Nate Burleson ? (1 Viewer)

[Chasers Dawg]

Not considering D.Jax or an injury to him. Confused by the projections for the rest of them

FFTodays Projections Bold

FBGuys Projections Regular

Rec Yds TD's F.Pts

Jackson 85 1,145 8 162.5

Jackson 77 1024 9 157

Engram 55 674 4 91.4

Engram 58 655 4 89

Burleson 34 490 3 67

Burleson 38 471 3 65

Warrick 22 319 1 38

Hackett 17 215 0 21.5

Hackett 9 122 1 18

Warrick 10 104 0 10.4

Why does everyone have Nates #'s so low. Engram will be going back to the Slot #3 role, where he's been the best in the NFL the last several years and Nate will be taking the split-end #2 role.

eta - I think Nate will almost double those #'s

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Not considering D.Jax or an injury to him. Confused by the projections for the rest of them

FFTodays Projections Bold

FBGuys Projections Regular

Rec Yds TD's F.Pts

Jackson 85 1,145 8 162.5

Jackson 77 1024 9 157

Engram 55 674 4 91.4

Engram 58 655 4 89

Burleson 34 490 3 67

Burleson 38 471 3 65

Warrick 22 319 1 38

Hackett 17 215 0 21.5

Hackett 9 122 1 18

Warrick 10 104 0 10.4

Why does everyone have Nates #'s so low. Engram will be going back to the Slot #3 role, where he's been the best in the NFL the last several years and Nate will be taking the split-end #2 role.

eta - I think Nate will almost double those #'s

because they aren't projecting things right. Probably got burnt by Minny hype that Burleson was a #1 WR and now they even refuse to acknowledge he's a Legit #2. Over reacted and now over compensating the other way. imo

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers. I Gotta project him for around 50 ypg minimum

 

[Kleck]

Engram will be going back to the Slot #3 role, where he's been the best in the NFL the last several years and Nate will be taking the split-end #2 role.

Read this many times 12 months ago. Didn't end up being true. Even if it is true this year Engram will see the field just as much as Burleson, and no one will be shocked when Engram ends up with more targets. Maybe not touchdowns, but certainly more receptions.

 

[Kleck]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

 

[Sinrman]

Not considering D.Jax or an injury to him. Confused by the projections for the rest of them

FFTodays Projections Bold

FBGuys Projections Regular

Rec Yds TD's F.Pts

Jackson 85 1,145 8 162.5

Jackson 77 1024 9 157

Engram 55 674 4 91.4

Engram 58 655 4 89

Burleson 34 490 3 67

Burleson 38 471 3 65

Warrick 22 319 1 38

Hackett 17 215 0 21.5

Hackett 9 122 1 18

Warrick 10 104 0 10.4

Why does everyone have Nates #'s so low. Engram will be going back to the Slot #3 role, where he's been the best in the NFL the last several years and Nate will be taking the split-end #2 role.

eta -  I think Nate will almost double those #'s 

because they aren't projecting things right. Probably got burnt by Minny hype that Burleson was a #1 WR and now they even refuse to acknowledge he's a Legit #2. Over reacted and now over compensating the other way. imo

I certainly didn't get burned by Burleson last year, because I wasn't convinced he was a #1 WR, so I avoided him.The reason people, like me, "refuse to acknowledge he's a legit #2" is simply because....... he hasn't proved he's even worthy of #2! What exactly has he done!?

Could he do well this year? Certainly. He's in a more favorable situation in Seattle than in Minnesota, but come on folks... very few teams give up on a guy as quickly as Minnesota did. That should tell you something about Burleson...

 

[Sinrman]

Engram will be going back to the Slot #3 role, where he's been the best in the NFL the last several years and Nate will be taking the split-end #2 role.

Read this many times 12 months ago. Didn't end up being true. Even if it is true this year Engram will see the field just as much as Burleson, and no one will be shocked when Engram ends up with more targets. Maybe not touchdowns, but certainly more receptions.

Exactly why Engram has been a sleeper for me the last few years, and has been a late round pick for me, and served me quite well...

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

I don't know exact yearly figures. But it was more than #3 WR money. Over 5 Million Guaranteed AND a 3 rd round pick ...49 M over 7 years if completed.5 Million+ and 3 rd round pick gone. They'll expect/want #2 production (around 50 ypg type of production fairly soon). Engram is 33 years old and while he has advantage of chemistry with Hassel already he is not a really good #2....He is a great #3. Burleson has potential to be a really good #2 and is still young enough to project upside with a quality QB like Hasselbeck when they develope some timing together.

Those projecting about 30 yards per game from a guy who cost the Seahawks a 3rd round pick plus well over 5 million in guarantees sure seem like they are experiencing backlash from 2005 still.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Sinrman- Minnesota gave up on him because of a poisen pill contract offer..and they thought about fighting it for a while before letting go. Minny also has a number of #2 Type WR still. It wasn't a pressing need as they probably had faced the facts he wasn't much better than K Rob or Williamson would be this year.

 

[menobrown]

Not considering D.Jax or an injury to him. Confused by the projections for the rest of them

FFTodays Projections Bold

FBGuys Projections Regular

Rec Yds TD's F.Pts

Jackson 85 1,145 8 162.5

Jackson 77 1024 9 157

Engram 55 674 4 91.4

Engram 58 655 4 89

Burleson 34 490 3 67

Burleson 38 471 3 65

Warrick 22 319 1 38

Hackett 17 215 0 21.5

Hackett 9 122 1 18

Warrick 10 104 0 10.4

Why does everyone have Nates #'s so low. Engram will be going back to the Slot #3 role, where he's been the best in the NFL the last several years and Nate will be taking the split-end #2 role.

eta - I think Nate will almost double those #'s

because they aren't projecting things right. Probably got burnt by Minny hype that Burleson was a #1 WR and now they even refuse to acknowledge he's a Legit #2. Over reacted and now over compensating the other way. imo

I certainly didn't get burned by Burleson last year, because I wasn't convinced he was a #1 WR, so I avoided him.The reason people, like me, "refuse to acknowledge he's a legit #2" is simply because....... he hasn't proved he's even worthy of #2! What exactly has he done!?

Could he do well this year? Certainly. He's in a more favorable situation in Seattle than in Minnesota, but come on folks... very few teams give up on a guy as quickly as Minnesota did. That should tell you something about Burleson...

I also did not believe Burleson was a #1WR last year and avoided him but I think he's an excellent #2 in the NFL, and a great fantasy #3.You asked what has he done? He's put up 1,000 yards and 9 TD's in a season in his one full year of starting.

You say very few teams give up on a guy as quickly as Minnnesota did? I say what choice did they have when the other option was giving him what would have been what I think is the most guaranteed money in the NFL at $49mill?

Burleson is not going to get $49 million from Seattle but he did essentially get over $14 million over 4 years and Seattle gave up a third rounder to get him. That would be a very mighty price to pay for a third WR which is not what he is going to be.

 

[Kleck]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

I don't know exact yearly figures. But it was more than #3 WR money.

How would you define #3 WR money?FYI: Burleson signed what will be a 5.25 million dollar contract. 4 million dollars in signing bonus. Engram is due to make 1.4 million this coming season (which doesn't include the prorated portion of the signing bonus of his three year contract).

Another thought. As a Seattle homer I am very glad they signed Burleson. I think he'll fit into this team very well. I expect Burleson and Engram to end up with similar numbers at the end of the season.

 

[The Redbeard]

I think that also, even though he struggled mightly as a #1 - the Hawks view him as a viable #2 and someone that could fill the #1 if D-Jax gets hurt again (they weren't going to leave themselves with Engram or Hackett as the go to guy). Nate represented a young reciever who has produced very well as a #2 in the past (admittedly for one year with Moss across) and at least knows what it feels like to be the #1. And yes, he had a horrible year last year - but he was hurt almost right out of the gate and then returned to a new quarterback with whom he never established a chemistry.

All of this being said - I'm happy if others want to project him so low. I think that he will fall even farther than his current ADP of 28, (the FBG's experts have him collectively ranked at 38) and presents very good value 40wrs in as a #4. I agree with the Seahawks that the Burleson of 2004 who showed so much promise will line up on Sundays for the birds - not the bum who was part of that proverbial boat ride (not the actual one, we're going for metaphor here) in Tice's wonderful world of incompetance last year.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Burleson will never see the last few years of his contact. Those years were simply added to detour MIN from keeping him. Burleson's deal is essentially a 4-year, $14.5mm deal with $5.25mm upfront. It can be debated both ways, but I believe his signing bonus PLUS the fact the Hawks burned a 3rd-rounder proves they want Burleson as their #2.

