Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 100
  1. #1
    VikingGuy43's Avatar
    VikingGuy43 is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    96

    Good Riddance Burleson

    I know the title of this thread might annoy a lot of people but there are a few reasons why I say good riddance to Nate Burleson. For one, the fact that he agreed to this offer of 7 years for $49 million is pretty much spitting in the face of the Vikings. The reason that Seattle made this deal the way they did was to get "revenge" on the Vikes... and the fact that Burleson went right along with it doesn't say much about his character. You can't blame the guy for getting the most money he could, but after all of his statements about "being a Minnesota Viking" I would have guessed he would have not "slept with the enemy" in devising this deal. I don't know about you guys but after reading these stupid "poison pill" provisions something has gotta change. 5 games in the state of MN... are you kidding me? Why didn't they just say if he wears a jersey that is purple and gold for 2 mins during the season, the entire contract is guranteed? That is BS if you ask me, and Seattle is now my new most hated team... well second most hated. Sorry Pack!

  2. #2
    damien927's Avatar
    damien927 is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    610

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    Yeah, I did think that our poison pill was bending the rules a little, but they have tried to make a point and have made a mockery of the CBA at the same time. I thinking about this, and I highly doubt that Burleson or his agent came up with these stupid clauses... With Hutch's offer, it was stated by someone....I dno't remember who..... that it has to be the player's or his agent's idea and the team must agree with it. It cannot be a team's idea..... I don't know what the whole idea behind that is, but that is what I read.

    Thanks Lotza!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    61

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    Nate at best is a decent 3rd stringer, not more then that.

  4. #4
    Ltrey33 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,618

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    Well first of all, I don't say good riddance to Burleson. He was a very good reciever, and I liked his personality and his character a lot. I hope he does well in Seattle (but not too well!). I do think we got the better end of the deal, because Hutch is going to make more of any impact for us than Burleson ever would have, and the draft pick is nice too. So I support the "trade" if you will.

    I don't think you should attack Nate's character though. The Seahawks offered him a boat load of money to do what he loves to do, and now he'll be able to do it in his home town. The Vikes had every opportunity to match, and they decided not too. You can't blame Nate for taking the money and playing in his home town.

    These "poison pill" provisions are pretty ridiculous, but we got the better end of one of them so you can't complain too much.

  5. #5
    canadian_vikes_fan's Avatar
    canadian_vikes_fan is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,322

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    I'm not mad at Burleson at all. I thank him for all he did as a Viking, and wish him all the best in Seattle. No hard feelings.

    It was obvious the way the Vikings low-balled him that we weren't too interested in matching any offers he got anyway. The fact that he went out and got the best deal he could is just what he was supposed to do as a RFA. And I'm not upset about the poison pills either. The way I see it, we wouldn't have matched the deal anyways, and I guarantee you Nate didn't put those deals in there himself, so what's the dif??

    Thanks PPE for the sig.

  6. #6
    litlharsh's Avatar
    litlharsh is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    738

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    Because he turned being a 3rd string wideout with a rebuilding team and a 58 year old QB, to be with an Elite offense and immediate superbowl contenders, he must be of bad character.

    He does what he does to make his life better. And you wonder why many athletes hate the fans...

  7. #7
    cc21 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,599

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    We lost Nate? wtf, this is retarde d! Why didn't we offer him some more money. Now who are we gonna have at reciever that is good besides Koro?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,072

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    Ok....so they sign Nate with their pills.... what happens is Alexander (now running behind a weakened line) receives a career ending injury to his back or neck.... I would laugh my ass off if Nate entire contract became guaranteed because Seattle wanted to "make a point"!
    I'd much rather see the Packers miss the playoffs because of their talent then because of their injuries.

  9. #9
    Ltrey33 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,618

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    "coreychavous21" wrote:
    We lost Nate? wtf, this is retarde d! Why didn't we offer him some more money. Now who are we gonna have at reciever that is good besides Koro?
    He was a restricted FA, so we would have had to match Seattles offer, which basically means we would have made him a REALLY highly paid reciever because of the stupid "poison pill" about him playing games in Minnesota. Instead, we didn't match and we got a 3rd round pick out of the deal.

    We still have Williamson, Taylor and Marcus Robinson. TT is just as good as Burleson was, IMO and Williamson will hopeefully improve.

  10. #10
    VikingGuy43's Avatar
    VikingGuy43 is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    96

    Re: Good Riddance Burleson

    "ltrey33" wrote:
    Well first of all, I don't say good riddance to Burleson. He was a very good reciever, and I liked his personality and his character a lot. I hope he does well in Seattle (but not too well!). I do think we got the better end of the deal, because Hutch is going to make more of any impact for us than Burleson ever would have, and the draft pick is nice too. So I support the "trade" if you will.

    I don't think you should attack Nate's character though. The Seahawks offered him a boat load of money to do what he loves to do, and now he'll be able to do it in his home town. The Vikes had every opportunity to match, and they decided not too. You can't blame Nate for taking the money and playing in his home town.

    These "poison pill" provisions are pretty ridiculous, but we got the better end of one of them so you can't complain too much.
    I would definitely agree I thought Burleson brought some good energy and personality to the Vikes. The Vikes however definitely did not have every opportunity to match this deal though and that is where I think these "poison pill" provisions are stupid. Seattle will never have to pay Burleson the full $49 million under this deal... we would have had to. THe thing I don't get is how "the same contract" can result in the payout of different amounts of money. These "poison pills" have got to go, even though we won the "poison pill battle" with Seattle in getting Hutch. Pretty soon they're going to have to allow you to draft up "poison pill clauses" on Madden if this keeps up.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Merged: Good Riddance Saddam!/Gong, Gong, Gong...
    By Ltrey33 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2006, 11:44 AM
  2. Burleson is getting used!
    By AlabamaViking in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 04-04-2006, 12:43 PM
  3. Who's with me on saying "good riddance!"
    By baumy300 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 03-11-2006, 12:43 AM
  4. Burleson "wants to be great" good artical...
    By TheFloridianVikingFan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2005, 12:43 AM
  5. Good article on Burleson
    By Articnv in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-03-2005, 12:24 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •