Very good article about Tate's departure, FA stuff, and othe

[byau]

I think a lot of people are underestimating Tate. I think he will have an even better season next year with more receptions.
..
..

The Seahawks don't necessarily need someone to make plays after the hit or get guys to miss tackles, they will do fine with receivers who can keep their hands on the ball first and foremost and help Russell with short to medium gains. If they can make plays after the catch, that's a bonus.

He should have a better season with the Lions. They pass a bunch. That's why he's worth 6 mill there. In Seattle...not so much

Yup yup yup. I think big win for Tate, and not necessarily a loss for the Hawks. Right now re-watching Falcons vs Seahawks and we got 3rd-stringers playing that look super fast and athletic. I'm sure PC/JS already have some people in mind to fill in the receiver spots. And cheaper. Giving the Hawks some money to spend for other needs.

 

[Cartire]

Prove to me that Doug is better then Tate without using a few clutch plays in the playoffs as an overall point of a WRs ability. Over the longevity of their careers here, please present something that makes this statement true in anyway.

Doug is great, but it seems like people get to attached to a few big plays, and then end up defining someone whole skill set on those.

DB had a great playoff run.
Tate and a great season run.

One is just more recent.

How in the world is anyone going to "prove" one is better than the other? Tate has played 4 years now, Baldwin has played 2 years. If you put weight on how each player played during their first 2 years then of course Baldwin would be miles ahead of Tate. If you look at just last year you could make an argument that Tate was more productive, but that Baldwin beat him in other areas like efficiency (yards per catch, yards per target, etc). If you put weight on Baldwin's first year, then he had more total production than Tate. If you put more wieght on the specific stats that Tate is better, like YAC or breaking tackles, then Tate has the advantage.

But who is going to decide what you put more weight on? Further clouding the issue are the folks that make up random stats --how many times have I heard it that Baldwin's production is actually due to Tate, because even though Tate did nothing in the playoffs, he somehow "opened things up" for Baldwin, etc.

In the end you have to use some common sense. Baldwin and Tate are probably close. Baldwin obviously has more room to grow as a WR, since he is just going into his 3rd year --the year most NFL WRs breakout. While Tate is at or close to his peak, going into his 5th year I believe.

edit: Correction, Baldwin has played 3 seasons not 2.

I'm glad after your rant, you remembered that Baldwin has played three. Tate was basically red shirted his first year, barely seeing any snaps. So you can say they both basically started there full careers at the same time in 2011.

Half your argument is on Baldwin having room to grow, and Tate is at his peak. Which makes zero sense to me being only one year apart, and basically starting at the same time. What makes you think Tate has peaked and somehow Baldwin has still so much growth left?

Baldwin has been great. But because Tate disappears during the playoffs (which who the hell cares, besides the niners game, every game was a cake walk. Only so many people are going to catch the ball when it's thrown so little. Not everyone can be the guy each game) we are going to just throw out all the games where Tate was great.

His acrobatic catches. His ability to find the ball in the air. His amazing ability to break tackles and produce the top YAC. :sarcasm_on: but oh man, there was a few times where he ran backwards a tad. He sucks. :sarcasm_off:

 

[Escamillo]

Prove to me that Doug is better then Tate without using a few clutch plays in the playoffs as an overall point of a WRs ability. Over the longevity of their careers here, please present something that makes this statement true in anyway.

Doug is great, but it seems like people get to attached to a few big plays, and then end up defining someone whole skill set on those.

DB had a great playoff run.
Tate and a great season run.

One is just more recent.

How in the world is anyone going to "prove" one is better than the other? Tate has played 4 years now, Baldwin has played 2 years. If you put weight on how each player played during their first 2 years then of course Baldwin would be miles ahead of Tate. If you look at just last year you could make an argument that Tate was more productive, but that Baldwin beat him in other areas like efficiency (yards per catch, yards per target, etc). If you put weight on Baldwin's first year, then he had more total production than Tate. If you put more wieght on the specific stats that Tate is better, like YAC or breaking tackles, then Tate has the advantage.

But who is going to decide what you put more weight on? Further clouding the issue are the folks that make up random stats --how many times have I heard it that Baldwin's production is actually due to Tate, because even though Tate did nothing in the playoffs, he somehow "opened things up" for Baldwin, etc.

In the end you have to use some common sense. Baldwin and Tate are probably close. Baldwin obviously has more room to grow as a WR, since he is just going into his 3rd year --the year most NFL WRs breakout. While Tate is at or close to his peak, going into his 5th year I believe.

edit: Correction, Baldwin has played 3 seasons not 2.

I'm glad after your rant, you remembered that Baldwin has played three. Tate was basically red shirted his first year, barely seeing any snaps. So you can say they both basically started there full careers at the same time in 2011.

Half your argument is on Baldwin having room to grow, and Tate is at his peak. Which makes zero sense to me being only one year apart, and basically starting at the same time. What makes you think Tate has peaked and somehow Baldwin has still so much growth left?

Baldwin has been great. But because Tate disappears during the playoffs (which who the hell cares, besides the niners game, every game was a cake walk. Only so many people are going to catch the ball when it's thrown so little. Not everyone can be the guy each game) we are going to just throw out all the games where Tate was great.

His acrobatic catches. His ability to find the ball in the air. His amazing ability to break tackles and produce the top YAC. :sarcasm_on: but oh man, there was a few times where he ran backwards a tad. He sucks. :sarcasm_off:

You say Tate "redshirted" and just leave it at that. Why not say the whole thing? He "redshirted" because he had a horrible attitude, probably due to a sense of entitlement he developed by being worshipped at Notre Dame. His attitude is better now (though still shows immaturity on the field), but let's be real if we're going to talk about "redshirting". Baldwin, on the other hand, had a great attitude right off the bat in his rookie year, which is why he got significant playing time in his first year, unlike Tate. And that's why Baldwin's fist three years were more productive than Tate's first three years were. You want to spin that fact away, but the fact remains in tact.

But here's the bottom line: I wanted to keep Tate. I thought we could have a "Three Amigos" receiving corps with Baldwin, Tate, Harvin (maybe we still can, but with Kearse, since he came on strong as the season went on). But there's a salary cap. That means it comes down to simple mathematics. We could not overpay Tate unless we want to be irresponsible in running the franchise. End of story. There's no need to unduly trash Tate, nor is there any need to unduly praise him. We couldn't keep him either way due to the math.

 

[ivotuk]

This is pertinent -- this is what a friend who's a Lions fan wrote to me when I said Tate could rip it up in the Lions offense:

...or we'll further discover how excellent Russell Wilson was at accuracy when Tate sees his excellent hands falter trying to bring in Stafford's wounded ducks.

That definitely made me think. Could part of the reason our entire team has great catch rate numbers be related to Wilson's accuracy and touch? Would our group have the same "hands" numbers if they were catching side-arm ducks from Stafford?

This is EXACTLY why our receivers look so good. Russell Wilson, much like Dave Krieg, throws a very catchable ball.

In a post about Finley, somebody mentioned his drops and someone else showed stats where he only had a couple of drops.

I responded to that showing that EVERY receiver in Green Bay had a low drop percentage. Just like EVERY receiver in Seattle has a low drop percentage. A lot has to do with ball placement. (please no testicle jokes).

 

[ivotuk]

Here it is:

A lot of catch rate depends on who is throwing the ball, what kind of pass offense is run, how many passes they get thrown their way and what down it is.

Darren Sproles, 71 receptions ZERO drops! But Drew Brees throws a very catchable ball and Sproles has great hands. If you see one team with low drop percentage, thank the QB. Jimmy Graham 86 catches, 3 drops.

Aaron Rodgers QB -> Finley 25 catches 1 drop, Jordy Nelson 85 catches 3 drops, Randall Cobb 31 catches 1 drop, Eddie Lacy 35 catches 1 drop, Jarrett Boykin 39 catches 2 drops, James Jones 59 catches 3 drops. So a lot has to do with offense and QB. Apparently Aaron Rodgers throws a catchable ball.

You know who else threw a very catchable ball? Dave Krieg. But that's because he had small hands so couldn't really sling the ball. He threw a beautiful deep ball though, like a perfect rainbow. He also had Steve Largent catching them.

Russell Wilson QB -> Lockette 5 catches 0 drops, Lynch 36/2, Tate 64/2, Baldwin 50/2, Kearse 22/2, Z Miller 33/1, Rice 15/1, Willson 20/1, Turbin 8/1

Russell throws a "sexy deep ball," but his receivers also know that there aren't that many opportunities so when they get one, they damn well better catch it!

 

[sc85sis]

I'm not sure why some people right now seem to be taking such polar opposite views on either the negative or positive side. Most of the time life is full of gray.

There's a fair amount of negative energy and even a smidge of antagonism floating around the forum right now. Weird. Kind of depressing too.

 

[HawkMeat]

I'm not sure why some people right now seem to be taking such polar opposite views on either the negative or positive side. Most of the time life is full of gray.

There's a fair amount of negative energy and even a smidge of antagonism floating around the forum right now. Weird. Kind of depressing too.

yes.

It isn't the polar opposite views that I see as a problem, but the inability to be open to debate. The tate conversation is probably a good example. One camp states he is average and replaceable, the other camp shows his excellent YAC and probably neither side is entirely wrong in my opinion. Tate is far from average as some try and make him out to be, but his roll can be filled sufficiently by the FO. It would be better to keep Tate, but only at the right price. Imo. All of this can be debated and is only a conversation for enjoyment because what we say means squat anyway.

 

[Popeyejones]

Welp...you guys are all right. Tate is irreplaceable.

Who said this where now?

Was it the same people who said Tate was comparable to Calvin Johnson ?

Let's wag our fingers at those people together, assuming we can find them of course. ;

Who the hell said Tate was comparable to Calvin Johnson?

It was the false dilemna that was set up in the article you posted, which takes the position that because Tate is not Calvin Johnson he is the equivalent of an "after-market iphone charger."

Basically, what people in this thread are saying is that somewhere between "Calvin Johnson" and an "after-market iphone charger" exists a guy like Golden Tate, who is a very good player who is HARD to replace despite not being elite. It's a shades of gray thing, which you're missing with your absolutes (as is the article).

 

[-The Glove-]

Welp...you guys are all right. Tate is irreplaceable.

Who said this where now?

Was it the same people who said Tate was comparable to Calvin Johnson ?

Let's wag our fingers at those people together, assuming we can find them of course. ;

Who the hell said Tate was comparable to Calvin Johnson?

It was the false dilemna that was set up in the article you posted, which takes the position that because Tate is not Calvin Johnson he is the equivalent of an "after-market iphone charger."

Basically, what people in this thread are saying is that somewhere between "Calvin Johnson" and an "after-market iphone charger" exists a guy like Golden Tate, who is a very good player who is HARD to replace despite not being elite. It's a shades of gray thing, which you're missing with your absolutes (as is the article).

Obviously we took away something completely different from that article.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Golden Tate
2013
64 rec. 898 yds. 14 avg. 5 TDs

Doug Baldwin
2013
50 rec. 778 yds. 15.6 avg. 5 TDs

Career
Tate
165 rec. 2195 yds. 13.3 avg. 15 TDs
DB
130 rec. 1932 yds. 14.9 avg. 12 tds

Keep in mind Tate was our #1 for like half the season and he has 1 yr over Baldwin

Include the post-season numbers and I'm thinking Baldwin edges out Tate if barely.

Not only that Baldwin was a UDFA in 2011 and Tate drafted in the 2nd round of 2010, Tate had a year to get acclimated but who was our best WR in 2011? Baldwin.

Baldwin would've had a better 2012 but he had an injury that took him out of TC/PS, plus getting his teeth knocked out first game in Arizona, that time missed was crucial because him and Wilson, who was only getting a third of the snaps in TC, couldn't get on the same chemistry page until much later when the Seahawks finally opened up the offense more.

Baldwin also had a much harder job than Tate in 2011/2012 going over the middle and taking more hits from the slot position.

All in all, no matter how you slice it comes to this: Doug Baldwin has done as much in 3 years than Tate has done in 4 years. And that fact alone makes Doug Baldwin more productive thus better.

 

[McGruff]

Keep in mind Tate was our #1 for like half the season and he has 1 yr over Baldwin

Yep, averaging over games played in their career . . .

Tate (58 games) . . . 2.84 receotions per game for 37.8 yards and .25 TD's
ADB (46 games) . . . 2.82 receptions per game for 42 yards and .26 TD's

Similar numbers, but Doug has done it with less snaps.

 

[jeremiah]

Sidney Rice was given between 7 and 9 million three years ago to play for the Seahawks, yet Golden Tate is not worth $6 million today? Rice is not the receiver Tate is and could not return punts, which is worth an additional million and a saved roster spot. I just don't get the re-tooling of the Hawks, they could easily have kept the group together a couple more years and won another Super Bowl, THEN break it down. The number of losses of players and the positions leads to only one conclusion, they are rebuilding. They are replacing 5-7 starters, several on defense. The offensive line, while never spectacular, will now be tinkered with again. ADD ADHD has taken over. "It was boring to have a great team, lets give ourselves some problems to fix", seems to be what PC and Schneider are thinking. Truly, for a single million dollars for Tate, they could have kept him.

 

[DavidSeven]

Sidney Rice was given between 7 and 9 million three years ago to play for the Seahawks, yet Golden Tate is not worth $6 million today? Rice is not the receiver Tate is and could not return punts, which is worth an additional million and a saved roster spot. I just don't get the re-tooling of the Hawks, they could easily have kept the group together a couple more years and won another Super Bowl, THEN break it down. The number of losses of players and the positions leads to only one conclusion, they are rebuilding. They are replacing 5-7 starters, several on defense. The offensive line, while never spectacular, will now be tinkered with again. ADD ADHD has taken over. "It was boring to have a great team, lets give ourselves some problems to fix", seems to be what PC and Schneider are thinking. Truly, for a single million dollars for Tate, they could have kept him.

Two totally different situations. In 2011 we were in full-on rebuild mode. We had no talent and no one wanted to play in Seattle. We paid a couple guys a premium to play here, so we could stay competitive as our young guys started to develop. Back then, we didn't have a franchise QB and two All-World defensive players that we had to worry about retaining.

 

[mjwhitay]

Don't worry, he just started following the Seahawks last year. Obviously.

If you're a 12 and don't know why Rice was worth overpaying 3 years ago and Tate isn't today, I won't be able to believe that you've been paying attention.

 

[SouthSoundHawk]

I thought all this madness would come from Bennett leaving, but Tate ended up being the catalyst.

Hilarious!

 

[scutterhawk]

If money was not an option of course we would have sign Tate. Trying to say he's not worth the 6million is ridiculous & just butt hurt fans. Tate brought a lot from his catching, blocking, attitude, & good teammate. He will be missed, Lions got a future star.

We should be grateful for all players who played for us this year. We won a freaken Superbowl! If they decide to go make their money let them & be happy for them. All this trash talking players after they leave is just childish & ungrateful.

