Did the Percy debacle cost us the Super Bowl?

I know everything changes when you say if, however, I can't help but think IF we never made the Harvin trade would we have won the bowl this year. It's particularly interesting when you think we probably would have kept Tate and not only bettered our receiving corps by a ton but also would have given us a legit punt returner instead of catch and duck. There very certainly could have been more to the story with Tate not being on the team this year but Harvin was a huge hit for us in the ways of money, team chemistry and ability to keep Tate and or others (Thurmond, Clemons etc...). I know it's just conjecture but iMO Tate would have made a huge difference on this team this year.

We were one yard away from a title, Harvin didn't effect it.

it probably got us to the super bowl....team seemed to rally after he was gone..that being said I guess keeping Tate and cutting Harvin loose in the off season should of happened.

The distraction of Tate, and the disruption Harvin was causing, we would be discussing the Packers vs Patriots Super Bowl, because we would have never made it, if they remained. The first half of the season is all the proof you need.

Hard to say what would've happened. With hindsight of course being 20/20, it's obvious not making the Harvin trade in the first place and having cash for Tate and keeping him would've likely been a better course of action.

I don't think we would've made the playoffs let alone the Superbowl if he were still on the team. I would have loved to have kept him because he's such an explosive weapon but the offense played better when we werent trying to force it to him so much and playing through Marshawn.

hawksfansinceday1":3g6yx018 said:

Hard to say what would've happened. With hindsight of course being 20/20, it's obvious not making the Harvin trade in the first place and having cash for Tate and keeping him would've likely been a better course of action.

Click to expand...

Another reason I hate Bevell... What are the chances we trade for Harvin if we didn't have Bevell lobbying to bring in Harvin?
Also doesn't necessarily mean we would've kept Tate, but we wouldn't have had the whole Harvin distraction this year either and who knows what would've become with the draft pick we gave up for Harvin.

Harvin wasn't the reason the Seahawks won the SB48 and he isn't the reason the Seahawks lost SB49. He is a non-factor. Seahawks lost because they didn't make enough plays to win in SB49.

firebee":mxdka4sl said:

hawksfansinceday1":mxdka4sl said:

Hard to say what would've happened. With hindsight of course being 20/20, it's obvious not making the Harvin trade in the first place and having cash for Tate and keeping him would've likely been a better course of action.

Click to expand...

Another reason I hate Bevell... What are the chances we trade for Harvin if we didn't have Bevell lobbying to bring in Harvin?
Also doesn't necessarily mean we would've kept Tate, but we wouldn't have had the whole Harvin distraction this year either and who knows what would've become with the draft pick we gave up for Harvin.

Click to expand...

Then you must hate Pete because he was the one who wanted Harvin. He wanted him at USC, and he wanted him in Seattle. He wants a guy who has that kind of explosive, play-making ability. A guy the other team has to account for on nearly every play. A guy who--in John Schneider's words--can "tilt the field."

It didn't work out. It's over.

It hurt. You guys missed that speed.

Throwdown":252qwr0w said:

We were one yard away from a title, Harvin didn't effect it.

Click to expand...

BINGO, one craptastic play call cost us a Super Bowl win, end of story.

Well I did here a rumor about Tate and RW wife... Not sure if that is true or not... but if it is there is your answer about tate...

I found the post of Brenno calling out Tate in the Bellevue restaurant for being a wife *edit* to be convincing. Anyone know how to search for that post?

Sadly yes. As Percy was walking out the door of the VMAC for the last time, he whispered in Bevell's ear, "When you get there, don't hand it to Marshawn."

Our injuries finally caught up to us was the reason why we lost. No team really comes close to our talent.

Throwdown":1n4o0rjs said:

We were one yard away from a title, Harvin didn't effect it.

Click to expand...

What if we were 17 points ahead with 26 seconds left and Tate was on the team? Get my drift?

seabowl":hst9s8ym said:

Throwdown":hst9s8ym said:

We were one yard away from a title, Harvin didn't effect it.

Click to expand...

What if we were 17 points ahead with 26 seconds left and Tate was on the team? Get my drift?

Click to expand...

The fact is that the Seahawks were up by 10 points entering the 4th quarter, without Tate and Harvin. They were doing fine without either of those guys.

Throwdown":3rrk4dev said:

We were one yard away from a title, Harvin didn't effect it.

Click to expand...

This. I agree.

I think what the OP is saying is the entire Percy debacle. Picking him up in the first place, losing that 1st round pick, and losing Tate. In that context,

Yes, it could've cost us a SuperBowl. It's really as simple as this: if we had kept Tate, our field position on punt returns would've been better all year. Now, this wont affect anything major, as we were already the #1 seed in the NFC, but in the Superbowl, you would've had Tate matched up vs. Revis, and Baldwin matched up vs. Browner. I'd like to think that Tate might make 2-3 more plays vs. Revis than Baldwin did, and Baldwin has reputedly matched up well vs. Browner in practices with his quickness.

Then again, Mathews might not even be on the team in that instance, so we might not have recovered that onside kick, or made all those big plays in the Superbowl

It's too hard to say either way. Possibly we draft Cordarelle Patterson in the 1st and wasted that roster spot. To simplify it and erase all of the contingencies, if we still had Tate in the SB, yes, I think we had a better chance to win.

Well, I can't say whether he affected the superbowl in any way, but he did cost us a lot of cap space last year that could have been used elsewhere. On top of that he might cost us getting a big name FA this offseason as the Seahawks have $7.2 million in dead money because of him this season.

I think he absolutely would have helped. I was against trading him to the Jets at the time, and still am.

I can at least respect the argument that any abrasive force in the locker room needs to be moved (I agree with that on some teams, not this one), but I can't buy the argument or "proof" that moving Percy was the right move just because the team had a better record without him. Wagner and Chancellor being out/hurt early in the season was a huge factor for the slowish start, in addition to a few other things. This team is too good to have not still gotten better with Percy.

Also didn't help us much that we had nothing resembling a return game most of the season. Hard to argue that he wouldn't have been helpful there, even if you didn't like him as a wideout.