Tate back to Seattle?

massari

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
318
“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.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,887
Reaction score
1,053
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.
 

nanomoz

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
7,467
Reaction score
1,361
Location
UT
TwistedHusky":500eodpl said:
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.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,887
Reaction score
1,053
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.
 

Tinamedina

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
126
Reaction score
1
If they do, leave Russell! Pete Carroll knows and everyone else knows why they got beef. *ALLEGEDLY **
 

HHawk121

Active member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
539
Reaction score
72
Location
SW Washington
TwistedHusky":2dnm4ymx said:
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
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,519
Reaction score
1,518
Location
Roy Wa.
HHawk121":2f6xmv67 said:
TwistedHusky":2f6xmv67 said:
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.
 

AROS

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
18,957
Reaction score
7,668
Location
Sultan, WA
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.
 

Boycie

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
2,787
Reaction score
552
Location
Florida and loving GOP country!
TwistedHusky":1a9q0ejf said:
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?
 
OP
OP
Bobblehead

Bobblehead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
812
HHawk121":1e6o0xwv said:
TwistedHusky":1e6o0xwv said:
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)
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
8,707
Reaction score
2,466
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
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.
 

Maelstrom787

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
9,509
Location
Delaware
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.
 

jeremiah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
759
Reaction score
257
chris98251":2qq1ftty said:
HHawk121":2qq1ftty said:
TwistedHusky":2qq1ftty said:
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.
 

Spin Doctor

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
5,235
Reaction score
2,158
Maelstrom787":2x38o0sc said:
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.
 

XxXdragonXxX

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
87
Location
Enumclaw, WA
chris98251":3twk7si2 said:
HHawk121":3twk7si2 said:
TwistedHusky":3twk7si2 said:
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.
 

Threedee

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
5,535
Reaction score
844
Location
Federal Way, WA
Bobblehead":f2mltd8p said:
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.
 

WmHBonney

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
999
Maybe Tate could take care of the Ciara problem. :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
 
Top