I think there are 49rs fans that are probably reading some of the garbage on here, and gloating that they had been right, back a couple of months ago, and NOW see that they are justified in having said "The Seahawks Receivers are Pedestrian", because there are a BUNCH of seesaw Seahawks fans that are conceding to those who were making that claim.
Everybody knows that you aren't going to get a Prototypical, guaranteed, #1, absolutely can't miss STAR Receiver, unless you get him HIGH in the first round of the Draft.
I still don't get why Steve Largent made it to the Hall Of Fame, there was NOTHING about him that screamed "PROTOTYPICAL".....Could it maybe just be that he was so tall?, nah, 5'-11", blazing fast?, nah, that wasn't it.
The 'DUD FIZZLE' that wrote that article, really doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but there sure seems to be a bunch around here that are holding it up as the 'CAN'T MISS GOSPEL'. :177692:

 

[-The Glove-]

Sidney Rice was given between 7 and 9 million three years ago to play for the Seahawks, yet Golden Tate is not worth $6 million today? Rice is not the receiver Tate is and could not return punts, which is worth an additional million and a saved roster spot. I just don't get the re-tooling of the Hawks, they could easily have kept the group together a couple more years and won another Super Bowl, THEN break it down. The number of losses of players and the positions leads to only one conclusion, they are rebuilding. They are replacing 5-7 starters, several on defense. The offensive line, while never spectacular, will now be tinkered with again. ADD ADHD has taken over. "It was boring to have a great team, lets give ourselves some problems to fix", seems to be what PC and Schneider are thinking. Truly, for a single million dollars for Tate, they could have kept him.

Whoa whoa whoa...simmer down dude. Nothing the FO has done recently remotely hints at a rebuild

 

[-The Glove-]

If money was not an option of course we would have sign Tate. Trying to say he's not worth the 6million is ridiculous & just butt hurt fans. Tate brought a lot from his catching, blocking, attitude, & good teammate. He will be missed, Lions got a future star.

We should be grateful for all players who played for us this year. We won a freaken Superbowl! If they decide to go make their money let them & be happy for them. All this trash talking players after they leave is just childish & ungrateful.

I think there are 49rs fans that are probably reading some of the garbage on here, and gloating that they had been right, back a couple of months ago, and NOW see that they are justified in having said "The Seahawks Receivers are Pedestrian", because there are a BUNCH of seesaw Seahawks fans that are conceding to those who were making that claim.
Everybody knows that you aren't going to get a Prototypical, guaranteed, #1, absolutely can't miss STAR Receiver, unless you get him HIGH in the first round of the Draft.
I still don't get why Steve Largent made it to the Hall Of Fame, there was NOTHING about him that screamed "PROTOTYPICAL".....Could it maybe just be that he was so tall?, nah, 5'-11", blazing fast?, nah, that wasn't it.
The 'DUD FIZZLE' that wrote that article, really doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but there sure seems to be a bunch around here that are holding it up as the 'CAN'T MISS GOSPEL'. :177692:

Steve Largent is the greatest Seahawk receiver and first ballot HOF'er. What has Tate done that remotely warrants any comparison to Largent? Here's the thing I think you're missing. You're focusing too much on the "type", "prototype" classification. In the grand scheme of things, as talented as Tate is, he is just a type. Harvin, Sherman, ET, Kam, even RW are prototypes. That doesn't mean just mean size and speed cuz we all know RW and ET lack the size. Its about the unique/elite skill set they offer. Face it, Tate is just not in that mold, so why overpay for Tate at the risk of losing that elite athlete teams search high and low for?

 

[HawkWow]

Prove to me that Doug is better then Tate without using a few clutch plays in the playoffs as an overall point of a WRs ability. Over the longevity of their careers here, please present something that makes this statement true in anyway.

Doug is great, but it seems like people get to attached to a few big plays, and then end up defining someone whole skill set on those.

DB had a great playoff run.
Tate and a great season run.

One is just more recent.

How in the world is anyone going to "prove" one is better than the other? Tate has played 4 years now, Baldwin has played 2 years. If you put weight on how each player played during their first 2 years then of course Baldwin would be miles ahead of Tate. If you look at just last year you could make an argument that Tate was more productive, but that Baldwin beat him in other areas like efficiency (yards per catch, yards per target, etc). If you put weight on Baldwin's first year, then he had more total production than Tate. If you put more wieght on the specific stats that Tate is better, like YAC or breaking tackles, then Tate has the advantage.

