Burleseon Gone; Kampman/Vanden Bosch on the way?

[Sweezo]

Free agency is here, and for the Seahawks it's starting a clearly audible *thud*

Free-agent wide receiver Nate Burleson agreed to terms on a five-year contract with the Detroit Lions, a deal first reported by Scout.com and subsequently confirmed.

It was a five-year contract worth a total of $25 million with Burleson assured of receiving $11 million of that total, first reported by ESPN and subsequently confirmed. Burleson did not return a message immediately from The Seattle Times.

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2011260588_hawk05.html

That's hardly a deal that couldn't have been matched easily by the Seahawks. With Burleson gone, and Branch likely as well, what's that leave us with at WR? Housh, Butler, and a bunch of nonsense.

But on the bright side, it sounds like we may be going strong after two declining, aging defensive ends. Ruskell may be gone, but that doesn't mean signing the next Wistrom or Kerney isn't a possibility. And I don't mean that in a good way...

[sonic-ben]

Looks like the NEW GM and Head coach are rebuilding... are we going to Trade Matt

why would these DE's even look at the Seahawks

losing sucks

[Liqourish]

Kyle Vanden Bosch agreed to terms with the Lions as well.

[Sweezo]

Kyle Vanden Bosch agreed to terms with the Lions as well.

Thank God. 5 years/$26 million is a lot of money for him.

[Liqourish]

Eh, it's frontloaded at $10 million the first year, which is all that's gauranteed. With the option of lasting 4 years.

Burlesons contract is only $11 million gauranteeed over two years... it has the ability to grow to $25 million over 5 but it's unlikely.

WC Ford is making the most of the uncapped year.

[Danny Darko]

I wanted to keep Nate. Now are we looking at keeping Branch maybe? ick. Does this make Dez Bryant a possibility out of the blue? Not sure I really want a WR in the early draft, but I bet we start seeing that on Mocks.

Kampman? Nahhh I'd rather lean on Jackson/Tapp/and possibly Reed/Kerney/Foley.

[TTown]

Hello... Brandon Marshall?

[HeavyP]

I like trading #6 for Brandon Marshall the more I think about it. He's only 25 years old, and knows Bates Offense. With losing Burleson our WR corps are: Houshmandzadeh, Branch, Butler, Obumanu. That's not good enough. We'll probably be cutting Branch (or possibly including him in a trade for Marshall, please?)

I've been saying that I would not rule out Dez Bryant or Arrellious Benn with pick #14 as our Wr corps are in shambles and the best FA WR's out there are Kelly Washington and Kevin Walter. yuck.

People forget Marshall is only 25, it's not like he's 30, we're getting him before his prime in an offense he already knows. Also, he'd be as cheap as the #6 pick. So, yeah, it sucks to be able to lose out on a Berry/Clausen/Bradford. But I think getting Marshall helps for now and for the longterm.

[TTown]

Two thoughts:

1. If Seattle was strongly considering a WR at #14, fair enough. Marshall is a top 5 WR, whereas it's extremely tough to project the pro production of elite college WRs. So if we were going to go WR with one of the first rounders, this is a good deal. Guaranteed awesomness from a production standpoint, and he's a vet, so we're not waiting 2-3 years for a Dez Bryant to "get" it.

2. That said, I question the judgment to go WR with a first rounder in the first place. If you re-sign Burelson, TJ, Butler, and him are a solid 1-2-3. Not the best in the NFC by any stretch of the imagination, but a decent enough trio (who the hell knows what's going on with Branch). Seems to me an explosive ball handler like CJ Spiller and a new franchise LT would get more mileage out of those first rounders. Maybe pick up some help on the DL in the 2nd. I don't know. Marshall is a great talent, but it seems to me, we're like a poor Major League club who just spent a lot of money on a closer. Yeah, our bullpen is better, but does it matter?

[Danny Darko]

I like trading #6 for Brandon Marshall the more I think about it. He's only 25 years old, and knows Bates Offense. With losing Burleson our WR corps are: Houshmandzadeh, Branch, Butler, Obumanu. That's not good enough. We'll probably be cutting Branch (or possibly including him in a trade for Marshall, please?)

I've been saying that I would not rule out Dez Bryant or Arrellious Benn with pick #14 as our Wr corps are in shambles and the best FA WR's out there are Kelly Washington and Kevin Walter. yuck.

People forget Marshall is only 25, it's not like he's 30, we're getting him before his prime in an offense he already knows. Also, he'd be as cheap as the #6 pick. So, yeah, it sucks to be able to lose out on a Berry/Clausen/Bradford. But I think getting Marshall helps for now and for the longterm.

I'd rather try to trade Heater and Branch and a late round and keep 6. I guess we are considering #6 for him on the offer sheet, and I do agree he's a top 6 type of pick, but I wonder if the rule could work this way-

If we can trade picks now, why not find a way to move down from 6 and get another pick out of it and then forfeit the lower pick to Denver. That's a good question I think and one I'll Post to Sando at ESPN's NFC West Blog.

*Breaking news is Bolden went for a 3rd and 4th. Doesn't this make a 1st round 6 sound a little worse for Marshall?

[HeavyP]

Boldin's deal should show you why we didn't match Burleson's offer:

Burleson (Lions), 28 y/o, 1 1,000 yard year, 5 year deal, $25 million, $11 milliion guaranteed
Boldin (Ravens), 29 y/o, 5 1,000 yard years, 4 year deal, $28 million, $10 million guaranteed

I’d think there should be more discrepancy between the 2 contracts. Burleson should be feeling very good about his.

I understand that they were at different bargaining positions, but you can't tell me Burleson's deal was an accurate depiction of what he's worth.

[TTown]

Well geez, now I kinda wish we weren't going to be terrible next year. Arizona took it up the arse today in FA.