Hawks viewed Randy Moss as Percy replacement?

Wow Denver post is reporting that the Hawks wanted to bring Randy Moss aboard after trading Percy Harvin to Jets, but that Moss really only would come back for Peyton Manning. Not sure I would have loved that move, but it is cool to know PCJS are always trying to find creative ways to improve this roster

We should have never let Tate go. I think most established receivers wouldn't want to come here because it would likely be a low yardage situation.

jlaff35":2qw00m7j said:

Wow Denver post is reporting that the Hawks wanted to bring Randy Moss aboard after trading Percy Harvin to Jets, but that Moss really only would come back for Peyton Manning. Not sure I would have loved that move, but it is cool to know PCJS are always trying to find creative ways to improve this roster

Click to expand...

Do you have a link? I heard that we had asked Moss to sign last season, but I haven't seen anything at all about it happening this season

Worth noting the Denver Post story is referring to an apparent report by Jay Glazer regarding Seattle's interest in Moss. If Glazer did indeed make that report, it's safe to say it's legit. Glazer the best in the business for insider info.

theENGLISHseahawk":1feluzgz said:

Worth noting the Denver Post story is referring to an apparent report by Jay Glazer regarding Seattle's interest in Moss. If Glazer did indeed make that report, it's safe to say it's legit. Glazer the best in the business for insider info.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, then they are talking about last season. It's old news. I heard this weeks ago. It certainly wasn't after the trade to the jets, although Glazer reported it and Moss confirmed it after the trade happened, but the request was last year

The Outfield":3j0is473 said:

We should have never let Tate go. I think most established receivers wouldn't want to come here because it would likely be a low yardage situation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of us letting Tate go or not, he wasn't going to re-sign if we wanted him.

He wanted to go somewhere with a bigger role, and that place was not here.

Ok I found the article and the OP misread it. This is from the Glazer report and they were wanting Moss to replace Harvin last year. This could have just been due to the fact that he was never 100% last season. Moss wasn't being brought on as a permanent replacement for Harvin.

[urltargetblank]http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2014/11/06/randy-moss-says-come-retirement-play-peyton-manning/30764/[/urltargetblank]

DrDix":31bd633w said:

The Outfield":31bd633w said:

We should have never let Tate go. I think most established receivers wouldn't want to come here because it would likely be a low yardage situation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of us letting Tate go or not, he wasn't going to re-sign if we wanted him.

He wanted to go somewhere with a bigger role, and that place was not here.

Click to expand...

Tate would've re-signed if Seattle had come closer to the same guaranteed money that Detroit offered. His words.

All said, looks like Detroit got a bargain on him while our offense is currently devoid of any established play-makers outside QB/RB. It is what it is and Seattle was in a tough spot at the time, but it's pretty clear Motown won that transaction.

It wouldn't make sense from last year, Moss was on the 49ers.

I'd love it though. I love Moss. Nothing tops his "straight cash homey".

pehawk":mouw4f9q said:

It wouldn't make sense from last year, Moss was on the 49ers.

I'd love it though. I love Moss. Nothing tops his "straight cash homey".

Click to expand...

Moss was a 49er two years ago (2012). Didn't play in 2013.

DavidSeven":2e0rwa3i said:

pehawk":2e0rwa3i said:

It wouldn't make sense from last year, Moss was on the 49ers.

I'd love it though. I love Moss. Nothing tops his "straight cash homey".

Click to expand...

Moss was a 49er two years ago (2012). Didn't play in 2013.

Click to expand...

Damn it, you're right.

I still love him as a player. Still remember when he was available when the Hawks picked in the draft, I leapt around the living room screaming at my GF "were getting Randy Moss, we're getting Randy Moss, OMG, OMG, OMG, Randy Moss!" Picture preteen girls screaming for 5 Seconds of Summer, and thats close to my enthusiasm.

And, then.........we drafted Anthony Simmons. Same thing, I guess.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/201 ... ing/30764/

This is where I saw it. No biggie, we aren't getting Moss and wouldn't know how to use him even if we had him anyway.

DavidSeven":v5sco6aj said:

DrDix":v5sco6aj said:

The Outfield":v5sco6aj said:

We should have never let Tate go. I think most established receivers wouldn't want to come here because it would likely be a low yardage situation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of us letting Tate go or not, he wasn't going to re-sign if we wanted him.

He wanted to go somewhere with a bigger role, and that place was not here.

Click to expand...

Tate would've re-signed if Seattle had come closer to the same guaranteed money that Detroit offered. His words.

All said, looks like Detroit got a bargain on him while our offense is currently devoid of any established play-makers outside QB/RB. It is what it is and Seattle was in a tough spot at the time, but it's pretty clear Motown won that transaction.

Click to expand...

Ah.. ahem! ADB? Kearse? Miller?

Nothing "established" there yet, David?

HoustonHawk82":4x1l27rl said:

DavidSeven":4x1l27rl said:

DrDix":4x1l27rl said:

The Outfield":4x1l27rl said:

We should have never let Tate go. I think most established receivers wouldn't want to come here because it would likely be a low yardage situation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of us letting Tate go or not, he wasn't going to re-sign if we wanted him.

