PDA

View Full Version : Seahawks sign Nate Burleson



TXFinFan
03-24-2006, 06:31 PM
Seahawks | Burleson signs offer sheet

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:15:34 -0800

Mike Sando (http://www.kffl.com/link/21), of the Tacoma News Tribune (http://www.kffl.com/link/37), reports the Seattle Seahawks (http://www.kffl.com/team/33/nfl) have signed restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson (http://www.kffl.com/player/6257/nfl) (Vikngs) to an offer sheet. The Minnesota Vikings (http://www.kffl.com/team/23/nfl) have seven days to match the offer. If they do not, the Vikings (http://www.kffl.com/team/23/nfl) would receive Seattle's third-round pick in the 2006 NFL Draft (http://www.kffl.com/link/159).

Majpain
03-24-2006, 06:46 PM
That will be a big loss for Minny.

Montella
03-24-2006, 07:15 PM
damn, why shouln't we sign him to an offer sheet, a 3rd round pick for this talented guy is really good and he got his best year with culpepper...

shane13
03-24-2006, 07:52 PM
Seahawks | Burleson offer sheet details
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:35:55 -0800

Updating a previous report, Mike Sando, of the Tacoma News Tribune, reports the Seattle Seahawks' offer sheet to Minnesota Vikings WR Nate Burleson is a seven-year, $49 million deal with $5.25 million guaranteed. The deal also includes two poison pills guaranteeing the entire $49 million if he plays a certain number of games in the state of Minnesota, or if his average-per-year exceeds the average of the highest-paid running back on the team. The pills are in direct retribution for the contract the Vikings used to sign former Seahawks OLG Steve Hutchinson.

Caps
03-24-2006, 08:07 PM
damn, why shouln't we sign him to an offer sheet, a 3rd round pick for this talented guy is really good and he got his best year with culpepper...
Do you really want to go into the draft with only a 1st, 4th, and three 7th's? AND pay Nate 7+ mil. a year?

Pennington's Rocket Arm
03-24-2006, 08:42 PM
:lol: what a nice comeback by the seahawks. awesome move.

bwallen
03-24-2006, 09:44 PM
Seeking another playmaker for their already potent offense, and looking for a little payback as well, the Seattle Seahawks (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=sea) on Friday evening signed Minnesota Vikings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=min) wide receiver Nate Burleson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6407) to a restricted free agent offer sheet worth $49 million over seven years.

Entire articles are not allowed. and on top of that Wrong forum

Bjorn
03-24-2006, 09:47 PM
I would never give him that big of a contract. I just don't think he is a legitimate #1 reciever. I would classify him as a great #2 but not worthy of that kind of money. JMO

Dolfan2788
03-24-2006, 09:49 PM
Oh my lord, I think Seattle went a little bit overboard with that signing. Why didn't they just resign Hutchinson? I would definitely rather have overpayed Hutchinson than to just go crazy on Burleson.

IowaDolfan
03-24-2006, 09:49 PM
Mr. Bwallen, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out post.

phinMikeDC
03-24-2006, 09:50 PM
wow....seattle and minnesota just won't play nice!

branflakecereal
03-24-2006, 09:51 PM
Seeking another playmaker for their already potent offense, and looking for a little payback as well, the Seattle Seahawks (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=sea) on Friday evening signed Minnesota Vikings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=min) wide receiver Nate Burleson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6407) to a restricted free agent offer sheet worth $49 million over seven years.

Nate Burleson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6407)http://espn.go.com/i/nfl/profiles/players/statsid/s6407.jpgWide Receiver
Minnesota Vikings

Profile (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6407)2005 SEASON STATISTICSRecYdsTDAvgLongYAC30328110.92059
Do those contract terms sound a little familiar? They should. The Vikings earlier this week spirited three-time Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5464), designated by Seattle as a transition free agent, away from the Seahawks with a seven-year, $49 million deal. Seattle declined to match the offer, and Hutchinson moved on to the Vikings, after the Seahawks lost an arbitration case in which they challenged some so-called "poison pill" provisions of the offer sheet.

There have been rumors for about a week that Burleson, who recently visited with Seahawks officials, might sign a Seattle offer sheet. But the added element of revenge -- and there is little doubt the similarity to the Hutchinson contract was more than coincidental -- certainly provides a delicious twist.

It should be interesting to see how top officials from the two franchises interact when the annual league meetings convene in Orlando, Fla., on Monday morning. The weather in Orlando for next week already is forecast as cool, and the relationship between the Vikings and Seahawks is a bit chillier after Friday.

The offer sheet that Burleson signed on Friday with the Seahawks features not only the same number of years and the same amount of total payout as the Hutchinson contract, but also includes two "poison pills" that will make it virtually impossible for the Vikings to match.

Minnesota has seven days to match the offer sheet, keep Burleson, and essentially inherit the terms of the contract negotiated by the Seahawks with the three-year veteran wide receiver. If the Vikings decline to match, they will receive Seattle's third-round choice in this year's draft as compensation. The Vikings retained a right of first refusal on Burleson by making him a restricted free agent qualifying offer of $712,000 earlier this month.

To match the deal, though, the Vikings will have to swallow hard. Beyond the size of the total payout and a total of $5.25 million in guarantees, are two devious provisions.

The first would guarantee the entire contract, all $49 million, if Burleson plays five or more games in the state of Minnesota in any season of the contract. The Vikings, of course, play home games in Minneapolis, at the Metrodome there. The second bizarre provision would guarantee the full contract if Burleson is paid more on average per year than all of the Minnesota running backs combined. At least for now, the averages of the Vikings' tailbacks fall well shy of the $7 million average of the Burleson offer sheet.

It should be recalled that, when the Vikings signed Hutchinson to his offer sheet, they wrote into the deal a provision that guaranteed the full contract if the star guard was not the highest paid lineman on the team. The Vikings knew that Seattle could not match the offer, since Pro Bowl left tackle Walter Jones (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3949) has a contract that averages more than Hutchinson's deal.

Before deciding whether to match the offer sheet, Minnesota officials may challenge the "poison pill" provisions, as did the Seahawks with Hutchinson's contract. Minnesota likely could have avoided the raid on Burleson had the Vikings, who possessed more than enough salary cap space, made him a higher qualifying offer, one that carried a loftier price tag in terms of compensatory picks.

By choosing to tender Burleson's lowest-level qualifying offer, the Vikings made him as easy target for teams to poach, given that it would cost them just a third-round draft choice as compensation. At that price, Burleson was one of the real steals of the restricted free agent talent pool, and Seattle, appropriately, attempted to pilfer the talented wideout.

In three seasons, Burleson has 127 receptions for 1,789 yards and 12 touchdowns. The former Nevada star, a third-round pick in the 2003 draft, has appeared in 47 games and started 33 of them. He had a seeming breakout year in 2004, when he posted 68 catches for 1,006 yards and nine touchdowns, but his numbers dropped off in 2005, when injuries limited Burleson to nine starts.

Around the NFL, however, Burleson, just 24, is regarded as an ascending talent, a wide receiver capable of 70 or more catches annually and of consistent 1,000-yard seasons.

Were the Seahawks to secure Burleson, who played at O'Dea High School in Seattle, he probably would join Darrell Jackson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5109) in the starting lineup. That would allow veteran Bobby Engram (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3512), a starter in 2005, to return to his more natural role as the No. 3 receiver working out of the slot

Waste of money, but absolutely hilarious. Warms my heart to see Childress losing a weapon.

Pennington's Rocket Arm
03-24-2006, 09:51 PM
great move by seattle.

phinphan11
03-24-2006, 09:52 PM
Damn... where are the Seahawks getting all of that money from.... they remind me of the Redskins.

VanDolPhan
03-24-2006, 09:54 PM
Minnesota's making out like bandits. Steve Hutchinson and a 3rd round draft pick for Burleson? Christ.

Minnesota is going to be players in the draft. An extra 2nd/3rd rounder. Wonder what other draft picks they have.

indifin
03-24-2006, 09:55 PM
I agree good number two guy but to much money to pay.

Minnphin
03-24-2006, 10:00 PM
:sidelol: Absolutely hilarious...but that deal is way to big for him. He was succesful when he had another receiver who was getting double and triple teamed. He's a very good slot receiver, but that's still way too much money.

SCall13
03-24-2006, 10:01 PM
Ridiculous amount of money. Seattle is starting to spend like Washington

dlockz
03-24-2006, 10:09 PM
nate is nice but that is better money than chambers. I think Booker is as good as Nate.

bullseyeguy
03-24-2006, 10:11 PM
While it may be "funny", it is setting a dangerous precedent for the future signings around the league...I also think it is rather immature for an NFL team to resort to these sort of tactics..

Ohio Fanatic
03-24-2006, 10:17 PM
well, in couple years, Seattle will suck when they are in salary cap purgatory

on the other hand, I'd take it to win a SB

Nate is overrated, he's no better than Marty Booker IMO.

motioncityhifi
03-24-2006, 10:25 PM
wow thats alot of money for burelson. its not really all that good of a revenge against minnesota. hutchinson and a 3rd for burelson. minny definitely got the better of that deal.

Finfang
03-24-2006, 10:31 PM
Oh my lord, I think Seattle went a little bit overboard with that signing. Why didn't they just resign Hutchinson? I would definitely rather have overpayed Hutchinson than to just go crazy on Burleson.

If you think about, Seattle not signing Hutchison allowed them to fill a need at WR with Burleson and sign Julian Peterson who is an outstanding defensive player.

vanquenton
03-24-2006, 10:34 PM
According to PFT, the real amount Burleson will by paid without meeting those ridiculous incentives (like he has to play at least five games in Minnesota in one season).


A league source tells us that, from the Seahawks' perspective, the contract is a four-year, $14 million proposition, with $5.25 million in guaranteed money.



But, if the Vikings match the offer, it's the same total payout that the Seahawks would have been forced to swallow if they'd matched the offer that the Vikings made to Hutchinson.

Finfang
03-24-2006, 10:36 PM
But 7 years 49 million.

That is downright ridiculous!

T Smiles
03-24-2006, 10:37 PM
they went crazy because this might be there first reciever who has hands

FrankP
03-24-2006, 10:38 PM
Oh my lord, I think Seattle went a little bit overboard with that signing. Why didn't they just resign Hutchinson? I would definitely rather have overpayed Hutchinson than to just go crazy on Burleson.

BIG TIME overpayed...

I don't know if it's because of all that cap space created by the new CBA agreement, but we saw alot of overpayed players this offseason... looked like 1996 all over again... I'm glad Nick Saban stayed the course...

bullseyeguy
03-24-2006, 10:45 PM
They didnt really pay that much. It looks like alot, but in the ned it will be an average contract....Lately it seems as though guys are getting signed to deals that appear to be huge, but when you really break them down they arent all that good...

miadfins
03-24-2006, 10:46 PM
According to PFT, the real amount Burleson will by paid without meeting those ridiculous incentives (like he has to play at least five games in Minnesota in one season).


A league source tells us that, from the Seahawks' perspective, the contract is a four-year, $14 million proposition, with $5.25 million in guaranteed money.


But, if the Vikings match the offer, it's the same total payout that the Seahawks would have been forced to swallow if they'd matched the offer that the Vikings made to Hutchinson.

agree, it seems like he never going to see most of that money like most of the redskins signings

MNFINFAN
03-24-2006, 10:50 PM
BIG TIME overpayed...

