Percy Harvin Finale: Whose Fault Was It?

Who Do You Blame?

This is (probably) the last time you're going to see me write about Percy Harvin for hopefully a long, long time. We do have a tendency to give you updates on former Vikings who make major news, be they guys respected and missed (Steve Hutchinson) or occasionally even guys reviled and, uh, not-missed (Bryant McKinnie), so there is the chance you'll see an article or two every great once in a while about the guy.

But I wanted to cap this entire s***-storm of a clusterf*** by asking a simple question and running a simple poll. In the various stories all throughout this ‘situation', starting from the ‘trade me' demands of last year's camp right up through the ‘yup he's gone' finale, Viking fans have been somewhat split.

In one corner you have those who despised Harvin even before he left. He was a diva of the Terrell Owens type: enormously and undeniably talented, but doomed to be a wanderer hated wherever he went because of his enormous and yet fragile ego. Harvin never wanted to be here after 2009, and sure we could understand him hating Brad Childress' guts (who doesn't?), but snapping at all-world good guy Leslie Frazier? That was a line too far. It was never about the money, it was always about his attitude and his ego, and he was so poisonous that he was even sent home on I.R. when it was actually unnecessary, just to get him out of the locker room. Spielman was a genius who masterfully removed a problem child for pretty decent compensation.

In the other corner you have those who will never forgive Rick Spielman for completely bungling this up. Sure, Harvin could be a bit of a diva from time to time, but what great WR isn't? He was a generational talent that we let down by never giving him a true #1 WR to compliment with (after Sidney Rice's departure), a true QB to throw him the ball, or a competent OC who knew how to use him. And on top of it all, we disrespected his skills and undeniable all-out effort on the field by never offering him a fair contract extension after he more than outplayed his original, relatively cheap rookie deal. It was never about the attitude; it was always about the money, and we were too boneheaded to realize that if we just offered him a fair deal, he'd still be here.

So here's the question: which (if either) corner are you in? Was this a situation that was unavoidable: a troubled WR we rolled the dice on, got 3 ½ great years out of and then flipped for a pretty good deal because his attitude became too poisonous? Or was this a totally avoidable situation that we mismanaged for over a year and a half, and now have seen a guy whose skills and efforts compare to Adrian Peterson himself walk for a song?

Check the poll below to give your answer. You'll notice there's no "other". That's because YOU GUYS NEVER POST AN EXPLANATION RRRRGH RAAAGE. If you feel it's a third party or some other less than black-and-white answer, well if you want to be heard now you're forced to post. BWAHAHAHA, CHECKMATE KYLE.