Would you have liked for the team to have kept Golden Tate?

He seems to have done pretty well in Detroit.

Keen to hear your thoughts?

They let him walk for $6M per season even though he was the #1 WR ahead of Baldwin at the time, good blocker, pretty good return man and seemed to be getting better every season entering his prime years then a year later (or two?) chose to re-sign Kearse for over $4M per.

"I'm going to earn in one year at Detroit what Seattle was going to pay me for two years. Seattle offered numbers that were laughable. I thought, 'I've given you everything and this is what you give me?'

"Considering I was there for four years, and started two of those years. I missed one game in those two years. I did everything right and wasn't a trouble maker. And what they offered, I was like, 'Is this serious?' The numbers [the Seahawks] shot at me were not first-priority, like they said they wanted to do for me to stay in Seattle." http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1063 ... -laughable

Quote from Mile Tomlin:

"I just love skill guys that play with a certain demeanor. Wideouts that play like linebackers, the first guy I used to describe that way was Hines Ward, so that just speaks to the kind of company, the regard that I hold for Golden Tate. He's a physical, combative guy."

"He's good in the run game, blocking, he's good after the catch in terms of being a difficult guy to get to the ground, contact, balance and play demeanor. He's just a very physical guy." https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh-st ... -109400580

There is that rumor that involved Golden Tate sleeping with Russ's wife. If the rumor was true, then I could see why he wasn't resigned. Now, these rumors are just conjecture -- we don't know if they hold any water. All that being said, if those rumors did indeed turn out to be false, yes I would love him on our team.

We have spent a first rounder, and gave away Max Unger for Jimmy Graham, and we spent yet another first rounder to acquire Percy Harvin. Where does that leave us versus what Golden Tate has been doing in Detroit? He has a very high catch rate, and is a dynamic play maker for Detroit. He can turn short slant passes into big gains for Stafford. We have drafted two receivers fairly high to replace what one man did for us, in addition to whiffing on Harvin, and and having mediocre success with Jimmy Graham.

We have given away, a lot of draft capital, and drafted a bunch of receivers, but none of them have had the same impact that Golden Tate has had on the Lions. He is everything Pete Carroll looks for in a receiver, a playmaker, very versatile -- he is just as comfortable boxing out defenders, and high pointing the ball as he is taking a slant pass over the middle. He was also money on the dreaded bubble screen. Get him into space and he was a slippery, and hard runner. He was also one of the best blockers at the wideout position. Together he and Russ made the impossible happen in many cases. Tate, Baldwin, Miller, and Kearse in retrospect was a very solid unit.

Tate also did not command the salary of a Percy Harvin or Jimmy Graham did. If that story is really just a rumor, then I think Pete Carroll and John Schneider really dropped the ball here. We have spent years trying to replicate what the man is doing in Detroit, and we have yet to find that player.

Yeah his YAC is certainly impressive. 4th highest in the league with 639.

In hindsight losing him was a mistake. At the time I wasn't worried, however, because we had Percy Harvin...... heh.

Trrrroy wrote:In hindsight losing him was a mistake. At the time I wasn't worried, however, because we had Percy Harvin...... heh.

And then we laughed and laughed!

I'm not sure it was only about the money, although that was a big factor. He would never had gotten the stats he is getting in Detroit if he stayed here. The team has never said what they offered Tate IIRC, so we kind of have to take Golden's word on that score. I doubt it would have been that low, though.

I remember the rumors flying around about him sleeping with Russ's wife. Maybe they were true, after all, they separated soon after that. Maybe Russ thinks he kept the wrong partner, too.

Hell, yes I wish we could have kept him here, but it wasn't to be.

I always thought with Marshawn and the fact that Russell and all the defensive player contracts that were looming, it was an either/or thing with Doug and Golden, and Doug was cheaper.

The Lions massive contract offer was just the nail in the coffin.............and it probably ended up better for Golden as well, because he got to go to a team that throws the ball more, as opposed to getting half the catches and blocking 50% of the time here.

Hindsight being 20/20, of course we should have kept Tate over paying Kearse and trading for/paying Harvin.

In the FO's defense, Harvin should have been a star.. but he was a head case. But yes, this is one of the black marks on this FO's record.

To this day the whole situation with Tate the low balling and Wilsons ex wife has been very hushed up.

It cost us a SB.

With Tate, we win that NE SB. There is no comeback because we keep scoring.

Tate run like a RB with the ball. He was one of a kind in that regard.

Not only that, since the only way we kept Tate would have been to never have gotten Harvin - we keep those draft picks and we don't end up with the drama about Kam.

It might very well have been another SB against the Broncos instead of the Cats and we would have crushed that Broncos team.

So we didn't just lose a WR. Trading him traded away the dynasty.

It was one of the first in a number of mind blowingly stupid moves by this FO that showed they were more dangerous and stupid when it came to FAs than effective. The great moves they made with Lynch, Avril, & Bennett were going to be counterbalanced by a number of terrible FA moves. This was the Harbinger that Schneider was not even close to a great GM, he just got lucky when Scott loaded his roster with HOF players.

And remember that stretch where we were so hampered with injuries and desperate for a returner we were using guys like Sherman? That does not happen if Tate is on the team.

It hurt our passing game, impacted our ability to run, destroyed chemistry because Harvin was on the team, and seriously hurt us in the return game.

PS Tate was also a tremendously physical blocker in the run game. Another reason it was stupid.

I've always loved Tate, and when the Hawks let him go I was comping him to Hines Ward and saying it was a huge mistake.

At the same time though, I also understood why they did it, and thought that Percy Harvin was a great addition for them.

in retrospect the money and (in particular) the draft capital they've burned trying to replace Golden Tate when they could have resigned him at 6 APY is terrifying and mind-boggling.

I mean, I just went back and checked and since letting Tate walk they've spent WAY MORE than a full draft in draft capital at the WR position, and have incredibly little to show for it.

We're talking the following picks to try to replace or improve on Tate's production (which by any measure has been unsuccessful): 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7

(players for these picks are Harvin, Harper, Norwood, Richardson, Lockett, Lawler, Moore, Darboh).

It's pretty crazy they chose Harvin over Tate+1st+3rd+7th+$6M in extra cap room per season. They did get a 4th round comp pick for Tate though.

Tate would have made that block on Browner, got off it quick, and chipped Butler as he was breaking for the INT.

chris98251 wrote:To this day the whole situation with Tate the low balling and Wilsons ex wife has been very hushed up.

Doesn't seem particularly hushed up to me:

“I did not have an affair with Russell Wilson’s wife, nor did I have anything to do with his divorce. That is laughable for anyone who knows us. His ex-wife, Ashton, is still best friends with my girlfriend. Russell and I were good friends when I was in Seattle, on and off the field — he knows the rumors about me were unfounded, damaging to my reputation, and an attack on my character. Anyone who circulated that rumor was just plain irresponsible.”

That was the turning point.

With Tate, we probably win 1-2 more SBs.

We probably lose a few guys along the way, Bevel gets a new HC job because someone foolishly thinks it is his great playcalling that gets us those wins.

Kam might have been harder to keep after the 2nd SB win but if we kept him I doubt we get the holdout since that was due to Harvin and that terrible guy from the Eagles getting big contracts.

We probably don't get Graham because we don't freak out to 'fix' the offense after the SB loss. But we probably keep Unger because again, we don't freak out after the SB loss.

Lynch probably retires after the 2nd SB win, does a bunch of commercials and ends up very likely in the HOF (even with the lack of yards because we would have essentially ridden to 2 SBs on his back).

Carroll with 2-3 SB wins goes down as a great coach and potential HOF guy. And the Seahawks end up the dynasty we all were hoping for.

Instead, Carroll is a coach that only won a single SB with multiple HOF players on his team. He goes down in history for making one of the stupidest calls in the history of football. Lynch probably isn't in the HOF even though in his prime he is the easily as good as most in the Hall. Kam holds out.

We never quite live up to the ability and talent this team had.

And all because we chose to replace him with Harvin. The stupid thing was, Tate was a strength. We tried to improve the team by getting a guy that was supposedly better than the guy we had - but not tremendously better. And in doing, we created a ton of other holes in the team. And it was clear from DAY ONE this would happen. One reason I would constantly rip on Harvin, never gave him a chance and hated him from Day One. He was going to cost us Tate and I knew that losing Tate was going to screw this team.

Now, if I knew this...why didin't the FO? I'm not a savant, just some guy 'typing in my mom's basement*' they get paid to know this and they screwed up big. How could you not know that Harvin was going to cost so much you couldn't pay the guys that actually EARNED it by getting you to the SB?

It was a tremendous gamble that showed this FO was overrated and all the earlier success was going to be offset by a lot of other misses - extremes reverting to the mean. One reason I laugh when I hear people talking about removing our HOF guys and reloading. The guys making decisions on the reloading aren't that good at it.

TwistedHusky wrote:It was a tremendous gamble that showed this FO was overrated and all the earlier success was going to be offset by a lot of other misses - extremes reverting to the mean. One reason I laugh when I hear people talking about removing our HOF guys and reloading. The guys making decisions on the reloading aren't that good at it.

I heard on a sports radio program (I forget which) that theorized that those early draft hits were largely due to the fact that Pete studied and recruited most of those guys during his days at USC. Now that ship has long sailed and he no longer has that "insider info" edge he did earlier this decade.

Interestingly Kam posted this photo on Instagram today.

