Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    digital420's Avatar
    digital420 is online now Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Ancient Korinthia
    Posts
    2,546

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    I always liked nate.. and not only cause we have the same name..

    he has great ability to catch and run. he's quick into his routes, and he doesn't have the ego that goes along with a upper string WR.

    I really will miss him in purple and think he'll do good with the seagulls.

    but.. of course.. when A.w takes him on.. it'll be int's all nite.

    DiGiTaL

    "We tried to stick with it, but there was a point where we were beating our head against a wall," Seattle Coach Mora talking about running at the Williams Wall

  2. #12
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    "ejmat" wrote:
    Struggled???? 1006 yards for the season is struggling? Listen, Nate hasn't proven to be a star calibur player yet. However, he has shown greatness at times. He didn't play well last year but who on the Vikings did?
    During Nate's fantastic 04 season, randy was off the field for 3 entire games..and part of a fourth. During those 3 "Randy-Free" games, Nate didn't put up spectacular numbers except against Green Bay (But who better to put them up against?).

    Versus Indy - 1 reception for 8 yards and 1 TD.
    Versus Green Bay - 11 receptions for 141 yards and 1 TD.
    Versus Detroit - 5 receptions for 52 yards and 1 TD.

    On average, that's 5.7 catches per game, 67 yards, and 1 TD per game.

    With Randy in the game, his average was 3.9 catches, 61 yards, and .47 TDs per game (This includes the 2 play off games versus GB and Philly).

    Take away the phenominal GB game, and his numbers (w/o Randy) plummet.

    Last season, minus Moss and with Nate expected to be our #1, he managed an average of only 2.5 catches per game, 27.3 yards, and 0.08 TDs. Not what I would call spectacular numbers. And no, I didn't factor in the two games he didn't play in (That just wouldn't be fair).

    So, I think there is quite a bit of justification in saying that Nate is not a premier receiver...yet. Will he ever be one? Probably not on the scope of a Moss, Owens, Johnson, or Smith...but he'll be GOOD.

    For Seattle, he was a solid pick-up. For us, Hutch was a FANTASTIC pick-up.

    "ejmat" wrote:
    We all know that Nate has the ptoential to be a star WR in this league. Regardless of what you want to think. Now he's going to an already prolific offense (#1 in the NFL last year) with a great WR opposite of him, a great RB, and a Qb that can get him the ball. No, he's no Randy Moss or TO but he's an above average player with a great attitude about the game. Sometimes that makes all the difference. Look at Steve Largent. Was he the quickest WR? No. was Cris Carter? No. We do know he can catch the football and run after the catch. Seattle did good by obtaining him. The Vikings did great by getting Hutch and a 3rd round pick. But people need to stop underestimating Nate.
    And, looking again at the numbers he's put up, I simply don't agree. Largent and Carter did something that Burleson has yet to do - they performed when it was their chance to do so. Nate had a fantastic opportunity to do so last season...and didn't. Even considering his injuries, he didn't ever really come alive.

    I think that Seattle will be a great fit for him. He isn't the #1 guy, so he'll be able to be productive without having the pressure of being #1 (both personal pressure, and added defensive attention). I don't see him as Cris Carter, I see him as more of a Jake Reed, Alvin Harper, or Antonio Freeman. A guy who can turn it on, but isn't really a #1.

    Caine

  3. #13
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    Hi Caine,

    I wasn't trying to say he was a Cris Carter or Steve Largent. I was making a point that those 2 were great WRs without having the blazing speed that everyone is so hung up on. Thank you for the stats over Moss' games out but if I were to say so myself they aren't bad. He did step up when needed. Moss was actually out 5 games when you consider being out 3 the entire game and the other 2 he was used as a decoy for like the 1st 2 plays of the game. Remember that stats don't tell the entire story. His ego allowed others to step up where needed too. That's something they didn't have when Moss was on the field that year.

    We can disagree on things and that's okay. My personal opinion on Nate is he's a good player with a good ego. I think we lost a good team player. I still don't believe that 1006 yards in a season is struggling. He had a great 2004 season and that is the Nate I think we are losing. Being hurt the entire season last year I can't make an assumption on his career play. He did play poorly last year but IMO it's not the real Nate. We do agree that he should flourish in Seattle. That was part of my points too. I do hate seeing him go however I am happy we got a 3rd round draft pick for him.

    If he goes to Seattle and plays poorly than I will 100% agree it was great getting rid of him. But you never know till it happens. As it stands now I look at his potential and his football attitude and think we lost a good player.

  4. #14
    shawn9876uss is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    727

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    Nate is a great number 2 wide reciever, but I don't think he is ready to be a number one receiver, nor the skills, that is why we tendered him so low


    Thanks PurpleMafia

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,160

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    He'll do alright but not great... we definitely got the better end of the deal with Hutch.
    WE CAN BUILD ON THIS!!!

    In AP I trust

  6. #16
    stud_17's Avatar
    stud_17 is offline Waterboy
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    11

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    Burleson was a good receiver but I think Robinson and Williamson can step in and do just as good or better. They definitely offer more of a deep threat than Burleson, but he was the better possession receiver. Either way, we got the better end of the deal by signing Hutch.

