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?
"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
"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
Trrrroy wrote:In hindsight losing him was a mistake. At the time I wasn't worried, however, because we had Percy Harvin...... heh.
chris98251 wrote:To this day the whole situation with Tate the low balling and Wilsons ex wife has been very hushed up.
“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.”
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
massari wrote:I doubt that everyone wanted to let go of 25 year old Golden Tate for $6M per season.
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
It is currently Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:49 am