View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 30th, 2014, 9:45 am



Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Nate Burleson 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Quote:
That statement is flat out not true. Nate makes more than most #2s in the league, and he's barely a #3.


I would say Nate is a solid #2, not without flaws but that is why he is a #2 WR. You can talk about his drops but lets talk about his catches first.

In 2012 he had 73 receptions, that was the 15th highest total in the NFL by a WR. Only the Giants had a #2 with more receptions (Cruz = 82, Nicks = 76). So Burleson had more receptions that 31 of the 32 #2 WRs in the NFL. What's more, he had more receptions that 19 of the teams #1 WRs in the NFL!

Now, let's talk money. You can't compare Nate (5 years,$25M) to Manningham, there production isn't in the same range. Another 49er ranks just below Nate on the reception chart - Michael Crabtree (6 year, $32M) or the guy who ranks just above him - Nate Washington (6 years, $26.8M).

Hummm, the amount of $ he makes seems pretty much in line with his level of production.... I'd like to see what Mike Wallace gets paid by Pitt as he had 72 receptions last year.

BTW - you boy Manningham was ranked 62nd of all WRs with 39 receptions (9 less than Titus "Sucker Punch" Young pulled down as a rookie) - his contract also looks more in line with his level of production.

Also, as home fans of the Lions we are going to notice the drops of our players - we tend not to hear those of other teams. In Dallas, let me tell you there is a lot of griping about Miles Austin and Dez Bryant - in fact Laurent Robinson was viewed by most as their best WR last year after he was dumped by Chargers in training camp - and who just signed a contract with the Jaguars for five-years and $32.5M, not bad for someone who couldn't make the Chargers roster last year and another clear case for what sort of $ this type of production calls for.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


May 21st, 2012, 5:43 pm
Profile WWW
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Stupid move Titus, especially since you are barely a second year player.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


May 21st, 2012, 6:49 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Pablo wrote:
Quote:
That statement is flat out not true. Nate makes more than most #2s in the league, and he's barely a #3.


I would say Nate is a solid #2, not without flaws but that is why he is a #2 WR. You can talk about his drops but lets talk about his catches first.

In 2012 he had 73 receptions, that was the 15th highest total in the NFL by a WR. Only the Giants had a #2 with more receptions (Cruz = 82, Nicks = 76). So Burleson had more receptions that 31 of the 32 #2 WRs in the NFL. What's more, he had more receptions that 19 of the teams #1 WRs in the NFL!

Now, let's talk money. You can't compare Nate (5 years,$25M) to Manningham, there production isn't in the same range. Another 49er ranks just below Nate on the reception chart - Michael Crabtree (6 year, $32M) or the guy who ranks just above him - Nate Washington (6 years, $26.8M).

Hummm, the amount of $ he makes seems pretty much in line with his level of production.... I'd like to see what Mike Wallace gets paid by Pitt as he had 72 receptions last year.

BTW - you boy Manningham was ranked 62nd of all WRs with 39 receptions (9 less than Titus "Sucker Punch" Young pulled down as a rookie) - his contract also looks more in line with his level of production.

Also, as home fans of the Lions we are going to notice the drops of our players - we tend not to hear those of other teams. In Dallas, let me tell you there is a lot of griping about Miles Austin and Dez Bryant - in fact Laurent Robinson was viewed by most as their best WR last year after he was dumped by Chargers in training camp - and who just signed a contract with the Jaguars for five-years and $32.5M, not bad for someone who couldn't make the Chargers roster last year and another clear case for what sort of $ this type of production calls for.


The only problem I have with what Pablo just said is that he didn't put about 40 exclamation points afterwards. Calvin loves Nate, and vice versa, he is also a vocal leader and a respected veteran. He came to Detroit when we were down, and LOVES what Detroit has done. I love his interviews, I love his leadership on the field, and I love him as a football player. 73 receptions was a career high for him as well.

I don't think that he is overpaid, or underpaid. He was the first one to interview after Calvin Johnson signed a 130 million dollar contract and tell the world the man deserved to be paid. Nate is a class act, we are lucky to have him. IMHO

_________________
[b]New York Giants 26 - San Fransisco 3 - CandleStick Park - Who's got it better than us???[/b]


May 22nd, 2012, 1:08 am
Profile WWW
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)

Joined: March 5th, 2009, 8:42 pm
Posts: 2240
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Nate is nowhere near perfect. He dropped some balls and his YAC average wasn't that good. But he was there for every game, he gave US the best year of his career so far(I think he is a late bloomer, myself). He only caught 3 TDs but his value to the team is way more than just stats. You need good people on your team. As far as him being overpaid, I don't care cuz its not coming out of my pocket. if you really think we should use that extra money on a safety or a CB than I think you should be more angry at guys like Al Smith, Amari, Berry...everyone who attempted to play defense in the playoff game. Nate's stats are not that bad for a 2 WR considering all the targets we have on the team(the ball was spread around very well) I'd take another 73 catch season from him if he stops dropping balls.

