The Seattle Seahawks' trade to get Percy Harvin from the Minnesota Vikings won't go down as the worst in NFL history. Despite playing only 239 snaps as a Seahawk, Harvin did help the team win Super Bowl XLVIII with his play against the Denver Broncos.
Still, the fact that the Seahawks unloaded Harvin so soon, for far less then they gave up to get him, should revive a concern about making trades for big-name wide receivers. While quarterback is the most important position, receiver might be the trickiest. Sometimes it takes a drafted receiver a year or two to feel comfortable in an NFL offense. That has caused general managers through the years to be a fearful of making a receiver the No. 1 pick in a draft.
Yet some GMs aren't afraid to bid big for a big-name pass-catcher. Trading for a veteran receiver can be costly. The Seahawks gave up first-, third- and seventh-round picks for Harvin along with paying him a little more than $20 million for nine games, including last year's playoffs. He caught 27 passes. They traded him to the New York Jets last week for a conditional pick in 2015, either a fourth- or sixth-rounder.
History is loaded with wide receiver trades that didn't work out. The Dallas Cowboys didn't get two first-round choices of value out of the Joey Galloway trade. The Cowboys gave up first-, third- and sixth-round choices to the Detroit Lions for a seventh-rounder and Roy Williams, who caught 94 passes in 40 games over two-plus seasons for the Cowboys. The Seahawks gave up a No. 1 to the New England Patriots for Deion Branch, but his best days were as a Pat.
When trade conversations head into the first-round range, general managers should be on guard. Acquiring a receiver is going to cost valuable cap dollars, too. Any receiver worth a first-round pick is clearly going to earn more than $10 million a year. First- and third-round picks are projected to be low-priced starters for the first four years of their careers. Giving away two potential starters plus big dollars is probably too much.
Teams that make those trades clearly believe they are one player away from either getting to the playoffs or making a deep run once they get there. What those teams don't appreciate is that the teams trading away the receivers do it for a reason. They know the problems. Receivers sometimes have diva personalities. Sports is an ego-driven business, so it's not uncommon for a receiver to make demands for the ball that could cause problems for team chemistry. That leads to disappointing trades.
It was fascinating watching Sunday's game between the Miami Dolphins and the Chicago Bears. The Dolphins gave up two second-round picks to get Brandon Marshall from the Broncos. The deal didn't work out because Marshall had plenty of off-the-field issues. The Bears got the better end of a later deal by giving Miami two third-round picks for Marshall, who has been a No. 1 receiver since he came to Chicago.
People thought the Patriots overpaid for Wes Welker when they gave up second- and seventh-rounders to get him from Miami. Welker turned out to be a bargain.
From the inbox
Q: I've been incredibly frustrated watching the Houston Texans' offense this season. The bubble screens specifically seem to be a complete waste of a down, but they keep going back to them. Is that a reflection on Ryan Fitzpatrick's arm or just overly conservative play calling? Andre Johnson and DeAndre Hopkins can create space and make incredible catches in tight spaces, and it seems like the passing game would focus more on that. Things like this make being a Texans fan in Cowboys country more soul crushing with each passing week, especially with Dallas' success this season.
Max in Arlington, Texas
A: It's a combination of what's going on with offenses around the NFL this year and conservatism by Texans coach Bill O'Brien. Teams are averaging close to seven screen passes a game. To counter pass rushes, the safe thing to do is throw a screen. In the case of Fitzpatrick, the hope is to give him a positive play and decrease the risk for interceptions. With Fitzpatrick, who is considered more of a backup than a starter at this stage of his career, the Texans can't go downfield as often as other teams can. What's scary was Fitzpatrick's meltdown in the second quarter of the Pittsburgh Steelers game on Monday. You saw Matt Schaub fall apart last year after the Seattle game with interceptions for touchdowns. I don't see Fitzpatrick falling apart like that, but the turnovers have been an issue with him for years.
Q: I was watching the Cowboys-Seahawks game and was again surprised to see how improved Rolando McClain's game is this year, and yet no one is talking about what is a supremely interesting story. He leads the Cowboys in tackles for loss, interceptions and forced fumbles. Is everyone skeptical, or are there just too many other good stories this year?