Yeah, Russ is doing just fine on his own

Russells EX there with Tate seems to have got a mouth job, it's not nearly as big.

Was there some other Golden Tate on this team I don't know about?

The one that I'm familiar with was jumping into the opponents' band, stealing donuts, getting taunting and other dumb penalties, and just basically an embarrassment. He was more an athlete than a receiver and never inspired confidence.

His 'success' in Detroit imho is based on 120-150 targets in that pass-happy offense, not any kind of dominance. The pinnacle of his career was 4 years ago when Megatron went down pushing his targets up and inflating his stats enough to get him an injury replacement invite to the pro bowl.

That was four years ago. Megatron is gone and he's never come close to those numbers again. In the meantime, Kearse would have had better numbers than him with similar targets and Kearse was way cheaper.

Not as big a waste of talent as Harvin, but still in the "good riddance" category for me.

The idea that Carroll just 'lost his inside info' is probably closer to false.

We had Scott.

Go back and look at the players he was responsible for bringing in on the 49ers. You will notice a lot of names you recognize because they were some of the best players in the NFL at their position.

It wasn't Carroll losing his insight, it was Carroll losing Scott.

He did this before.

Now the absolute stream of HOF quality players that we brought in on those 2-3 drafts was likely the combination of Scott and JS being able to complement each other so well in identifying players they needed to get. Hell, some of our castoffs from those drafts became starters on other teams.

But regardless, without Scott, Carroll and JS became very average if not BELOW AVERAGE in scouting players.

Now admittedly, we had more picks too. We would run 3 4th or 5th rounders and only one would turn out. But those that did turned into stellar players. But now more picks is just more opportunity to pick guys that probably are not going to do much. Because either the scouting or the process changed. Likely both.

This has implications because it means the Seahawks are not likely to get back to the top of the mountain for some time. Maybe long after Carroll and JS are gone. We do not have the ability to replace good players with great players consistently like we did. We cannot generate depth.

Sure guys like Frank Clark hit, but every team gets a few hits. We do not consistently get good players from each draft and consequently our team gets older and weaker each year, with no way to offset the attrition with new performers.

Tate was the indicator that this would be no dynasty. It was the turning point for this team, from being dominant, to being one or two yards from winning the SB, to scratching to get in the playoffs & being blown out after the wildcard, and finally to not even making the playoffs. A lot of losses we endured and a lot of the other issues would never have been encountered if we kept Tate.

It was pretty obvious at the time, and the fact the FO missed so badly turned this team from one of the great potential Dynasties to essentially a One-Year-Wonder.
(It did a lot for Brady's legacy though since the Patriots had not won a SB in years until we handed it to them.)

West,

If we kept Tate we had a returner. That means shorter fields and more scores.

If we do not bother with Harvin and keep Tate - all the dominoes associated with Harvin and the missed draft picks accordingly do not happen. And we don't likely get Graham so we don't decimate our run game.

And finally, Tate was putting up better #s than Baldwin. So I don't care if he is stealing donuts or taunting guys or peeing on the field. Just score TDs, and he moved the chains + scored regularly.

What he does off the field I could care less about.

But to believe this team was not worse off without Tate is stunningly ridiculous.

TwistedHusky wrote:The idea that Carroll just 'lost his inside info' is probably closer to false.

We had Scott.

Go back and look at the players he was responsible for bringing in on the 49ers. You will notice a lot of names you recognize because they were some of the best players in the NFL at their position.

It wasn't Carroll losing his insight, it was Carroll losing Scott.

He did this before.

Now the absolute stream of HOF quality players that we brought in on those 2-3 drafts was likely the combination of Scott and JS being able to complement each other so well in identifying players they needed to get. Hell, some of our castoffs from those drafts became starters on other teams.

But regardless, without Scott, Carroll and JS became very average if not BELOW AVERAGE in scouting players.

Now admittedly, we had more picks too. We would run 3 4th or 5th rounders and only one would turn out. But those that did turned into stellar players. But now more picks is just more opportunity to pick guys that probably are not going to do much. Because either the scouting or the process changed. Likely both.

This has implications because it means the Seahawks are not likely to get back to the top of the mountain for some time. Maybe long after Carroll and JS are gone. We do not have the ability to replace good players with great players consistently like we did. We cannot generate depth.

Sure guys like Frank Clark hit, but every team gets a few hits. We do not consistently get good players from each draft and consequently our team gets older and weaker each year, with no way to offset the attrition with new performers.

Tate was the indicator that this would be no dynasty. It was the turning point for this team, from being dominant, to being one or two yards from winning the SB, to scratching to get in the playoffs & being blown out after the wildcard, and finally to not even making the playoffs. A lot of losses we endured and a lot of the other issues would never have been encountered if we kept Tate.

It was pretty obvious at the time, and the fact the FO missed so badly turned this team from one of the great potential Dynasties to essentially a One-Year-Wonder.
(It did a lot for Brady's legacy though since the Patriots had not won a SB in years until we handed it to them.)

Off the top of my head, these are players Pete had personal knowledge of from recruiting, coaching or competing against them while he was at USC:

Golden Tate
Walter Thurmond
Anthony McCoy
Marshawn Lynch
Mike Williams
Malcolm Smith
Mike Morgan
Richard Sherman
Brandon Browner
Doug Baldwin
Bruce Irvin

Walter and Anthony had injury issues and Mike flamed out after two years. The rest were all part of our Super Bowl team.

Pete was known as one of the best, hardest-working recruiters as a head coach in college football. When the NCAA passed the rule colloquially referred to as the "Saban rule" that limited a head coach's ability to recruit in the spring, Pete was quoted on record as saying other head coaches were just "lazy" and didn't want to travel to meet with high school recruits' coaches and teachers in person the way he and Saban routinely did. (https://www.si.com/more-sports/2008/04/29/coaches-0429 and http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1821 ... ion-Period)

To discount the impact he had on drafting and UFA signings in the first few years he was head coach in Seattle makes no sense at all.

TwistedHusky wrote:That was the turning point.

With Tate, we probably win 1-2 more SBs.

We probably lose a few guys along the way, Bevel gets a new HC job because someone foolishly thinks it is his great playcalling that gets us those wins.

Kam might have been harder to keep after the 2nd SB win but if we kept him I doubt we get the holdout since that was due to Harvin and that terrible guy from the Eagles getting big contracts.

We probably don't get Graham because we don't freak out to 'fix' the offense after the SB loss. But we probably keep Unger because again, we don't freak out after the SB loss.

Lynch probably retires after the 2nd SB win, does a bunch of commercials and ends up very likely in the HOF (even with the lack of yards because we would have essentially ridden to 2 SBs on his back).

Carroll with 2-3 SB wins goes down as a great coach and potential HOF guy. And the Seahawks end up the dynasty we all were hoping for.

So...we win 2 Super Bowls, but miss the playoffs 2015-2016 and never sniff contention again. That's basically what you're saying.

Not sure how I feel about that. Would people really consider that a dynasty?

Face it, guys, letting Tate go was exactly the kind of move everyone's been moaning that the front office SHOULD be making and ISN'T. Letting guys walk after their first contract, cheap new guys, keep 'em hungry, blah blah blah because something something Belichick. And Tate is only the start of that list. Russell Okung, Max Unger, Bruce Irvin, Brandon Browner, Red Bryant, Brandon Mebane, Byron Maxwell, and I could add more. The reason we've been as close as we HAVE is because we didn't keep extending these guys.

So we have to choose a reality: either the front office isn't as loyalty-driven as everyone suggests, or the whole "something something Belichick" mentality is a load of sentimental horse dung.

Own The West wrote:Was there some other Golden Tate on this team I don't know about?

The one that I'm familiar with was jumping into the opponents' band, stealing donuts, getting taunting and other dumb penalties, and just basically an embarrassment. He was more an athlete than a receiver and never inspired confidence.

His 'success' in Detroit imho is based on 120-150 targets in that pass-happy offense, not any kind of dominance. The pinnacle of his career was 4 years ago when Megatron went down pushing his targets up and inflating his stats enough to get him an injury replacement invite to the pro bowl.

That was four years ago. Megatron is gone and he's never come close to those numbers again. In the meantime, Kearse would have had better numbers than him with similar targets and Kearse was way cheaper.

Not as big a waste of talent as Harvin, but still in the "good riddance" category for me.

To add a penny more to this post if I may, Tate also would catch the ball at the line of scrimmage and step back 2 yards and then get a 1 or 2 yard gain....on the seahawks.

Tate also was Megatron 1.2 which means they had 2 legitimate receivers that would create mis matches all over the field. And yes Detroit was a passhappy team. Double one guy, there is the other one. We all on this site noted it back then.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Face it, guys, letting Tate go was exactly the kind of move everyone's been moaning that the front office SHOULD be making and ISN'T. Letting guys walk after their first contract, cheap new guys, keep 'em hungry, blah blah blah because something something Belichick.

I doubt that everyone wanted to let go of 25 year old Golden Tate for $6M per season.

massari wrote:I doubt that everyone wanted to let go of 25 year old Golden Tate for $6M per season.

looks like it was pretty mixed:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91313&p=1297162&hilit=Golden+Tate#p1297162

Popeyejones wrote:

massari wrote:I doubt that everyone wanted to let go of 25 year old Golden Tate for $6M per season.

looks like it was pretty mixed:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91313&p=1297162&hilit=Golden+Tate#p1297162

Good man, bringing hard facts to the conversation - even if you are a 49ers fan.