Blitzer88
Active member
Hes having another big game for the Lions, man I miss him.
I bet the other 165 hours he has each week with a significantly larger bank account more than make up for that.bmorepunk":ze65t70l said:I bet he misses winning at home instead of losing to a backup quarterback. Of the Bills.
He's playing opposite of megatron, and still only has one td in 5 games? You really think letting him go is a bigger mistake than letting Sherm, Thomas, Chancellor or Russ go?Seahwkgal":2zvny6jh said:I said it then, and I am saying it now; Letting him go will bite us in the behind BIG TIME!!! Big mistake on the FO's part.
RolandDeschain":14tnxn8u said:I bet the other 165 hours he has each week with a significantly larger bank account more than make up for that.bmorepunk":14tnxn8u said:I bet he misses winning at home instead of losing to a backup quarterback. Of the Bills.
Exactly. Too many people sound like a scorned ex-girlfriend regarding Tate.bmorepunk":17nqx8vu said:He's already got a ring, so money is a big thing.
Hopefully he's smart enough to save most of it.
RolandDeschain":1w4j428o said:Exactly. Too many people sound like a scorned ex-girlfriend regarding Tate.bmorepunk":1w4j428o said:He's already got a ring, so money is a big thing.
Hopefully he's smart enough to save most of it.
Seahwkgal":1k5xsy4n said:I said it then, and I am saying it now; Letting him go will bite us in the behind BIG TIME!!! Big mistake on the FO's part.
themunn":342rvsjy said:He's on track for what, 1500 yards at the moment?
Lions probably should have won too, had a 55 yard reception with 1 minute to go to set the Lions up for their 3rd missed FG.
I know Harvin offers a massive difference to the team - but we proved we could win without him for 2 years straight, and that massive salary could have paid for Tate and someone else (which is something Tate alluded to when Harvin first signed). Is Harvin really worth that much more to the team? I think for all Harvin does for it, we'll always have to temper his production against what we "could" have had with Tate.
themunn":3gvhc4c1 said:I know Harvin offers a massive difference to the team - but we proved we could win without him for 2 years straight, and that massive salary could have paid for Tate and someone else (which is something Tate alluded to when Harvin first signed). Is Harvin really worth that much more to the team? I think for all Harvin does for it, we'll always have to temper his production against what we "could" have had with Tate.
:13: :13: :13:HawkWow":f3s417ym said:Seahwkgal":f3s417ym said:I said it then, and I am saying it now; Letting him go will bite us in the behind BIG TIME!!! Big mistake on the FO's part.
Wha...? You can say it later, too. Still won't make any sense. It's not like our current group is costing us games. There's only so many balls to go around and Tate, as great as he was, wasn't worth to us what he was / is to Detroit. Return duties included.
Not only was it a smart move by our FO then, it was a move that looks even smarter now.