nate burleson Archives - Twin Cities Minnesota Blog

March 29, 2006

NFL’s Old Guard

The Steve Hutchinson signing sure did the hair on the backs of some NFL executives. The Pioneer Press‘ Don Seeholzer reports that the rhetorical temperature got hot enough for Vikings owner Zygi Wilf to defend the signing and his vice president of football operations Rob Brzezinski.

Seeholzer’s excellent companion piece quotes NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue saying he thinks the Hutchinson and Burleson offer sheets’ "poison pill" provisions are a loophole that he’ll address with the player’s association.

But it was a piece in, of all places, Viking Update, that carried quotes from some disgruntled NFL heavies. They quoted ESPN quoting Seattle Seahawks head coach Mike Holmgren, saying "I think the poison pill business stinks. That’s too bad in our opinion. I think something has to
be done about it. To my way of thinking, you compete like crazy on the
field and the rules are in place contractually. I don’t like the idea
of agents dictating to us what they are going to do."

They quotes Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeff Lurie saying "I don’t think it’s good for football. The Seahawks lose a terrific young player like Steve Hutchinson.
That was not the spirit of restricted free agency at all and wasn’t in
the spirit of the designations. It’s a shame. The whole idea of the
designation system in a salary cap with unfettered free agency, you at
least know there are one or two players internally that you will have."

All this huffing sounds sooooo Old Guard. It’s just not done!!

Please.

If Mike Holmgren had thought of it first, you think he wouldn’t of done it? He just wasn’t creative enough and, as Wilf points out, the Hutchinson offer was entire within the rules.

March 29, 2006

NFL’s Old Guard

All this huffing sounds sooooo Old Guard. It’s just not done!!

Please.

If Mike Holmgren had thought of it first, you think he wouldn’t of done it? He just wasn’t creative enough and, as Wilf points out, the Hutchinson offer was entire within the rules.

March 25, 2006

Seattle Seahawks – Cry Babies

Here’s a roundup of the headlines from Seattle’s major newspapers regarding the Seahawks‘ signing of Nate Burleson:

Oh. My. God. They clearly like the revenge factor in Seattle. This Seahawks blogger probably sums up the attitude of Hawks fans: Eat it, Minnesota! Seahawks sign Burleson to ridiculous offer sheet.

Could an organization display more childish behavior?!? It’s breathtaking. I admit, mirroring the numbers of the Hutchinson deal was cute…but also dumb. As I wrote yesterday, I’ll take Seattle’s 3rd round pick and I very much suspect that they are overpaying for the privilege of signing Burleson.

Not that there’s necessarily something wrong with overpaying for a player you really feel you need. We did that by signing Hutchinson. But to overpay out of spite? Not so smart.

I hope Burleson thrives in Seattle. Given the right circumstances, he could thrive; he demonstrated that in 2004–but then he was lining up opposite Randy Moss, too. Few people have that luxury. As I said earlier this month, when he was given the chance to be the featured receiver, he didn’t step up and size the opportunity. I think he’s fine slot receiver, but is he worth what the Seahawks are giving him?

I don’t think so.

March 25, 2006

Seattle Seahawks – Cry Babies

Here’s a roundup of the headlines from Seattle’s major newspapers regarding the Seahawks‘ signing of Nate Burleson:

Oh. My. God. They clearly like the revenge factor in Seattle. This Seahawks blogger probably sums up the attitude of Hawks fans: Eat it, Minnesota! Seahawks sign Burleson to ridiculous offer sheet.

Not that there’s necessarily something wrong with overpaying for a player you really feel you need. We did that by signing Hutchinson. But to overpay out of spite? Not so smart.

I don’t think so.

March 24, 2006

Nate Burleson Signs With Seattle For…$49 Million

Is this the Seattle Seahawks being cute? Forty-nine million for seven years–sound familiar?

I don’t know how the Seahawks structured their contract with Nate Burleson, but I have a hard time believing he’s worth that much. According to Judd Zulgad‘s Star Tribune article, $5.25 million is guaranteed. That sounds a bit pricey.

As I said before, I like Bureleson but considering our current situation at receiver, I wouldn’t be extremely upset at losing him–especially if keeping him meant overpaying–and getting a third round pick as compensation.

Zulgad reports in the same article that Sam Cowart will sign with the Houston Texans.

Technorati tags: nate burleson | minnesota vikings | seattle seahawks | sam cowart | houston texans

March 16, 2006

Losing Nate Burleson

Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent reciever Nate Burleson is in Seattle for a two-day visit with the Seahawks. Burleson is from Seattle. If the Seahawks sign him, it will cost them a third-round pick.

I think Burleson is worth more than a third-round pick, but I wouldn’t mind it so much if we lose him.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Burleson a lot but last year he was given the opportunity to be the featured reciever and he didn’t run away with the job, and then he got hurt. As a smallish receiver, his durability was a question he failed to dispell.

He’s not a featured reciever. He’s a slot receiver.

Then you look at our other recievers and it’s hard to find a place for him. We just signed Koren Robinson to a lucrative contract to be the big-play guy. Travis Taylor proved to be a great slot receiver last year, just catching anything thrown his way. You’ve got to get last year’s seventh overall pick on the field a lot more this year, so you know Troy Williamson‘s role will expand greatly. And then you’ve got Marcus Robinson still in the mix, probably as a red-zone specialist.

There’s not a hell of a lot left for Nate.

So if the Seahawks sign him, I’m fine with that, and good luck to him.

Lastly, an extra pick has great appeal to me in this year’s linebacker-rich draft.