  7. #17
    ViKing24's Avatar
    ViKing24 is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    605

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    ya I think they can Williamson showed some promise last year with those burners


    Formerly Viking24

  8. #18
    VikesfaninWis's Avatar
    VikesfaninWis is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,055

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    Burly is a good player, but he isn't the impact type of player that Hutch is. We for sure got the better deal in this one.. Nate wasn't a proven WR, he had 1 good year, and that was the season that Pepp put up record numbers. He has shown he can't handle the pressure of being labeled the #1 reciever.. We also have to realize that T-Will was so under coached it wasn't funny.

    Tice did nothing to make this guy shine. T-Will has speed to burn, and runs great routes. He will be a effective WCO type of reciever, and his YAC will be huge for us. Tice had his favorites on the team. He held guys like T-Will down. Now that Childress is here, and he realizes his potential, he will be huge for us next season.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    73

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    "Caine" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    Struggled???? 1006 yards for the season is struggling? Listen, Nate hasn't proven to be a star calibur player yet. However, he has shown greatness at times. He didn't play well last year but who on the Vikings did?
    During Nate's fantastic 04 season, randy was off the field for 3 entire games..and part of a fourth. During those 3 "Randy-Free" games, Nate didn't put up spectacular numbers except against Green Bay (But who better to put them up against?).

    Versus Indy - 1 reception for 8 yards and 1 TD.
    Versus Green Bay - 11 receptions for 141 yards and 1 TD.
    Versus Detroit - 5 receptions for 52 yards and 1 TD.

    On average, that's 5.7 catches per game, 67 yards, and 1 TD per game.

    With Randy in the game, his average was 3.9 catches, 61 yards, and .47 TDs per game (This includes the 2 play off games versus GB and Philly).

    Take away the phenominal GB game, and his numbers (w/o Randy) plummet.

    Last season, minus Moss and with Nate expected to be our #1, he managed an average of only 2.5 catches per game, 27.3 yards, and 0.08 TDs. Not what I would call spectacular numbers. And no, I didn't factor in the two games he didn't play in (That just wouldn't be fair).

    So, I think there is quite a bit of justification in saying that Nate is not a premier receiver...yet. Will he ever be one? Probably not on the scope of a Moss, Owens, Johnson, or Smith...but he'll be GOOD.

    For Seattle, he was a solid pick-up. For us, Hutch was a FANTASTIC pick-up.

    "ejmat" wrote:
    We all know that Nate has the ptoential to be a star WR in this league. Regardless of what you want to think. Now he's going to an already prolific offense (#1 in the NFL last year) with a great WR opposite of him, a great RB, and a Qb that can get him the ball. No, he's no Randy Moss or TO but he's an above average player with a great attitude about the game. Sometimes that makes all the difference. Look at Steve Largent. Was he the quickest WR? No. was Cris Carter? No. We do know he can catch the football and run after the catch. Seattle did good by obtaining him. The Vikings did great by getting Hutch and a 3rd round pick. But people need to stop underestimating Nate.
    And, looking again at the numbers he's put up, I simply don't agree. Largent and Carter did something that Burleson has yet to do - they performed when it was their chance to do so. Nate had a fantastic opportunity to do so last season...and didn't. Even considering his injuries, he didn't ever really come alive.

    I think that Seattle will be a great fit for him. He isn't the #1 guy, so he'll be able to be productive without having the pressure of being #1 (both personal pressure, and added defensive attention). I don't see him as Cris Carter, I see him as more of a Jake Reed, Alvin Harper, or Antonio Freeman. A guy who can turn it on, but isn't really a #1.

    Thank you Caine.. Ejmat just proved my point.. he had a great season in 2004. 1006 yards is a pretty good year.. but he obviously didn't realize that I was saying he "STRUGGLED" during the 3 and 1/2 games moss was out. He only had a little over 200 yards in those games. And around 150 of them were during the Green Bay game. That just proved the point that he was good.. but only with Moss on the other side..

    Caine
    How bout you sideburns.. You want somma this milk??

  10. #20
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Seahawks and Vikings play free-agent tag

    I don't think I ever said anything about Nate being a #1 WR. I'm stating that he is a good WR with a good football attitude. Did you ever stop to think that Pep had 4717 yards passing in 2004? Over 1000 went to him. I did "obviously" see that you said while Moss was out. I also stated that stats don't mean evrything. While defenses were busy covering him, pep was able to go to others. If you want to throw out stats while Moss was out, let's throw out the kickreturn he scored for a TD against the Colts getting the Vikings back into it. Do you remember that? I didn't see that in your stats.

    Dude, I'm not putting down what you are saying however, look at the whole picture. It's not all about stats. Again Moss was out for 3 total games and 2 games he tried to play that he couldn't. He was only in like 2 plays each of the other games.

    If he had 150 yards when Moss was out of the game how does that prove your point that he's only good with Moss on the other side?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FREE LOWER LEVEL TIX - Vikings vs. Seahawks
    By singersp in forum Tix & Such
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2010, 04:06 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2007, 07:20 PM
  3. Vikings - Free Agent Prospects
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-02-2007, 03:21 PM
  4. Vikings Free Agent Estimates
    By VikesfaninWis in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-30-2006, 08:50 PM
  5. Vikings Free Agent Overview
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-08-2006, 07:54 PM

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
  •