https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahaw ... ts-rumors/
Maybe, maybe not.. how will this work out with Russ?
Tate back to Seattle?
22 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Tate back to Seattle?
Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:10 pm
-
- Bobblehead
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 2996
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:52 pm
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:21 pm
-
“To me, as of now, where I am today, I think Stafford’s been the best quarterback I’ve played with,” Tate said. “The guy can flat-out play. He’s tough, his attitude is amazing and he just wants to play ball. For me, I have nothing but praises for him. It’s almost unfair that he’s such a good player and doesn’t have playoffs or a ring to show for it. That kind of hurts my heart that I wasn’t able to help change that.”
“I think over his career, if you put him in another organization, maybe things are different. I don’t know. Because I’ve played with some guys over my years that I’ve won playoff games with that I don’t think are as good,” Tate said.
Would be nice to have as the #3 WR, but seems unlikely.Last edited by massari on Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:20 am, edited 2 times in total.- massari
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 1729
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:58 am
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:09 pm
-
Losing Tate was stupid.
Probably cost us a SB win, if not a dynasty.
But this move helps nothing.
Might as well bring Unger back and we can try to pretend the moves to get rid of those 2 were not the worst in Seahawk history. Even worse than trading Hutch.- TwistedHusky
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 4807
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:59 pm
-
TwistedHusky wrote:Losing Tate was stupid.
Probably cost us a SB win, if not a dynasty.
But this move helps nothing.
Might as well bring Unger back and we can try to pretend the moves to get rid of those 2 were not the worst in Seahawk history. Even worse than trading Hutch.
They didn't trade Hutch. If you're going to make big statements like that, at least get your baseline facts straight.- nanomoz
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 6155
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:20 pm
- Location: UT
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:07 pm
-
They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.- TwistedHusky
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 4807
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 12:39 am
-
If they do, leave Russell! Pete Carroll knows and everyone else knows why they got beef. *ALLEGEDLY **
- Tinamedina
- NET Bench Warmer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:58 am
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:16 am
-
TwistedHusky wrote:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015- HHawk121
- NET Starter
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:23 pm
- Location: SW Washington
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:34 am
-
HHawk121 wrote:TwistedHusky wrote:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
Ruskell used the Transition tag not the franchise tag, Vikings made him an offer that could only be offset by making him paid equal to our highest lineman If memory serves.
The Poison pill contract.- chris98251
- .NET Hijacker
- Posts: 34931
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
- Location: Renton Wa.
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:39 am
-
Fire Pete! Trade Russ!
The only thing that would make as much sense is bringing Tate back.
Gotta love Wacko World I've found myself in this past week.- Aros
- [[ .NET Godfather ]]
- Posts: 14892
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:58 am
- Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:28 pm
-
TwistedHusky wrote:Losing Tate was stupid.
Probably cost us a SB win, if not a dynasty.
But this move helps nothing.
Might as well bring Unger back and we can try to pretend the moves to get rid of those 2 were not the worst in Seahawk history. Even worse than trading Hutch.
Really? Poison pill?- Ace_Rimmer
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:59 am
- Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:35 pm
-
HHawk121 wrote:TwistedHusky wrote:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
From what Holmgren said.. Ruskell had assured Holmgren and Hutch, that they were going to franchise him, which apparently was fine with Hutch. Holmgren, then went on that vacation to Miami I believe, maybe Hawaii.. and upon his return found out that Ruskell had blatantly lied to both of them and went with the transaction tag. Holmgren went onto say that Hutch basically was balling in his(Holmgren arms, that he was lied and betrayed)- Bobblehead
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 2996
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:52 pm
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:00 pm
-
No thanks...big no thanks.
- Cyrus12
- Silver Supporter
- Posts: 10935
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: BC Canada
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:25 pm
-
People overblow those Stafford comments. Lots of receivers hype up their own guy, and FOR Golden, Stafford really was the best QB for him. He had his most productive years there.
