Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1
    michaelmazid is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,876

    Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    Viking Update Staff - Scout.com
    March 3, 2006 at 8:43am ET

    The Vikings had five wide receivers that were viewed as co-starters last year. But the team has gambled that other teams won't be willing to jump on Nate Burleson.

    When the Vikings traded Randy Moss, the ascent of Nate Burleson was expected. Burleson, who was coming off a 1,000-yard season, was given help with the signing of veterans Travis Taylor and Koren Robinson , but Burleson was expected to be the top dog of the receiver corps.

    That plan, it would appear, has changed. The Vikings announced Thursday that Burleson, a restricted free agent, was given the minimum qualifying offer of $712,000. If a team signs Burleson to an offer sheet and the Vikings don't match, the new team would only have to give up a third-round draft pick as compensation -- the same round in which the Vikings originally drafted Burleson.

    While there is still talk that the Vikings will look to sign Burleson to a long-term contract, had the team made a qualifying offer of $1.5 million, they could have effectively taken Burleson off the market, since it would have required a first-round pick as compensation.

    FRIDAY NOTES
    * The Daunte Culpepper rumors have begun again. Reports coming out Thursday indicated the Vikings are once again in talks with teams about Culpepper's availability -- citing differences with new coach Brad Childress as to why the team is willing to part with their former Pro Bowl quarterback.
    * Why did the Vikings put a transition tag on CB Brian Williams ? They could afford to. The cost of putting a tag on cornerbacks dropped more than any other position in the league in 2006 compared against 2005. In 2005, if the Vikings had wanted to put a franchise tag on Williams, it would have cost $8.82 million -- with a transition tag running $6.94 million. By doing it this year, the Vikings are only on the hook for $4.77 million -- a drop of $2.2 million of the average of the top 10 salaries. Had the team put the franchise tag on him, it would have cost $5.893 million -- a drop of almost $3 million from 2005.
    * In its free agency preview, The Sporting News listed the Vikings as one of the top three potential suitors of 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson, No. 2 for those teams in the running for Eagles tackle Jon Runyan and the No. 1 choice for RB Edgerrin James.
    * The Patriots are rumored to be interested in both Sam Cowart and Burleson.
    * The Colts, who are expected to not be able to afford to keep Mike Vanderjagt as their kicker, have Paul Edinger on their short list of potential replacements.
    * The Chiefs are expected to make a run at pass-rushing DE Lance Johnstone .
    * The Cardinals might be the Vikings' top competition for guard Toniu Fonoti , who is among the top available guard free agents in the weak Class of 2006.
    * Both the Rams and Packers are expected to make a run at trying to sign Brian Williams away from the Vikings.

  2. #2
    mattjenny3's Avatar
    mattjenny3 is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    223

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    I don't want to lose him, but a third round pick this year is still a good pick.
    REDHORSE

  3. #3
    Ltrey33 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,618

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    I don't want to lose him either, but I've said it before: all of our recievers are expendable.

  4. #4
    Mr. Purple's Avatar
    Mr. Purple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,005

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    Julian! Man it'd be awesome to get him and James. Take up alotta cap tho...would be worth it tho.

    Theres NOTHING greater then a Florida Gator!
    "I promise everyone this. When Childress is let go in two years I can honestly say this.
    "I am not surprised"."-PurplePackerEater

  5. #5
    ChiTownVike's Avatar
    ChiTownVike is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    "michaelmazid" wrote:
    Viking Update Staff - Scout.com
    March 3, 2006 at 8:43am ET

    The Vikings had five wide receivers that were viewed as co-starters last year. But the team has gambled that other teams won't be willing to jump on Nate Burleson.

    When the Vikings traded Randy Moss, the ascent of Nate Burleson was expected. Burleson, who was coming off a 1,000-yard season, was given help with the signing of veterans Travis Taylor and Koren Robinson , but Burleson was expected to be the top dog of the receiver corps.

    That plan, it would appear, has changed. The Vikings announced Thursday that Burleson, a restricted free agent, was given the minimum qualifying offer of $712,000. If a team signs Burleson to an offer sheet and the Vikings don't match, the new team would only have to give up a third-round draft pick as compensation -- the same round in which the Vikings originally drafted Burleson.

    While there is still talk that the Vikings will look to sign Burleson to a long-term contract, had the team made a qualifying offer of $1.5 million, they could have effectively taken Burleson off the market, since it would have required a first-round pick as compensation.

    FRIDAY NOTES
    * The Daunte Culpepper rumors have begun again. Reports coming out Thursday indicated the Vikings are once again in talks with teams about Culpepper's availability -- citing differences with new coach Brad Childress as to why the team is willing to part with their former Pro Bowl quarterback.
    * Why did the Vikings put a transition tag on CB Brian Williams ? They could afford to. The cost of putting a tag on cornerbacks dropped more than any other position in the league in 2006 compared against 2005. In 2005, if the Vikings had wanted to put a franchise tag on Williams, it would have cost $8.82 million -- with a transition tag running $6.94 million. By doing it this year, the Vikings are only on the hook for $4.77 million -- a drop of $2.2 million of the average of the top 10 salaries. Had the team put the franchise tag on him, it would have cost $5.893 million -- a drop of almost $3 million from 2005.
    * In its free agency preview, The Sporting News listed the Vikings as one of the top three potential suitors of 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson, No. 2 for those teams in the running for Eagles tackle Jon Runyan and the No. 1 choice for RB Edgerrin James.
    * The Patriots are rumored to be interested in both Sam Cowart and Burleson.
    * The Colts, who are expected to not be able to afford to keep Mike Vanderjagt as their kicker, have Paul Edinger on their short list of potential replacements.
    * The Chiefs are expected to make a run at pass-rushing DE Lance Johnstone .
    * The Cardinals might be the Vikings' top competition for guard Toniu Fonoti , who is among the top available guard free agents in the weak Class of 2006.
    * Both the Rams and Packers are expected to make a run at trying to sign Brian Williams away from the Vikings.
    I like those notes!!!!



    Thank you Josdin for the sig

  6. #6
    DaunteHOF is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,096

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    Julian in the purple & gold
    Its not braggin if you can do it!!!

  7. #7
    michaelmazid is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,876

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    I always thought that the vikes jumped on Burleson's bandwagon alittle too quick. He was a product of Moss. Everyone would double or triple team moss and burely was always man to man. I think New England would be a great place for him. He'll be just one of the guys there but man I would hate to see Brian Williams leave.

  8. #8
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    There is already a thread going around on Burleson;

    Vikings place qualifying offer on Burleson on this topic.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  9. #9
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    I like Burly, but wouldn't be heartbroken so see him leave. I think there are places where he would probably fit better, and there are otehr recievers on our roster who I think could fill the #1 spot.

    HOwever, if Burly does leave, they need to step up and get a solid contract on K-Rob! I think K-Rob - Taylor - WIlliamson would be a good recieving corp.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  10. #10
    happy camper's Avatar
    happy camper is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,445

    Re: Vikings Low-Ball Burleson

    "michaelmazid" wrote:
    I always thought that the vikes jumped on Burleson's bandwagon alittle too quick. He was a product of Moss. Everyone would double or triple team moss and burely was always man to man. I think New England would be a great place for him. He'll be just one of the guys there but man I would hate to see Brian Williams leave.
    Were other teams double teaming Moss while he was on the sidelines injured?
    "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise."

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings game ball
    By Mystophales in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-11-2007, 05:13 PM
  2. Vikings receivers need to get on the ball
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-22-2006, 10:26 AM
  3. Vikings place qualifying offer on Burleson
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-03-2006, 06:33 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-16-2005, 10:20 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
  •