budlitebrad Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Burleson 2004 MIN 16 68 1006 14.8 68 9 50 0 0 2005 MIN 12 30 328 10.9 20 1 20 0 0 2006 SEA 16 18 192 10.7 36 2 9 0 0 Porter 2004 OAK 16 64 998 15.6 52 9 47 2 2 2005 OAK 16 76 942 12.4 49 5 45 1 0 2006 OAK 4 1 19 19.0 19 0 1 0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Burleson can thank Moss (even though he had nagging injuries in '04, Moss still drew all the attention on coverage) and Culpepper (MVP-worthy, record breaking season) for his hype and the hefty FA contract Seattle gave him. I'll pickup Engram as a bye week/roster spot filler before Burleson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 With the Posts about Burleson and Colbert I had to look at my calender and make sure it was not 2005. Only way I take Burleson is if it is a very very very deep league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 and the hefty FA contract Seattle gave him. I don't consider ~$3.5 mill a years all that hefty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I don't consider ~$3.5 mill a years all that hefty. Must be nice to have your kind of money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Must be nice to have your kind of money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) I don't consider ~$3.5 mill a years all that hefty. It's almost five times what the Vikes offered him. Anyways, that's expensive for an oft-injured #4 WR/KR/PR that's caught 30 or less passes in 3 of his 4 seasons in the league. He made more than Driver, Santana Moss, Lee Evans, and Hackett last year... and that's before factoring in his signing bonus... Edited August 31, 2007 by kingfish247 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I am done drinking the NB Kool-Aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Hmmm. Hutch or Burleson? Yeah, the Seahawks definitely got even with us there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 It's almost five times what the Vikes offered him. Anyways, that's expensive for an oft-injured #4 WR/KR/PR that's caught 30 or less passes in 3 of his 4 seasons in the league. He made more than Driver, Santana Moss, Lee Evans, and Hackett last year... and that's before factoring in his signing bonus... I'm not going to argue that the Hawks didn't overpay for NB (even though they did it before trading for Branch). And there are plenty of WR's on that database that are making too much money (Brandon Lloyd, Antonio Bryant, David Givens...etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Seahawks | Hackett could split time with Burleson Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:19:10 -0700 Seattle Seahawks WR D.J. Hackett and WR Nate Burleson could split time at split end this season. Head coach Mike Holmgren said Wednesday, Sept. 5, they may alternate weeks as the starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Seahawks | Hackett could split time with BurlesonWed, 5 Sep 2007 19:19:10 -0700 Seattle Seahawks WR D.J. Hackett and WR Nate Burleson could split time at split end this season. Head coach Mike Holmgren said Wednesday, Sept. 5, they may alternate weeks as the starter. Pre season talk is just that. Lets see what happens when DJ Hackett capitalizes on his opportunities and Nate Burleson plays like... Well... Nate Burleson... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Pre season talk is just that. Lets see what happens when DJ Hackett capitalizes on his opportunities and Nate Burleson plays like... Well... Nate Burleson... Yeah, I don't see how that situation will be good for Hasselbeck or the Hawks O in general. Maybe Burleson comes through but I doubt they alternate weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 We'll take Nate back here in Minnie... I mean, if you guys don't really need him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Holmgren was JUST on local sportsradio talking about the state of the team heading into the season. He says that while the #1 and #3 WR positions are all locked up, the starter at the #2 WR position will be determined in practice this week, and he even mentioned that it could flip-flop every week as far as which one starts, Hackett or Burleson. Burleson may play, but every time they look for a big play, it's gonna be to Hackett. He is the only deep threat they have. I'm sure this news drops Hackett's value ever-so-slightly, but it is my contention that most of the plays he will be sitting are plays that would not be designed for him to make a big play anyhow. Holmgren, hopefully jokingly, stated that Pork Chop Womack will act as the team's #3 QB until they sign someone. Let's run the veer boys!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 he even mentioned that it could flip-flop every week as far as which one starts, Hackett or Burleson. Burleson may play, but every time they look for a big play, it's gonna be to Hackett. He is the only deep threat they have. This may be but I would think Holmgren is smart enough to realize that if he did this then this makes things easier for opposing Ds... -if Burleson is on the field, don't worry so much about a big play. Move a few more guys up to stop SA and don't allow anything underneath. -if Hackett is on the field, soften up the coverage on Hackett's side to take away the big play. This kind of answers the question as to who should be on the field more... the guy who will give you a big play or the guy who won't? Logic says the big play guy should be on the field at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadman Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 I took a shot with Hackett in two leagues, but really know nothing about him other than the generous Huddle rankings. Does he have the talent and speed to be a consistent deep threat? I know Burleson doesn't - much more of a slant/mid-range catch and run guy. This kind of talk concerns me as far as Hackett being a dependable play as a #2 or even a flex spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) In the words of George W Bush: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice - you can't get fooled again." Edited September 6, 2007 by Pirate lookin' at 40 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.