It seems as if Engram surprises everybody every year. However, I think last year was his max production. KRob's substance-abuse problems and dismissal from the team thrusted Engram into the #2 role. I highly doubt the Hawks were envisioning Engram as their #2 the first half of '05.

Engram will now become one of the league's most dangerous slot receivers (along with Curtis and Stokely). He should have a field day picking on the slower LB's and safeties. Barring injury, Burleson should easily outperform his #38 ADP and offers a lot of value this year.

 

[Cixelsyd]

Not even sure why we are debating if he is the #2.... plain and simple he is... they didn't go to the trouble of signing him and basically blocking the Vikings from stoping them to play him as a #3 WR... Engram is better suited for a #3 and Burelson is perfect as the #2...

I agree, the projections are way too low. Hass has the most weapons he's had in a while... I can see a 900yd/9TD season from Nate.

 

[Marc Levin]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

7 years 49 million dollars - big money.

 

[Marc Levin]

we have a face-off on the main site re: Burleson v. Engram for the WR2 spot.

I took the Burleson side and my opponent took the Engram side. Lots of good arguments there.

 

[Kleck]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

7 years 49 million dollars - big money.

You're not helping with either side of the argument here.

 

[Marc Levin]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

7 years 49 million dollars - big money.

You're not helping with either side of the argument here.

nope - wasn't trying to do that just supplying the answer - hadn't noticed it was already supplied.

I'm not on either side, but I did direct folks to the main site for the faceoff we have on the subject. I think that's helpful.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

we have a face-off on the main site re: Burleson v. Engram for the WR2 spot.

I took the Burleson side and my opponent took the Engram side. Lots of good arguments there.

Link ??My personal feeling is around;

DJax 90 1150 10

Nate 65 850 8

Engram 45 500 2

Stevens 45 450 6

Most of Engrams looks will come between the 20's on 2nd or 3rd and more than 5. He will have a very large percentage of 1st downs/target. Stevens will steal his TD's when they get in the red zone (more crowded field) with his size. With Djax on 1 side and Engram/Stevens coming up/across the middle as well as the S.A. threat, Burleson should never see more than single coverage from the weakest opposing DB.

My worry (as a 'Hawks fan) is what do you do if D.Jax. is hurt. Do you put Nate and Hackett on the outsides and keep Engram in the slot, or do you move Engram into D.Jax's role and put Hackett in the slot. I think you keep Engram in the slot and chuck it to whichever is open. There will still only be 3 covering 2 on the outside and nobody will ever double both outside WR against the 'Hawks. I don't believe that either Burleson or Hackett can operate from the slot like Engram can. He's just too valuable in there

 

[Marc Levin]

my bad - 'hawks #2 WR faceoff is NOT posted yet. It will be shortly. Here's just a little teaser of my argument:

Burleson has excellent speed (he returned punts for the Vikings) and good size (6'0"). He is more ideally suited to the outside receiver spot across from Darrell Jackson. Engram is ideally suited to the slot. Moreover, reports from mini-camp show that QB Matt Hasselbeck has been clicking with Burleson and the Seattle defenders have had trouble covering him.

 

[Marc Levin]

That said:

http://footballguys.com/06spotlight-BurlNa00.php

no spotlight yet on Engram (not sure if we have one planned or not)

 

[Chasers Dawg]

my bad - 'hawks #2 WR faceoff is NOT posted yet. It will be shortly. Here's just a little teaser of my argument:

Burleson has excellent speed (he returned punts for the Vikings) and good size (6'0"). He is more ideally suited to the outside receiver spot across from Darrell Jackson. Engram is ideally suited to the slot. Moreover, reports from mini-camp show that QB Matt Hasselbeck has been clicking with Burleson and the Seattle defenders have had trouble covering him.

LOL, Sounds like you are very much of the same opinion as me

 

[Kleck]

my bad - 'hawks #2 WR faceoff is NOT posted yet. It will be shortly. Here's just a little teaser of my argument:

I couldn't find it either. Not sure if its obvious, but I wrote the Engram portion.

 

[VICK-tory]

Burleson is way undervalued. i agree that Engram is stubborn, probably won't lay down and die like expected. But the Real question is Darrel Jacksaon not Engram. I got this at draftsharks last month

3. Darrell Jackson: Our trusted source in Seattle, the one who tipped us off early on Nate Burleson going west (when we scooped ESPN), had this to say last week. "D-Jack had the arthroscopic procedure [Oct 11] to clean up some torn cartilage and meniscus in his knee," he said. "Then something else popped up and they cleaned out the knee again [Mar 25]. They are being very careful with him. He's out until August." You gotta wonder about Jackson's conditioning, timing, and overall injury risk in 2006. The herd isn't paying attention because Jackson's ADP is often up in the late 3rd/early 4th rounds. Right now that's a foolish price to pay, considering how many other comparable healthy WRs are out there.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

my bad - 'hawks #2 WR faceoff is NOT posted yet.  It will be shortly.  Here's just a little teaser of my argument:

I couldn't find it either. Not sure if its obvious, but I wrote the Engram portion.

I just modified my profile to show location. I'll meet ya for a beer some time

 

[Kleck]

my bad - 'hawks #2 WR faceoff is NOT posted yet.  It will be shortly.  Here's just a little teaser of my argument:

I couldn't find it either. Not sure if its obvious, but I wrote the Engram portion.

I just modified my profile to show location. I'll meet ya for a beer some time

There's been talk of a live draft in Seattle amongst some FBG members. I think proninja is the guy to contact if you're interested.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

My consern as well

Burleson is way undervalued. i agree that Engram is stubborn, probably won't lay down and die like expected. But the Real question is Darrel Jacksaon not Engram. I got this at draftsharks last month

3. Darrell Jackson: Our trusted source in Seattle, the one who tipped us off early on Nate Burleson going west (when we scooped ESPN), had this to say last week. "D-Jack had the arthroscopic procedure [Oct 11] to clean up some torn cartilage and meniscus in his knee," he said. "Then something else popped up and they cleaned out the knee again [Mar 25]. They are being very careful with him. He's out until August." You gotta wonder about Jackson's conditioning, timing, and overall injury risk in 2006. The herd isn't paying attention because Jackson's ADP is often up in the late 3rd/early 4th rounds. Right now that's a foolish price to pay, considering how many other comparable healthy WRs are out there.

My worry (as a 'Hawks fan) is what do you do if D.Jax. is hurt. Do you put Nate and Hackett on the outsides and keep Engram in the slot, or do you move Engram into D.Jax's role and put Hackett in the slot. I think you keep Engram in the slot and chuck it to whichever is open. There will still only be 3 covering 2 on the outside and nobody will ever double both outside WR against the 'Hawks. I don't believe that either Burleson or Hackett can operate from the slot like Engram can. He's just too valuable in there

 

[Marc Levin]

my bad - 'hawks #2 WR faceoff is NOT posted yet.  It will be shortly.  Here's just a little teaser of my argument:

I couldn't find it either. Not sure if its obvious, but I wrote the Engram portion.

Carlton was on a short vacation, I expect it'll be up early this week since he has both sides of the argument in his hands.

 

[Marc Levin]

My consern as well

Burleson is way undervalued. i agree that Engram is stubborn, probably won't lay down and die like expected.  But the Real question is Darrel Jacksaon not Engram.  I got this at draftsharks last month

3. Darrell Jackson: Our trusted source in Seattle, the one who tipped us off early on Nate Burleson going west (when we scooped ESPN), had this to say last week. "D-Jack had the arthroscopic procedure [Oct 11] to clean up some torn cartilage and meniscus in his knee," he said. "Then something else popped up and they cleaned out the knee again [Mar 25]. They are being very careful with him. He's out until August." You gotta wonder about Jackson's conditioning, timing, and overall injury risk in 2006. The herd isn't paying attention because Jackson's ADP is often up in the late 3rd/early 4th rounds. Right now that's a foolish price to pay, considering how many other comparable healthy WRs are out there.

My worry (as a 'Hawks fan) is what do you do if D.Jax. is hurt. Do you put Nate and Hackett on the outsides and keep Engram in the slot, or do you move Engram into D.Jax's role and put Hackett in the slot. I think you keep Engram in the slot and chuck it to whichever is open. There will still only be 3 covering 2 on the outside and nobody will ever double both outside WR against the 'Hawks. I don't believe that either Burleson or Hackett can operate from the slot like Engram can. He's just too valuable in there

however it works, if DJax is hurt, all three of Burleson, Engram and Hackett become big FF players.

