Much rather have Tate then Harvin

[themunn]

For the people who keep pointing to the superbowl and if I saw it LOL. did we really need Harvin to win that game ???

You could say the same thing in every game Tate ever played in.

In theory you could say it about any player in every game ever, but scoring a TD when we were already up by 22 points in the superbowl, when the largest comeback in Superbowl history is 10 points is definitely something you can say had little impact on the game.

As for Tate impacting games, it's very rare that one player "single-handedly" wins a game for any team, given it's a team sport. But the only game I can think (for us) of where one player comes close in recent years is... Tate @St Louis 2013. There are games like @Chicago 2012 where we probably don't win without Wilson (though he had great plays from Miller, Rice, Baldwin and... Tate in that game too)

Scored both TDs - one 3rd down conversion after we'd failed to convert from the 1 yard line on 1st and 2nd down. (the only drive we had all game where we snapped the ball in STL territory at some point), then, since we couldn't drive down the field he scored an 80 yarder that gave us the 14 points we needed. Without that win we're the #5 seed in the playoffs. Yes, the defense held up in the closing seconds to prevent St Louis from scoring, but if we settle for a FG on that 3rd and goal or Tate doesn't make it to the end zone and we settle for a FG there... St Louis wins that game. Obviously Tate doesn't score without Wilson throwing passes to him - but he couldn't throw passes to anybody else in that game, and Lynch was shut down for some reason. That game is all on Tate

 

[Subzero717]

For the people who keep pointing to the superbowl and if I saw it LOL. did we really need Harvin to win that game ???

You could say the same thing in every game Tate ever played in.

As for Tate impacting games, it's very rare that one player "single-handedly" wins a game for any team, given it's a team sport.

You should have stopped there. I for one never implied ever that Harvin has single handedly won a game. I responded to what ECHF posted.

I will respond to your 2013 @ Rams game with your own answer. If the defense doesnt show up, its moot. Its a team sport. Clemens threw 2 INTs.

I could respond to that, which Im not disputing and say that had Harvin been in that game we would have won by 14 pts. We had zero yards off kr.

I will also restate that I will roll with the judgement of the FO that brought us our first SB over an organization that is quite frankly a laughing stock and has been. How many visits did Tate make? I am aware of only one. Maybe his agent knew something our FO did too?

 

[themunn]

For the people who keep pointing to the superbowl and if I saw it LOL. did we really need Harvin to win that game ???

You could say the same thing in every game Tate ever played in.

As for Tate impacting games, it's very rare that one player "single-handedly" wins a game for any team, given it's a team sport.

You should have stopped there. I for one never implied ever that Harvin has single handedly won a game. I responded to what ECHF posted.

That's why I put it in quotation marks, because he didn't single-handedly win the game, but he came about as close to it as one can. If we were missing ET that game, we might lose, we might still win, missing Sherman, we might lose, might still win, hell, missing Wilson, we might lose... we might still win. Without Tate though, we MIGHT win, but it's almost certain we lose.

I will respond to your 2013 @ Rams game with your own answer. If the defense doesnt show up, its moot. Its a team sport. Clemens threw 2 INTs.

I could respond to that, which Im not disputing and say that had Harvin been in that game we would have won by 14 pts. We had zero yards off kr.

I will also restate that I will roll with the judgement of the FO that brought us our first SB over an organization that is quite frankly a laughing stock and has been. How many visits did Tate make? I am aware of only one. Maybe his agent knew something our FO did too?

You can say "If Harvin had been there he would have done this", but he wasn't there and he didn't do that, it's equally likely that given the severe beating the Rams put on Tate in the return game, harvin would have been out of the game in a quarter, certainly Tate took the took the same beating from the Saints that they dished out to Harvin and avoided injury. Tate was there against the Rams and DID score 2 TDs, without which we don't win. You can try and make the argument that someone else would have stepped up, but given our next highest yardage total by a receiver was 16 yards from Robert Turbin, you'll have a tough making anybody believe it.

And just because our FO has been fantastic in the past does not mean they are immune to mistakes in the future, that's the kind of thinking that leads to teams becoming dysfunctional franchises.

 

[-The Glove-]

He just said Harvin is 3rd best WR on the Seahawks...man u can't make this stuff up

 

[bjornanderson21]

He just said Harvin is 3rd best WR on the Seahawks...man u can't make this stuff up

Yes I said that because that is what I have seen.

Harvin wasn't much of a WR in the few games he played. He caught a few and dropped a couple. He was more of a RB that only takes it to the outside. He was effective doing that, but taking handoffs is not the same as going out and catching passes.

So yes, I have harvin as 3rd best on the hawks, and quite possibly not even top-100 in the nfl. I was unimpressed with him when he was a viking and my opinion of him has only gotten worse since Schneider was briefly inhabited by the ghost of Al Davis for a day.

If harvin proves to be better than 3rd on the hawks I will gladly bump him up. If he proves worthless 2 years in a row will you admit he's a complete bust?

 

[-The Glove-]

He just said Harvin is 3rd best WR on the Seahawks...man u can't make this stuff up

Yes I said that because that is what I have seen.

Harvin wasn't much of a WR in the few games he played. He caught a few and dropped a couple. He was more of a RB that only takes it to the outside. He was effective doing that, but taking handoffs is not the same as going out and catching passes.

So yes, I have harvin as 3rd best on the hawks, and quite possibly not even top-100 in the nfl. I was unimpressed with him when he was a viking and my opinion of him has only gotten worse since Schneider was briefly inhabited by the ghost of Al Davis for a day.

If harvin proves to be better than 3rd on the hawks I will gladly bump him up. If he proves worthless 2 years in a row will you admit he's a complete bust?

so nothing he did in Minnesota impressed you? At all?

 

[OffseasonChampions]

He just said Harvin is 3rd best WR on the Seahawks...man u can't make this stuff up

Yes I said that because that is what I have seen.

Harvin wasn't much of a WR in the few games he played. He caught a few and dropped a couple. He was more of a RB that only takes it to the outside. He was effective doing that, but taking handoffs is not the same as going out and catching passes.

So yes, I have harvin as 3rd best on the hawks, and quite possibly not even top-100 in the nfl. I was unimpressed with him when he was a viking and my opinion of him has only gotten worse since Schneider was briefly inhabited by the ghost of Al Davis for a day.

If harvin proves to be better than 3rd on the hawks I will gladly bump him up. If he proves worthless 2 years in a row will you admit he's a complete bust?

Not even Top 100 WR in the NFL? LOL. Dumbest post of all-time, and that's saying something.

 

[mjwhitay]

Lock this garbage. It's clearly gone out of control. Now Percy is the 3rd best WR on the roster????? GTFO here! Seriously, your football IQ is 13, go find another sport to follow. Jeezus

And another gets a view of a vacation resort due to the inability to follow forum rules. Even with a posted example and forwarning.

 

[Scottemojo]

He just said Harvin is 3rd best WR on the Seahawks...man u can't make this stuff up

Yes I said that because that is what I have seen.

Harvin wasn't much of a WR in the few games he played. He caught a few and dropped a couple. He was more of a RB that only takes it to the outside. He was effective doing that, but taking handoffs is not the same as going out and catching passes.

So yes, I have harvin as 3rd best on the hawks, and quite possibly not even top-100 in the nfl. I was unimpressed with him when he was a viking and my opinion of him has only gotten worse since Schneider was briefly inhabited by the ghost of Al Davis for a day.

If harvin proves to be better than 3rd on the hawks I will gladly bump him up. If he proves worthless 2 years in a row will you admit he's a complete bust?

The catch he made in the Minnesota game was stunning. The few games he played? You mean the just over a half vs Minny, the less than a half vs Nola, and the SB? I can understand not liking his contract, but calling him a bust or not top 100 WR is insane.

Also, it wasn't Schneider. It was Pete who wanted Percy, and has wanted him since Percy was in High School.

 

[drdiags]

Lock this garbage. It's clearly gone out of control. Now Percy is the 3rd best WR on the roster????? GTFO here! Seriously, your football IQ is 13, go find another sport to follow. Jeezus

Guess you didn't notice that a poster got banned yesterday evening in this very thread for attacking the poster and not the post. You may want to rethink your debating tactics? Just a word to the wise.

Case in point:

The OP is a clown

And Seaswab is on vacation. The Management!

As well as anyone else that can't figure out it's about the topic not the poster.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Not-So-Bold-Prediction: next year, we will agree that Percy Harvin is the most exciting offensive player in Seahawks history. If not for the limited number of snaps this season, I would be proclaiming it already. Disagree? Name someone.

For those concerned about injury, consider all the fine quarterbacks, receivers and running backs around the league. Most have lost time due to injury. Many have been out for a significant amount of time. Losing time to an injury doesn't make a player weak or "prone"; it makes them an NFL player.

Yep. Even Rodgers, Manning and Brady have been out with Injuries

 

[AbsolutNET]

I think this has run its course a few times over