He wanted to go somewhere with a bigger role, and that place was not here.

Click to expand...

Tate would've re-signed if Seattle had come closer to the same guaranteed money that Detroit offered. His words.

All said, looks like Detroit got a bargain on him while our offense is currently devoid of any established play-makers outside QB/RB. It is what it is and Seattle was in a tough spot at the time, but it's pretty clear Motown won that transaction.

Click to expand...

Ah.. ahem! ADB? Kearse? Miller?

Nothing "established" there yet, David?

Click to expand...

The problem though is that you can't sit here with a straight face and say any of those guys are better than Tate. They're playmakers, but not on the level of Tate.

HoustonHawk82":1pyr98v2 said:

DavidSeven":1pyr98v2 said:

DrDix":1pyr98v2 said:

The Outfield":1pyr98v2 said:

We should have never let Tate go. I think most established receivers wouldn't want to come here because it would likely be a low yardage situation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of us letting Tate go or not, he wasn't going to re-sign if we wanted him.

He wanted to go somewhere with a bigger role, and that place was not here.

Click to expand...

Tate would've re-signed if Seattle had come closer to the same guaranteed money that Detroit offered. His words.

All said, looks like Detroit got a bargain on him while our offense is currently devoid of any established play-makers outside QB/RB. It is what it is and Seattle was in a tough spot at the time, but it's pretty clear Motown won that transaction.

Click to expand...

Ah.. ahem! ADB? Kearse? Miller?

Nothing "established" there yet, David?

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I like ADB and Miller. Don't get me wrong. However, Miller is out and ADB is the guy who can consistently get to his spot and make the catch, but in terms of true "playmaking" (i.e. TDs, run-after-catch, top-off-defense, breaking tackles, explosive returns, etc.) -- that is more Tate's game than Baldwin's and is something this team is sorely missing right now.

I thought when they let Tate walk it was a huge gamble. He is never hurt. Harvin was coming of a injury racked session and they already had issues with box behavior. Not John's best move

I see a lot of overreaction about not signing Tate since the trade of Harvin. He is and was a very solid receiver but people make him sound like he's remotely close to Calvin Johnson's equal on that team, and that's just not true. Had he stayed here his numbers wouldn't look all that much different than his best year here. Can't just look at his numbers in a high volume passing offense and assume he would do the exact same here. His departure is more felt as a punt returner than as a receiver.

Tate and Baldwin are more similar receivers than most people realize though, and while both were mildly productive on the field at the same time, it makes a lot of sense to me to keep one and plan long-term for a big, fast WR to play alongside them. The money Tate wanted would likely have, once again, put our receiver group in the running for most overpaid position groups in the NFL. With the big time deals in the secondary and Wilson coming soon, it made perfect sense to only keep one of Tate or Baldwin.

Weird to see the Tate love coming out now. Tate was a stud for this team but he was not perfect. I see some revisionist history here. Most posters on this site seemed happy he was gone, wonder how many posters in this thread were on that "Wilson makes everyone great, screw Tate" bandwagon this past offseason?

Tate is a solid #2 with a mini beastmode attitude. He isn't a legit #1 but was a great punt returner and refused to go down when he had the ball in his hands when receiving. Now he's on a team that has a top tier QB and a non comparable running game to the Hawks and there's a love fest for him. Several people on this forum mentioned this would happen and they were ridiculed because "Stafford sucked, he was Romo JR, he took way to many chances etc.) The debate turned in to how much better Wilson was than Stafford. For the posters that took this approach, I guess were seeing who is the better QB? LOL, I know these posters aren't going to own up to it so this was a waste of time to mention it.

I don't recall seeing this outward regret for Tate leaving in the offseason.


What is missing from this conversation is the rumor of Tate having sex with Wilsons wife. Yea, I said it. If those rumors have any truth to them there was no way in hell Tate was going to be on the 2014 squad. Have to say, who would blame Wilson for making sure he was not?

You cannot have this conversation without bringing up the rumors.

irocdave":2lqp8ufl said:

Weird to see the Tate love coming out now. Tate was a stud for this team but he was not perfect. I see some revisionist history here. Most posters on this site seemed happy he was gone, wonder how many posters in this thread were on that "Wilson makes everyone great, screw Tate" bandwagon this past offseason?

Tate is a solid #2 with a mini beastmode attitude. He isn't a legit #1 but was a great punt returner and refused to go down when he had the ball in his hands when receiving.

Click to expand...

He's a solid #1 on this team that doesn't even have a solid #1 anymore. And just for the record, I wasn't on that thread.

DrDix":35kllnqe said:

The Outfield":35kllnqe said:

We should have never let Tate go. I think most established receivers wouldn't want to come here because it would likely be a low yardage situation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of us letting Tate go or not, he wasn't going to re-sign if we wanted him.

He wanted to go somewhere with a bigger role, and that place was not here.

Click to expand...

Tate boinked Ashton. They let him go because of that. :stirthepot: