Hypothetical: Would you rather...?

After week 1 of the season, with hindsight firmly on our side, I've been having a fun discussion around two real directions our Hawks could have taken. One they did take, the other they could have taken. Disclaimer: This is not intended as a '2nd guessing' type of thread, but a fun exercise of riches. Like the "would you rather have a Lamborghini or Ferrari" convo I had as a kid.

Scenario 1: Hawks Get
Percy Harvin (with his six-year, $67 million extension with the Seahawks, with $25 million guaranteed)

Year Cap Hit Dead Money
2014 13,400,000 20,600,000
2015 12,900,000 7,200,000
2016 12,300,000 4,800,000
2017 12,350,000 2,400,000
2018 11,150,000
(Courtesy of Spotrac.com)


Scenario 2: Hawks Get
2013 1st Round (25) Seahawks select Cordarrelle Patterson
2014 3rd Round (32) (96 overall)
2014 7th Round (32) (247 overall)

My thoughts: It's hard not to simply be loyal to 'our guy', with the Super Bowl return and a promising week 1, but when I look big picture, with guys like Avril, Wagner, Wright, Smith, Maxwell, and some guy named Wilson all up for contracts next year, the 2nd scenario is a tantalizing one with the flexibility we would have in cap room, and a younger, cheaper, yet also electric playmaker (with no injury history)...not to mention the add'l draft pics for Schneids to play with.

Which way do you lean? :snack:

My apologies in advance... I tried to line up the columns of Percy's contract for easy reading, and it still came out jumbled.

Percy without hesitation.

A legitimate MVP candidate when healthy, fully changes the dynamic of this team.

Pete and John could do a lot with that extra money. Tough decision for me.

Even with the benefit of hindsight... We were in "Win Now" mode, and we won, so... there's that...

Percy paid for his entire contract IMO with fielding the 2nd half kickoff on Feb. 2, 2014.

He will be responsible for this years offense being one of the NFL's best. His presence on the field is unparalleled.

Largent80":z8edds84 said:

Percy paid for his entire contract IMO with fielding the 2nd half kickoff on Feb. 2, 2014.

He will be responsible for this years offense being one of the NFL's best. His presence on the field is unparalleled.

Click to expand...

Amen to that! It was like Green Bay's signing of Desmond Howard, all it took to be worth it was a SuperB Owl, game securing score to make all of the picks and money worth it.

They can never take that away from us.

They can both do the same things, but Harvin is more of a multi-tool than Patterson. But both can pretty easily house a kickoff, and they're both extremely dangerous in the open field. Harvin tilts the field (and the coverage) more than Patterson, plus it's possible Patterson benefits from ADP, but they're both pretty special at this point. This is one of those no wrong answer questions to me.

I think it was a good trade.

But purely in hindsight, it's Patterson hands down. Patterson is durable, Percy is not. Percy is a touch faster but Patterson makes up for it with tackle breaking ability, both are very comparable as playmakers and return men. Over the life of Patterson's rookie deal, he'll save the Vikings roughly $40 million compared to Harvin. Then also factor in the extra 3rd and 7th round picks, and think about the very real possibility that one of those picks turns into another KJ Wright or JR Sweezy. And then of course, there's age difference.

Really, the only argument in Harvin's favor is that he's probably feared just a little more by DC's (but it's very close) and he's far more polished as a receiver, though I think Carroll could easily work a game plan around Patterson's shortcomings at WR.

In the end, I'm just insanely happy that we got one of those two guys on our team. So what if we could have had Patterson for a lot less, our team is hands down the best in the league either way, and a lot of that is thanks to the "Harvin effect."

Here is something else to keep in mind, which I think fully justifies the trade regardless of how good Patterson becomes.

When the Vikings dangled Harvin, the bidding was much more intense than originally expected. If Seattle bows out, it's very possible that Harvin could have been sent to the 49ers, and the 49ers would have Percy Harvin on their roster instead of the over-rated Eric Reid.

It gets better. If this scenario occurs, the Vikings would still need to draft Harvin's replacement, and with knowledge that Seattle had interest in Harvin and generally targets raw athletes in the draft, there is no way they pass on Patterson at #23, two picks in front of Seattle. Would Seattle trade up to leapfrog the Vikings for Patterson? History suggests this is very unlikely.

It's very easy to envision a scenario where Seattle has neither Patterson or Harvin, with the added possibility that Harvin ends up in SF.

When Seattle pulled off that trade, they assured themselves that such a scenario could not come to pass. For that reason alone, I'll never second guess the deal.