I don't know if it's because of all that cap space created by the new CBA agreement, but we saw alot of overpayed players this offseason... looked like 1996 all over again... I'm glad Nick Saban stayed the course...
Not really, it sounds big but cap wise it isn't for the 'Hawks, basically a 4 year around 14 million and 5.25M bonus and he is worth that. 2004 he made some awesome grabs and was our stud, had a down year last year but was injured and with the whole DC thing couldn't get in a groove woth Johnson. Seattle got a good one there and one I wish we could have gotten.

MNFINFAN
03-24-2006, 10:51 PM
Obviously the Hawks didn't really care if they lost Hutchinson as they only tagged him with a transition tag, making him easier to get. If they had wanted him he would have been the franchise and we wouldn't be talking about this.

Vertical Limit
03-24-2006, 10:55 PM
I just don't understand, why would they pick up Nate Burleson? They have 2 great solid receivers from Darrell Jackson (D. Jackson is very underrated and is one of my favorite receivers in the league), and Bobby Engram who had a great 2005 season.

Just check out Darrell Jackson's numbers:
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187568

Sure he missed alot of games last season due to injury, but he was great in the postseason.

Bobby Engram:
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1205

DolfanDaveInATX
03-24-2006, 11:00 PM
It matters not whether it's $49 million over seven years or $14 million over four...either amount is way too much for 328 yards and one TD last season. Holmgren's hubris is getting the better of him.

bwallen
03-24-2006, 11:27 PM
Seeking another playmaker for their already potent offense, and looking for a little payback as well, the Seattle Seahawks (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=sea) on Friday evening signed Minnesota Vikings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=min) wide receiver Nate Burleson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6407) to a restricted free agent offer sheet worth $49 million over seven years.

Entire articles are not allowed. and on top of that Wrong forumjust cry so more:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:mindwarp is a crybaby he gave a warning please dont tell on me crybaby..no it mindcarp

Now I'm giving you another warning. Personal attack on a staff member. njfinfan

bwallen
03-24-2006, 11:30 PM
removed

bullseyeguy
03-24-2006, 11:53 PM
Wow, you are so mature...Go away!

MillerTime
03-25-2006, 12:44 AM
how can anyone think this was a good move by seattle, he was waaaaaayyy overpayed

Majpain
03-25-2006, 02:00 AM
I find it funny.

Seahawk organzation-So minny wants to play hardball eh?Get me Nate Burlson on the line.

Nate Burlson-hello?

Seahawks-we are ready to offer you a 17 mil a year contract!

Nate-Deal!

Seahawks-Eat that Vikings thats for taking hutch!

Dolphin1184
03-25-2006, 08:26 PM
Boy the Vikings are nothing like they were few years back now. They are losing all of their players.

burger13
03-26-2006, 01:57 PM
5 games a year in the state of Minnesota!! Brilliant!! :lol:

I knew that when they judged in favor of Seattle that they were setting a dangerous precedant......but I had know idea how fun it would be to watch it play out and that Seattle would turn it right around on Minnesota.

Not only did they throw in that 'poison pill' but they made it overinflated to the same exact number that Hutchinson's deal was for.....comic genious!!!

In the end though, Minnesota didn't get screwed nearly as much as Seattle did, as Seattle got no compensation for a player that they did not want to lose (a lesson to all teams to use the Franchise tag from now on)......while Minny got a 3rd rounder for a player that they seemed prepared to lose for that compensation (or they could have upped the tender to a first rounder for little add'l money).

In the end there were 2 winners and 1 loser.......the big losers being Seattle, who got Nate Burelson for a 3rd rounder, not really a bargain...and lost one of their best players.

The winners are Minnesota (obviously) and the NFL fans (besides Seahawk fans) who got a nice laugh out of all this!! :lol:

Oh, and PFT also hinted that Seattle could get screwed by the 'poison pill' one more time if someone is so inclined to go after RFA kicker Josh Brown.

