Nate Burleson released

[Mariners_44]

Any interest in signing Nate in place of Tate, at a friendly deal of course?

 

[GoldenTate]

I'd prefer to keep Tate, he is much younger and a better player overall. But if he asks for too much and we let him go then yeah signing Burleson to a 1 or 2 year deal for dirt cheap could be an option.

 

[Mariners_44]

I'd prefer to keep Tate, he is much younger and a better player overall. But if he asks for too much and we let him go then yeah signing Burleson to a 1 or 2 year deal for dirt cheap could be an option.

I'd much rather keep Tate as well, but feel that Nate would come in at much less; he's already made his money. I don't feel that just because Tate says he'll give a discount means that his discounted expectations will fit into our budget. A side note, Baldwin is more important to sign IMO.

 

[gohusk]

I like Nate but I don't think he has much to offer anymore as far as football goes. Class act all the way though.

 

[Mr. Tacoma]

I miss Nate doing the 'Hawk Nasty' after big plays but given the choice, I'd rather hang on to Tate.

 

[blstoker]

I'd say no. We've got a much better set of WRs than people think (they've improved greatly this year) and Burleson is too injury prone. He's only played a full schedule once since 2008. He'll turn 33 just before the start of the season next year and he isn't the player he once was. If needing to replace Tate, I'd prefer to go through the draft.

 

[MrS]

I dont want Burleson.

I could definitely see the Lions going after Tate though, he would be a good compliment to Calvin Johnson

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Tate all the way…. He's tougher and fits in our O well…

 

[seahawksfan234]

I'd say no to Tate and no to Burleson.

I presume that Golden Tate is looking at an annual salary in the $4-5m range, which is he not worth IMO.

Nate Burleson can be had on the cheap but I'd prefer to give the roster spot to a younger player. It is not a matter of Burleson being too old/injury prone (which he is) but more that I think you could get production similar to Tate from a younger player or the next guy up on our depth chart.

Tate made for some really flashy plays here and there, but his production can be easily replaced IMO. I actually think there is a case to be made that Doug Baldwin is a better WR. Spend a late round pick or two on a WR to replace Tate and spend the savings from not signing Tate on something else.

 

[seahawksfan234]

Good WRs can be found in the later rounds and with the magic scouting that PC and JS have performed thus far I don't doubt they can find an adequate replacement for Tate. Plus I'd prefer that they got a bigger guy to put out there, the Seahawks have a lot of smaller guys on the depth chart currently.

 

[SeattleCoug]

The only thing really intriguing about Nate is his size. Im correct in us all assuming Rice is cut. Therefore we are only left with shorter receivers.
The main issue with Nate besides his age is he mainly works in the slot. We already have a slot guy with Harvin. Need a guy who can play the outside. Tate can be that guy but with Rice gone, we need to look for a guy taller then 6 feet that can play outside.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

I'd say no to Tate and no to Burleson.

I presume that Golden Tate is looking at an annual salary in the $4-5m range, which is he not worth IMO.

Nate Burleson can be had on the cheap but I'd prefer to give the roster spot to a younger player. It is not a matter of Burleson being too old/injury prone (which he is) but more that I think you could get production similar to Tate from a younger player or the next guy up on our depth chart.

Tate made for some really flashy plays here and there, but his production can be easily replaced IMO. I actually think there is a case to be made that Doug Baldwin is a better WR. Spend a late round pick or two on a WR to replace Tate and spend the savings from not signing Tate on something else.

Tate gives our receiving corp a toughness… I want him back if he's willing to come back for a reasonable price… He's a version of what Hines Ward was for Pitt… He did allot for us this year..

 

[blstoker]

The only thing really intriguing about Nate is his size. Im correct in us all assuming Rice is cut. Therefore we are only left with shorter receivers.
The main issue with Nate besides his age is he mainly works in the slot. We already have a slot guy with Harvin. Need a guy who can play the outside. Tate can be that guy but with Rice gone, we need to look for a guy taller then 6 feet that can play outside.

Unfortunately, Burleson is only 6'0", so he also doesn't fit the size of a guy taller than 6'.