But who is going to decide what you put more weight on? Further clouding the issue are the folks that make up random stats --how many times have I heard it that Baldwin's production is actually due to Tate, because even though Tate did nothing in the playoffs, he somehow "opened things up" for Baldwin, etc.

In the end you have to use some common sense. Baldwin and Tate are probably close. Baldwin obviously has more room to grow as a WR, since he is just going into his 3rd year --the year most NFL WRs breakout. While Tate is at or close to his peak, going into his 5th year I believe.

edit: Correction, Baldwin has played 3 seasons not 2.

I'm glad after your rant, you remembered that Baldwin has played three. Tate was basically red shirted his first year, barely seeing any snaps. So you can say they both basically started there full careers at the same time in 2011.

Half your argument is on Baldwin having room to grow, and Tate is at his peak. Which makes zero sense to me being only one year apart, and basically starting at the same time. What makes you think Tate has peaked and somehow Baldwin has still so much growth left?

Baldwin has been great. But because Tate disappears during the playoffs (which who the hell cares, besides the niners game, every game was a cake walk. Only so many people are going to catch the ball when it's thrown so little. Not everyone can be the guy each game) we are going to just throw out all the games where Tate was great.

His acrobatic catches. His ability to find the ball in the air. His amazing ability to break tackles and produce the top YAC. :sarcasm_on: but oh man, there was a few times where he ran backwards a tad. He sucks. :sarcasm_off:

Tate is a baller and as you suggest, no way has he reached his ceiling. That will likely not happen until 2015. I am still reeling from his departure. He's a guy I feel we could not have won this thing without. So distraught am I over this loss, last night I had a nightmare (seriously). Harvin and ADB were out of the game and Kearse was our #1. RW hit's Kearse on a fly pattern, he catches the ball in stride, and heading for the endzone grabs his hammy while taking a huge hit simultaneously. With Chop-chop laying motionless on the field, I wake up terrified. True story. LOL.

I am happy for Golden Tate and in a way, I am surprised he stepped out of the comforts of Seattle. Doing so shows a maturity we seldom saw from the Golden boy. His comment suggesting he wanted more than just a role on a running team tells me he means business and is dead serious about both his craft and his place in the NFL.

Tate always reminded me of a kid brother, comfortable and just happy to be involved. I now understand that was not the case. I believe this was more than about money and his willingness to leave beautiful, safe Seattle for Detroit, the land of the bubblegum pimp, really speaks volumes. Tate will prove to be one of the best FA signings this year. I am certain.

 

[WilsonMVP]

I thought all this madness would come from Bennett leaving, but Tate ended up being the catalyst.

Hilarious!

I know right...definately overrated as a punt returner. For the most part as long as you dont fumble the ball you are good. He only had 16 yards in punt returns in the entire playoffs. As a pure returner Harvin is much better.

As a WR he was MAYBE above average. His blocking was very good and he came down with hard catches but so what, so did Baldwin AND Kearse AND Rice. With Harvin coming back finally healthy I am not worried at all about our offense. When Harvin was in the offense we scored almost every time.

I swear some people on here think we just have unlimited money to keep everyone around. If we keep Tate than who do we cut? I guess there isnt some huge 16-20 million dollar contract waiting for our QB or anything. And I guess Sherman and Thomas we can just worry about later because they are just average and all and who cares if we sign them back.

I am grateful for what Tate did and he was able to step into that #1 role and be kind of productive but IMO he is not worth the 6-7 million a year he is now getting. I also think that Baldwin and Kearse talent wise are not that far or even behind Tate.

He contributed to our first superbowl and I will always be grateful for the clutch plays he made during the season. BUT we cant pay everyone and Tate is NOT an Elite player like Wilson, Sherman, Thomas, Kam, Harvin, etc. I wouldnt even rank him as a top 32 WR.