Burleson Possible to Test the Market

hope nate just stinks his toe in the free agency pool.....and doesnt like it and resigns with the hawks.
possible trade branch back to pats for a later rounds. and draft shipley

I think your right, he's probably not going to find a team that'll pay him big so he resigns with us.

I am not quite sure why anyone thinks that there is a chance that another team will give us something for Branch. The dude has a $5.5 Million dollar contract. Why would anyone give away something of value to take a very average player who is scheduled to make superstar money? If he didn't cost so much we'd probably want to keep him if only for depth. Lets please get off of this.

As for Nate, those numbers are surprisingly low. I just pulled his stat line though and he only played one game in 2008 and apparently was just not used much in 2006 which makes those numbers a bit deceiving. Still, I think that the Hawks will be able to match any offer he is given but there is the chance that someone will overpay for him like we did when we first got him because he does have talent. He just can't put it all together. Personally, my thought is that he does not put in the work that really good receivers do. He's floating by just happy to be in the NFL but not really doing what it takes to be great. If we do get him back I really hope that the new staff is able to beat him down a bit and get him to work harder.

Nate will stay.But if he goes draft shipley.

Burelson not signing before FA could easily be a clue that the Seahawks are indeed intending to bring in a true #1 WR. I know it's just rumor, but holy smokes it would kick ass if we landed B. Marshall wouldn't it?

Nate couldnt get onfeld in 2006 for a variety of reasons, mostly because he had a very hard time learning Holmgrens WCO. Plus, he had a broken finger. Its funny remembering all the blogging about his horrible 2006 season; Everyone was excusing his drops and poor pass routes by his being in a new system and having a broken finger. Now he still runs horrible routes, and drops more passes than even Jeramy Stevens!

Nate hasnt even come close to earning even 3-4 million a year. We've allready paid him enough where he should play next year for free.

Hey Nate, dont let the door hit your ass on your way outta town!

Nates biggest problem is he isnt physical enough to even beat press coverage from a 5'-9" db--he's just too skinny and doesnt have the mental attitude to kick butt. Oh, and the dops.

Someone desperate may want him, but I dont think Caroll and company want anything to do with him. As an eight year vet with a reconstructed knee, Nate isnt going to get any better. Its all downhill from here.

Christ, I wish Ruskell would have picked up Devery Henderson and let Nate go...

That said, Nate is a really nice guy who works his butt off. He mentor's the younger recievers and stays late after practice to work on timing. He tries hard--he just doesnt get it done. And at the end of the day, youre either worth you pay or you aint: Burleson aint.

If you mean 4-5.5 mil a okay contract, then bring him back. If anything more then it was nice knowing you!

My guess is 50/50 Nate is a Hawk next year. Not a great FA class for WR, so some one may overpay. I like Nate a lot and think his best chance to have some success is if he stays here.

I wouldn't mind seeing us sign him to a reasonalbe contract then ship him off to a team like Baltimore, Detroit or Miami who can use help at WR. They all have young QBs who they want to surround with as much talent as possible. I know we won't get much, but a 4th or 5th round pick is reasonable for a guy like Nate. I can see Baltimore biting on a possible trade because anyone will be an upgrade over Mark Clayton, especially if Derrick Mason retires.

I think that as long as Burleson is not expected to be a teams #1 WR, he can be a very effective player. A Calvin Johnson/Brandon Pettigrew/Nate Burleson trio as recieving threats suddendly looks pretty imposing IMO, and I'm sure Matt Stafford would love that more than anything (except a decent LT)

It's a little bit funny to hear a lot of fans clamoring for a real playmaker who is capable of taking it the distance on any given play and that the Seahawks are lacking one. Well Burleson is that guy. Even with his drops, he's a dangerous man who has to be accounted for by any defense because he can take it to the bank from anywhere on the field. The biggest problem the last two seasons has been that our QB has been working behind a wet paper line and hasn't been able to consistently get Nate the ball in position to get a step on the DB's. We all saw him outrun kickoff teams in 2007 when he found a seam. He also scored 10 TD's that year. Nate is one of those guys who has great "football" speed with the pads on even though guys can beat him in shorts. We're not playing track and field here and the speed that counts is the one in full gear with the game in progress and Nate has that kind of speed.

If we let Nate go, then we really don't have a playmaker capable of scoring from anywhere on the team and we do need to spend a valuable draft choice to replace him. Right now, we need to make some decisions to keep some players who we may not have in our long term plans because to release them just creates another hole to be filled when we can't fill all the ones we legitimately have right now. That same philosophy holds true for guys like Spencer, Sims (who legitimately should be kept even at a high cost), and possibly JJ and or Branch as unpalitable as theat may be to some (even Carroll). You can't just clean house without knowing where you can find replacements that are at least as good as the ones you're letting go or your team is getting worse not better.