 

[seahawksfan234]

Tate gives our receiving corp a toughness… I want him back if he's willing to come back for a reasonable price… He's a version of what Hines Ward was for Pitt… He did allot for us this year..

I would assume Tate's market value is somewhere in the $4 to $5 million dollar per year range.

Would I like to have him back? Of course. Would I like to have him back at that price tag? Not a chance.

 

[Logicallylethal]

Ricardo Lockette at this point is better than Burleson. If this was 2-3 years ago I'd say yeah...but not sure how much Burleson has to left to offer

 

[GoldenTate]

I would assume Tate's market value is somewhere in the $4 to $5 million dollar per year range.

Would I like to have him back? Of course. Would I like to have him back at that price tag? Not a chance.

At 4 Mil per year you wouldn't want Tate back? That's actually a pretty good deal actually. 3% of our cap on a #2 WR isn't bad at all. Maybe we should break the bank on a Mike Wallace-like player, that sure is working out for Miami.

 

[jalopy]

I would assume Tate's market value is somewhere in the $4 to $5 million dollar per year range.

Would I like to have him back? Of course. Would I like to have him back at that price tag? Not a chance.

I would think the Lions would want Tate but couldn't afford that price. I could see them being in the 4yr/$13-$15MM with 70% guaranteed. Lions need someone with great hands and is a reliable route runner and I think that applies to Tate.

 

[seahawksfan234]

I would think the Lions would want Tate but couldn't afford that price. I could see them being in the 4yr/$13-$15MM with 70% guaranteed. Lions need someone with great hands and is a reliable route runner and I think that applies to Tate.

4 years ago the Lions gave Burleson a 5 year $25m deal, so that is where I get the presumed $4 to $5m per year numbers from.

Tate has good hands, but is a terrible route runner. Tate does just about everything but run routes well. He is terrific after the catch, great blocker for his size, can return punts, offers a terrific sideline catch from time to time and plays bigger than his body, but really struggles to get open. If Tate could run better routes he would be a star, unfortunately he continues to struggle to get separation and because of that will continue being just an average #2.

At 4 Mil per year you wouldn't want Tate back? That's actually a pretty good deal actually. 3% of our cap on a #2 WR isn't bad at all. Maybe we should break the bank on a Mike Wallace-like player, that sure is working out for Miami.

Considering your username and the fact that some of your posts have been borderline trollish, I almost didn't respond but hey, what the hell right?

For purposes of simplification let us assume that Sidney Rice gets cut. Percy Harvin has a cap hit of $13.4m next year. I'd rather not tie up around $18m between an often injured player like Percy Harvin and an average #2 WR that can easily be replaced via the draft. The gap between Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate is not very large. Tate is the better WR, but Baldwin is not far behind.

If you value Golden Tate at $4-5m then that is your opinion. I just don't see that Tate is worth $3-4m more than a replacement player such as Baldwin or Kearse. Plus if you operate under the assumption that Percy Harvin will be healthy next season (big if, I know) then Golden Tate has already been replaced by Harvin in that scenario.

 

[jalopy]

Tate has good hands, but is a terrible route runner. Tate does just about everything but run routes well. He is terrific after the catch, great blocker for his size, can return punts, offers a terrific sideline catch from time to time and plays bigger than his body, but really struggles to get open. If Tate could run better routes he would be a star, unfortunately he continues to struggle to get separation and because of that will continue being just an average #2.

That is good info although I think he would benefit from lining up opposite Calvin Johnson. I agree that Tate doesn't have the potential to be the" guy but he has proved himself to be a capable receiver in the league. From the Lions perspective, I feel that would be a safer choice than risking a high draft choice on an unproven guy. My gut says Seattle finds a way to keep him.

 

[SeattleCoug]

I would take 5/25 for him personally but I got a feeling he gets more somewhere else. I actually think Detroit is great fit for him. He could have some monster years opposite Megatron in a pass first offense. I dont know alot about Detroits roster but it seems like they need to sign at least one receiver. I think Durham is a FA along with Burleson being gone. Like most deals you can always backload it and cut him after a couple years