Boldin versus Harvin

Like the idea of getting Boldin good strong player. Harvin has too many problems and being paid way too much. We made the better deal. GO NINERS

That hit was so nasty the QB almost retired

Originally posted by truekingcarlos:
There's no "vs" there. Boldin's a has been, Harvin's a playmaker just priming.

Yet the numbers dont agree with you.

Yes Harvin is hitting his prime, and Boldin is getting up there in age, but i dont see why people claim Harvin is such a dynamic WR. He is versitile, but strictly speaking as a WR he is not that dynamic.

His career average is only 11.8. Crabtree has had a higher average his entire career, and alot of us were saying he wasnt living up to his draft status just a season ago.

Boldins career average is 13.2, and the last two seasons he had a 15.6 and 14.2 average, to harvins 11.1 and 10.9.

Your right about one thing, when it comes to WR's there is no competition, Boldin is and has always been the better WR. He will be the better WR again this season as well.

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by truekingcarlos:

There's no "vs" there. Boldin's a has been, Harvin's a playmaker just priming.

Yet the numbers dont agree with you.

Yes Harvin is hitting his prime, and Boldin is getting up there in age, but i dont see why people claim Harvin is such a dynamic WR. He is versitile, but strictly speaking as a WR he is not that dynamic.

His career average is only 11.8. Crabtree has had a higher average his entire career, and alot of us were saying he wasnt living up to his draft status just a season ago.

Boldins career average is 13.2, and the last two seasons he had a 15.6 and 14.2 average, to harvins 11.1 and 10.9.

Your right about one thing, when it comes to WR's there is no competition, Boldin is and has always been the better WR. He will be the better WR again this season as well.

As I eluded to previously in this thread, I'm not sure how fair it is to compare the careers of a 4-year player and a 10-year player, especially without considering the actual roles they played on their respective teams (their teams' style of play and the others players they had around them).

What is likely more germane here is not who is the better receiver (number-by-number, play-by-play) but, who, by his presence and play, makes his entire team better. Whether it be by contributing directly to dynamic plays on O or ST or just opening up options and providing solid play via his versatility (or both!).

Unfortunately, we have many months to wait in order to make that assessment and those comparisons.

Originally posted by GNielsen:
They're on tap for something like 12 mil next year for Harvin alone so, yeah, they're going all in for this year. If it doesn't work out, they're kind of screwed. I expect the Niners to play the entire season in a pissed off mood. I expect the Niners to bring it constantly next year because of how close they came to winning it all last season. They're going to be playing angry. Kaepernick is on a mission. Justin Smith will be a maniac. They've got a load of draft picks. I'm expecting an epic season.

The Harvin contract details have been posted elsewhere, why do you keep saying we're screwed in terms of the money? Here, compare two expensive player contracts; Percy Harvin and Trent Cole for the Eagles. The kind of expensive contract you WANT to see, that does not force you to get rid of a player towards the end of their contract, is what you see with Harvin's. Cole's, on the other hand...He's making more than twice as much in the final six years of a six-year deal as he is in the first three years of it. Harvin's making 35.8m in the last three years, 31.2m in the first three. WAY more balanced. (Based on cap hits.)

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/percy-harvin/
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/trent-cole/

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:

The Harvin contract details have been posted elsewhere, why do you keep saying we're screwed in terms of the money? Here, compare two expensive player contracts; Percy Harvin and Trent Cole for the Eagles. The kind of expensive contract you WANT to see, that does not force you to get rid of a player towards the end of their contract, is what you see with Harvin's. Cole's, on the other hand...He's making more than twice as much in the final six years of a six-year deal as he is in the first three years of it. Harvin's making 35.8m in the last three years, 31.2m in the first three. WAY more balanced. (Based on cap hits.)

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/percy-harvin/
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/trent-cole/

Why? Because you got a bunch of young players who are going to be looking to cash in that's why. The 49ers core is already locked up for a few years - Your young gunz won't stick around for peanuts.

Originally posted by Stanley:
Why? Because you got a bunch of young players who are going to be looking to cash in that's why. The 49ers core is already locked up for a few years - Your young gunz won't stick around for peanuts.

Not to worry - locking up some of his young core is also on John's "to do" list...

What's next. Schneider said the next order of business is taking care of some of the team's own players. He didn't mention anyone specifically, but said there's "a couple" players whose contracts the team would like to extend.

Defensive tackle Alan Branch and kicker Steven Hauschka are two of the team's remaining unrestricted free agents. Defensive backs Kam Chancellor and Brandon Browner are both entering the final year of their contract, as are wide receivers Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate. Safety Earl Thomas and left tackle Russell Okung each have at least two years remaining on their rookie contracts but are both eligible for new deals.

"There's a plan in place here, and there's several different phases to free agency, so we'll see how that goes," Schneider said. "But in the meantime, we'd really like to just kind of focus on our own guys, our younger players that we've drafted."