 

[Kleck]

More fuel for the fire...

I think folks are really missing the boat on TE Jerramy Stevens. I wrote my faceoff piece on this today. I can't fathom why folks are so down on Stevens. He was the #10 ranked tight end finishing with a solid run down the stretch including the playoffs. He is currently ranked #14 on average by the staff. I just don't get that. I think Stevens is primed to have a big season. Yes, he had his knee cleaned up, but he is on schedule to be ready for the start of the season.

 

[Weiner Dog]

More fuel for the fire...

I think folks are really missing the boat on TE Jerramy Stevens. I wrote my faceoff piece on this today. I can't fathom why folks are so down on Stevens. He was the #10 ranked tight end finishing with a solid run down the stretch including the playoffs. He is currently ranked #14 on average by the staff. I just don't get that. I think Stevens is primed to have a big season. Yes, he had his knee cleaned up, but he is on schedule to be ready for the start of the season.

I agree Stevens is going 4-6 picks later than he should, but it's difficult to gauge the negative impact the playoffs could have had on his confidence going forward. I guess we'll know in 2-5 months.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

More fuel for the fire...

I think folks are really missing the boat on TE Jerramy Stevens. I wrote my faceoff piece on this today. I can't fathom why folks are so down on Stevens. He was the #10 ranked tight end finishing with a solid run down the stretch including the playoffs. He is currently ranked #14 on average by the staff. I just don't get that. I think Stevens is primed to have a big season. Yes, he had his knee cleaned up, but he is on schedule to be ready for the start of the season.

Please explain, I have the Slot WR and TE combining for 90 rec, 950yds, and 8 Tds. If DJax is out and Hackett in I would give Engram, Stevens, and Burleson another 10 rec, 100 yds, and 1 TD each. Hackett would about = or be a little less than Engram and Stevens. With S.A. there Hasselbeck is only going to throw so many times and the 'Hawks like to spread it aroundeta: I also think that putting Hackett in the slot will lower everyones #s. Less 1st downs = less chances for all

 

[Slider]

Quit overthinking it. He's a great talent going to a WCO with a good to great WCO QB. Think Javon, TO, Rice, Driver, Galloway, Rod Smith, and all the rest. He'll outperform the ranking.

 

[Kleck]

More fuel for the fire...

I think folks are really missing the boat on TE Jerramy Stevens. I wrote my faceoff piece on this today. I can't fathom why folks are so down on Stevens. He was the #10 ranked tight end finishing with a solid run down the stretch including the playoffs. He is currently ranked #14 on average by the staff. I just don't get that. I think Stevens is primed to have a big season. Yes, he had his knee cleaned up, but he is on schedule to be ready for the start of the season.

Please explain, I have the Slot WR and TE combining for 90 rec, 950yds, and 8 Tds. If DJax is out and Hackett in I would give Engram, Stevens, and Burleson another 10 rec, 100 yds, and 1 TD each. Hackett would about = or be a little less than Engram and Stevens. With S.A. there Hasselbeck is only going to throw so many times and the 'Hawks like to spread it aroundeta: I also think that putting Hackett in the slot will lower everyones #s. Less 1st downs = less chances for all

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I think Stevens will see an increase in targets cutting into WR targets in general. I wasn't referring to a situation where Jackson was hurt, just trying to give another reason why I believe Burleson might disappoint.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

More fuel for the fire...

I think folks are really missing the boat on TE Jerramy Stevens. I wrote my faceoff piece on this today. I can't fathom why folks are so down on Stevens. He was the #10 ranked tight end finishing with a solid run down the stretch including the playoffs. He is currently ranked #14 on average by the staff. I just don't get that. I think Stevens is primed to have a big season. Yes, he had his knee cleaned up, but he is on schedule to be ready for the start of the season.

Please explain, I have the Slot WR and TE combining for 90 rec, 950yds, and 8 Tds. If DJax is out and Hackett in I would give Engram, Stevens, and Burleson another 10 rec, 100 yds, and 1 TD each. Hackett would about = or be a little less than Engram and Stevens. With S.A. there Hasselbeck is only going to throw so many times and the 'Hawks like to spread it aroundeta: I also think that putting Hackett in the slot will lower everyones #s. Less 1st downs = less chances for all

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I think Stevens will see an increase in targets cutting into WR targets in general. I wasn't referring to a situation where Jackson was hurt, just trying to give another reason why I believe Burleson might disappoint.

