for errant throws.

We want clutch fighters that play with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove, even with a lombardi. We also want those players to instill that same work ethic into the next generation - I can think of no one better on offence than ADB and I am genuinely stoked he is here with us for another 3 years.

Yeah, but Doug was tendered long before the draft. That's a strong indication the team wanted him back.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Tate's Durability badge, imo, is a half assed argument.

For instant would Tate still be as durable as Harvin if Tate had the same number of touches Harvin recieved?

Tate = 250 career touches
Harvin = 503 career touches (played in less games than Tate as well but more starts)

Harvin has gotten twice as many touches as Tate and likely way more Targets... yet the only thing from a durability stand point that Harvin suffered during actual football play on the field was an ankle injury that he probably didn't need to get shut down for.

Also, one could argue would Tate still be as durable if he had to play the slot like Baldwin did his first two and half seasons, with more potential risk of getting jacked up by big linebackers and hard-hitting safeties.

Tate is/was a good young play-making WR coming into his own but I doubt the offense will lose much, if anything in his absence unless the WR corps is just decimated with injuries and guys like Richardson and Norwood can't step up when needed.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Tate's PR value is underrated by some here, but otherwise, Baldwin's value might well be as the safety valve for Wilson. Tate did have to play #1s for most of the season, but Wilson still tended to look for Baldwin on difficult third down conversions over Tate.

I also think the gap between Baldwin and Tate in terms of versatility might be less than we think. Baldwin showed that he can be an effective KR; if he's going to try to return punts, he might be able to add to his repertoire.

From what I understand/have read, Baldwin is a cleaner route runner and doesn't give up on routes as Tate sometimes did, so field intelligence does seem to swing Baldwin's way.

I disagree that we should have kept Tate over Baldwin, and I actually felt that way before the season ended. My personal preference is Baldwin being able to play inside and outside, run precise routes, and maybe develop as a ST player.

 

[Jville]

Great news ...... terrific marriage. :th2thumbs:

"That John and Pete were willing to reward my hard work is a testament to the philosophy they have. Every word that has come out of their mouths has been honest and trustworthy, and that goes a long way for me."

Schneider pointed out a couple of key stats that show why Baldwin has been successful -- 92 percent of his fourth-quarter catches last year were for first downs, and his average of 10.7 yards per targeted throw was second-best among NFL receivers.

Link >>> [urltargetblank]http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest[/urltargetblank]

Baldwin has played in the slot most of his three years at Seattle, but Carroll said he will move to split end in 2014, taking over the spot vacating by Golden Tate's departure to Detroit.

 

[Tokadub]

I think this is great news and the price is pretty fair. I do agree with some others though that it's strange we seemed to just throw Tate away without even making him a serious offer.

In my opinion Tate and Baldwin were receivers 1A and 1B last season, basically tied as our best receivers. However when you factor in the punt returns and the unique evasive and athletic traits of Tate I think he was a bit more valuable. Would of loved to keep them both.

For everyone saying that Tate didn't produce in the playoffs, I just watched all 3 of the playoff games within the past week and I noticed many plays when Tate was open and Wilson just didn't throw it. And most of them weren't even a risky throw, the defenders were spotting Tate like 5 yards and he was directly in front of them facing wilson square on wide open just waiting for a bullet pass guaranteed reception. It seems like the defenders weren't even attempting to play Tate as closely as most guys because they know if they miss their tackle (he is one of best in league at that) or if they lose the "jump ball" he will take it to the house. It's almost like they were just letting him catch it and preparing to defend his run.

For some reason Wilson just wasn't pulling the trigger and kept looking the other way. So if you think that it was Tate's fault he didn't get much in playoffs rewatch those games... he was wide open on many occasions but Wilson just went elsewhere.

I think the rumors of Tate and Mrs. Wilson could be true. It's really the only explanation that makes sense to me why we would give Tate such a joke of an offer and also why Wilson just wasn't throwing to Tate and when he did half the time it looked like a situation Tate was about to get blown up haha.

 

[DavidSeven]

Tate is gone because Detroit offered him $6.25m/yr and more guaranteed money. No other reason.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Tate's PR value is underrated by some here, but otherwise, Baldwin's value might well be as the safety valve for Wilson. Tate did have to play #1s for most of the season, but Wilson still tended to look for Baldwin on difficult third down conversions over Tate.

I also think the gap between Baldwin and Tate in terms of versatility might be less than we think. Baldwin showed that he can be an effective KR; if he's going to try to return punts, he might be able to add to his repertoire.

From what I understand/have read, Baldwin is a cleaner route runner and doesn't give up on routes as Tate sometimes did, so field intelligence does seem to swing Baldwin's way.

I disagree that we should have kept Tate over Baldwin, and I actually felt that way before the season ended. My personal preference is Baldwin being able to play inside and outside, run precise routes, and maybe develop as a ST player.

Its not underrated. Tate was a great punt returner in 2013. However our KR game was atrocious.

The fact that Baldwin was discovered and Harvin should be healthy should off-set some of that return production lost with Golden Tate.

When I look at the offense, and all of its good to great to elite play-makers plus Russell Wilson having 37 games already under his belt entering his 3rd year, and not having lost by more than a TD during that time plus the potential the offensive line has with better health, better conditioning, and more experience all around... I'm looking at a potentially top 3 offense that doesn't need the Seahawks to fully replace Golden Tate's Punt Return production.

Somewhere around 75% replacement level would probably do just fine.

 

[Jville]

I think this is great news and the price is pretty fair. I do agree with some others though that it's strange we seemed to just throw Tate away without even making him a serious offer.

In my opinion Tate and Baldwin were receivers 1A and 1B last season, basically tied as our best receivers. However when you factor in the punt returns and the unique evasive and athletic traits of Tate I think he was a bit more valuable. Would of loved to keep them both.

For everyone saying that Tate didn't produce in the playoffs, I just watched all 3 of the playoff games within the past week and I noticed many plays when Tate was open and Wilson just didn't throw it. And most of them weren't even a risky throw, the defenders were spotting Tate like 5 yards and he was directly in front of them facing wilson square on wide open just waiting for a bullet pass guaranteed reception. It seems like the defenders weren't even attempting to play Tate as closely as most guys because they know if they miss their tackle (he is one of best in league at that) or if they lose the "jump ball" he will take it to the house. It's almost like they were just letting him catch it and preparing to defend his run.

For some reason Wilson just wasn't pulling the trigger and kept looking the other way. So if you think that it was Tate's fault he didn't get much in playoffs rewatch those games... he was wide open on many occasions but Wilson just went elsewhere.

I think the rumors of Tate and Mrs. Wilson could be true. It's really the only explanation that makes sense to me why we would give Tate such a joke of an offer and also why Wilson just wasn't throwing to Tate and when he did half the time it looked like a situation Tate was about to get blown up haha.

There are going to be more very good players who will not get that second contract. John and Pete have been very clear about the prerequisites for a second contract. Working at understanding those published reasons eliminate the need to lean on rumors for a lazy explanation.

 

[Escamillo]

Seattle supposedly offered Tate $4 million per, and Baldwin gets roughly $5.5 million per year in those two extra seasons when factoring his would-have-been $2 million 2014 salary. Seattle was willing to go $5 million a year on a longer deal.

I don't hate this deal, but why value Baldwin over Tate? If it's because he was more clutch or better in the playoffs, then that's kinda dumb. Tate brought huge value on special teams that will be difficult to replace, and he has more versatility, more overall production, more pure talent, and far more durability than Doug Baldwin.

My theory is that what tilted the scales in Baldwin's favor was his competitive nature at a time when Seattle wants to make competitiveness a focal point in the program more than ever. Losing one of your fiercest competitors would have a team-wide impact.

Im glad someone who is respected on this board made this comment. Only respected members get away with posting anything negative.

Yes, this deal will end up being frightfully close to what Tate was offered and it is questionable whether ADB deserves it more than Tate.

I personally like cheering for ADB more than tate, but if I was told that they would be paid the same and I was asked which one I would keep I would choose Tate.

Keeping Baldwin around a bit longer is something I wanted, but NEVER did I hear anyone saying that Baldwin will be paid like Tate just fewer years. The seahawks in no way are getting a bargain and in all likelihood they probably overpaid.

Im kinda bummed that the hawks found a way for me to not like them keeping a player I wanted them to keep.

I've always thought Baldwin a better WR than Tate, plus Baldwin is simply a more mature person. For instance, with Baldwin you don't have to worry about him taunting players while a play is ongoing. I refer to Tate taunting a player as he's running into the endzone, allowing the other player to catch up to him and shove Tate hard into the barrier at the back of the endzone which could have resulted in a needless injury; not to mention that Tate was expending part of his concentration on taunting rather than scoring, such that he nearly wandered out of bounds, and nearly kicked the ball out of his hands with his knee as he was carrying the ball like a loaf of bread and waving it around his knees, not really paying attention to what he was doing. Don't need to worry about such antics with Baldwin.

But at the end of the day, it's not as much a question of whether to keep Baldwin or Tate, it's a question of whether to outbid Detroit for Tate.

 

[hawknation2014]

I've always thought Baldwin a better WR than Tate, plus Baldwin is simply a more mature person. For instance, with Baldwin you don't have to worry about him taunting players while a play is ongoing. I refer to Tate taunting a player as he's running into the endzone, allowing the other player to catch up to him and shove Tate hard into the barrier at the back of the endzone which could have resulted in a needless injury; not to mention that Tate was expending part of his concentration on taunting rather than scoring, such that he nearly wandered out of bounds, and nearly kicked the ball out of his hands with his knee as he was carrying the ball like a loaf of bread and waving it around his knees, not really paying attention to what he was doing. Don't need to worry about such antics with Baldwin.

But at the end of the day, it's not as much a question of whether to keep Baldwin or Tate, it's a question of whether to outbid Detroit for Tate.

:13: