Vikings don't match offer on Burleson

[Vikings4ever 550]

Seahawks | Vikings don't match Burleson's offer sheet

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:59:34 -0800

 

Sean Jensen, of the Pioneer Press, reports the Minnesota Vikings decided not to match the Seattle Seahawks multi-year contract offer to WR Nate Burleson, Minnesota vice president Rob Brzezinski said Friday, March 31. Seattle will give Minnesota a third-round pick in the April NFL Draft as compensation.

 

 

KFFL.com

 

 

No surprise. Hopefully this will be the end of the poison pills.

[football_scooter 0]

lmfao - I think Minnesota definately got the last laugh on this one - both times. Thy got Hutch and got rid of their soon-to-be-overpaid never quite developed 4th WR.

 

I wonder if Seattle is kicking themselves yet.

 

Now that I think about it, Minnesota has KRob too - and they were actually able to get him to perform. Yet another slap in the face to Seattle by the Vikes this offseason.

 

I smell a rivalry developing?

[49ER MAN 0]

lmfao - I think Minnesota definately got the last laugh on this one - both times. Thy got Hutch and got rid of their soon-to-be-overpaid never quite developed 4th WR.

 

I wonder if Seattle is kicking themselves yet.

 

Now that I think about it, Minnesota has KRob too - and they were actually able to get him to perform. Yet another slap in the face to Seattle by the Vikes this offseason.

 

I smell a rivalry developing?

 

Hutch is a top 5 guard in the league, perhaps even better than that. In my opinion, the Seahawks totally botched it when they placed the transition tag instead of the franchise tag on him giving any team the chance to acquire him and forcing the Seahawks to cough up a ton of cash to keep him. I believe the Vikes found a loophole and exploited it.

 

As far as Burleson is concerned, he just never got off to a good start last year and then got hurt and could never find any rhythm at all. He does have good upside and he'll give Haselbeck another weapon in Seattle. It sounds like deal with the Seahawks will be structured for 4 years and not 7. Seattle was interested in Burleson but this was a statement to the Vikings saying if you can do it to us, we'll do it to you, period! I think Burleson is only 24 or 25 and still has a number of good years left.

 

With KRob, during his time in Seattle, it seemed to me that his head was not screwed on straight going through a number of problems on and off the field. I think it took the Seahawks to cut him to realize that his career might be short if he didn't clean up his act and with the Vikes, he has shown some of his potential that Seattle saw when they drafted him in the 1st round a number of years back.

[DrJ 0]

Now that I think about it, Minnesota has KRob too - and they were actually able to get him to perform. Yet another slap in the face to Seattle by the Vikes this offseason.

 

KRob's going to have to do more than he has so far for that to be a slap in the face of Seattle. He had 1 good game as a reciever where he caught an 80 yard TD, though. After that game, 1 for 15, 3 for 34, 1 for 5, and 1 for 3. He needs to do something consistently to justify that signing bonus. He has the potential to, but he still has to do it.

[phillybear 366]

Prior to his injury problems, Burleson flashed potential. The problem wa the departure of Randy Moss, and Burleson then became the #1 WR. Which is not always an easy transition to make (think Peerless Price). However, in Seattle, Darrell Jackson is the #1, and with Engram and Stevens receiving threats, Burleson may very well enjoy success.

[goodwj 0]

Prior to his injury problems, Burleson flashed potential. The problem wa the departure of Randy Moss, and Burleson then became the #1 WR. Which is not always an easy transition to make (think Peerless Price). However, in Seattle, Darrell Jackson is the #1, and with Engram and Stevens receiving threats, Burleson may very well enjoy success.

 

Burleson is defintaly a guy that will play hard every play and thats what i liked about him, he is a solid #2, dont know if he will ever be a good #1.

 

But i am glad we let him go, i didnt want to keep him for 49 million, and twill.

 

i think with krob, taylor, and t-will, the vikes have a nice 3 set of recievers, we always seem to find a nice #4 in the drafts.

 

especially with hasselbeck, (burleson CAN catch the ball) and i see a sleeper/dark horse in the making with burleson in SEattles offense.

[surferskin 30]

i think it's funny that when skins sign randel or lloyd to 31 million dollar contracts they are overpaying marginal players but when the seahawks go out and sign burleson, a guy who never proved anything outside of being able to get open when moss had triple coverage, the 49 million dollar contract is justified but hacks like peter king:

 

I think the seven-year, $49-million contract signed by Nate Burleson in Seattle is really a four-year deal worth about $3.5 million a year. That's sensible. Seven million a year for a second receiver is ridiculous. The real deal makes more sense.

[murf74 461]

When you think about it.....

 

Minnesotta trades Burleson to Seattle for Krob and a 3rd rounder.

 

Vikes gotta be happy about that.

 

i think it's funny that when skins sign randel or lloyd to 31 million dollar contracts they are overpaying marginal players but when the seahawks go out and sign burleson, a guy who never proved anything outside of being able to get open when moss had triple coverage, the 49 million dollar contract is justified but hacks like peter king:

 

 

And the Skins didn't give up a 3rd rounder either.

[swamp dog 0]

When you think about it.....

 

Minnesotta trades Burleson to Seattle for Krob and a 3rd rounder.

 

Vikes gotta be happy about that.

And the Skins didn't give up a 3rd rounder either.

 

when you think about it, the vikings traded randy moss and daunte culpepper for troy williamson, napoleon harris, and a 2nd round pick.

 

ouch.

 

and burleson and a 3rd for krob is a good trade for the vikings? not in my book.

[murf74 461]

when you think about it, the vikings traded randy moss and daunte culpepper for troy williamson, napoleon harris, and a 2nd round pick.

 

ouch.

 

and burleson and a 3rd for krob is a good trade for the vikings? not in my book.

 

I wasn't talking about Moss and Culpepper, I was discussing direct transactions among Seattle/Minnesotta. Why didn't you just bring up the Hershall Walker trade too?

 

Why in the world would you want Burleson over Krob and a 3rd rounder? Didn't you notice that Krob was Minnesotta's best receiver and he barely knew the offense. Burleson was a non factor all year.

[swamp dog 0]

I wasn't talking about Moss and Culpepper, I was discussing direct transactions among Seattle/Minnesotta. Why didn't you just bring up the Hershall Walker trade too?

 

Why in the world would you want Burleson over Krob and a 3rd rounder? Didn't you notice that Krob was Minnesotta's best receiver and he barely knew the offense. Burleson was a non factor all year.

 

while i wish krob the best and sincerely hope his personal problems are behind him for good, the fact is he has a history of alcoholism and spotty play (at best). burleson is a safer--and better--player overall.

 

i'm sure if you asked seattle they are very happy to have burleson over krob.

[Kopy 568]

I wasn't talking about Moss and Culpepper, I was discussing direct transactions among Seattle/Minnesotta. Why didn't you just bring up the Hershall Walker trade too?

 

Why in the world would you want Burleson over Krob and a 3rd rounder? Didn't you notice that Krob was Minnesotta's best receiver and he barely knew the offense. Burleson was a non factor all year.

 

I believe it's more like.

Hutch and a 3rd rounder

 

for

 

Nate Burelson,Jullian Peterson,Tom Ashworth and Russell Davis.

Not to mention, funds for the resigning of Strong, Morris,Toefoya and Bently.

 

While I'm sure Vikings fans will be happy with what they recieve, and it's a good step towards their rebuilding process. This is far from a loss to the Seattle organization and us fans alike.

[t.j 35]

I believe it's more like.

Hutch and a 3rd rounder

 

for

 

Nate Burelson,Jullian Peterson,Tom Ashworth and Russell Davis.

Not to mention, funds for the resigning of Strong, Morris,Toefoya and Bently.

 

While I'm sure Vikings fans will be happy with what they recieve, and it's a good step towards their rebuilding process. This is far from a loss to the Seattle organization and us fans alike.

 

In reality Hutch and a 3rd rounder for Burleson and Peterson is probably closer to the truth. Burleson won't get paid close to what Hutch did, but Peterson is making pretty good dough. (It's also worth noting that Burleson was a very early third rounder and the Vikings are getting a very late third rounder)

 

I do think they'll miss Hutch but in terms of value and salary cap ramifications it works out pretty well for the Seahawks. Peterson and Hutch are the best players mentioned here and are getting paid about the same, Peterson's injury history makes him somewhat less valuable than Hutch but he could end up being the biggest impact player of all these guys. You've always gotta be smart and make decisions based on value.

[veebs4 2]

Seattle's had an impressive offseason, especially for a historically bad Super Bowl loser.... they are poised to do much better than the combined 31-49 record of the past 5 SB losers.

[phillybear 366]

Seattle's had an impressive offseason, especially for a historically bad Super Bowl loser.... they are poised to do much better than the combined 31-49 record of the past 5 SB losers.

 

I have to admit, that Super Bowl runner up curse has me concerned.

[murf74 461]

I believe it's more like.

Hutch and a 3rd rounder

 

for

 

Nate Burelson,Jullian Peterson,Tom Ashworth and Russell Davis.

Not to mention, funds for the resigning of Strong, Morris,Toefoya and Bently.

 

While I'm sure Vikings fans will be happy with what they recieve, and it's a good step towards their rebuilding process. This is far from a loss to the Seattle organization and us fans alike.

 

Geeze, why does everyone want to bring other players into what I have quoted as receiver for receiver and 3rd rounder. I don't care about the Hutch and all the other players you signed, that is not the topic right here.

 

But while on that topic, don't act like Tom Ashworth can even hold Hutch's jock, and who is this Russell Davis guy?

 

I like the Peterson signing as long as he is healthy, Burleson is unproven but I guess you could stretch those couple games with Moss out a couple years ago as proof of untapped potential, but those other 2 guys you listed, please.

[Kopy 568]

Geeze, why does everyone want to bring other players into what I have quoted as receiver for receiver and 3rd rounder. I don't care about the Hutch and all the other players you signed, that is not the topic right here.

 

But while on that topic, don't act like Tom Ashworth can even hold Hutch's jock, and who is this Russell Davis guy?

 

I like the Peterson signing as long as he is healthy, Burleson is unproven but I guess you could stretch those couple games with Moss out a couple years ago as proof of untapped potential, but those other 2 guys you listed, please.

 

So be it. You sound like a jaded fan to me. So Enjoy the 95th pick for Burelson

[phillybear 366]

Koren Robinson drops every ball in sight. Even when he is sober.

[Riddlen 1]

Koren Robinson drops every ball in sight. Even when he is sober.

true, but burelson is meh

[culboarder11 0]

lmfao - I think Minnesota definately got the last laugh on this one - both times. Thy got Hutch and got rid of their soon-to-be-overpaid never quite developed 4th WR.

 

I wonder if Seattle is kicking themselves yet.

 

Now that I think about it, Minnesota has KRob too - and they were actually able to get him to perform. Yet another slap in the face to Seattle by the Vikes this offseason.

 

I smell a rivalry developing?

 

Sounds to me like a 9er fan who is a little jealous of the Hawks recent success.

 

Also, Burleson is not overpaid, 5 mil guaranteed is not very much.

 

i think it's funny that when skins sign randel or lloyd to 31 million dollar contracts they are overpaying marginal players but when the seahawks go out and sign burleson, a guy who never proved anything outside of being able to get open when moss had triple coverage, the 49 million dollar contract is justified but hacks like peter king:

 

 

Maybe its beacuse Buleson's contract is HEAVILY backloaded, and for you and those who dont already know aka other "slow" vikings and skin fans- Burleson probably wont see 25 of that 49 million.

[mozzy84 0]

I will miss watching Nate play, he did lead the league in yac two years ago. Minnesota's wide reciever corps are just as good(or bad however you want to look at it) with or with out him though. If it took the vikes stealing Hutch and losing Nate because of it I would take that trade off anyday.

[football_scooter 0]

Sounds to me like a 9er fan who is a little jealous of the Hawks recent success.

 

Uh, no - it is what it is. My team affiliation rarely if ever comes into my evaluating the idiocy of teams and their poison pills.

 

I said the Seachickens were no match for any AFC team and that their schedule (especially in the post when all they had to beat was a decimated Panthers team) may well have been the softest of any superbowl-bound team, ever, and what do you know - I was right.

 

I am hardly jealous of the Hawks - I respect what they accomplished but don't overrate it like most here do. I think the loss of Hutch is going to be a hell of a lot more impact than people suggest, and I think that Burleson is a bust that they're overpaying for. Thus my post about why the Vikes got the last laugh.

 

Hutch and Burleson were the two "poison pill" players - which would you rather have on your team?

 

And between KRob and Burleson, the Hawks would rather have KRom since they had him pegged as "the next Randy Moss" - how'd that work out for them? Burleson is a 3rd receiver at best, runs shakey routes and has trouble beating decent coverage - I don't see him as an upgrade for Seattle.

 

All I care about from a Niners' perspective is that my team is improving - I have no illusions of going to the Superbowl, but I'm fairly sure that it won't be Seattle repeating their appearance there. My money is on CAR to represent the NFC this year.

[Kopy 568]

Uh, no - it is what it is. My team affiliation rarely if ever comes into my evaluating the idiocy of teams and their poison pills.

 

I said the Seachickens were no match for any AFC team and that their schedule (especially in the post when all they had to beat was a decimated Panthers team) may well have been the softest of any superbowl-bound team, ever, and what do you know - I was right.

 

I am hardly jealous of the Hawks - I respect what they accomplished but don't overrate it like most here do. I think the loss of Hutch is going to be a hell of a lot more impact than people suggest, and I think that Burleson is a bust that they're overpaying for. Thus my post about why the Vikes got the last laugh.

 

Hutch and Burleson were the two "poison pill" players - which would you rather have on your team?

 

And between KRob and Burleson, the Hawks would rather have KRom since they had him pegged as "the next Randy Moss" - how'd that work out for them? Burleson is a 3rd receiver at best, runs shakey routes and has trouble beating decent coverage - I don't see him as an upgrade for Seattle.

 

All I care about from a Niners' perspective is that my team is improving - I have no illusions of going to the Superbowl, but I'm fairly sure that it won't be Seattle repeating their appearance there. My money is on CAR to represent the NFC this year.

 

Actually. Seattle wanted David Terrell. Doesn't matter now since both guys sux donkey balz.

Just figured you need to be corrected.

 

Carry on though.

[phillybear 366]

I said the Seachickens were no match for any AFC team and that their schedule (especially in the post when all they had to beat was a decimated Panthers team) may well have been the softest of any superbowl-bound team, ever, and what do you know - I was right.

 

???

 

Right?

 

Seattle outplayed Pittsburgh for most of the game, but got worked over by the refs. So Seattle was certainly as good if not better than any AFC team.

 

Unfortunately at times, the game is decided on the scoreboard. And between terribly one sided officiating, and a couple of big plays by Pittsburgh, the game was decided.

 

But just review the stats for the game. Pittsburgh certainly did not outplay Seattle.

[Kopy 568]

???

 

Right?

 

Seattle outplayed Pittsburgh for most of the game, but got worked over by the refs. So Seattle was certainly as good if not better than any AFC team.

 

Unfortunately at times, the game is decided on the scoreboard. And between terribly one sided officiating, and a couple of big plays by Pittsburgh, the game was decided.

 

But just review the stats for the game. Pittsburgh certainly did not outplay Seattle.

 

Hey Philly. I don't think the Steelers out played Seattle.

I think they out played Etric Pruitt.

[Vikings4ever 550]

Sounds to me like a 9er fan who is a little jealous of the Hawks recent success.

 

Also, Burleson is not overpaid, 5 mil guaranteed is not very much.

 

Maybe its beacuse Buleson's contract is HEAVILY backloaded, and for you and those who dont already know aka other "slow" vikings and skin fans- Burleson probably wont see 25 of that 49 million.

 

Seahawks | Contract update: Burleson

Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:21:05 -0700

 

Seattle Seahawks WR Nate Burleson signed a seven-year contract with base salaries of $1.25 million (2006), $2.75 million (2007), $3.25 million (2008), $3.25 million (2009), $10.5 million (2010), $12 million (2011), and $12 million (2012).

[culboarder11 0]

And between KRob and Burleson, the Hawks would rather have KRom since they had him pegged as "the next Randy Moss" - how'd that work out for them? Burleson is a 3rd receiver at best, runs shakey routes and has trouble beating decent coverage - I don't see him as an upgrade for Seattle.

 

Wow, a high draft pick that never panned out..... sucks for Seattle because that never happens in the NFL. Burleson is 10x the WR KRob is, maybe not at returning but every other facet of the game.

 

Burleson is a 3rd WR at best? Runs shaky routes and has trouble beating coverage? Are you just making sh!t up as you go? He was hampered by injuries last year but excelled the year before when Moss was OUT. So he doesnt need someone great lining on the opposite side of him to play well, even though he will have that with DJack.

 

If I had to choose I would take Nate, Julian Peterson, and Tom Ashworth over Hutch and the 95th pick in the draft. But thats just me.

 

 

Seahawks | Contract update: Burleson

Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:21:05 -0700

 

Seattle Seahawks WR Nate Burleson signed a seven-year contract with base salaries of $1.25 million (2006), $2.75 million (2007), $3.25 million (2008), $3.25 million (2009), $10.5 million (2010), $12 million (2011), and $12 million (2012).

 

I rest my case. Overpaid? uh-huh

[t.j 35]

Seahawks | Contract update: Burleson

Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:21:05 -0700

 

Seattle Seahawks WR Nate Burleson signed a seven-year contract with base salaries of $1.25 million (2006), $2.75 million (2007), $3.25 million (2008), $3.25 million (2009), $10.5 million (2010), $12 million (2011), and $12 million (2012).

 

That's a 4-year, $15.5M contract. That's actually more per year than I thought it would amount to ($3.875M/year). Could be a 3-year, $12.25M deal if he struggles ($4.08M/year). A pretty sizeable contract but still nothing compared to Hutchinson. Hutch is making as much money on signing bonus alone as Burleson will in 4 years.

[DrJ 0]

I wasn't talking about Moss and Culpepper, I was discussing direct transactions among Seattle/Minnesotta. Why didn't you just bring up the Hershall Walker trade too?

 

Why in the world would you want Burleson over Krob and a 3rd rounder? Didn't you notice that Krob was Minnesotta's best receiver and he barely knew the offense. Burleson was a non factor all year.

 

Best receiver? Again, explain to me how he had 6 catches for 57 yards and no TD's over the final 4 games of the season.

 

Find me one game where you would even consider his work as a receiver good outside of the 1 game that he got the 80 yard TD. Just one.

 

KRob has some promise, but people acting like he did anything impressive outside of return some kicks last season really need to look again.

[football_scooter 0]

If I had to choose I would take Nate, Julian Peterson, and Tom Ashworth over Hutch and the 95th pick in the draft. But thats just me.

I rest my case.

I wouldn't, but each to his own.

 

I think we should revisit the discussion at season's end when we can review Peterson's healthy/stats and see if you think he was a good value for the Hawks.

 

FYI, in saying "overpaid" I was going by the 5 million number everyone was tossing around - 1.22 million is far more reasonable. However, I am nowhere near as high on him as you are.

 

As for his inconsistency, he had what, 4 good games while Moss was out a couple years ago? Maybe you ought to look aty his whole career and let me know what he's done to deserve the praise other than have a couple good games. WRs who get hurt a lot are called soft, not unfortunate. Maybe I'm just bitter for having bought into his hype not one, but two years in FFB. I won't buy into it this year.

 

In terms of the package you mention, Peterson wasn't involved in any way, so why would you include him? Ithis wasn't a trade, it was FA acquisitions. Why does Peterson bear any relevance whatsoever to your point? The question is if you'd rather have Burleson or Hutchinson - the two poison pill contracts.

 

Personally I'd rather have my O-Line intact to maintain the production of the pro-bowl RB.

 

Like I said though, each to his own.

[murf74 461]

???

 

Right?

 

Seattle outplayed Pittsburgh for most of the game, but got worked over by the refs. So Seattle was certainly as good if not better than any AFC team.

 

Unfortunately at times, the game is decided on the scoreboard. And between terribly one sided officiating, and a couple of big plays by Pittsburgh, the game was decided.

 

But just review the stats for the game. Pittsburgh certainly did not outplay Seattle.

 

I believe Pittsburgh statistically beat Dallas back in 1995 Superbowl and lost. It happens. But really did Seattle dominate for most of the game? Seattle outgained Pitt by a whole 57 net yards, and most of those came on the last meaningless prevent defense drive.

 

You give way to much credit to Seattle for playing a good game, which they did not....Steelers did not play a good game either but made enough big plays to win. Seattle's only big play was an INT on Ben's horrible pass.

 

Last I checked the officials didn't give up the longest rushing TD in NFL history, a long bomb TD by a WIDE RECEIVER, a scramble pass on like 3rd and 28 to the goalline. The refs didn't kick the ball in the endzone with every punt instead of dropping it inside the 10 like good punters do. The refs didn't waste the last minute before the half cluelessly audibling out of every play. The refs didn't drop 20 balls right in their hands. The refs didn't miss 2 field goals.

