Nate Burleson ? (1 Viewer)

[Kleck]

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?

Thanks for finding this. All that I've read consistently shows 5.25 million guaranteed. That indicates that they can void the contract after the first year if they choose, but that would be sort of silly. Contract takes the big jump after year four, not three like I wondered above.

 

[imeimex]

The more I look at this situation, the more I like Burleson. I will admit that I fell for his hype last year, although I did not own him on any team. The more I look at Burleson and Jackson I see a clone of sorts. Holmgren and Hasselbeck have consistently put up big numbers in the passing games despite the WR corps having a huge amount of drops. I used to kind of doubt Jackson's talent as I saw far too many drops, especially in the endzone. Burleson is of the same makeup, size and speed as Jackson and has a simlar career after 3 years. The word out of camp that Jackson will be held out of practices is not reassuring seeing as how he is over 6 months past his surgery.

There are several cases where fantasy gamers are a year too early on players. I think Burleson is a prime canidate for this, as I think the system will naturally make a couple receivers close to 1,000 yard receivers.

 

[Tau837]

Posted this in the Darrell Jackson Spotlight:

...as to spreading the ball around, it seems to me that Jackson will be the clear WR1, and I assume Burleson will end up WR2 and Engram WR3 [EDIT: meant to have these two reversed, as shown below in the projections]. Do you really think Hackett and Warrick will be a factor if the top 3 guys are healthy? Jackson missed 10 games last season, yet those two only combined for 39/580/2 receiving. Warrick and Hackett each had 1 catch in the 6 games in which Jackson played. Yes, one catch. IMO they are irrelevant to Jackson's prospects.If spreading the ball around is an issue, IMO you should focus on Jackson, Burleson, Engram, and Stevens as the main receiving threats. Engram & Jurevicius combined for 46/599/3 in Jackson's 6 games, compared to Jackson's own 38/382/3.Now, Hasselbeck only attempted 449 passes last season, and the Seahawks as a team were 23rd in the league. But they had the #2 offense thanks to the running game. As someone already pointed out, the loss of Hutchinson will likely have an appreciable impact on the running game, which would logically lead to an increase in passing attempts. In 2004, with generally the same offensive cast as last year, the Seahawks attempted 59 more passes and were 14th in pass attempts. I'd look for a similar number this year, say around 530 attempts.Over the past 4 years, Hasselbeck has completed 62.2% of his passes for 7.42 ypa. Last year, he completed 65.5% for 7.7 ypa. I'd look for a slight regression, to 64% at 7.5 ypa. That yields 339 completions for 3975 yards. In the past 3 years, Hasselbeck has averaged 1.57 TDs per game, which is 25 per 16 games.So... spread 339 completions, 3975 yards, and 25 TDs among the receivers and what do you get?Assuming all players play 16 games:Stevens - 45/550/5 - same as last yearOther TEs - 15/110/1 - very slight uptickRBs - 50/350/1 - very slight uptickJackson - 90/1200/10Engram - 65/781/3 - very similar to last yearBurleson - 50/660/4 - almost splitting the difference of last 2 seasons in MinnyHackett - 16/224/1 - probably too much given my assumption of 16 games for allWarrick - 8/100/0 - probably too much given my assumption of 16 games for allSo. There is my strawman. Assuming health for all, what problems do you see with it? I don't see how Jackson doesn't dominate if he plays 16 games, so that is really the only question in my mind. And prior to last season, he had played in 79 of 82 possible games in his career, including 40 straight games. So he has a knee problem. Even if you predict injury, do you think he misses a couple games or 10 games? If the former, he's still worth a high draft pick. It is only if you predict him to miss major time again, like last year, that he isn't. And I don't see what basis anyone has for projecting that.

Now, that was focused on Jackson, but it can be used to examine the numbers for others like Burleson, Engram, and Stevens.I agree with Shick that Engram will see more targets than Burleson and Stevens will have another good year.Keep in mind that Burleson busted hard last season. Sure, the Vikings busted as a team, but 6 players on the team had more receiving yards than he did, including every WR who caught a pass. Meanwhile, Hasselbeck is already very comfortable with Jackson, Engram, and Stevens.Burleson is rated correctly in the projections that were questioned in this thread IMO. Many on this board who question that are overrating him severely.One more thing. Someone pointed out that the Vikes let him go easily, then someone countered that by saying the contract offer was too much to match. But the Vikes chose to tender him at a 3rd rounder before the poison pill contract. If he is as good a young WR as many of his backers here say, the Vikes must have known he would draw interest at that tender level. I think that speaks somewhat to how they viewed him.

 

[Kleck]

I agree with Shick that Engram will see more targets than Burleson and Stevens will have another good year.

ointsToJustWinBaby:I've put lots of thought into this. I'm currently at the point where I think its a coin flip in trying to figure out who gets more targets between Engram and Burleson.

 

[PahtyTom]

The fact that the Seahawks dished out that type of cash to Burleson tells me 2 things. 1.) They believe that he'll fit nicely in their system 2.) That they think he can also take over for DJax if he goes down with another injury. Personally, I think Burleson is in the perfect offense for him and expect a career year whether as the #2 or the #1 if DJax is hurt again.