PDA

View Full Version : Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson



kyleo1967
03-15-2006, 05:49 AM
Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

GreenBaySlackers
03-15-2006, 05:50 AM
BOOOOOOOOOO! :evil:

gregair13
03-15-2006, 05:50 AM
noooooooooo not bursleon! he is the only guy left that i love to death

Turboe
03-15-2006, 05:52 AM
Love the sig Gregair....

DarrinNelsonguy
03-15-2006, 05:53 AM
He is a restricted FA so we catch still match his deal to keep him and I hope we sign him to a contract sooner rather than later.

happy camper
03-15-2006, 05:53 AM
:-(

SharperVikings
03-15-2006, 05:54 AM
NO NO NO NO NO!!! doesnt restricted mean we have the right to match the offer....right?? if it does, seattle will probably try to pull a fast one on us like we did to hutchinson!

I hope we try to resign him, he can make something outta nothing, when he catches the ball, great reciever! :lol:

Ltrey33
03-15-2006, 05:54 AM
Bummer....I hope he stays around.

I'll trade them Hutch for Burly though!

MNBigTicket21
03-15-2006, 05:55 AM
"kyleo1967" wrote:

Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

magicci
03-15-2006, 05:55 AM
i hope he stays!!!

ultravikingfan
03-15-2006, 05:57 AM
"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"kyleo1967" wrote:

Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

Your back.

And we just banned you yesterday.

PackSux!
03-15-2006, 05:57 AM
This is the seachickens way of getting back at us. glad we can match any offer or if we dont at least we get a draft pick in the third. I would prefer if he stayed and we keep our depth at reciever.

aceclown
03-15-2006, 05:59 AM
I could really care less if Burleson leaves, hes just an average #2 receiver who has made a couple nice plays here and there. Make room for Williamson.

Mr. Purple
03-15-2006, 06:01 AM
Hes gone.

KirillDM
03-15-2006, 06:01 AM
those basterds...this is turning into a war. I say we go kick those westcoast panzies butts and tell them to stop going on our turf. North-Cost 4 life

viks_fan21
03-15-2006, 06:06 AM
You can have him. Man, it looks like we are really going to have some picks this year.

1st rounder
(2) 2nd rounders
(2) 3rd rounders
and all the rest of the originals

Bad move by the seahawks, trying to snag Burleson with bad intentions. That's not how football works, the are trying to fix a dumb move (transitioning Hutch) with another (meeting w/ Burleson)

SWAYZE74
03-15-2006, 06:07 AM
"DarrinNelsonguy" wrote:

He is a restricted FA so we catch still match his deal to keep him and I hope we sign him to a contract sooner rather than later.

yup..calm down peeps...restricted is alot different then "transition"...we can match...then he stays...that is...if the new staff still wants him...im guessing they are trying to figure his worth...

peace...

MNBigTicket21
03-15-2006, 06:07 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"kyleo1967" wrote:

Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

Your back.

And we just banned you yesterday.

What are you talking about "Your back"? What would I have gotten banned for I just joined today.

ultravikingfan
03-15-2006, 06:11 AM
"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"kyleo1967" wrote:

Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

Your back.

And we just banned you yesterday.

What are you talking about "Your back"? What would I have gotten banned for I just joined today.

You are the former member known as "drtybrdy9" until you were banned yesterday for trolling.

Gee, how did I figure this out?

Nice try though. Pick a new site.

Have a nice day.

Freakout
03-15-2006, 06:14 AM
Lets see. Average wide reciever or a Pro Bowl lineman. I know which one I'd rather have.

MNBigTicket21
03-15-2006, 06:16 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"kyleo1967" wrote:

Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

Your back.

And we just banned you yesterday.

What are you talking about "Your back"? What would I have gotten banned for I just joined today.

You are the former member known as "drtybrdy9" until you were banned yesterday for trolling.

Gee, how did I figure this out?

Nice try though. Pick a new site.

Have a nice day.

Wow cool you think you are slick. That is actually my roomate. You can check I have a different email address and we go to the same university. How could we be the same person? Nice try though.

viks_fan21
03-15-2006, 06:18 AM
Ultra, if you're reading this, let it be known that I think you're a genious. Seriously man, keep up the good work patrollin this place.

ultravikingfan
03-15-2006, 06:19 AM
"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:


Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

Your back.

And we just banned you yesterday.

What are you talking about "Your back"? What would I have gotten banned for I just joined today.

You are the former member known as "drtybrdy9" until you were banned yesterday for trolling.

Gee, how did I figure this out?

Nice try though. Pick a new site.

Have a nice day.

Wow cool you think you are slick. That is actually my roomate. You can check I have a different email address and we go to the same university. How could we be the same person? Nice try though.

Yup, the old roomate excuse. Usaully its a little brother or son. How creative.

A differnent email...thats a free account genius. Yeah, its everyday we get a new member with the exact same IP address.

Thanks, I am slick.

Don't even bother posting...they will be wiped clean! He hee!

*Hint, next site don't be such a a-hole!

Vikes
03-15-2006, 06:22 AM
"gregair13" wrote:

noooooooooo not bursleon! he is the only guy left that i love to death

hahaha! gregair13 I like the family feud strikes in your picture.

PAvikesfan
03-15-2006, 06:22 AM
burleson for hutch...no brainer. hey the seahawks are pissed and they would do something like that to get back at us. i say, we let them offer and if the price is not too high, we re-sign em and take hutch anyway. the seahawks should be more worried about if they have money to match us than the other way around.

MNBigTicket21
03-15-2006, 06:23 AM
Seriously... end my suspension now! That is my roomate like I said, how could we have different email addresses if we were one person who went to the same University. Do you really think UW- Eau Claire would give one person two seperate email addresses with one of them not even using their real name? Give it some thought... seriously. I didn't say anything disprespectful to you so don't suspend my account for what my roomate said? I don't even know what I said that would have made you think that I was him anyways. Let me know.

Ltrey33
03-15-2006, 06:25 AM
Ultra crushes another one...

ultravikingfan
03-15-2006, 06:29 AM
"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

Seriously... end my suspension now! That is my roomate like I said, how could we have different email addresses if we were one person who went to the same University. Do you really think UW- Eau Claire would give one person two seperate email addresses with one of them not even using their real name? Give it some thought... seriously. I didn't say anything disprespectful to you so don't suspend my account for what my roomate said? I don't even know what I said that would have made you think that I was him anyways. Let me know.

What a coincidence:

1. Roomate (alleged) is a mouthy bastage.
2. Roomate (alleged) get banned.
3. You (alleged roomate of the alleged roomate) creates an account the next day.
4. You (alleged roomate of the alleged roomate) are not very believable.
5. Me (who is not alleged to be anyone other than me) bans you.
6. You (banned alleged roomate of the alleged roomate) cries foul.

http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/hands/069.gif

Hmmmm.....this is this usually works out. Like I said, pretty good story there.

audioghost
03-15-2006, 06:30 AM
"ltrey33" wrote:

Bummer....I hope he stays around.

I'll trade them Hutch for Burly though!

Trade Steve Hutchinson for Siaha Burley? Sounds like a steal to me... :razz:

GreenBaySlackers
03-15-2006, 06:32 AM
"audioghost" wrote:

"ltrey33" wrote:

Bummer....I hope he stays around.

I'll trade them Hutch for Burly though!

Trade Steve Hutchinson for Siaha Burley? Sounds like a steal to me... :razz:


Wurd :cool:

olson_10
03-15-2006, 06:38 AM
they can have him as long as it means they will allow us to keep hutchinson..otherwise we are losing our best receiver

PAvikesfan
03-15-2006, 06:42 AM
agreed... we can match though. they will give burleson huge money after last season. i am not worried that we'd be able to match.

singersp
03-15-2006, 06:46 AM
Posted on Tue, Mar. 14, 2006

Seahawks might pursue Vikings receiver Burleson

BY SEAN JENSEN
St. Paul Pioneer Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. - As they ponder whether to match the Vikings' offer to all-pro guard Steve Hutchinson, the Seattle Seahawks also are considering whether to bring receiver Nate Burleson back home.

Burleson, a Seattle native, will visit with the Seahawks on Thursday and Friday, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings signed Hutchinson, who was given the transition tender by the Seahawks, to a seven-year, $49 million offer sheet Sunday.

Minnesota is in good position to retain both players. Their agreement with Hutchinson will be difficult for the Seahawks to match. The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. The Vikings are inclined to match any deal for Burleson, especially since they started free agency with a league-high $31 million in salary cap space. Burleson has played three seasons for the Vikings since they drafted him out of Nevada-Las Vegas in 2003.

The Seahawks are light at receiver, especially after losing Joe Jurevicius to his hometown club, the Cleveland Browns, on Saturday.

Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.
In 1999, Burleson was the Seattle athlete of the year.

McKinnie update: Late last month, left tackle Bryant McKinnie said he didn't want to remain with the Vikings if they traded quarterback Daunte Culpepper.

But McKinnie, who will enter the final year of his contract, said he is open to remaining with the team.

"If I get to the point where I'm at the end of my contract, then of course I'm going to look around," McKinnie said. "But they don't need to trade me right now because he's gone."

McKinnie isn't sure what the courtship of Hutchinson means for his future. "I'm open to coming back. But I don't know how realistic it would be," McKinnie said. "I just don't know how much they want to invest in their offensive line. I'm just going to play hard this season, and whatever happens happens."

Overall, McKinnie is thrilled with the prospect of playing with Hutchinson. "We need to get a veteran offensive lineman who can help so our unit can become stronger," he said. "He's real good, so I would like to play with someone who is supposed to be one of the best at their position. That'll make me better."

Just visiting: The Vikings met with guard Stephen Neal on Tuesday. Neal has a connection to new coach Brad Childress. Although he has technically spent his entire five-year career with the New England Patriots, Neal actually started in 2001 with the Philadelphia Eagles, where Childress was offensive coordinator. Neal, who never played football in college, started on the Eagles' practice squad before the Patriots signed him to their regular roster.

Neal started 30 games over the past two seasons for the Patriots. Meanwhile, Baltimore Ravens safety Will Demps visited with the New York Giants on Tuesday. He is scheduled to visit with the Vikings and Miami Dolphins. But the Giants are very interested in signing the safety.

Briefly: Jermaine Wiggins, Matt Birk, Antoine Winfield and Brad Johnson were in New York on Tuesday for a photo shoot of them modeling newly designed Vikings uniforms. The pictures will be featured on billboards around the Twin Cities.

Steve LaCroix, Vikings vice president of sales and marketing, confirmed the uniform change, although he declined to say to what extent.

"We are working with the NFL and Reebok on some exciting changes for the 2006 season. The process is still continuing, but we'll look to have an unveiling later in the offseason for our fans," he said.

Per NFL policy, teams can change uniforms every five years and are allowed to add a third uniform that can be worn in two regular-season games and one exhibition game each year.

Childress told Sirius NFL Radio that he expected the Seahawks to take the full seven days - until next Sunday - to make a decision on Hutchinson.
"He's a good football player," Childress said. "We'd love to have him on our team." n Guard Toniu Fonoti agreed in principle on a one-year deal Monday with the Oakland Raiders. He is guaranteed $415,000 of his $1 million salary. Fonoti, however, has not signed the contract. The Vikings traded a seventh-round pick to the San Diego Chargers for Fonoti last year. But Fonoti played in only three games before suffering a season-ending groin injury.

Seahawks might pursue Vikings receiver Burleson (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14099409.htm)

VikesfaninWis
03-15-2006, 06:46 AM
I say if the offer is reasonable then match it. If not, let him walk.. I think Travis Taylor is more than capable to fill in the #2 reciever spot, and if not, I am sure Williamson is ready to step it up..

Koren Robinson
Marcus Robinson
Travis Taylor
Troy Williamson

We're Good.....

adamkirsch
03-15-2006, 06:49 AM
Let him go. We'll still have Koren Robinson and Troy Williamson, who should be the starters. Then Travis Taylor and Marcus Robinson, as well as Chris Jones, who was an intriguing prospect last year. We're fine at receiver. Burleson didn't show much last year, even when he was healthy.

WBLVikeBabe
03-15-2006, 06:53 AM
Oh please God NO!!!!! I would seriously cry if we lost Burleson, no no no no ok sorry but seriously NO!! :crybaby:

t_13
03-15-2006, 06:53 AM
i dont think theyre doing this just to get back at us.. that mite be part of it but they did lose jurivicius or however u spell it..

VikingsTw
03-15-2006, 06:59 AM
There not doing this to get back at us, Burelson is a good WR with lots of potential. I would hate to see him go but if he does we have alot of other guys capable. I think Burleson would fit in seattle's offense perfectly, ours too.

vikings11_27
03-15-2006, 07:03 AM
not to make this another post about hutch, but hopefully it takes up a lot of cap space so that they have less reason and capability to match hutch's offer

arrested_developer
03-15-2006, 07:04 AM
If they got Nate wouldn't this guarantee us Hutch, since Nate would take up some of their cap space? If it means us getting Hutch, then let him go. I've held a bit of a grudge since he dropped that one pass, against the Redskins. In 2004. He hasn't really redeemed himself to me since then. And we'd still have a bunch of no. 2's anyway.

ItalianStallion
03-15-2006, 07:21 AM
Burleson is only really worth a little more than a 3rd rounder anyway, and we have a lot of dept at receiver. Not to mention we can match it anyway.

snowinapril
03-15-2006, 07:40 AM
Not that they will want to drive the price up a ton, they will try this to get us back for Hutch.

Payback is a Beyatch!!

snowinapril
03-15-2006, 07:44 AM
We tendered him to $750,000 that is peanuts.

They will probably offer 2 million.

I say we match up to 2.5 million.

Who knows!!

midgensa
03-15-2006, 07:44 AM
"snowinapril" wrote:

Not that they will want to drive the price up a ton, they will try this to get us back for Hutch.

Payback is a Beyatch!!

They cannot really get us back for Hutch because Hutch is in a different monetary stratisphere than Burleson.
They really could use a receiver though and if Burleson shows them that he still has what it takes to be a top two receiver on a top team they may make an offer we cannot logically match ... leaving us with yet another draft pick (five total on day one ... not too bad).

ItalianStallion
03-15-2006, 08:09 AM
"snowinapril" wrote:

Not that they will want to drive the price up a ton, they will try this to get us back for Hutch.

Payback is a Beyatch!!

Payback isn't really a beeyatch when we are being compensated for it.

Prophet
03-15-2006, 02:45 PM
Burleson is replaceable. I'll be happy if we keep him and unfazed if we don't.

Good work Ultra, you da man.

stjmnsota
03-15-2006, 05:38 PM
Nate has shown some good stuff but he has hardly played. I don't think he is much of a loss. Although I would like to see him stick around and stay healthy for one season so we can see if he really does have it.

damien927
03-15-2006, 05:45 PM
it would be nice to keep him, cause he is better than travis taylor, but Taylor could fill Burley's possession receiver spot.

V4L
03-15-2006, 06:01 PM
Atleast if this goes through we will get a 3rd round pick

V-Unit
03-15-2006, 08:02 PM
We have a wealth of receivers but I think Burleson, Robinson, and Williamson are the ones we should keep at all costs.

mr.woo
03-15-2006, 08:10 PM
no hes are reciver

ours.

pennccil
03-15-2006, 08:32 PM
at least if we lose him were getting a 3rd rounder

there losing hutch because they didnt want 2 franchise him

vikings11_27
03-15-2006, 08:38 PM
"pennccil" wrote:

there losing hutch because they didnt want 2 franchise him

hahahaha, wat a bunch of idiots

PurpleRide
03-15-2006, 08:57 PM
Burleson made his mark as a #2 next to moss, last year he stunk up the joint. I would like to keep him, but not as our #1, pay him #2 money or let him go.

NodakPaul
03-15-2006, 09:12 PM
I'd like to keep him if the offer is reasonable, he is a good reciever. But if the offer is too high, let the Hawks have him. We have depth at reciever and could use the third round pick.

Cagey_Fan
03-15-2006, 09:12 PM
i'd like to see them keep Nate, because i don't know how long Marcus R. is going to be around. I guess it's up to the coaches to know what to do with Nate.

cogitans
03-15-2006, 10:14 PM
When they put that tender at Burelson I thought it was only a matter of time before he were gone. After all the position ain't that deep in FA.

If you look at it now, aside from TO who were resently cut (and has issues as well), Nate is easially the best reciever avalibel.

Its only a matter of time before someone finds that 3rd rounder. If its not Seattle it could be 49'ers, who need someone to play opposit Bryant. They also resently got a 3rd round pick from the Redskins for Lloyd.

collegeguyjeff
03-15-2006, 10:23 PM
we won't sign him if it helps us get hutch.

NodakPaul
03-15-2006, 10:29 PM
"cogitans" wrote:

When they put that tender at Burelson I thought it was only a matter of time before he were gone. After all the position ain't that deep in FA.

If you look at it now, aside from TO who were resently cut (and has issues as well), Nate is easially the best reciever avalibel.

Its only a matter of time before someone finds that 3rd rounder. If its not Seattle it could be 49'ers, who need someone to play opposit Bryant. They also resently got a 3rd round pick from the Redskins for Lloyd.

Don't forget that he is a restricted free agent, and we have the right to match. We gave him the small amount so he could test the FA waters. If he signs on with a team and the contract is reasonable, we will probably match it and retain him. Otherwise, we get a third round pick out of it.

I would rather it be San Fran's 3rd round pick than Seattles, but I will be happy with whatever happens.

MensaTice
03-15-2006, 10:45 PM
I love Burly but it wouldn't be that great of a loss IMO. It would be fun to match a Seattle offer about a day after they don't match Hutch's.

DaunteHOF
03-15-2006, 11:04 PM
I dont mind losing Burly, i just think its sneaky of them going for him since we taking hutch from them

Wiggles67
03-15-2006, 11:31 PM
As a WR on the Vikings he is definately not hard to replace. unfortunately, he has grown into one of my more favorite players currently on the team so I dont want to see him go

olson_10
03-15-2006, 11:35 PM
"DaunteHOF" wrote:

I dont mind losing Burly, i just think its sneaky of them going for him since we taking hutch from them
very true..he is worth losing if this is their way of saying "you get hutch, if we get burleson"

whackthepack
03-15-2006, 11:59 PM
I wish the Vikes would have given him the higher offer, it would have been around 1.2 Mill. If somebody gave him a better contract, and we did not match it we would have received a 1st round pick. I would keep Burley for 1.2 mill.

collegeguyjeff
03-16-2006, 12:05 AM
"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"kyleo1967" wrote:

Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800



Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

yeah thats what i said yesterday

mudcat
03-16-2006, 03:19 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"kyleo1967" wrote:

Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

Your back.

And we just banned you yesterday.

What are you talking about "Your back"? What would I have gotten banned for I just joined today.

You are the former member known as "drtybrdy9" until you were banned yesterday for trolling.

Gee, how did I figure this out?

Nice try though. Pick a new site.

Have a nice day.Call me stupid but what the he11 is trolling.

HornedHat
03-16-2006, 03:24 AM
Glad you asked that! I don't know what trolling is either, but assume he is a Seahawk causing trouble on this site.

magicci
03-16-2006, 04:29 AM
please keep burly now that we have cap room for releasing daunte

ultravikingfan
03-16-2006, 06:15 AM
"HornedHat" wrote:

Glad you asked that! I don't know what trolling is either, but assume he is a Seahawk causing trouble on this site.

"mudcat" wrote:

Have a nice day.Call me stupid but what the he11 is trolling.[/quote]

Trolling: being a member of this site for the sole purpose of pissing people off. Not adding squat to the site; only fueling the fire.

moneyman713
03-16-2006, 08:57 PM
Yeah they can have them, take the third, and replace him if you really want he is not a protypical reciever, but I wouldn't go as far as some and say let Williamson take his place, depth chart with out him is k-Rob, t-t, m-rob/williamson

nfl-forums
03-16-2006, 09:02 PM
Yeah, but he has heart. The guy showed us two years ago that he can play. Last year was a bad year for him, but he was suddenly thrown into the #1 spot, played with some injuries, and played on a team that overall was not a good passing team.

I love what he can do after the catch - I think he's a great receiver for the WCO.

michaelmazid
03-17-2006, 12:18 AM
"mudcat" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"MNBigTicket21" wrote:


Seahawks | Team to meet with Burleson
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:40:50 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Seattle Seahawks will meet with Minnesota Vikings restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson Thursday, March 16 and Friday, March 17, his agent Ken Sarnoff said. Burleson confirmed the visit and said, "I always loved the Seahawks and Sonics, because I was a hometown guy." The Vikings would receive a third-round pick if the Seahawks, or any other club, successfully signs restricted free agent Burleson. Seattle would appeal to Burleson because his parents still live in the area.

Wow this is some development. I am thinking this could turn into a situation where Seattle might say give us Burleson and then they won't match the offer for Hutchinson. It was suggessted by a Seattle columnist that the Seahawks would possibly consider such a proposition. I say do it.... and lets find out what the trio of Koren, Travis Taylor, and T-Will can do.

Your back.

And we just banned you yesterday.

What are you talking about "Your back"? What would I have gotten banned for I just joined today.

You are the former member known as "drtybrdy9" until you were banned yesterday for trolling.

Gee, how did I figure this out?

Nice try though. Pick a new site.

Have a nice day.Call me stupid but what the he11 is trolling.

:lol: that is awesome. you guys can't get passed ultra no matter how hard you try. :lol:

Prophet
03-17-2006, 04:07 PM
KFFL
Texans | Team to visit with Burleson
Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:54:23 -0800

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson (Vikings) is scheduled to head to Houston for a meeting with the Houston Texans Monday, March 20.

V4L
03-17-2006, 04:57 PM
Burleson would help the Texans alot..

Awesome number 2 next to Andre the stud Johnson

V-Unit
03-17-2006, 06:45 PM
"Vikez4Lyfe" wrote:

Burleson would help the Texans alot..

Awesome number 2 next to Andre the stud JohnsonI agree. The Texans would have a great offense if they hda any tpe of a line to block for th playmakers.

V4L
03-17-2006, 06:48 PM
"V-Unit" wrote:

"Vikez4Lyfe" wrote:

Burleson would help the Texans alot..

Awesome number 2 next to Andre the stud JohnsonI agree. The Texans would have a great offense if they hda any tpe of a line to block for th playmakers.

Yah they would..

I think they will get a lineman in the 2nd round to go with Bush and have a great offense..

Carr.. Bush... Johnson... Burly

vikings11_27
03-17-2006, 06:59 PM
i think theyshould trade down just a bit, get d'brickishaw in the first round, then another lineman in the second.

Then it will be

Carr...Davis...Johnson...Burleson...much improved line

Then they will have a very young and talented offense, then all they need is 11 defenders

V4L
03-17-2006, 07:00 PM
"vikings11_27" wrote:

i think theyshould trade down just a bit, get d'brickishaw in the first round, then another lineman in the second.

Then it will be

Carr...Davis...Johnson...Burleson...much improved line

Then they will have a very young and talented offense, then all they need is 11 defenders


I was thinking that too.. That's first pick would be VERY valuable..

Davis is a steller back.. Top 10 back IMO.. Would have even better stats if they had a decent line.. But still manages to get over 1 G each year

vikings11_27
03-17-2006, 07:06 PM
i was lookin at the 03 draft and the lions picked charles rogers over andre johnson..hahahahahahaha

V4L
03-17-2006, 07:10 PM
"vikings11_27" wrote:

i was lookin at the 03 draft and the lions picked charles rogers over andre johnson..hahahahahahaha

Worked out well for them :lol: :roll:

Tanner_QBRB8
03-17-2006, 07:30 PM
Sh*ts Hitting the fan the Vikes are going to have to do something

vikingsbenchwarmer
03-18-2006, 12:29 PM
Its a good thing, we are already packed with depth at WR, plus we get a 3 round, That can surely help us with our QB, SS, LB needs.

Potus2028
03-19-2006, 06:39 AM
hey.. burly cant leave..

my towns name is burleson.. and he's burleson.. it makes for an interesting segue when i talk about the vikes...

i dont want to move to a town name kluwe, or williamson, or taylor..

please stay burly.. i like ya

sleepagent
03-19-2006, 06:47 AM
Let him go and we'll take the 3rd Round pick

cajunvike
03-19-2006, 06:54 AM
"Potus2028" wrote:

hey.. burly cant leave..

my towns name is burleson.. and he's burleson.. it makes for an interesting segue when i talk about the vikes...

i dont want to move to a town name kluwe, or williamson, or taylor..

please stay burly.. i like ya

Just thank God that you don't have to move to a town called Owens! :lol:

Prophet
03-20-2006, 02:38 PM
Link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3734523.html)

...The Texans canceled a visit with Minnesota receiver Nate Burleson, a restricted free agent who could be involved in an expensive tug of war with the Vikings and Seattle Seahawks.

After getting Cincinnati receiver Kevin Walter, another restricted free agent, when the Bengals didn't match a four-year, $6.4 million offer sheet, the Texans didn't want to risk giving up another draft choice if they were able to sign Burleson to an offer sheet.

If the Vikings don't match an offer to Burleson, they'll receive a third-round pick in return. The Texans have the first two picks in the third round, including the second one in general manager Charley Casserly's draft-day trade with the Saints last year...

mnrockstar
03-21-2006, 02:20 AM
NOOOO!!!! WE CAN'T GET RID OF BURLESON!!! and NOT to Seattle!!!

muchluv4smoot
03-21-2006, 02:35 AM
http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2006Draft.html


I haven't found it on any credible sites yet though, so who knows if he actually did sign an offer sheet with seattle. I am guessing he probably did, now that they aren't gonna get Hutch and want to take someone from us.

Personally with Williamson being the #7 pick last year, I think we should give him the shot at starting this year, along with Koren. We also still have Taylor and Marcus, so we would still be plenty deep at wideout.

I would take the 3rd round pick, giving us 5 first days pick and plenty of ammo to move around in the draft. Although we better not be planning on using a bunch of these picks to move up in the 1st for a QB. I hate that move. I would trade #17 to Schaub, WAY WAY WAY before I would give up the #17 and our 2nd rounders to get Leinart or Cutler.

mogwai
03-21-2006, 02:42 AM
burly is perfect in this offense.by all means match any offer...love the nate

muchluv4smoot
03-21-2006, 02:45 AM
"mogwai" wrote:

burly is perfect in this offense.by all means match any offer...love the nate


I'd match it if it wasn't too big, but I really have a feeling that Seattle is gonna make it one that we will end up passing on, now that we have $13 million invested in Hutch this season. I bet the frontload Burly's deal.

marshallvike
03-21-2006, 02:52 AM
we can't lose burleson. he is a very good receiver, great hands. we know what we have with him. we do not know what we are getting in a draft pick.

SharperVikings
03-21-2006, 02:57 AM
"vikings11_27" wrote:

i think theyshould trade down just a bit, get d'brickishaw in the first round, then another lineman in the second.

Then it will be

Carr...Davis...Johnson...Burleson...much improved line

Then they will have a very young and talented offense, then all they need is 11 defenders

That would help them a ton to trade down, but then again, who would pass up on reggie bush!?! he's just got too much talent to pass up!

