Thread: Burleson is getting used!

"PackSux!" wrote:

"cogitans" wrote:

"Warp" wrote:

I think of it this way. We got rid of a player of a position we had 2 other players better than him already(atleast i think williamson and k-rob are better), and we get a 3rd round pick out of it. Just what I think of it.

I really hope your right there.

Even tough I have high thougts of K-rob, and think he'll do great. He still has to prove he can do it, that is be a great reciever as well as a KR.

Well if he is our number one or even number two reciever his jiggly butt better not be returning kicks. The dumbest thing a team could do is have there starting recievers return a kick/punt.

Steve Smith returns punts

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

Why is this in the "General discussion on the Vikes"? It should be in the "Off-season" or "General discussion on other NFL teams" forum.

Also, the title of the thread is a little mis-leading given the subject matter of the 1st post. That's just my opinion.

Why not in the General NFL Discussion?

-Because at the time the thread was posted, he was a Vike.

Why not in the Offseason?

-Meh, it could go either.

It was an off-season move since he was a FA & when the post was made, the time lapsed & he was a Seahawk! :razz:

"AlabamaViking" wrote:

"sleepagent" wrote:

"AlabamaViking" wrote:

"sleepagent" wrote:

Nate is NOT getting used. He is getting back at the Vikings for offering him a low-ball offer and he's more than happy to join the Seashawks in getting back at the Vikings.

He's made a decision to move on and, I suspect, has burned his bridges in Minnesota. The Viking Management is NOT going to keep a loser like this.

I feel the offer the Vikes offered him was reasonable. He is a nobody receiver that nobody will remember years from now.

That's actually not a bad perspective and probably closer to what I mean. I guess meeting and talking with a guy makes you think about stuff, but your thoughts are good. Thanks.

Until next time...

I know this much. If I were pissed at someone, I'd sign a deal like this and laugh my butt off.

If I didn't want to burn any bidges, I'd tell them reword and make it more realistic and professional.

Still want some concrete proof (besides the offer siging...I
don't blame him for that) that he made a decision to go to Seattle or was unhappy in Minnesota. He has said NOTHING of the sort. Maybe he's ill that Daunte got booted. I guess you could look at it from that standpoint. I mean, Brad saw KoRo all the time but never really connected with Nate.
Maybe it was best for Nate. He was such a nice guy though...hate to see them go.

Until next time...

He was very happy in Minnesota, however, being that he grew up in Seattle, he publicly stated a few weeks ago (before signing the offer sheet) that he is definitely a Viking, but admitted that a chance to play in his hometown (Seattle) would be something that he would love to do. He wasn't dissing the Vikes at all, but basically said that if he couldn't stay with the Vikes for whatever reason, that Seattle would be a close second choice.

who care's .. he's gone. he wasn't that great anyway..

playing for a team simply because you rooted for the seattle supersonics when you were a kid is a pretty pathetic reason (he actually said that)..especially since he was born in calgary anyways..the fact that he contributed to the poison pills seattle put in place proves that he was trying to slap the vikings in the face..im sorry but when a term of your contract is "cannot play 5 games in the state of minnesota" that pretty much shows what you think of that states fans and football team..the deal is good however because it saved us the couple of million bucks we wouldve had to spend on him if he signed here..he didnt have a definitive role here anyways with us trying to get k-rob and t-will more involved

"vikings11_27" wrote:

"PackSux!" wrote:

"cogitans" wrote:

"Warp" wrote:

I think of it this way. We got rid of a player of a position we had 2 other players better than him already(atleast i think williamson and k-rob are better), and we get a 3rd round pick out of it. Just what I think of it.

I really hope your right there.

Even tough I have high thougts of K-rob, and think he'll do great. He still has to prove he can do it, that is be a great reciever as well as a KR.

Well if he is our number one or even number two reciever his jiggly butt better not be returning kicks. The dumbest thing a team could do is have there starting recievers return a kick/punt.

Steve Smith returns punts

and santana moss..that guy probably shouldve done some homework before making that genius comment :lol:

"Warp" wrote:

I think of it this way. We got rid of a player of a position we had 2 other players better than him already(atleast i think williamson and k-rob are better), and we get a 3rd round pick out of it. Just what I think of it.

there is absolutely no way on earth that t-will is currently better than burleson..he hasnt proven himself yet at all..i do understand your point tho because we will surely be looking to get those 2 guys far more involved in the offense this year..i wouldve liked to keep nate, but if he doesnt want to be here, then f*ck him..i read that the terms were nearly identical in the deal that we offered him, and he turned it down to go to seattle for 7 years instead of the 4 we offered him..if he wants to go live in his "fairy tale" world as he called it, then so be it

"olson_10" wrote:

"Warp" wrote:

I think of it this way. We got rid of a player of a position we had 2 other players better than him already(atleast i think williamson and k-rob are better), and we get a 3rd round pick out of it. Just what I think of it.

there is absolutely no way on earth that t-will is currently better than burleson..he hasnt proven himself yet at all..i do understand your point tho because we will surely be looking to get those 2 guys far more involved in the offense this year..i wouldve liked to keep nate, but if he doesnt want to be here, then f*ck him..i read that the terms were nearly identical in the deal that we offered him, and he turned it down to go to seattle for 7 years instead of the 4 we offered him..if he wants to go live in his "fairy tale" world as he called it, then so be it

His "fairy tale" world was playing for his home team, where his parents live. I'm not going to bash on anyone that makes that decision.

"singersp" wrote:

"olson_10" wrote:

"Warp" wrote:

I think of it this way. We got rid of a player of a position we had 2 other players better than him already(atleast i think williamson and k-rob are better), and we get a 3rd round pick out of it. Just what I think of it.

there is absolutely no way on earth that t-will is currently better than burleson..he hasnt proven himself yet at all..i do understand your point tho because we will surely be looking to get those 2 guys far more involved in the offense this year..i wouldve liked to keep nate, but if he doesnt want to be here, then f*ck him..i read that the terms were nearly identical in the deal that we offered him, and he turned it down to go to seattle for 7 years instead of the 4 we offered him..if he wants to go live in his "fairy tale" world as he called it, then so be it

His "fairy tale" world was playing for his home team, where his parents live. I'm not going to bash on anyone that makes that decision.

Agreed...I can't blame a guy who wants to play for his home town team. If I had been fortunate enough to have been gifted with the ability to play in the NFL, and Minnesota offered me a deal after 3-4 yers elsewhere, I would LEAP at it...even if it was for LESS money...just because that's MY team. Fortunately, the fans of 31 teams were spared the agony of losing my services to the Vikings due to my lack of ability.

However, and this seems to get overlooked a lot, his 7 year deal is really a 4 year deal with 3 voidable (and they will be voided) years worth @ 33 million dollars tacked on. Minus those 3 years, his contract isn't anywhere near what Hutch got.

Caine