Atila
03-27-2006, 02:47 AM
lot of stupid posts: anyone read that the gaurenteed money was only $5mil? stop saying hes overpaid.

burger13, what makes you so sure that the seahawks wanted hutch? they could NOT afford him after the offer they gave w. jones, that is why they didnt franchise him.

however, they ended up getting a GREATTTTTTTTTTTTT #2 for darrel jackson for the price of $2-3mil and a 3rd round pick.


the seahawks HEAD AND SHOULDERS win out on this one. the vikings are idiots for having such low compensation on their best player. burleson is a playmaker and will be a great #2 next to jackson and will put up 1000yds. 1000yds from your $3mil/3rd round/#2 WR is really good.


winner: seahawks, good player for low comp
losers: vikings, losing their best player for low comp

bullseyeguy
03-27-2006, 04:38 AM
Burelson the Vikings best player????????? You need to put down the pipe before you post.

burger13
03-27-2006, 12:22 PM
lot of stupid posts: anyone read that the gaurenteed money was only $5mil? stop saying hes overpaid.

burger13, what makes you so sure that the seahawks wanted hutch? they could NOT afford him after the offer they gave w. jones, that is why they didnt franchise him.

however, they ended up getting a GREATTTTTTTTTTTTT #2 for darrel jackson for the price of $2-3mil and a 3rd round pick.


the seahawks HEAD AND SHOULDERS win out on this one. the vikings are idiots for having such low compensation on their best player. burleson is a playmaker and will be a great #2 next to jackson and will put up 1000yds. 1000yds from your $3mil/3rd round/#2 WR is really good.


winner: seahawks, good player for low comp
losers: vikings, losing their best player for low comp

Wow.....I've never seen a post that was so blatantly wrong!!

If you answer me these 2 questions, I will declare you my master and back you on any post you ever write in the future:

1)If Seattle did NOT want to retain Hutchinson, then why did they tag him at all?? The transition tag carries NO compensation, so they get no benefit from using it, except the ability to match the offer and retain the player.

2) If Seattle did NOT want to retain Hutchinson, then why did they file a greivance on the contaract AND restructure Walter Jones' contract to bring his number just below the 7 million avg of Hutch's contract in hopes of meeting the 'poison pill' terms??

It is so painfully obvious that the Seahawks wanted to keep Hutchinson....I don't understand how anyone could not see it.

On the other hand.......

Is Minnesota even challenging the wording in Burelson's contract....or are they satisfied to have him leave and receive a 3rd round pick as compensation. I would take a 3rd round pick for him....and I would be upset with the Dolphins if they were to trade a 3rd round pick for good #2 WR.

If Minnesota really wanted to keep Burelson....they could have spent approx 500k more and the compensation would have been a 1st round pick......but IMO they wanted someone to step up and take him.....but noone would have for a #1....hence the low tender.

duss12
03-28-2006, 01:22 PM
if the seahawks were to give 50 mil to a player it shoulda been to hutch! not a half decent WR

ih8brady
03-28-2006, 01:28 PM
if the seahawks were to give 50 mil to a player it shoulda been to hutch! not a half decent WR

:yes: Burleson needs to be more productive to be worth that kind of money.

Philter25
03-28-2006, 01:49 PM
Per what I said in the other almost identical thread:

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showpost.php?p=2220190&postcount=13

Anyone here who thinks he is going to see all 49 million is silly and overreacting. Its essentially a 4 year 14 million deal with only 5.25 million guatanteed. Figure its a little more than 3 million a year for Burleson. Considering he is only 24 years old, treat Burleson as a draft pick and his better years should be ahead of him. Seattle structured it so Burleson will either be cut or restructured after the 4th year.

I think this is a good signing for Seattle considering what Givens and Randle El and Bruce got. People need to learn to actually look at the contracts and not jump to conclusions when they see the bottom line.