Originally posted by Stanley:
Why? Because you got a bunch of young players who are going to be looking to cash in that's why. The 49ers core is already locked up for a few years - Your young gunz won't stick around for peanuts.

One of the pitfalls of drafting supremely well for years on end. Every NFL team wants this problem. Also, between some of your key players getting older and some of the young guys starting, I don't think you're as well stocked & locked for a few years as you imply, IMO. Harvin's the first expensive, flashy FA signing Carroll & Schneider have done since they came here nearly 4 years ago, unless you count Zach Miller; which I don't, his price and skill set seems moderate, or upper-moderate, to me.

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:

Originally posted by Stanley:
Why? Because you got a bunch of young players who are going to be looking to cash in that's why. The 49ers core is already locked up for a few years - Your young gunz won't stick around for peanuts.

One of the pitfalls of drafting supremely well for years on end. Every NFL team wants this problem. Also, between some of your key players getting older and some of the young guys starting, I don't think you're as well stocked & locked for a few years as you imply, IMO. Harvin's the first expensive, flashy FA signing Carroll & Schneider have done since they came here nearly 4 years ago, unless you count Zach Miller; which I don't, his price and skill set seems moderate, or upper-moderate, to me.

No, NFL teams don't want this problem. They want their stars tied down with long term deals. Not all becoming free agents at once.

Also, the Marshawn Lynch trade and Whitehurst trade were "flashy" at the time. Lynch worked out.

Lets not forget the Matt Flyyncident. Fail.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:

Originally posted by Stanley:
Why? Because you got a bunch of young players who are going to be looking to cash in that's why. The 49ers core is already locked up for a few years - Your young gunz won't stick around for peanuts.

One of the pitfalls of drafting supremely well for years on end. Every NFL team wants this problem. Also, between some of your key players getting older and some of the young guys starting, I don't think you're as well stocked & locked for a few years as you imply, IMO. Harvin's the first expensive, flashy FA signing Carroll & Schneider have done since they came here nearly 4 years ago, unless you count Zach Miller; which I don't, his price and skill set seems moderate, or upper-moderate, to me.

No, NFL teams don't want this problem. They want their stars tied down with long term deals. Not all becoming free agents at once.

Also, the Marshawn Lynch trade and Whitehurst trade were "flashy" at the time. Lynch worked out.

Lets not forget the Matt Flyyncident. Fail.

I think the "problem" he was referring to was continually having a plethora of young draftees balance the occasional FA signing (or three).

Charlie Whitehurst a splash? most were like "what the?!?!? (and, rightly so)

As for Flynn, no "incident" there.
Just a FA signing at a position of great need in the off season and then the unexpected case of a special rookie winning the job in summer competition.

Originally posted by LisaTwelve:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by RolandDeschain:

Originally posted by Stanley:
Why? Because you got a bunch of young players who are going to be looking to cash in that's why. The 49ers core is already locked up for a few years - Your young gunz won't stick around for peanuts.

One of the pitfalls of drafting supremely well for years on end. Every NFL team wants this problem. Also, between some of your key players getting older and some of the young guys starting, I don't think you're as well stocked & locked for a few years as you imply, IMO. Harvin's the first expensive, flashy FA signing Carroll & Schneider have done since they came here nearly 4 years ago, unless you count Zach Miller; which I don't, his price and skill set seems moderate, or upper-moderate, to me.

No, NFL teams don't want this problem. They want their stars tied down with long term deals. Not all becoming free agents at once.

Also, the Marshawn Lynch trade and Whitehurst trade were "flashy" at the time. Lynch worked out.

Lets not forget the Matt Flyyncident. Fail.

I think the "problem" he was referring to was continually having a plethora of young draftees balance the occasional FA signing (or three).

Charlie Whitehurst a splash? most were like "what the?!?!? (and, rightly so)

As for Flynn, no "incident" there.
Just a FA signing at a position of great need in the off season and then the unexpected case of a special rookie winning the job in summer competition.

It sure was a splash according to Seahawk fans? lol

Flynn couldn't beat out a 3rd round rookie. Wilson didn't start off great either. It was as Flynn wasn't even an option. That says it all to me.

DP

This thread should really be named Boldin vs. Browner or Harvin vs. Rogers, because comparing the two wide receivers is a complete waste of time.

Originally posted by redrathman:
This thread should really be named Boldin vs. Browner or Harvin vs. Rogers, because comparing the two wide receivers is a complete waste of time.

I think its mor of a comparison of the deals both teams made.

My analysis is the following:

WTF Seattle?

And, WTF Baltimore?

Originally posted by redrathman:
This thread should really be named Boldin vs. Browner or Harvin vs. Rogers, because comparing the two wide receivers is a complete waste of time.

Especially when comparing two totally different types of wide receiver.