coolnerd
Footballguy
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports...nt/3729617.htmlHe would cost the Texans a 3rd. the Texans have two at the very top of the round.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Nate Burleson visting Texans (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter coolnerd
- Start date
THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA
Footballguy
I likes him alot for my texans but for the 3.01 or 3.02 is a bit much....IMO
Texasmouth
Footballguy
What a disappointment this guy is. He was tauted as the heir apperant to Moss last off season, this season, he might be a Texan. Talk about a fall from grace.....
He was hurt a lot last year, no one thinks the Vikes are being a little hasty here?
He was hurt a lot last year, no one thinks the Vikes are being a little hasty here?
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
I really like Burleson and think he is getting the shaft in Minnesota, unless they are going to match any offer. The guy was injured last season and by the time he was recovered they had added Koren and he didn't see the field as much as he should have. I think with Nate on one side and Koren on the other, with Williamson as a third, they would be in great shape, not to mention the depth of Travis Taylor, who I thought played well last season. I think his fantasy production would be limited, though.
However, if the Texans were to sign him, I really like his fantasy potential. Andre is the guy on the other side that will be drawing more attention than Koren would, and that would leave him plenty of room to work.
Edited to add: A high third for him would soften the blow a little bit. Like someone else said, better the Texans' third than the Seahawks'
However, if the Texans were to sign him, I really like his fantasy potential. Andre is the guy on the other side that will be drawing more attention than Koren would, and that would leave him plenty of room to work.
Edited to add: A high third for him would soften the blow a little bit. Like someone else said, better the Texans' third than the Seahawks'
Last edited by a moderator:
Gopher State
Footballguy
Having watched Burleson play, I would rate him in the same area as T. Taylor MN. Not quite a #2 WR, but a good #3. I don't think Burleson will every put up great FF numbers again, but will be a good bye week player. I sure Minny would be happy with the Texans #3 pick 
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
So if the Texans do sign him, which 3rd rounder would they have to give up?? (not that it is a huge difference - one spot - but just for sake of a team that would have one at the top and one at the bottom) 
David Yudkin
Footballguy
The Patriots apparently have also shown some interest in Burleson.
tex
Footballguy
My sentiments exactly. I compare Burleson a lot to Peerless Price. He was great as a WR2 in Buffalo, but doesn't have the talent to be a WR1. Of course with Vick throwing the ball to you, it's tough for anyone to be a WR1
But I really feel if the Texans can upgrade their OL to give Carr a little time, the Burleson could really shine opposite AJ.
Boston
Footballguy
That has been reported locally although to what extent isn't known. The Pats are not shy about trading picks for players as they have done so in the past with Dillon, Washington, Starks and Andre Davis. If this happens hopefully the results will be far better than they were with Starks and Davis.
Last edited by a moderator:
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
I just don't see Gaffney anywhere near Burleson's level, but it is a matter of opinion. Burleson put up over 1000 yards in a season when Moss missed 4-5 games, without a running back putting up above average numbers like DD. I am a big fan of Burleson and just feel he is a notch or two above Gaffney.
Gopher State
Footballguy
I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????
coolnerd
Footballguy
Sure, but again Gaffney may think it is a better chance for him to get really good long-term money by showing that he could put good numbers in a pass friendly offense then getting stuck as no better than the 2nd option (probably like 4) in an offense that will still be run oriented. My point is that we don't know what happen between the team and player behind closed doors. The player has a choice in the matter. Just to give another example that has happened recently, why in the world would Andre Davis sign a one deal with Bufalo than with stay with the Patriots?
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Texans | Team cancels Burleson visit
Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:03:05 -0800
John McClain, of the Houston Chronicle, reports the Houston Texans canceled their scheduled visit with restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson (Vikings). He could be involved in an expensive tug of war with the Minnesota Vikings and Seattle Seahawks.
Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:03:05 -0800
John McClain, of the Houston Chronicle, reports the Houston Texans canceled their scheduled visit with restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson (Vikings). He could be involved in an expensive tug of war with the Minnesota Vikings and Seattle Seahawks.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Ummm...he did okay as the WR2 when Moss was in Minny (1,000+ season isn't exactly what I would call "not quite"). I think if he goes to Houston as AJ's WR2, he'll look much more like the WR he was 2 years ago - if he does that, he's a weekly starter in most 3-WR formats.Having watched Burleson play, I would rate him in the same area as T. Taylor MN. Not quite a #2 WR, but a good #3. I don't think Burleson will every put up great FF numbers again, but will be a good bye week player. I sure Minny would be happy with the Texans #3 pick
Born to Run
Footballguy
Does this mean that the Vikes feel Williamson is ready to step up to the WR3 role? Burleson has been solid for them and they would not let him go easily even for a 3.01 unless someone is ready to take his place which would create room for Williamson at WR3.
Hov34
Eephus's Great Great Great Love Child
Texans | Team cancels Burleson visit
Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:03:05 -0800
John McClain, of the Houston Chronicle, reports the Houston Texans canceled their scheduled visit with restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson (Vikings). He could be involved in an expensive tug of war with the Minnesota Vikings and Seattle Seahawks.
Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:03:05 -0800
John McClain, of the Houston Chronicle, reports the Houston Texans canceled their scheduled visit with restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson (Vikings). He could be involved in an expensive tug of war with the Minnesota Vikings and Seattle Seahawks.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I just don't see Gaffney anywhere near Burleson's level, but it is a matter of opinion. Burleson put up over 1000 yards in a season when Moss missed 4-5 games, without a running back putting up above average numbers like DD. I am a big fan of Burleson and just feel he is a notch or two above Gaffney.
I also completely disagree with the statement that Travis Taylor is as good. Taylor is nowhere near as good and this would be obvious had Burleson not been too injured to follow-up his great sophomore season.Preacher 1
Footballguy
So Seattle essentially gives up a 3rd rounder for a # 3 wide reciever? Seems to me that they could have found someone a whole lot cheaper than that. Of course, it has the hissy fit factor going for it...Seattle now can say that they took someone from the Vikings, for what that's worth...
Last edited by a moderator:
diesel7982
Footballguy
Or...Seattle gives up a #3 for a guy who put up 1000 yards in his first season as a #1 WR, and then suffered injury/QB problems.So Seattle essentially gives up a 3rd rounder for a # 3 wide reciever? Seems to me that they could have found someone a whole lot cheaper than that. Of course, it has the hissy fit factor going for it...Seattle now can say that they took someone from the Vikings, for what that's worth...
Preacher 1
Footballguy
That's great, but he's still going to be a #3 reciever behind Jackson and Engram...if he gets a thousand yards this year, it means that there's been trouble in Seattle. I would LMAO if Seattle put some sort of a clause in the contract though...THAT would be funny.Or...Seattle gives up a #3 for a guy who put up 1000 yards in his first season as a #1 WR, and then suffered injury/QB problems.So Seattle essentially gives up a 3rd rounder for a # 3 wide reciever? Seems to me that they could have found someone a whole lot cheaper than that. Of course, it has the hissy fit factor going for it...Seattle now can say that they took someone from the Vikings, for what that's worth...
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Last season, quality backups got us to the superbowl after Jackson missed 10 games. I think Burleson will be the #2 before too long. I like ENgram and he is steady but Burleson has more physical skills. If he clicks he could be very good. Also I believe he returns punts.That's great, but he's still going to be a #3 reciever behind Jackson and Engram...if he gets a thousand yards this year, it means that there's been trouble in Seattle. I would LMAO if Seattle put some sort of a clause in the contract though...THAT would be funny.Or...Seattle gives up a #3 for a guy who put up 1000 yards in his first season as a #1 WR, and then suffered injury/QB problems.So Seattle essentially gives up a 3rd rounder for a # 3 wide reciever? Seems to me that they could have found someone a whole lot cheaper than that. Of course, it has the hissy fit factor going for it...Seattle now can say that they took someone from the Vikings, for what that's worth...
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Its not a matter of who #1, #2 and #3 is...its the positios they will play.Burleson and Jackson will be the wide outs and Engram will go back to playing in the slot.Last season, quality backups got us to the superbowl after Jackson missed 10 games. I think Burleson will be the #2 before too long. I like ENgram and he is steady but Burleson has more physical skills. If he clicks he could be very good. Also I believe he returns punts.That's great, but he's still going to be a #3 reciever behind Jackson and Engram...if he gets a thousand yards this year, it means that there's been trouble in Seattle. I would LMAO if Seattle put some sort of a clause in the contract though...THAT would be funny.Or...Seattle gives up a #3 for a guy who put up 1000 yards in his first season as a #1 WR, and then suffered injury/QB problems.So Seattle essentially gives up a 3rd rounder for a # 3 wide reciever? Seems to me that they could have found someone a whole lot cheaper than that. Of course, it has the hissy fit factor going for it...Seattle now can say that they took someone from the Vikings, for what that's worth...
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Regardless of whether this is a revenge signing or not, I said all along that Burleson was worth a least a third. I would be surprised if the Vikings don’t match.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?
Donnybrook
Footballguy
I think Burleson is a good receiver but he is not “poison pill” good. If Seattle is smart and I think they are, they will offer Burleson a contract that is just high enough to make the Vikings think twice about matching.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Why wouldn't they just put some clause in there so that the Vikings can't match? The precedent was set.
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
Because Nate is a restricted free agent, not a transition player. If the Vikings don't match, then the Seahawks got a GREAT player! He is vastly underrated, in my opinion, and would represent good value for fantasy football playing opposite Darrell Jackson. I hope the Vikings match (although I haven't seen numbers yet). Good move Seahawks...you'll LOVE Nate!!
DropKick
Footballguy
I think this would be very good for Hasselbeck owners.
And Nate's too... Seattle has a settled, long term QB situation and I see Nate as the #2, where as who knows how Minnesota will shake out. Maybe the change in coaching will straighten out the Vike's but they just seemed chaotic recently... from the erratic handling of the RBs to the misuse of Burleson (deeper "speed" routes rather than posession).
And Nate's too... Seattle has a settled, long term QB situation and I see Nate as the #2, where as who knows how Minnesota will shake out. Maybe the change in coaching will straighten out the Vike's but they just seemed chaotic recently... from the erratic handling of the RBs to the misuse of Burleson (deeper "speed" routes rather than posession).
Last edited by a moderator:
DoctorDetroit
Chocolate Thunder
Anyone got anything else on Burleson signing an offer sheet with Seattle? Haven't seen it anywhere except on the Eastcoastsportsnews site. TIA.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Don't the Vikings get to match the offer? Hence why you want to put a clause in it so that they can't match it.
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
My bad...you are right. The only difference is the compensation that the Vikings would get if they don't match...but wouldn't make a difference for a "poison pill" clause.