If free agency is going to be as barren as they say, we need to be careful not to feed other teams our only assets in certain positions just because we want to make a change or upgrade ourselves. I sure wouldn't want to let Burleson go if he would be a reasonable signing and end up with Billy McMullen replacing him. We can't afford to patch some holes like QB of the future, LT, and safety for example and open up new ones or at least bigger ones elsewhere like WR, RB, CB, OL, etc and still be fielding a team with critical positions unacounted for else we'll stink again this year and in the future. We're going to have to keep some guys around for a year or two until we can have another couple of drafts to properly address all the needs and position upgrades we want to take care of. This has nothing to do with Laury but I still see a lot of suggestions to dump a lot of guys (like Burleson) without knowing where his replacement will come from. If we draft a WR and/or RB for example, what positions of great need (LT, QB, Safety, CB, OG, DE, etc.) do we not fill in order to make that choice available? As it stand now, we've got three choices that might be able to come in and play as a starter next season. Do you really want to spend one of those to replace Burleson and forget Berry, or a LT, or lupati, or Haden etc?

I agree with BillT. And I am pretty sure that Carrol and Co. know that too. I remember during both press conferences(Carrol and Schneider), they both say they want to have the most competetive training camp in the league. The only way to do this is to keep all the talent already on the team and add talent and see who fits your system the best.

Not caring all that much... can't take a hit and hold onto a ball... how about Anquan

Let's see... franchise tag would give him 9.5 million, transition is worth 8.6 million, he is probably worth 4.5 million, so I guess that means Al Davis will swoop in and want to pay him 11 million...(just kidding, could not resist ^_^)

Naaaaaaaa.. I agree, I don't see it. The Hawks want Nate and Nate loves it in Seattle. The team will let him shop for the going rate, but in the end he will get a fair deal to stay and will re-sign with the Hawks.

I was listening to ESPN radio today and as much as I want Marshall, they were saying that Denver is looking for a 1st AND a 3rd for him!! Marshall definately isn't worth that to me, not with all his b!tching.

If the FO thinks that we need a #1 WR that bad then I'd go after Bryant over Marshall and save a 3rd. I don't condone taking a WR in the 1st at all, but that is my view point in the case the FO thinks we need to get a true #1.

That said, I think we NEED to hold onto Burly unless we are going to make a play at someone else like maybe Vincent Jackson. I'm still not huge on Miles Austin and after one good year I wouldn't risk a huge contract on him. He's not a #1 anyways. Other than that I don't really see any other prospects.

Billt--Nate WAS a threat to score from anywhere on the field--if he could hold onto the ball--in 2007. After his knee surgery, not so much. Last year the only threat he offered opposing defenses was to get wide open on third down--then drop the ball. Thats partly why defenses didnt respect the pass last year--it wasnt all the atrocious lines fault. Burleson is a number 3 WR and not a clutch one either, and as such not worth more than 2 million a year. I hope some other team pays him too much like we have and lets us move on to a younger player...its about damn time we had a young WR with talent--other than the disappointing Butler, we havent had one since Hackett.

Just a thought for all of you who don't like/want Burleson: When he was on the field he was our most productive WR last year. If you can recall those last four games, burleson didn't play in any of them (not entirely true, he did play for part of the game against Houston, but he was hurt early into the game and didn't return). It was during those four games that our passing attack had exactly no teeth. Imagine 16 games of getting blown out in a row.

Burleson will be back, our FO isn't stupid.

with the young ones we have on the roster now in waiting,we will play a lil hard ball and if no one signs him we will give him a contract comparable to his #'s

His stats show in 4 years: He played 46 games out of 64, 136 receptions for 1758 yards, and 15 TDs.

Those would have been good stats for 2 years...for 4 years they stink given that he has been what passes for a number one or two WR on the team.

I think Nate is a good guy personally, and for a reasonable contract I'd have him back, but I wouldn't pay him one or two money...three sounds about right.

He's a good, not great WR. I think he does have a good hard-nosed attitude that helps the team, but his contract was too big. Signing him was a petty knee-jerk reaction to the biggest Seahawk mistake ever- losing Steve Hutchinson to the Vikings. That's not Burleson's fault, but always colored my judgement of his performance.

i love nate and think he is a good reciever, he is a threat from everywhere and can do WR screens efficiently, he was deffinately the reciever that performed the best last year, doesnt mean he is the best but he got the ball thrown at him more, which means matt must like him as a target, and i saw multiple times where housh was open and the ball went somewhere else, he could be a lot more productive... if matt throws him the ball, i think if we draft Demaryius Thomas (6 foot 3, 225pounds) he can be that guy who goes up for jump balls and is a big a$$ target, he should be there at the 40th pick and we should get him....

and butler is not a dissapointment whoever said that, he didnt see the feild a lot and when he did he was pretty damn good, hes great at the over the shoulder catch and he is fast making him an ideal deep threat. remember butler's catch that basically won us the game against the 49ers? yeah, he is a good reciever and takes a hit weel, he isnt afraid to go up for the ball and get knocked on his a$$, i cant wait to hopefully see him get more playing time.....

we could have a good possesion reciever in mike hass..

also Mora and Co. might have missed a few of talented back ups. seeing as how we went undefeated in the preseason, which tells me that our backups won those games since they were playing most of the games, so doesnt that mean our back ups are pretty good? well at least thats what i think.