Brian in Lincoln, Nebraska
A: McClain has been a great story. He's the leading candidate for the comeback player of the year. He's the perfect athlete for Rod Marinelli's Cover 2 defense because he's got speed and range. He also is showing decent instincts. Don't worry about the pub yet. Everyone around the league is trying to adjust to the idea that the Cowboys are pretty good this year. As the season goes on, everyone will get to McClain. It's DeMarco Murray first, Tony Romo second and the Cowboys' defense third.
Q: In every other phase of the game, using your hands on an opponent's facemask is illegal. However, when a player is carrying the ball, stiff-arms to the face are still legal. Facemask penalties were changed to eliminate the "inadvertent" variety prior to the 2008 season, and much greater emphasis has been put on hands-to-the-face calls this year. So isn't the next logical step to penalize stiff-arms to the face?
Bryan in Santa Monica, California
A: The NFL has had an emphasis on penalizing stiff-arms above the neck for the past four years. The reason you may not notice many calls is because not all running backs use the stiff-arm effectively. I've been to owners' meetings in which the supervisor of officials shows footage of stiff-arms to a defender that should receive penalties. They are watching for those types of plays. The logical step has been taken. If one is missed, that's just a mistake by the official.
Q: Can anyone really believe that the NFL is serious about injuries when they continue making teams carry players who are injured on their active roster, allowing only one player to be designated as eligible to return after healing and scheduling teams to play on three days' rest for Thursday night football? If teams were allowed to move players back and forth off their practice squad due to injuries and move longer-term injuries to the injured reserve with eligibility for return and the contestants of Thursday night games were teams coming off of their bye weeks, it would certainly help to demonstrate that the NFL took player safety seriously.
Curtis in Pita, Guam
A: Sounds as though this has really gotten you pretty angry. But I am with you. Allowing more than 46 active players is long overdue. Increased injuries and the pressure of coming back from a physical Sunday to a Thursday game has made the 46-man active roster outdated. Your suggestion about the practice squad doesn't necessarily work, though. To expand the rosters beyond 53, owners and players would have to collectively bargain a change. I don't see that happening, although the league and union created two extra jobs per team on the practice squad.
Q: Writers are lambasting Dallas' defensive improvement recently, attributing it to superior time of possession by the offense. It's true the D is taking fewer snaps than it did in 2013. But so what? Were the 1976 Steelers, 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens on the field for 35-plus minutes per game?
Alan in Lubbock, Texas
A: I guess it has been hard for everyone to accept the improvements in the Dallas defense. We are all sitting back and wondering if it can be sustained. Being on the field less is a byproduct of good defensive play -- particularly on third down -- and having an offense that can win time of possession. Remembering the NFL season is a marathon instead of a sprint, the Cowboys' defense has to keep it up for nine more games. Regardless, the coaching of the defense has been amazing. When you think the only key additions to one of the worst defenses in NFL history was a retired linebacker (Rolando McClain), a defensive tackle coming off an ACL injury (Henry Melton) and a journeyman defensive lineman (Jeremy Mincey), it has been remarkable ride for the Dallas D so far.
Q: You want to do away with ties? Require the second team that scores in overtime to score more than the first one. If the receiving team kicks a field goal, the kicking team must score a touchdown. If the receiving team scores a touchdown and an extra point, the kicking team would still get a chance but must score a touchdown and go for two. If the receiving team scores a touchdown and successfully goes for two, game over. Only way there would be a tie is if nobody scored in overtime. You could even apply the same principle to the game in regulation -- if the score was tied, the team that scored last, causing the tie, would lose. The team behind would always have to be thinking that tying the game might not be enough -- even if it was in the third quarter.
Frank in San Diego
A: Interesting concept. First, let's not bleed this thing over into regulation. Keep that part of it solid. What I like about your overtime idea is it eliminates the kick from the second score. If a first scoring team boots a field goal, the other team has to score a touchdown. The idea about forcing a team to get the two-point conversion if the other teams gets the first touchdown in overtime would change the overtime rule. Now, if a team gets a touchdown on the first possession, game over. That's a concession that would keep two-possession fans happy. Good thinking on your part.