If i were them, i would shop the first pick and see what i could get for it....if deels arnt good, then just stick with the pick! cant go wrong there!

Ddawg84
03-21-2006, 03:12 AM
"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"mogwai" wrote:

burly is perfect in this offense.by all means match any offer...love the nate


I'd match it if it wasn't too big, but I really have a feeling that Seattle is gonna make it one that we will end up passing on, now that we have $13 million invested in Hutch this season. I bet the frontload Burly's deal.

I think they will have a hard time frontloading his deal and thinking it will screw us over... cause the difference was when we did that to them to try and screw them over in getting Hutch, we have a lot of cap room to do it, and they don't... I don't think seattle will or can make an offer that would be way to steep for the Vikings to match.

cajunvike
03-21-2006, 03:27 AM
If the SeaChickenChokers want to bid up Burley, then they can have him...in essence, it becomes a Burley for KRob trade...plus we get a third rounder...looks like the Fins aren't the ONLY ones that got a good deal this week if that happens! :lol:

SharperVikings
03-21-2006, 03:27 AM
true....but for seeing that childress only had a TO in philly, idk if he will keep burly around, along with KROB...idk, hopefully he does! but i just get this feeling that we will resemble the philly offense, and only have 1 good reciever!

PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG VIKINGS!

muchluv4smoot
03-21-2006, 03:27 AM
"Ddawg84" wrote:

"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"mogwai" wrote:

burly is perfect in this offense.by all means match any offer...love the nate


I'd match it if it wasn't too big, but I really have a feeling that Seattle is gonna make it one that we will end up passing on, now that we have $13 million invested in Hutch this season. I bet the frontload Burly's deal.

I think they will have a hard time frontloading his deal and thinking it will screw us over... cause the difference was when we did that to them to try and screw them over in getting Hutch, we have a lot of cap room to do it, and they don't... I don't think seattle will or can make an offer that would be way to steep for the Vikings to match.


We don't have that much cap room left now with Hutch's $13 million on the books this year. Seattle could very easily give him a roster bonus, instead of a signing bonus, that would definitely keep us from signing him, especially when we still have 4 good WR's on our roster.

Personally, when we gave Burleson a low level tender, I think we were basically saying that we want a draft pick and are planning on letting Burleson go. If we truly wanted to keep him, we would have given him the high level tender, which was not that much more money. I think we basically chose Koren over Burleson, which I think was back words. I would have taken Burleson over Koren any day.

Oh well. I am excited to see Williamson actually get a shot at some serious playing time this year, in an offense that he ca really excel in.

SharperVikings
03-21-2006, 03:38 AM
"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"Ddawg84" wrote:

"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"mogwai" wrote:

burly is perfect in this offense.by all means match any offer...love the nate


I'd match it if it wasn't too big, but I really have a feeling that Seattle is gonna make it one that we will end up passing on, now that we have $13 million invested in Hutch this season. I bet the frontload Burly's deal.

I think they will have a hard time frontloading his deal and thinking it will screw us over... cause the difference was when we did that to them to try and screw them over in getting Hutch, we have a lot of cap room to do it, and they don't... I don't think seattle will or can make an offer that would be way to steep for the Vikings to match.


We don't have that much cap room left now with Hutch's $13 million on the books this year. Seattle could very easily give him a roster bonus, instead of a signing bonus, that would definitely keep us from signing him, especially when we still have 4 good WR's on our roster.

Personally, when we gave Burleson a low level tender, I think we were basically saying that we want a draft pick and are planning on letting Burleson go. If we truly wanted to keep him, we would have given him the high level tender, which was not that much more money. I think we basically chose Koren over Burleson, which I think was back words. I would have taken Burleson over Koren any day.

Oh well. I am excited to see Williamson actually get a shot at some serious playing time this year, in an offense that he ca really excel in.

Very true....i kinda forgot that we drafted williamson....anywhere burly goes...i wish him the best of luck, he was an awesome reciever when we needed him....

ill never forget that gamea against the pack on christmas eve, he burned al harris....TWICE!! :banana:

ejmat
03-21-2006, 03:52 AM
I'm torn on the Burly issue. On one hand I think he would excel in the WCO. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind having another draft pick we can use to trade up if we want. Having 2 2nd rounders and 2 third rounders is nice trade bait.

mogwai
03-21-2006, 04:35 AM
if the vikes are really into high character guys they will keep him..no attitude.no off-field issues.plus it won't be a huge contract and he'll be healthy this year.

shawn
03-21-2006, 04:46 AM
Seattle will probably offer Burleson a ton of money now that we are going to take Hutch away...........Kind of a payback thing??

happy camper
03-21-2006, 04:49 AM
If we let go of Burleson for a 3rd round pick.. it's almost like a 4th round. Since the Seahawks pick 31st. It's close enough to 4th.

I, for one, do not want to see Nate go for a 4th round pick.

snowinapril
03-21-2006, 05:14 AM
"mogwai" wrote:

if the vikes are really into high character guys they will keep him..no attitude.no off-field issues.plus it won't be a huge contract and he'll be healthy this year.

Good point! But I also think it comes down to what the Vikings have put as a $$$$ amount on him in the office. They more than likely set a max $$$ they would match before they even put the tender on him. We will have to see how it turns out.

whackthepack
03-21-2006, 10:30 PM
Glad to see the site back up and running!


Hope that we match what ever offer that Seattle throws at Burly!

Freakout
03-21-2006, 10:49 PM
"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"Ddawg84" wrote:

"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"mogwai" wrote:

burly is perfect in this offense.by all means match any offer...love the nate


I'd match it if it wasn't too big, but I really have a feeling that Seattle is gonna make it one that we will end up passing on, now that we have $13 million invested in Hutch this season. I bet the frontload Burly's deal.

I think they will have a hard time frontloading his deal and thinking it will screw us over... cause the difference was when we did that to them to try and screw them over in getting Hutch, we have a lot of cap room to do it, and they don't... I don't think seattle will or can make an offer that would be way to steep for the Vikings to match.


We don't have that much cap room left now with Hutch's $13 million on the books this year. Seattle could very easily give him a roster bonus, instead of a signing bonus, that would definitely keep us from signing him, especially when we still have 4 good WR's on our roster.

Personally, when we gave Burleson a low level tender, I think we were basically saying that we want a draft pick and are planning on letting Burleson go. If we truly wanted to keep him, we would have given him the high level tender, which was not that much more money. I think we basically chose Koren over Burleson, which I think was back words. I would have taken Burleson over Koren any day.

Oh well. I am excited to see Williamson actually get a shot at some serious playing time this year, in an offense that he ca really excel in.

I think we can't ignore what Koren also brings with his return ability.

DarrinNelsonguy
03-21-2006, 10:53 PM
I hope we resign Burleson because I believe that our new offense is built for his style of play with him catching slants out of the slot position.

pennccil
03-21-2006, 10:56 PM
howe much cap do we have left since we got richardson and hutch 10-15 mil left?

DarrinNelsonguy
03-21-2006, 11:09 PM
The top of the hour sports update on KFAN radio (3:05 pm) stated that Nate is close to signing an offer sheet with Seattle.

whackthepack
03-21-2006, 11:23 PM
"pennccil" wrote:

howe much cap do we have left since we got richardson and hutch 10-15 mil left?

We also signed Longwell, Leber, Taylor and Whittle, I do not htink we have that mutch cap room left.

whackthepack
03-21-2006, 11:49 PM
And resigned Robinson and Offord, and we still need a Safety, Nickle and a QB (Matt Schaub please)!

singersp
03-22-2006, 01:14 AM
"happy camper" wrote:

If we let go of Burleson for a 3rd round pick.. it's almost like a 4th round. Since the Seahawks pick 31st. It's close enough to 4th.

I, for one, do not want to see Nate go for a 4th round pick.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Seattle picks 31st in the 1st round. I don't believe that holds true for every round in the draft.

WBLVikeBabe
03-22-2006, 01:26 AM
"DarrinNelsonguy" wrote:

The top of the hour sports update on KFAN radio (3:05 pm) stated that Nate is close to signing an offer sheet with Seattle.

Noooo I'm going to cry! :crybaby:

eastcoastvikes
03-22-2006, 01:30 AM
It's ok WBL the Vikes can match the offer. I really hope they do.. Nate is too good and too young to let him go right now.

muchluv4smoot
03-22-2006, 02:10 AM
"singersp" wrote:

"happy camper" wrote:

If we let go of Burleson for a 3rd round pick.. it's almost like a 4th round. Since the Seahawks pick 31st. It's close enough to 4th.

I, for one, do not want to see Nate go for a 4th round pick.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Seattle picks 31st in the 1st round. I don't believe that holds true for every round in the draft.


Seattle has pick #31 in the 3rd round also.

cajunvike
03-22-2006, 02:12 AM
"happy camper" wrote:

If we let go of Burleson for a 3rd round pick.. it's almost like a 4th round. Since the Seahawks pick 31st. It's close enough to 4th.

I, for one, do not want to see Nate go for a 4th round pick.

Yeah...but it's a HIGH 4th rounder!!! :lol:

muchluv4smoot
03-22-2006, 02:16 AM
"pennccil" wrote:

howe much cap do we have left since we got richardson and hutch 10-15 mil left?



Well, John Clayton said on ESPNEWS last night, that after the Hutch signing, we had $16-17 million in cap space left still. How? I do not know, but that was what he said. So if he was right, after the Richardson signing, we still have plenty of cap room.

We must have backloaded our other FA contracts, for us to still have that much left. I know we gave them all signing bonuses and not roster bonuses, so their bonuses didn't count against the cap. $2.3 million extra when Daunte left and I also heard we were close to a restructured deal with Rosey that would save us some cap space as well. So maybe we do still have that much left.

I'd be happy if we signed Neal and a safety and did nothing else until the draft. Pick Ernie Sims at 17, and Croyle in the 2nd round. The rest of the picks, BPA.

WBLVikeBabe
03-22-2006, 07:12 AM
"eastcoastvikes" wrote:

It's ok WBL the Vikes can match the offer. I really hope they do.. Nate is too good and too young to let him go right now.

Oh I hope you are right. Btw, I love the Burley sig eastcoast, nice work Jos!!

snowinapril
03-22-2006, 07:24 AM
"WBLVikeBabe" wrote:

"DarrinNelsonguy" wrote:

The top of the hour sports update on KFAN radio (3:05 pm) stated that Nate is close to signing an offer sheet with Seattle.

Noooo I'm going to cry! :crybaby:

If he signs, that is the norm. We get to match it right.

Basically, he gets to sell himself to other teams to set the market value on him so we know what to pay him. We took a chance that teams would look at his numbers this year and not want to take a chance on him. Well he didn't go unnoticed and now we will hav to see how much he is worth and if we want to match it. So it comes down to do we think he is worth what Seattle wants to pay him.

I think Seattle is the only team that the Burleson Camp has taken seriously and vice versa. Seattle will probably offer him a little bit more than what Old Joe Jeravicious was getting last year.

whackthepack
03-22-2006, 07:29 AM
"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"pennccil" wrote:

howe much cap do we have left since we got richardson and hutch 10-15 mil left?



Well, John Clayton said on ESPNEWS last night, that after the Hutch signing, we had $16-17 million in cap space left still. How? I do not know, but that was what he said. So if he was right, after the Richardson signing, we still have plenty of cap room.

We must have backloaded our other FA contracts, for us to still have that much left. I know we gave them all signing bonuses and not roster bonuses, so their bonuses didn't count against the cap. $2.3 million extra when Daunte left and I also heard we were close to a restructured deal with Rosey that would save us some cap space as well. So maybe we do still have that much left.

I'd be happy if we signed Neal and a safety and did nothing else until the draft. Pick Ernie Sims at 17, and Croyle in the 2nd round. The rest of the picks, BPA.


Not doubting you but I wish we had somebody that has the figures in writing and their reasoning behind it. I am doing this off the top of my head and it is late so this could be wrong,.

we had roughly 33 million after Daunte.

Minus 13 million for Hutch

20 Million

Taylor got 4 years for 14 million a 3.5 million average

16.5 Million

Leber got 5 years 20 million, 4 million average

12.5 Million

Robinson got 3 years 12.7 million, let's say 4 million average

8.5 Million

Longwell got 5 years 10 million for a 2 million average

6.5 Million

Offord I do not think that his contract was big let's say about 1 million average

5.5 Million

Richardson got 2 years 2.5 Million average of 1.25 Mill

4.25 Million


We also signed Whittle and I do not know his cap numbers, can not be to high.

And we need room to resign Burly and our rookies.


Rob B actually likes to front load on contracts and not average out the signing bonus.


I really wish we had a exact balance left on the cap space.

whackthepack
03-22-2006, 07:14 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:

"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"pennccil" wrote:

howe much cap do we have left since we got richardson and hutch 10-15 mil left?



Well, John Clayton said on ESPNEWS last night, that after the Hutch signing, we had $16-17 million in cap space left still. How? I do not know, but that was what he said. So if he was right, after the Richardson signing, we still have plenty of cap room.

We must have backloaded our other FA contracts, for us to still have that much left. I know we gave them all signing bonuses and not roster bonuses, so their bonuses didn't count against the cap. $2.3 million extra when Daunte left and I also heard we were close to a restructured deal with Rosey that would save us some cap space as well. So maybe we do still have that much left.

I'd be happy if we signed Neal and a safety and did nothing else until the draft. Pick Ernie Sims at 17, and Croyle in the 2nd round. The rest of the picks, BPA.


Not doubting you but I wish we had somebody that has the figures in writing and their reasoning behind it. I am doing this off the top of my head and it is late so this could be wrong,.

we had roughly 33 million after Daunte.

Minus 13 million for Hutch

20 Million cap room

Taylor got 4 years for 14 million a 3.5 million average

16.5 Million

Leber got 5 years 20 million, 4 million average

12.5 Million

Robinson got 3 years 12.7 million, let's say 4 million average

8.5 Million

Longwell got 5 years 10 million for a 2 million average

6.5 Million

Offord I do not think that his contract was big let's say about 1 million average

5.5 Million

Richardson got 2 years 2.5 Million average of 1.25 Mill

4.25 Million


We also signed Whittle and I do not know his cap numbers, can not be to high.

And we need room to resign Burly and our rookies.


Rob B actually likes to front load on contracts and not average out the signing bonus.


I really wish we had a exact balance left on the cap space.


Wondering if anyone knows what we have left for cap space? I have no idea, and would help to know how much to speculate on what we can still do!

V4L
03-22-2006, 07:22 PM
I've heard anywhere between 10-17 mill...

So either way we are in good shape

VikesfaninWis
03-22-2006, 07:23 PM
"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"pennccil" wrote:

howe much cap do we have left since we got richardson and hutch 10-15 mil left?



Well, John Clayton said on ESPNEWS last night, that after the Hutch signing, we had $16-17 million in cap space left still. How? I do not know, but that was what he said. So if he was right, after the Richardson signing, we still have plenty of cap room.

We must have backloaded our other FA contracts, for us to still have that much left. I know we gave them all signing bonuses and not roster bonuses, so their bonuses didn't count against the cap. $2.3 million extra when Daunte left and I also heard we were close to a restructured deal with Rosey that would save us some cap space as well. So maybe we do still have that much left.

I'd be happy if we signed Neal and a safety and did nothing else until the draft. Pick Ernie Sims at 17, and Croyle in the 2nd round. The rest of the picks, BPA.


That would not surprise me at all. Rob Bryzenski is the best at managing the cap. He had to be with with McCombs as the owner.. The only player that I am aware of that had a significant impact on this years cap would be Hutchinson. With trading Culpepper, we had around 34 mil to spend. That would sound about right to me. I am sure we have atleast 10-15 mil left to spend.

V4L
03-22-2006, 07:24 PM
10-17 mill is most likley correct.. We are in good shape never the less..


Rob wouldn't let us get in cap trouble

thepacksux
03-22-2006, 07:25 PM
Rob B usually makes the first two years base salaries VERY modest so those cap numbers for the other signings are most likely off. I doubt we gave them roster bonuses like we have with winfield, smoot, and hutch. As i recall last year smoot was the only front loaded contract. I would venture to guess we have about 8-10 million remaining. Plenty of room to sign burleson, neal, and proceed to the draft. However, if we are going to trade up in the first round, we could run into problems.