Sgt. Ryan Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Im really impressed with what Seattle has done this offseason to add to what they had. They can add another cog in the draft as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 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. 1387490[/snapback] Brad Johnson went 7-2 last year with less than the supporting cast he will have this year. I am not saying were going deep in the playoffs. He is just a short term fix for whats going to happen down the road. I really think the Vikings wanted the pick or they would have given the next highest tender. There are two other tenders that the Vikings could have gave Burleson. One is a 1.5 Million/1st round tender. Keven Curtis has that tender. The other is the 2 forst round picks tender. Like Seductive Nun said - they are a dime a dozen. I think they are accumulating picks now to trade up in the 1st round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked 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] Sho nuff. But if Joe Jurevicues could prosper under a well oiled West Coast Offense I like the chances of Burleson as his replacement for what seems to be a low to moderate cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Sho nuff. But if Joe Jurevicues could prosper under a well oiled West Coast Offense I like the chances of Burleson as his replacement for what seems to be a low to moderate cap hit. 1387497[/snapback] I think he will do well. His one good year opposite of Moss, his YAC was hugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I wouldn't call it a bad signing, really, but Burleson obviously isn't worth all that money. I'm sure the Seahawks have an agreement with him for next year -- a "secondary offer", so to speak -- for a different contract altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Thanks a lot Vikings. Just wait until Snyders attorneys get going on free agents. By DANNY O'NEIL P-I REPORTER The Seahawks' offer to Nate Burleson was aimed at more than just a homecoming for the wide receiver. The offer doubled as a purpose pitch thrown at the chin of the Minnesota Vikings, Burleson's current team. Does the seven-year, $49 million total of the offer Burleson signed with Seattle sound familiar? It's the total of the Vikings' contract to guard Steve Hutchinson. The similarities don't stop there as the Seahawks laced Burleson's offer with two provisions engineered to make it impractical for Minnesota to match. Call it the poison-pill sequel. It's believed the Seahawks' offer stipulates if Burleson plays more than five games in the state of Minnesota in a year, the entire $49 million contract becomes guaranteed. The second provision involves Burleson's salary in comparison to the running backs on the team, and it would have the effect of requiring Minnesota to guarantee the $49 million. Those guarantees are in the same vein as Minnesota's offer to Hutchinson, which was written with the stipulation that he be the team's highest-paid lineman at the time he signed the offer sheet. Otherwise, the $49 million contract was guaranteed. Because Walter Jones made more than Hutchinson when the deal was signed, Seattle had to promise to pay the entire contract to match the offer and keep Hutchinson. Now, as the offer sheet is written, Minnesota would have to commit to the same total to keep Burleson. Minnesota has seven days to match the contract. No one will be holding his or her breath. The $49 million was reached to make a point to Minnesota. The guaranteed money in Burleson's offer is $5.25 million. Neither team would comment on Friday's offer. Oh, yeah. These teams will play at Qwest Field in 2006. Should be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 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] Porter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Thanks a lot Vikings. Just wait until Snyders attorneys get going on free agents. By DANNY O'NEIL P-I REPORTER The Seahawks' offer to Nate Burleson was aimed at more than just a homecoming for the wide receiver. The offer doubled as a purpose pitch thrown at the chin of the Minnesota Vikings, Burleson's current team. Does the seven-year, $49 million total of the offer Burleson signed with Seattle sound familiar? It's the total of the Vikings' contract to guard Steve Hutchinson. The similarities don't stop there as the Seahawks laced Burleson's offer with two provisions engineered to make it impractical for Minnesota to match. Call it the poison-pill sequel. It's believed the Seahawks' offer stipulates if Burleson plays more than five games in the state of Minnesota in a year, the entire $49 million contract becomes guaranteed. The second provision involves Burleson's salary in comparison to the running backs on the team, and it would have the effect of requiring Minnesota to guarantee the $49 million. Those guarantees are in the same vein as Minnesota's offer to Hutchinson, which was written with the stipulation that he be the team's highest-paid lineman at the time he signed the offer sheet. Otherwise, the $49 million contract was guaranteed. Because Walter Jones made more than Hutchinson when the deal was signed, Seattle had to promise to pay the entire contract to match the offer and keep Hutchinson. Now, as the offer sheet is written, Minnesota would have to commit to the same total to keep Burleson. Minnesota has seven days to match the contract. No one will be holding his or her breath. The $49 million was reached to make a point to Minnesota. The guaranteed money in Burleson's offer is $5.25 million. Neither team would comment on Friday's offer. Oh, yeah. These teams will play at Qwest Field in 2006. Should be fun. 1387618[/snapback] Something must be done about the poison pills allowed in these contracts, if allowed to continue, why even have a RFA? Ever contract could be constructed in such a way to sign any player as if they were an FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Something must be done about the poison pills allowed in these contracts, if allowed to continue, why even have a RFA? Ever contract could be constructed in such a way to sign any player as if they were an FA. 1387673[/snapback] ...hence the Seahawks signing Burleson. I think they made a point with that one. I'm sure the rules will be modified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 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. 1387469[/snapback] +1 I will take that trade off any day of the week and twice on Sundays... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikesGuy Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 He wouldn't have signed the contract unless he wanted out of Minnesota. If somebody wants out that bad let leave. Besides i have a feeling he would have been just a 3rd down reciever. He is a great wide out though and will be missed. I think we are all right with KRod, Taylor and Williamson. Then pick up a rookie in the 3rd round with that pick. Bye!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Burleson is an alright receiver... he can catch across the middle and does well after the catch. But he is certainly not a #1 WR, and can't seem to stay on the field. Seattle will enjoy him if they use him right. The Vikes will miss him, but have plenty of comparable depth at that position. A Third round pick is definitely very nice this year, but I would probably have rather re-signed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Burleson was a 3rd rounder, and I personally think he turned out to be a great pick. Hopefully, the Vikes can strike paydirt again. I'm glad they picked up Hutch but wasn't so thrilled about the manner in which they did. It is kind of fitting to see Seattle return the favor. 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.