K, now I really don't know where you are coming from. If Stevens is going to be cutting into the WR touches, it would be the slot guy that loses them. Not the guys on the outside. With all the attention that the inside is going to draw from opposing D's (S.A., Stevens, and Engram), why would they throw less outside? That could be used as an arguement for putting Hackett in the slot and Engram outside though if DJax was hurt. Stevens would pick up the slack there

 

[Kleck]

now I really don't know where you are coming from.

I believe all the Seattle pass catchers (other than Jackson) will see a fairly balanced share of targets. What does this mean? To me it means that the player you can nab latest in your draft (Engram) has the most value.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

I compared a another sites on the same question.

**snip**

Edit: I deleted the link. Mike tries hard to keep his board over at FFToday professional, but he lacks the manpower to moderate his board to the same level we can. There are informed an intelligent posters on both boards. Its understandable that its easier to sort through the crud on this board, but only because there's less of it due to the extra moderators. There's a give and take to having the extra moderation. We also get called nazis quite frequently. To each their own.

In short, board wars get ugly. We don't want to go there. Hope you understand what I mean by that. Regardless, we're glad you enjoy what our board have to offer.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

I don't know exact yearly figures. But it was more than #3 WR money. Over 5 Million Guaranteed AND a 3 rd round pick ...49 M over 7 years if completed.5 Million+ and 3 rd round pick gone. They'll expect/want #2 production (around 50 ypg type of production fairly soon). Engram is 33 years old and while he has advantage of chemistry with Hassel already he is not a really good #2....He is a great #3. Burleson has potential to be a really good #2 and is still young enough to project upside with a quality QB like Hasselbeck when they develope some timing together.

Those projecting about 30 yards per game from a guy who cost the Seahawks a 3rd round pick plus well over 5 million in guarantees sure seem like they are experiencing backlash from 2005 still.

didn't they also only go after Burelson as an RFA to piss in the face of Minnesota after Minnesota played that cute contract trick to steal Hutchinson?

 

[Chasers Dawg]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

I don't know exact yearly figures. But it was more than #3 WR money. Over 5 Million Guaranteed AND a 3 rd round pick ...49 M over 7 years if completed.5 Million+ and 3 rd round pick gone. They'll expect/want #2 production (around 50 ypg type of production fairly soon). Engram is 33 years old and while he has advantage of chemistry with Hassel already he is not a really good #2....He is a great #3. Burleson has potential to be a really good #2 and is still young enough to project upside with a quality QB like Hasselbeck when they develope some timing together.

Those projecting about 30 yards per game from a guy who cost the Seahawks a 3rd round pick plus well over 5 million in guarantees sure seem like they are experiencing backlash from 2005 still.

didn't they also only go after Burelson as an RFA to piss in the face of Minnesota after Minnesota played that cute contract trick to steal Hutchinson?

I also think that may have had a wee bit too do with it. But what does that have to do mwith his value ??

 

[Kleck]

didn't they also only go after Burelson as an RFA to piss in the face of Minnesota after Minnesota played that cute contract trick to steal Hutchinson?

I won't disagree that the contract structure was focused on this, but I believe they were serious about Burleson well before the Hutchinson hi-jinks began.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

IIRC Burleson also grew up a couple houses away from Holmgren. The 49 million,Hometown,Growing up same neighborhood...it's all nice little side bars..but you don't trade a 3rd rounder and guarantee over 5 million with 14 million over first 4 years unless the team believed he has the talent neccessary to be a good #2 in Seattle. imo Hassel is a better passer than Pepper so he isn't downgraded at all from a stand point of quality of passes he'll be trying to grab. Under 500 yards is only going to happen if he gets injured for a month.

 

[Kleck]

... and guarantee over 5 million with 14 million over first 4 years ...

I think you're twisting things here. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the contract takes a big step in year four (which isn't guaranteed). This could easily be restated as approximately 5.25 million over the first 3 years. Again, I've seen the numbers for each year, but I don't remember the specifics. I looked around today and couldn't find it.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

... and guarantee over 5 million with 14 million over first 4 years ...

I think you're twisting things here. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the contract takes a big step in year four (which isn't guaranteed). This could easily be restated as approximately 5.25 million over the first 3 years. Again, I've seen the numbers for each year, but I don't remember the specifics. I looked around today and couldn't find it.

From Minnesota Star Tribune- "The Vikings were offering a four-year contract worth a little more than $14 million, according to people with knowledge of the situation. It included a little more than $5 million in guaranteed money, and seemingly would have locked the Vikings into a three-receiver set of Burleson, Koren Robinson and Troy Williamson for years to come.Burleson also was discussing terms with the Seahawks, however, and on Friday morning he was set to sign a four-year, $14.5 million offer sheet with $5.25 million in guaranteed money. In essence, the real money in Burleson's contract is almost identical to the numbers he was discussing with the Vikings.

Rather than go through the week-long process, the Seahawks offered instead to trade their third-round draft pick for Burleson.

The Vikings, who already would have received the third-rounder in compensation for Burleson if they declined to match, asked for the Seahawks' second-round pick. Seattle responded by adding three voidable years to the offer sheet, worth a total of about $35 million, as well as the poison pills."

"

OK, so Seahawks and Vikings both Valued him at 4 years approx 14 million. Seattle willing to go a bit higher AND include a 3rd rounder. Vikings refused so Seattle madecontract poison pill but still it's basically what they offered Minnesota unless they don't renegotiate before the 5th season.

 

[Kleck]

OK, so Seahawks and Vikings both Valued him at 4 years approx 14 million.

No, I disagree. I don't think either team did. NFL contracts almost never see their full term. Teams back load tremendous amounts of money in the last years of a contract. Players sign these deals knowing they won't see those dollars in the final year. They're either cut or re-negotiate. It's very standard practice. NFL players get their money up front in the signing bonus. There's various interpretations for why things are done this way, but that's the system in place.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

I really doubt Seattle paid him to put up #3 WR numbers.

Exactly what did Seattle pay him? Are you under the impression that he received top free agent money?

7 years 49 million dollars - big money.

Meh. The Seahawks were still mad at the Vikings over the Steve Hutchinson dustup, which is one of the reasons they went hard after Burleson. To make their point, they signed Burleson to an identical contract [7 years 49 mil] to the one the Vikes signed Hutchinson to. It's understood by all that Burleson will never see anywhere near 49M.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

So you're claiming he's only getting the 5.25 million and minimum salaries for first three years? It would still be well over 5 million AND I doubt it's that back loaded in year 4. He's a young WR who has shown skills (when not injured). I believe Seahawks and Vikings both projected him to be productive for 4 seasons and made their offers. Seahawks had to add huge numbers in years 5,6,7 to poison pill it to keep their 2nd rounder in the draft. Sure looks like both Teams think he's worth over 3 million a year and teams don't like to overpay #3 WR who they think are 30 ypg guys like that . Seahawks and Vikings obviously think more of him than what he did in 2005... fantasy football projectors should realize his situation in 2005 and reevaluate what he should do in a Holmgren offense vs the mess he saw in Minny while hurt last season. When he had a competent OC in Minny he produced fine as a number 2. Heck he had 455 yards as a Rookie just learning the game. 1000 the next year. Then gimpy but not seriously injured to where it will linger. Some People are projecting big numbers out of Javon who didn't develope near as quickly had one big year and is like 3 years older coming off a serious injury. btw Walker only got like 1 million in Gaurantees....THAT'S A BACK LOADED DEAL.

 

[Texasmouth]

Burleson is over rated. He wasnt that great in Minny to begin with.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Burleson is over rated. He wasnt that great in Minny to begin with.

Since 1987, only 13 players have had 1000 yards receiving at age 23 or earlier. Burleson was one of those guys. For what it's worth, so were Koren Robinson and Darrel Jackson.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

Burleson is over rated. He wasnt that great in Minny to begin with.

Since 1987, only 13 players have had 1000 yards receiving at age 23 or earlier. Burleson was one of those guys. For what it's worth, so were Koren Robinson and Darrel Jackson.

Wow, Looks like Seattle nows how to pick-em

 

[Marc Levin]

Burleson's K:

2006 1250000.00 2007 2750000.00 2008 3250000.00 2009 3250000.00 2010 10500000.00 2011 12000000.00 2012 12000000.00

I didn't look above, but he must have also received a 4 mill. signing bonus based on the math above - the last three years are voidable, so I guess he's guaranteed his money through 2009?