 

The Seahawks didn't play a good game. You can blame it on the refs if you feel like it but it doesn't change a thing. And the calls besides the Hasselback chop block were correct. Watch it for yourself and quit crying like a little Holmgren. You can complain ticky, tacky, blah, blah, blah but they were all penalties by the book (and nobody ever wants to talk about penalties not called the other way [ben was blocked form behind on the long INT return] or the fact that Pitt was also called for an offensive pass interference.....

 

here are the penalties replayed and analyzed in all their glory, no trick photography either (and wasn't that a Seattle Seahawk announcer on NFL films replay of the Superbowl saying when a tackle graps a defender like Locklear did it will be a call every time..even the Seattle announcer knows a hold when he sees it)

 

http://www.startrekfans.net/index.php?act=...pe=post&id=3880

[Twinsdad 55]

That's a 4-year, $15.5M contract.

 

check your math....4-year, $10.5M contract. I haven't understood the argument some are making that he is being overpaid. Even when it was being leaked...it was a low guarentee. This shows how back loaded it is. I'm not sure Hutch's contract, but I'm thought it had a lot more guarenteed money than 10.5M

[Vikings4ever 550]

check your math....4-year, $10.5M contract. I haven't understood the argument some are making that he is being overpaid. Even when it was being leaked...it was a low guarentee. This shows how back loaded it is. I'm not sure Hutch's contract, but I'm thought it had a lot more guarenteed money than 10.5M

 

The base salaries don't include the signing bonus.

 

 

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:02:50 -0800

 

Minnesota Vikings OG Steve Hutchinson signed a seven-year contract with base salaries of $585,000 (2006), $2.035 million (2007), $4.45 million (2008), $5.45 million (2009), $6.55 million (2010), $6.68 million (2011), and $6.95 million (2012).

 

 

Plus 16 million in guarenteed money.

[Twinsdad 55]

The base salaries don't include the signing bonus.

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:02:50 -0800

 

Minnesota Vikings OG Steve Hutchinson signed a seven-year contract with base salaries of $585,000 (2006), $2.035 million (2007), $4.45 million (2008), $5.45 million (2009), $6.55 million (2010), $6.68 million (2011), and $6.95 million (2012).

Plus 16 million in guarenteed money.

 

 

My bad...apologies to t.j. So Hutch's would be $12.5M + the $16M....almost double what Burleson's is, over 4 years.

[Vikings4ever 550]

My bad...apologies to t.j. So Hutch's would be $12.5M + the $16M....almost double what Burleson's is, over 4 years.

Yep. But I have no clue what his signing bonus actually is. More and more often, contracts are being announced with signing and roster bonuses lumped into guarenteed money. And the Vikes have been giving out big roster bonuses in lue of big signing bonuses over the past few years.

[phillybear 366]

And the calls besides the Hasselback chop block were correct. Watch it for yourself and quit crying like a little Holmgren.

 

I generally don't complain about officiating, but the calls during the whole playoffs were terrible.

 

You have your opinion. And pretty much the rest of the world outside of Pittsburgh, PA sees it another way. Ask around.

[murf74 461]

I generally don't complain about officiating, but the calls during the whole playoffs were terrible.

 

You have your opinion. And pretty much the rest of the world outside of Pittsburgh, PA sees it another way. Ask around.

 

It's not about opinions. Watch the tape. Sorry if you can't handle the truth, but there was only one bad call in the superbowl and that was the chop block. Unless of course you think Seattle should be able to play by another set of rules where they can hold as long as they don't use handcuffs and can push off as long long as they don't use a big 'ol stick to do it with.

 

The head of officiating says the chop block was a blown call, the push off was so bad the officials would have been repremanded if they didn't call it, the hold was a hold cause he was in chase mode & wasn't in front hooked him and brought him to a knee (oh and even Seattle announcer said it was a bad hold and will be called every time), the rushing TD could not be overturned no matter which was it was called on the field.

 

You need to come to grips. Seattle didn't dominate, they scored 10 points and only outgained Pitt by 57 yards. Thats not opinion, it's a fact. Seattle didn't play good enough to win.

[fightklub 0]

He sucks.... I would not match it either.

[harken34 0]

 

You guys can have him. After he doesn nothing for you guys don't expect your 3rd round pick back....

 

[Raider 84 29]

Good news for Hassel, but I wouldn't match that offer either.