Flip_Side Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2383020 Seeking another playmaker for their already potent offense, and looking for a little payback as well, the Seattle Seahawks on Friday evening signed Minnesota Vikings wide receiver Nate Burleson to a restricted free agent offer sheet worth $49 million over seven years. Do those contract terms sound a little familiar? They should. The Vikings earlier this week spirited three-time Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson, designated by Seattle as a transition free agent, away from the Seahawks with a seven-year, $49 million deal. Seattle declined to match the offer, and Hutchinson moved on to the Vikings, after the Seahawks lost an arbitration case in which they challenged some so-called "poison pill" provisions of the offer sheet. There have been rumors for about a week that Burleson, who recently visited with Seahawks officials, might sign a Seattle offer sheet. But the added element of revenge -- and there is little doubt the similarity to the Hutchinson contract was more than coincidental -- certainly provides a delicious twist. It should be interesting to see how top officials from the two franchises interact when the annual league meetings convene in Orlando, Fla., on Monday morning. The weather in Orlando for next week already is forecast as cool, and the relationship between the Vikings and Seahawks is a bit chillier after Friday. The offer sheet that Burleson signed on Friday with the Seahawks features not only the same number of years and the same amount of total payout as the Hutchinson contract, but also includes two "poison pills" that will make it virtually impossible for the Vikings to match. Minnesota has seven days to match the offer sheet, keep Burleson, and essentially inherit the terms of the contract negotiated by the Seahawks with the three-year veteran wide receiver. If the Vikings decline to match, they will receive Seattle's third-round choice in this year's draft as compensation. The Vikings retained a right of first refusal on Burleson by making him a restricted free agent qualifying offer of $712,000 earlier this month. To match the deal, though, the Vikings will have to swallow hard. Beyond the size of the total payout and a total of $5.25 million in guarantees, are two devious provisions. The first would guarantee the entire contract, all $49 million, if Burleson plays five or more games in the state of Minnesota in any season of the contract. The Vikings, of course, play home games in Minneapolis, at the Metrodome there. The second bizarre provision would guarantee the full contract if Burleson is paid more on average per year than all of the Minnesota running backs combined. At least for now, the averages of the Vikings' tailbacks fall well shy of the $7 million average of the Burleson offer sheet. It should be recalled that, when the Vikings signed Hutchinson to his offer sheet, they wrote into the deal a provision that guaranteed the full contract if the star guard was not the highest paid lineman on the team. The Vikings knew that Seattle could not match the offer, since Pro Bowl left tackle Walter Jones has a contract that averages more than Hutchinson's deal. Before deciding whether to match the offer sheet, Minnesota officials may challenge the "poison pill" provisions, as did the Seahawks with Hutchinson's contract. Minnesota likely could have avoided the raid on Burleson had the Vikings, who possessed more than enough salary cap space, made him a higher qualifying offer, one that carried a loftier price tag in terms of compensatory picks. By choosing to tender Burleson's lowest-level qualifying offer, the Vikings made him as easy target for teams to poach, given that it would cost them just a third-round draft choice as compensation. At that price, Burleson was one of the real steals of the restricted free agent talent pool, and Seattle, appropriately, attempted to pilfer the talented wideout. In three seasons, Burleson has 127 receptions for 1,789 yards and 12 touchdowns. The former Nevada star, a third-round pick in the 2003 draft, has appeared in 47 games and started 33 of them. He had a seeming breakout year in 2004, when he posted 68 catches for 1,006 yards and nine touchdowns, but his numbers dropped off in 2005, when injuries limited Burleson to nine starts. Around the NFL, however, Burleson, just 24, is regarded as an ascending talent, a wide receiver capable of 70 or more catches annually and of consistent 1,000-yard seasons. Were the Seahawks to secure Burleson, who played at O'Dea High School in Seattle, he probably would join Darrell Jackson in the starting lineup. That would allow veteran Bobby Engram, a starter in 2005, to return to his more natural role as the No. 3 receiver working out of the slot. Wow, the Seahawks signings this offseason have been stellar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 To Minnesota: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Seriously though, I'd say Burleson slides quite nicely into "1-A" next to DJax; the main problem being that Seattle's passing game has a freakin' embarrasment of riches talent-wise (Hass is 2nd tier, Djax/Burleson/Engram/Stevens are about as good a 3-deep/TE combo there is out there) that will be limited in opporuntities FF wise as long as Alexander is around. Of course, with Hutch moving on, maybe Alex running left on the goal line ceases to be money in the bank... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 To Minnesota: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Seriously though, I'd say Burleson slides quite nicely into "1-A" next to DJax; the main problem being that Seattle's passing game has a freakin' embarrasment of riches talent-wise (Hass is 2nd tier, Djax/Burleson/Engram/Stevens are about as good a 3-deep/TE combo there is out there) that will be limited in opporuntities FF wise as long as Alexander is around. Of course, with Hutch moving on, maybe Alex running left on the goal line ceases to be money in the bank... 1387207[/snapback] Honestly, I think the Vikings were expecting not to match anything anyways and wanted the 3rd round pick. A new regime loves to build a team from the ground up as you can see from all the FA signings and now they have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Honestly, I think the Vikings were expecting not to match anything anyways and wanted the 3rd round pick. A new regime loves to build a team from the ground up as you can see from all the FA signings and now they have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. 1387243[/snapback] I see someone who knows his team have just been royally shafted. Good for the Seahawks - the NFL are going to regret allowing the Hutchinson clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I see someone who knows his team have just been royally shafted. Good for the Seahawks - the NFL are going to regret allowing the Hutchinson clause. 1387285[/snapback] Hey, I wanted Burleson back too, but I honestly think the team doesn't see much of a difference between him and say Travis Taylor. I think that would be an incorrect analysis, but how else can you describe the real lack of an effort on their part to be proactive to make him a piece of the new west coast puzzle. And you can't really compare an unproven WR to arguably a guy who is best in his position in the league. These poison pill contracts will come back to bite everyone, not just the Vikings though, unless the league does something about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I guess this post needs the following question to be asked ... Burleson or Porter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I guess this post needs the following question to be asked ... Burleson or Porter? 1387296[/snapback] Burleson... they signed Burleson not Porter. lol. Okay, just kidding... personally, I think the pick they made by signing Burleson is only going to make the Seahawks that much more powerful. Anyone else see a possibility of the Seahawks going back to the superbowl? They've gone a long way in the last few years thats for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Burleson... they signed Burleson not Porter. lol. Okay, just kidding... personally, I think the pick they made by signing Burleson is only going to make the Seahawks that much more powerful. Anyone else see a possibility of the Seahawks going back to the superbowl? They've gone a long way in the last few years thats for sure. 1387302[/snapback] I'd say they'll be right in the mix. The NFC still ain't all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I'd say they'll be right in the mix. The NFC still ain't all that. 1387309[/snapback] The NFC team outplayed the AFC team in the superbowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip_Side Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 The NFC team outplayed the AFC team in the superbowl. 1387324[/snapback] He's got a point there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The NFC team outplayed the AFC team in the superbowl. 1387324[/snapback] i agree with u ... not just because the man in youre pic is sexy but because they did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The NFC team outplayed the AFC team in the superbowl. 1387324[/snapback] No denying that one. Maybe there are more high powered teams in the AFC but I wouldn't go as far as to say no team in the NFC is powerful... I think the Seahawks proved that last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I got to hand it to Seattle for their signings, and for giving it back to the Vikes. Even if the 1st clause was thrown out, can't see how they can throw out the second. This is going to make for a good rivalry. Far as Vikes rebuilding, rebuilding by letting a 24 yr old reciever go? 34 , maybe, 24 no. That statement needs a little work if gonna try to defend the Vikings stance with Burleson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I got to hand it to Seattle for their signings, and for giving it back to the Vikes. Even if the 1st clause was thrown out, can't see how they can throw out the second. This is going to make for a good rivalry. Far as Vikes rebuilding, rebuilding by letting a 24 yr old reciever go? 34 , maybe, 24 no. That statement needs a little work if gonna try to defend the Vikings stance with Burleson. 