I was and am a big fan of Patterson. I absolutely despise trading 1st round picks. But it is Percy. Would I trade Percy and his salary right now to the Vikes for Patterson, and whatever other picks? Nope, I would not. Percy is too darn good.

kearly":3n6p75gr said:

I think it was a good trade.

But purely in hindsight, it's Patterson hands down. Patterson is durable, Percy is not.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Percy didnt get hurt his first year, winning rookie of the year. Just saying.

akscoundrel":3rc3seiv said:

kearly":3rc3seiv said:

I think it was a good trade.

But purely in hindsight, it's Patterson hands down. Patterson is durable, Percy is not.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Percy didnt get hurt his first year, winning rookie of the year. Just saying.

Click to expand...

Yep. It's a little presumptuous to be calling Patterson durable after one year in the league.

Keep the picks for me. That extra money would be huge and could have helped us keep Tate and/or McDonald as well as helped in re-signing players like Wright and Wagner.

Tate
Baldwin
Patterson
Kearse

Not bad...plus we would still have Tate to man PR. Also, the 2nd rounder used on Richardson could have been used elsewhere.

Yeah, thinking about who we may have acquired with Harvin's salary is what gives me the most pause. We could have kept some guys between Tate, Bryant, Clemons, and McDonald. But still, Harvin is absolutely ridiculous and we've seen so little of what he can do. Maybe acquiring him was the best move possible and maybe it wasn't. Either way, we still improved from it.

Patterson. He has a chance to be a bigger Percy. We did fine without Percy last year. But Percy puts us over the top from average offense to one of the best. And I believe Patterson could've done the same just not to the exact level Harvin does but pretty close.

kearly":9yf0g213 said:

Here is something else to keep in mind, which I think fully justifies the trade regardless of how good Patterson becomes.

When the Vikings dangled Harvin, the bidding was much more intense than originally expected. If Seattle bows out, it's very possible that Harvin could have been sent to the 49ers, and the 49ers would have Percy Harvin on their roster instead of the over-rated Eric Reid.

It gets better. If this scenario occurs, the Vikings would still need to draft Harvin's replacement, and with knowledge that Seattle had interest in Harvin and generally targets raw athletes in the draft, there is no way they pass on Patterson at #23, two picks in front of Seattle. Would Seattle trade up to leapfrog the Vikings for Patterson? History suggests this is very unlikely.

It's very easy to envision a scenario where Seattle has neither Patterson or Harvin, with the added possibility that Harvin ends up in SF.

When Seattle pulled off that trade, they assured themselves that such a scenario could not come to pass. For that reason alone, I'll never second guess the deal.

Click to expand...

Winner. This right here are my thoughts exactly, 100% </thread> :th2thumbs:

Salary Cap has ruined football for me.

1) I can't be an "all in" fan for any given player except for the QB, because any given player will eventually be a cap casualty.

2) I have to read "what if?" threads all based upon how salary structure affects the team. I can't just simply love the players we have, but wonder if they have relative value compared to other players around the league.

3) I think of stupid stuff like, will he retire a Seahawk or will his name go into another ring of honor? Do the Cardinals and Rams both retire Kurt Warner's jersey?

Being a NFL fan in the 70's was so nice.

Mick063":2zbsylwt said:

Salary Cap has ruined football for me.

1) I can't be an "all in" fan for any given player except for the QB, because any given player will eventually be a cap casualty.

2) I have to read "what if?" threads all based upon how salary structure affects the team. I can't just simply love the players we have, but wonder if they have relative value compared to other players around the league.

3) I think of stupid stuff like, will he retire a Seahawk or will his name go into another ring of honor? Do the Cardinals and Rams both retire Kurt Warner's jersey?

Being a NFL fan in the 70's was so nice.

Click to expand...

All I can say, if we didn't have the salary cap, then we better get rid of free agency. Because all that will end up happening is certain teams (Dallas) starts buying their team (ala NY Yankees) and all your favorites leave anyway.

This is my biggest complaint in baseball. Without the salary cap, parity is just so hard to achieve. You have to really get lucky with under appreciated players to even have a shot against the powerhouse teams.

This is easy considering 8 months ago Percy gave us the most exciting play in Seahawk's history to propel us into the records books for all of time.

I keep hearing the Patterson comparison, and he may well become one of the most dynamic players in the NFL, but we're winning NOW..............so right now I'd rather have Percy, because he's the most uniquely gifted player in the entire league.