- Rat
- * NET Cynic *
- Posts: 6392
- Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:42 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:13 am
-
Tate would be an upgrade to Moore at WR3, but don't expect the old Tate. He'd probably help out mainly on third down.
If Tate's willing and wouldn't be a dumpster fire for team chemistry, I'm for it.- Maelstrom787
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 4460
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
- Location: Delaware
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:26 pm
-
chris98251 wrote:HHawk121 wrote:TwistedHusky wrote:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
Ruskell used the Transition tag not the franchise tag, Vikings made him an offer that could only be offset by making him paid equal to our highest lineman If memory serves.
The Poison pill contract.
100% on Ruskell, it destroyed Holmgrens cool and HC career. Seahawks would have had a great shot at the following years SB.- jeremiah
- NET Rookie
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:10 pm
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:29 pm
-
Maelstrom787 wrote:Tate would be an upgrade to Moore at WR3, but don't expect the old Tate. He'd probably help out mainly on third down.
If Tate's willing and wouldn't be a dumpster fire for team chemistry, I'm for it.
He's a good route running, and may find success as our number 3 slot receiver. He also has very good hands, he could be money on third down. I don't think he's the YAC monster he once was, but I think there could be a role for him.- Spin Doctor
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:33 am
-
chris98251 wrote:HHawk121 wrote:TwistedHusky wrote:They didn't trade Hutch. They might as well have. Ruskell played games with him and lost him to FA.
I thought that was the worst decision this franchise ever made, worse than drafting Mirer (who got us Walt later...so I suppose not THE worst). But the process by which we lost Hutch was rife with stupidity and vintage Ruskell.
If you want to argue semantics. No they did not trade Hutch. But it screwed us.
Not as bad as letting Tate walk and trading Unger did though.
It was on Hutch, not Ruskell. Vikings made an offer that the Hawks couldn't match.
https://klewtv.com/sports/professional/ ... 11-18-2015
Ruskell used the Transition tag not the franchise tag, Vikings made him an offer that could only be offset by making him paid equal to our highest lineman If memory serves.
The Poison pill contract.
And also as I recall, we even tried restructuring Walter Jones contract to make Hutch the highest paid, but the poison pill contract stated he had to be highest paid starting when that contract was agreed to.- XxXdragonXxX
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 2773
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:40 am
- Location: Enumclaw, WA
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:38 am
-
Bobblehead wrote:https://heavy.com/sports/seattle-seahawks/golden-tate-giants-rumors/
Maybe, maybe not.. how will this work out with Russ?
I'm ready for some coffee and doughnuts to celebrate the occasion.- Threedee
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:08 pm
- Location: Federal Way, WA
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:11 am
-
Maybe Tate could take care of the Ciara problem.
- WmHBonney
- NET Veteran
- Posts: 1837
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:11 pm
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:57 pm
-
Another sign pete Carroll doesnt respect Russell Wilson.
- Tinamedina
- NET Bench Warmer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:58 am
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:32 pm
-
WmHBonney wrote:Maybe Tate could take care of the Ciara problem.
Harsh, but funny.
Russ should be thanking Tate, he had a part in ruining Russ's last marriage, but wow look how he upgraded.
(If you buy into the rumors, which I do)- twisted_steel2
- Silver Supporter
- Posts: 6841
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:41 am
- Location: Ballard
Re: Tate back to Seattle?
Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:53 pm
-
Nah, would be nice for nostalgia's sake, but there have got to be other/better options out there unless it is a team-friendly deal and comes with no drama.
- DangerousDoug
- NET Rookie
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:53 pm
22 posts
• Page 1 of 1
It is currently Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:44 pm
Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]
Information
-
- Who is online
- Users browsing this forum: ducks41468, getnasty, keasley45, Maelstrom787, RampagingMice, sdog1981, Seahawk_Dan, Sports Hernia, TraderGary and 358 guests