Largent80":3spqgzc8 said:
Tate has been fortunate to not be injured. Odds are that he will eventually. And I would believe that Harvin would have demolished Tates production if he played as much. That runback in the SB was worth a years production in my eyes.
I also think people are way too worried about cap money. It is what it is.
I'd disagree with this slightly. Harvin's return *emotionally* was worth the lack of production, but only because Hawk fans were catching so much crap about Harvin being out from other jealous fan bases. Honestly, we really didn't even need that return. Sure, that killed the Broncos spirit the rest of the way, but a long drive for a TD would've done the same thing; and if anyone thinks we weren't scoring on that opening drive, they're crazy. That return was icing on the cake.
Harvin's biggest contribution was both of those sweeps. You could just see it; Denver was totally unprepared for the first one, and Harvin's speed terrified pretty much everyone on that side of the ball, except Pot Roast. He was just confused. The 2nd sweep, the Broncos saw that one coming, but still couldn't adjust for Harvin's speed. I think that did the most to open up the offense a bit.
I agree with the OP's sentiment. Tate has been more consistent than Harvin, and it's not just this year. I don't remember a time when Tate was ever injured, and with his playing style, that's saying something. As for McGruff's post about Tate's inconsistencies and disappearing in the playoffs; I agree with the disappearing act as a WR, but to break it down to only his receiving numbers is a bit myopic, Tate is a hell of a blocker and he routinely seals his guy (either inside or his CB to the outside) on running plays and TE receptions out his side.
He was also one of the most consistent punt returners in the NFL. When Tate was on the field, you ALWAYS got something. And Tate was always on the field. So in that aspect, he has Harvin beat.
I'm not thrilled with Harvin's contract, but in going with Harvin, you're taking a gamble. It's higher risk/higher reward than going with Tate (both performance and contractually). We can afford to do that because ....A. Harvin fits our offense better, with his versatility out of the backfield, and B. we're a run first team that doesn't rely consistently on the pass, and C. we also live by the big play on offense. We plod away with runs and body blows to the defense, then uppercut with big plays and score our points. Harvin is the ultimate big play at any given time; it doesn't have to be scripted, it can be a routine slant, sweep, etc.
We're deep enough that we can afford Harvin to not always carry us. We're going to need more of Harvin now that Tate is gone, but I think if we draft another quality WR we'll be ok.