throwback week



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    bluengreen Guest

    Re: Seahawks respond to losing Hutch by signing WR Burleson to $49 million offer shee

    Plus, I have to say I have a hard time getting a grip on the WR market right now. You could say that the Seahawks REALLY got burned because they could have got one of the best WRs in the NFL -- TO -- for a mere three years 25 mill with a $5 mill signing bonus. But obviously that's a gross underpayment because he's been such a cancer.

    The same could be said about Meshawn in a lesser degree. Though he may be > than Burleson in talent, I'd much, much rather have Burleson any time. He can be counted on, at least.

    Given the personalities involved, I'm not sure there's been a comparable player to Burleson signed this offseason to determine a fair market value. Plus, given the "point" our FO was making with this signing I don't know that the real eventual cost of this signing can even be determined yet.


  2. #17
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,871
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Seahawks respond to losing Hutch by signing WR Burleson to $49 million offer shee

    Quote Originally Posted by bluengreen
    Plus, I have to say I have a hard time getting a grip on the WR market right now. You could say that the Seahawks REALLY got burned because they could have got one of the best WRs in the NFL -- TO -- for a mere three years 25 mill with a $5 mill signing bonus. But obviously that's a gross underpayment because he's been such a cancer.

    The same could be said about Meshawn in a lesser degree. Though he may be > than Burleson in talent, I'd much, much rather have Burleson any time. He can be counted on, at least.

    Given the personalities involved, I'm not sure there's been a comparable player to Burleson signed this offseason to determine a fair market value. Plus, given the "point" our FO was making with this signing I don't know that the real eventual cost of this signing can even be determined yet.
    All very fair points. I think in terms of talent, Meshawn would be a better option than Burleson. And I think during his time in Dallas, Meshawn did a pretty good job of staying on his best behavior. But there's no guarantees, and clearly Burleson is younger and has more upside, albeit I'm not sure how much.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  3. #18
    bluengreen Guest

    Re: Seahawks respond to losing Hutch by signing WR Burleson to $49 million offer shee

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    I was one of those people, and my stomach is still rumbling as it tries to digest the large plate of crow that I was served. That said, I think it's a bit different striking gold on an underrated prospect than it is striking gold on an NFL free agent that we've seen at the professional level.

    I do agree that Burleson's ability to gain yards after the catch would make him a nice fit in Seattle, but I don't see him as a big play-making receiver and I don't think he's going to match what Jurevicius did production-wise.

    Here's my problem with Seattle's offense. When I look at that offense, I don't see a guy who can take the team on his back and get results single-handedly. To an extent Hasselbeck fits that role, but he's handicapped by what's around him - see the SB for an example.

    I'm not convinced that Shaun Alexander, when his team needs him most, is the kind of guy who is going to step up and be a gamer. He gets amazing stats, but he's not in the Tiki Barber mold where he can simply take the Seahawks on his shoulders and carry them if they need him to do that, IMO. I'm trying to say that as tactfully as possible without trying to really make it seem like I'm slamming Alexander too much. I think he's a top five runner in this league, but I think there are some running backs who when their team is struggling can just man up and make things happen themselves, and I just don't see that in Alexander.

    As for their receivers, even with Burleson, I don't see a game changer. Jackson is a good starter, but not in the upper echilon of receiving talents. Stevens had a career year at TE only to crap the bed in the biggest game of his life. Jurevicius filled in well when injuries forced him into a bigger role and I think he's still a good starter but he's gone now. Engram is probably best relegated to situatinal duties as the slot receiver. I like the potential of D.J. Hackett but I think he has a way's to go still.

    I really think the Seahawks would benefit from getting a true impact receiver. Unfortunately for the 'Hawks, there weren't a great many of them really available in free agency. Clearly your front office was smart enough not to make a play for TO, and I think the only other real option out there was David Givens. That's why I liked the notion of the Seahawks spending a second round pick on a receiver, because I think there is some good talent through the first two rounds. But I think dipping into the third, it starts to decline. If the logic is that the front office wasn't going to spend a first or second round pick on a receiver anyways, then Burleson's deal makes more sense because he's an upgrade over the late day one receivers. But if the Seahawks were open to taking a receiver in the first or second, then I think they shot themselves in the foot a bit with this offer sheet.
    Dang, you really DO understand the issues surrounding our team. Are you sure you're not a 'Hawks fan in disguise?

    :tongue:

    I do agree that Alexander hasn't been a "take the team on his back" sort of player -- see the Redskins game. Sorry, but even before his concussion he looked like a scared little girl out there. I was scared that we were going to fold once he went out.

    But what happened? Hass was the guy who stepped up and put the team on his back, running for a couple first downs, loosening up the Skins D then starting to pick them apart.

    He answered any last small question I had about him at that point. He's the go to guy, and the real MVP of our O in my opinion.

    I think you under rate Jackson as well. He was injured a lot last season, but he's a top 10 WR when he's healthy (his stats prove it), even including an occasional drop. He can take an eight yard reception and turn it into a TD at any point, thanks.

    I was very disappointed in Steven's SB as well, he could have single handedly won that game for them but didn't step up, ultimately proving Porter right, imo. I can only hope that he uses that as motivation to come back with his best season.

    In the end though, I'm not worried about our offense terribly much. Much like the Rams of late, our core almost guarantees us being in the top ten. It's our D that will make or break us, imo. And I think we're making positive step after positive step in that direction.

    In a way, it's not the Peterson signings that count. Our big D signing last year was Sharper and he ended up missing a lot of the season. It was that we drafted very intelligently and had depth like M. Manuel, K. Bentley and C. Darby to get us through the rough times that made the difference between other years.

    This year it will be the Russell Davis signings to fill in the cracks that will make the difference.

  4. #19
    RamsFan16 Guest

    Re: Seahawks respond to losing Hutch by signing WR Burleson to $49 million offer sheet

    Nate is good but not worth the contract he might get. I'd take Keyshawn over Nate.

  5. #20
    Large_Ant Guest

    Re: Seahawks respond to losing Hutch by signing WR Burleson to $49 million offer sheet

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFan16
    Nate is good but not worth the contract he might get. I'd take Keyshawn over Nate.
    I'm not understanding the comparisons between Keyshawn Johnson and Nate Burleson. Bringing in Keyshawn Johnson is like bringing in a "hired gun" kind of like what we did with Joe Jurevicius last year. Effective (as I think Keyshawn would have been) but a short term fix considering the fact that Keyshawn will be 34 when the season starts. I think the Seahawks goal was to infuse some youth into the receiving corps since Bobby Engram is 33.

    Even if the Seahawks had brought Keyshawn in, they still would need to get younger at the position and Burleson IMO is better than anyone WR that would be available at the bottom of the third round.

  6. #21
    sbramfan Guest

    Re: Seahawks respond to losing Hutch by signing WR Burleson to $49 million offer sheet

    Burleson is a solid pickup. Definitely takes away the gamble of a Keyshawn or T.O.

    I must say, I'm surprised I'm the first rams fan to express the sigh of relief that the rumored seahawks interest in Kevin Curtis will likely go away with this signing. Still possible, but looks like this is the hawks WR move for now...

    It's not that Curtis would even be that great of a pickup for the Seahawks, just that this FA thing is really starting to get old when you can't even keep your up and coming talent anymore.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •