Nate Burleson visting Texans (1 Viewer)

[coolnerd]

Early next week, Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent Nate Burleson, 24, also will visit the Texans, whose offseason program starts Monday. Burleson is just two years removed from a 1,000-yard season.

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.

 

[Tick]

Early next week, Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent Nate Burleson, 24, also will visit the Texans, whose offseason program starts Monday. Burleson is just two years removed from a 1,000-yard season.

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.

Seems like a smart move if they make it - they need a WR2, and Burleson seems ideal.

 

[BigJim®]

Go Houston. I'd sure prefer the Vikes get Houston's #65 than Seattles#95 pick as 3rd round comp.

 

[NoCheese]

Go Houston. I'd sure prefer the Vikes get Houston's #65 than Seattles#95 pick as 3rd round comp.

Wouldn't have an issue losing Burleson for a high 3rd. A low 3rd wouldn't be worth it

 

[BigJim®]

Go Houston. I'd sure prefer the Vikes get Houston's #65 than Seattles#95 pick as 3rd round comp.

Wouldn't have an issue losing Burleson for a high 3rd. A low 3rd wouldn't be worth it

True, my first preference is he stays but if the front office intends to let him leave, #65 is not bad.

 

[RustyFA]

He visited Seattle recently. I see a team giving up a 3rd for him. The Vikes obviously want to go with Troy W and KRob.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

I likes him alot for my texans but for the 3.01 or 3.02 is a bit much....IMO

 

[Texasmouth]

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?

 

[jhexel]

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?

I think the Vikes have the right to match any offer...if I'm not mistaken.If I'm mistaken...it wouldn't be the first or last time.

 

[Tick]

I think he didn't get a full shot in Minnesota to be the WR1, but they have such good WR depth that they don't need to give him a better shot. With KRob, MRob, Taylor, and Williamson, they're fine.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

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'

 

[Gopher State]

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]

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)

 

[RustyFA]

I think they would have to give up their original pick, whatever one that is. I personally think that Burleson is an excellent #2 and a below average #1.

 

[faulkfan]

God knows Burleson isn't a WR1 so putting him on the Texans as a WR2 would be ideal for both he and the team. He's got talent, but not enough to carry a team as the "man" IMHO.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Patriots apparently have also shown some interest in Burleson.

 

[Rev]

Burlson in Texas would be a huge help for AJ. Also, Nate could have a huge year with the double coverage always rotating towards Johnson.

 

[tex]

God knows Burleson isn't a WR1 so putting him on the Texans as a WR2 would be ideal for both he and the team. He's got talent, but not enough to carry a team as the "man" IMHO.

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.

 

[BigJim®]

The Patriots apparently have also shown some interest in Burleson.

The Reche Caldwell signing may quash the Pats' interest.

 

[Boston]

The Patriots apparently have also shown some interest in Burleson.

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.

 

[Slider]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

 

[coolnerd]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

Gaffney was an Unrestricted FA. unless a player shoots off his mouth, we never know whether or not the player expressed a desire to the team that he wants to pursue other opportunities.

 

[Slider]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

 

[Slider]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

Gaffney was an Unrestricted FA. unless a player shoots off his mouth, we never know whether or not the player expressed a desire to the team that he wants to pursue other opportunities.

Right but he signed a one year deal in Philly. I would think his team could have done that very easily. A 3rd and more money for Burleson? Not sure I think that's a good move. Burleson looked good opposite Moss. Gaffney had a good year with the worst O in football.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

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]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

 

[coolnerd]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

Gaffney was an Unrestricted FA. unless a player shoots off his mouth, we never know whether or not the player expressed a desire to the team that he wants to pursue other opportunities.

Right but he signed a one year deal in Philly. I would think his team could have done that very easily. A 3rd and more money for Burleson? Not sure I think that's a good move. Burleson looked good opposite Moss. Gaffney had a good year with the worst O in football.

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]

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.

 

[DoubleG]

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

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.

 

[Born to Run]

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]

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.

 

[BigJim®]

I think Gaffney's as good as Burleson. Why wouldn't they have just kept Gaffney??????

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.

 

[DropKick]

I think he didn't get a full shot in Minnesota to be the WR1, but they have such good WR depth that they don't need to give him a better shot. With KRob, MRob, Taylor, and Williamson, they're fine.

On paper they appear to have good depth but with the track records of KRob (suspensions) and MRob (injury), I'm not so sure.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2006Draft.html

Mondays Free Agent signings...Houston signs Broncos TE Jeb Putzier...Detroit signs Rams OG Rex Tucker...Oakland signs former Patriot CB Tyrone Poole..Miami signs Vikings WR Kelly Campbell...Seattle signs Vikings WR Nate Burleson to an offer sheet.

 

[Preacher 1]

http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2006Draft.html

Mondays Free Agent signings...Houston signs Broncos TE Jeb Putzier...Detroit signs Rams OG Rex Tucker...Oakland signs former Patriot CB Tyrone Poole..Miami signs Vikings WR Kelly Campbell...Seattle signs Vikings WR Nate Burleson to an offer sheet.

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...

 

[diesel7982]

http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2006Draft.html

Mondays Free Agent signings...Houston signs Broncos TE Jeb Putzier...Detroit signs Rams OG Rex Tucker...Oakland signs former Patriot CB Tyrone Poole..Miami signs Vikings WR Kelly Campbell...Seattle signs Vikings WR Nate Burleson to an offer sheet.

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...

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.

 

[Preacher 1]

http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2006Draft.html

Mondays Free Agent signings...Houston signs Broncos TE Jeb Putzier...Detroit signs Rams OG Rex Tucker...Oakland signs former Patriot CB Tyrone Poole..Miami signs Vikings WR Kelly Campbell...Seattle signs Vikings WR Nate Burleson to an offer sheet.

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...

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.

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.

 

[mad sweeney]

http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2006Draft.html

Mondays Free Agent signings...Houston signs Broncos TE Jeb Putzier...Detroit signs Rams OG Rex Tucker...Oakland signs former Patriot CB Tyrone Poole..Miami signs Vikings WR Kelly Campbell...Seattle signs Vikings WR Nate Burleson to an offer sheet.

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...

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.

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.

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.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2006Draft.html

Mondays Free Agent signings...Houston signs Broncos TE Jeb Putzier...Detroit signs Rams OG Rex Tucker...Oakland signs former Patriot CB Tyrone Poole..Miami signs Vikings WR Kelly Campbell...Seattle signs Vikings WR Nate Burleson to an offer sheet.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Donnybrook]

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]

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.

Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?

 

[Donnybrook]

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.

Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?

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]

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.

Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?

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.

Why wouldn't they just put some clause in there so that the Vikings can't match? The precedent was set.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

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.

Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?

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.

Why wouldn't they just put some clause in there so that the Vikings can't match? The precedent was set.

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]

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).

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Anyone got anything else on Burleson signing an offer sheet with Seattle? Haven't seen it anywhere except on the Eastcoastsportsnews site. TIA.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

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.

Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?

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.

Why wouldn't they just put some clause in there so that the Vikings can't match? The precedent was set.

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!!

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.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?

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.

Why wouldn't they just put some clause in there so that the Vikings can't match? The precedent was set.

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!!

What difference does his being an RFA vs a Transition player make as to a poison pill? I don't see any.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

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.

Wil the be able to match if Seattle plays a poison pill clause?

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.

Why wouldn't they just put some clause in there so that the Vikings can't match? The precedent was set.

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!!

What difference does his being an RFA vs a Transition player make as to a poison pill? I don't see any.

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.