1387348[/snapback] The Vikings are trying to rebuild? ...guess you learn something new everyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 No denying that one. 1387345[/snapback] Oh believe me, there are a handful of hardcore Steeler fans at the huddle that are in denial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The Vikings are trying to rebuild? ...guess you learn something new everyday. 1387371[/snapback] Was in repsonse to Capn Grunges statement below: Honestly, I think the Vikings were expecting not to match anything anyways and wanted the 3rd round pick. A new regime loves to build a team from the ground up as you can see from all the FA signings and now they have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I know, I know... The Vikings simply have a long way to go before a legitimate use of 'team rebuilding' can be used in the same sentence with 'Vikings'. I was just trying to throw some gas on the fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) Oh believe me, there are a handful of hardcore Steeler fans at the huddle that are in denial. 1387389[/snapback] Send them here: How did the Seahawks lose again? ...wait? no, no.. we're right... the NFC definitely dominated the AFC (statistically) during the Superbowl WARNING: If you missed the game (lol, although who woulda missed it yet somehow found their way here on huddle.com) these stats might mislead you into thinking the Seahawks won the game. They didn't. I guess a little extra good luck can go a long way sometimes. Edited March 25, 2006 by TheGrunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedroz13 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I liked Burleson, but I would take Hutchinson over him any day of the week. I think SEA overpaid for Burleson (of course I realize everyone thinks MN overpaid for Hutchinson). Hutchinson is much more dominant at his position than Burleson is at his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 That totally rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Burleson to me is no better than Brandon Lloyd or Randle el. 49 Mil for 7 yrs is rediculous. Seattle will definately get him, and give up a 3rd. Not sure this is a good signing, but Burleson can play and if they have the money I guess go for it. Seems like Sea just wanted to get the Vikes back, but its my bet Minny would rather have the pick than Burleson, so Sea screwed itself making such a rediculous offer. But hey, he should be an upgrade over Engram for what that is worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 :tombstone:Well, bye:tombstone: Am I the only Viking fan that was never all that impressed with Burleson anyways? Great, he's a young WR with potential. They seem to be a dime a dozen in the NFL though. If Nate has a great career with Seattle, good for him. Honestly though I don't see how this is gonna kill the Vikings. K-Rob, Taylor, and Williamson this year is what we run with. I can live with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Burleson to me is no better than Brandon Lloyd or Randle el. 49 Mil for 7 yrs is rediculous. 1387478[/snapback] I think it's pretty obvious that this was done in jest. The guranteed 5 mill and third round pick could be too much. But, this is just like Sam Adams signing a 7 year 50 million deal virtually every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 :tombstone:Well, bye:tombstone: Am I the only Viking fan that was never all that impressed with Burleson anyways? Great, he's a young WR with potential. They seem to be a dime a dozen in the NFL though. If Nate has a great career with Seattle, good for him. Honestly though I don't see how this is gonna kill the Vikings. K-Rob, Taylor, and Williamson this year is what we run with. I can live with that. 1387480[/snapback] I love that saying in Tombstone, but Wyatt gets revenge later. I do agree, Krob a former Seahawk could be an upgrade over Burleson. How crazy would that be for these 2 teams. The difference is Seattle can say scoreboard, we are a SB contender and NFC Champs looking to take the next step, while Minny trots BJ, Taylor and Richardson in their backfield, as compared to Hasslehoff , and Shaun Alexander and Mack Strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I liked Burleson, but I would take Hutchinson over him any day of the week. 1387469[/snapback] There are 16 million reasons to support that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.