I bet if you ask the players on the team if they want Nate on the team you know what the answer would be.

_________________
Matthew Stafford is the only player in NFL history who is allowed to smoke cigarettes in the team huddle. He just chooses not to


May 22nd, 2012, 5:13 am
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)

Joined: March 5th, 2009, 8:42 pm
Posts: 2240
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Post Re: Nate Burleson
he need to whoop titus youngs a.s.s tho

_________________
Matthew Stafford is the only player in NFL history who is allowed to smoke cigarettes in the team huddle. He just chooses not to


Last edited by Killwill25 on May 22nd, 2012, 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.



May 22nd, 2012, 5:16 am
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)

Joined: March 5th, 2009, 8:42 pm
Posts: 2240
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Ferris wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Quote:
That statement is flat out not true. Nate makes more than most #2s in the league, and he's barely a #3.


I would say Nate is a solid #2, not without flaws but that is why he is a #2 WR. You can talk about his drops but lets talk about his catches first.

In 2012 he had 73 receptions, that was the 15th highest total in the NFL by a WR. Only the Giants had a #2 with more receptions (Cruz = 82, Nicks = 76). So Burleson had more receptions that 31 of the 32 #2 WRs in the NFL. What's more, he had more receptions that 19 of the teams #1 WRs in the NFL!

Now, let's talk money. You can't compare Nate (5 years,$25M) to Manningham, there production isn't in the same range. Another 49er ranks just below Nate on the reception chart - Michael Crabtree (6 year, $32M) or the guy who ranks just above him - Nate Washington (6 years, $26.8M).

Hummm, the amount of $ he makes seems pretty much in line with his level of production.... I'd like to see what Mike Wallace gets paid by Pitt as he had 72 receptions last year.

BTW - you boy Manningham was ranked 62nd of all WRs with 39 receptions (9 less than Titus "Sucker Punch" Young pulled down as a rookie) - his contract also looks more in line with his level of production.

Also, as home fans of the Lions we are going to notice the drops of our players - we tend not to hear those of other teams. In Dallas, let me tell you there is a lot of griping about Miles Austin and Dez Bryant - in fact Laurent Robinson was viewed by most as their best WR last year after he was dumped by Chargers in training camp - and who just signed a contract with the Jaguars for five-years and $32.5M, not bad for someone who couldn't make the Chargers roster last year and another clear case for what sort of $ this type of production calls for.


The only problem I have with what Pablo just said is that he didn't put about 40 exclamation points afterwards.

=D>

_________________
Matthew Stafford is the only player in NFL history who is allowed to smoke cigarettes in the team huddle. He just chooses not to


May 22nd, 2012, 5:17 am
Profile
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Pablo wrote:
Quote:
That statement is flat out not true. Nate makes more than most #2s in the league, and he's barely a #3.


I would say Nate is a solid #2, not without flaws but that is why he is a #2 WR. You can talk about his drops but lets talk about his catches first.

In 2012 he had 73 receptions, that was the 15th highest total in the NFL by a WR. Only the Giants had a #2 with more receptions (Cruz = 82, Nicks = 76). So Burleson had more receptions that 31 of the 32 #2 WRs in the NFL. What's more, he had more receptions that 19 of the teams #1 WRs in the NFL!

Now, let's talk money. You can't compare Nate (5 years,$25M) to Manningham, there production isn't in the same range. Another 49er ranks just below Nate on the reception chart - Michael Crabtree (6 year, $32M) or the guy who ranks just above him - Nate Washington (6 years, $26.8M).

Hummm, the amount of $ he makes seems pretty much in line with his level of production.... I'd like to see what Mike Wallace gets paid by Pitt as he had 72 receptions last year.

BTW - you boy Manningham was ranked 62nd of all WRs with 39 receptions (9 less than Titus "Sucker Punch" Young pulled down as a rookie) - his contract also looks more in line with his level of production.

Also, as home fans of the Lions we are going to notice the drops of our players - we tend not to hear those of other teams. In Dallas, let me tell you there is a lot of griping about Miles Austin and Dez Bryant - in fact Laurent Robinson was viewed by most as their best WR last year after he was dumped by Chargers in training camp - and who just signed a contract with the Jaguars for five-years and $32.5M, not bad for someone who couldn't make the Chargers roster last year and another clear case for what sort of $ this type of production calls for.


Pablo - you're more or less making the same argument that TLBs made, but IMO you can't base it off of production. Much like Avril playing next to Suh, anyone playing opposite CJ is going to have good production. I realize that Nate had a lot of catches, but not only was his "YAC" super low, so was his YPC, and his number of TDs. He may have been 15th in receptions, but he was much, much lower in total yardage, but that's not even his biggest issue.

Nate was brought in here to take pressure of off CJ, and he has failed miserably, period. Nate was SUPPOSED to be so good that teams couldn't afford to constantly double CJ, and Nate was SUPPOSED to be a deep threat that we could hit IF CJ was double covered. However, the fact remains that Nate can't go deep to save his azz (and career), he gets no separation, and he quite literally does NOTHING to take pressure off of Calvin.

Does Calvin like him? Sure, Nate is a likeable guy. Is Nate bitter about CJs contract? Hell no, and he shouldn't be, of the two of them it is NATE that is over-paid, not CJ.

You are right to point out that given Mario's production his contract amount is warranted. However, he would do MUCH MORE at taking pressure off of CJ, "erasing" the double coverage that CJ constantly receives, and Mario is MUCH more of a threat to go deep and put up big numbers. Mario's numbers were hampered by missing four games, and being burried on the depth chart. If he were our #2 he may not get 73 catches, but he would have more yards and more TDs than Nate, hands down, but more importantly, CJs numbers would also escalate.

Mario is more of a #2 that could play #1 if CJ ever did miss a couple of games. Both Young and Nate can't do that, period. Young would be better than Nate in that role (and so would Broyles). Nate is what he is, and old, washed up, possession guy that drops easy balls occasionally, and can't get separation. No CB in the league worries "oh crap, I have to cover Nate B this game," the same isn't true about Mario. THAT'S why Nate is over paid. It's not because Nate doesn't put up decent numbers, it's that someone else could do his job better than he can for 1/2 the coin. (BTW, I would take Crabtree or Washington over Nate in a heartbeat!... and Crabtree is on his rookie contract and on his way up, I hardly think its fair to compare Nate's salary to Crabtree's given the circumstances).


Killwill25 wrote:
As far as him being overpaid, I don't care cuz its not coming out of my pocket.


Sorry Killwill, but that is just an overly-simplistic view of the game of football. It doesn't matter who's paying the tab, there's only so much money to go around, and Nate is taking more than his fair share. You can't get mad at guys like Berry and Smith for "not doing their job" their talent level is what it is, and most importantly THEY'RE NOT OVER-PAID. Those guys make peanuts compared to Nate, and you can't get mad at them for making nothing and not being able to play up to a true #2 CB level, or starting Safety caliber. The fact remains, we would have had money to sign a true #2 CB and/or a starting caliber safety for what we're paying Nate. He's flat out not worth what he's making.

Killwill25 wrote:
I bet if you ask the players on the team if they want Nate on the team you know what the answer would be.


Oh, sure they would, like I said, Nate's a likeable guy, but put them in a room with anonymity and ask them if they would like a bigger, stronger, younger, more talented #2 WR in place of Nate, and I bet most say "yes."


May 22nd, 2012, 2:09 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Nate Burleson
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Mario's numbers were hampered by missing four games, and being burried on the depth chart. If he were our #2 he may not get 73 catches, but he would have more yards and more TDs than Nate, hands down, but more importantly, CJs numbers would also escalate.


And if he was our #2 WR having missed 4 games last year, and a couple more his sophomore year and 9 his rookie year - well, you would be calling him out for that wouldn't you? Do we discount durability for players on other teams or those that hail from UofM?

Perhaps we can extrapolate how awesome Jahvid Best would be if he hadn't missed games the last two years?

I don't know how CJ's numbers would be different with Mario next to him, but honestly I still think DC's pay the same amount of attention to him as they do with Nate.

Again, worth is a matter of perspective. As I've pointed out, players with similar production make as much if not more than Nate. I understand they each have a different role within a team, here one of Nate's roles is to be the veteran leader among the WRs - that is tough to measure and put a $ amount on but easy to discount my fans.

Is there a better dollar value for the position out there? Absolutely. Then again, you could go into that same argument looking at value players on other teams for just about every other starter on the roster - it is an exercise in futility that will only lead to frustration.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


May 22nd, 2012, 3:31 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Mario's numbers were hampered by missing four games, and being burried on the depth chart. If he were our #2 he may not get 73 catches, but he would have more yards and more TDs than Nate, hands down, but more importantly, CJs numbers would also escalate.


And if he was our #2 WR having missed 4 games last year, and a couple more his sophomore year and 9 his rookie year - well, you would be calling him out for that wouldn't you? Do we discount durability for players on other teams or those that hail from UofM?

Perhaps we can extrapolate how awesome Jahvid Best would be if he hadn't missed games the last two years?

I don't know how CJ's numbers would be different with Mario next to him, but honestly I still think DC's pay the same amount of attention to him as they do with Nate.

Again, worth is a matter of perspective. As I've pointed out, players with similar production make as much if not more than Nate. I understand they each have a different role within a team, here one of Nate's roles is to be the veteran leader among the WRs - that is tough to measure and put a $ amount on but easy to discount my fans.

Is there a better dollar value for the position out there? Absolutely. Then again, you could go into that same argument looking at value players on other teams for just about every other starter on the roster - it is an exercise in futility that will only lead to frustration.


C' mon, now you're just being ridiculous. Mario Manningham has missed 6 games in three years, and you want to compare him to Javid Best.

There's no way in hell that a DC pays the same attention to Manningham (a deep threat to score at every catch) and Nate Burleson (a straight possession, 10 yard per catch guy). Do you really believe this stuff?

I don't discount the "leadership" role that Nate plays on this team, but I think his "leadership" is mitigated by his play on the field. Jim Leyland said it best about leadership - “I never seen a phuckin' guy yet that hits .200 or .220 that was a leader, never in my god dam life."

Nate can say all of the right things, but when he's out there pushing off to get separation and dropping easy balls, it's all just lip service.


May 22nd, 2012, 3:50 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Nate Burleson
wjb21ndtown wrote:
C' mon, now you're just being ridiculous. Mario Manningham has missed 6 games in three years, and you want to compare him to Javid Best.


Games played in first two NFL seasons; Best = 20, Manningham = 21

I guess if Best had played in one more game the comparison would be fair?

I'll give you that a DC doesn't pay the same attention to Manningham to Burleson, that said with CJ on the team I don't think it makes a bit of difference as neither Mario or Nate are going to require any extra attention from a safety so it makes zero difference. The defense is still going to cheat towards CJ and take their chances with the other WRs on the field.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


May 22nd, 2012, 4:05 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
C' mon, now you're just being ridiculous. Mario Manningham has missed 6 games in three years, and you want to compare him to Javid Best.


Games played in first two NFL seasons; Best = 20, Manningham = 21

I guess if Best had played in one more game the comparison would be fair?

I'll give you that a DC doesn't pay the same attention to Manningham to Burleson, that said with CJ on the team I don't think it makes a bit of difference as neither Mario or Nate are going to require any extra attention from a safety so it makes zero difference. The defense is still going to cheat towards CJ and take their chances with the other WRs on the field.


So you're telling me that Best is going to play in 14 games this coming year? You're going to tell me that you think it's feasible that Best stays as healthy for the rest of his career as Manningham will. C'mon Pablo, you know that's bunk.

Secondly, from what I can tell, Manningham did hurt his "quad/hip" in training camp his first year, but really only missed time due to his talent. He wasn't ever seemingly hurt enough to keep him out of a game, but it took him a while to crack the top 4 on the depth chart, especially on the Giants squad with Smith and Burress. This is evident by the fact that he was "active" but his stats for weeks of football with zero stats or almost zero stats, prior to week 17 he literally had two catches for 5 yards. They simply weren't using him, it wasn't that he was hurt. I don't fault him for that, and I don't see why anyone else would. He was more or less a 4th round rookie (selected the very last pick of the 3rd round) that took a while to make the depth chart.

The difference in defensive scheme, IMO, that that the DC would likely leave BOTH the FS and SS back in coverage, but if we had any sort of running game the DC would have to make a decision. Right now they don't, which is my point. Right now they can ignore Nate, single cover him, know that's more or less locked down, bring the SS up against the run, and double CJ. Sending someone like Manningham deep we would AT LEAST have the option of sending Manningham and making it look like CJ is running a shallow route and the FS is going to bite. If we have enough time in the pocket for CJ to run an "out (or in) and up" route that FS isn't going to be able to come down and double CJ in his "out" or "in" he's going to be forced to bite on Manningham (or leave him single covered post 20 yards with nothing but a 5'10" CB on him), and CJ will be "freed" up some. Manningham has the capability of opening up CJ at least in some limited capacity.

Nate literally brings nothing to the table for CJ, nothing.


May 22nd, 2012, 4:35 pm
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
Post Re: Nate Burleson
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
C' mon, now you're just being ridiculous. Mario Manningham has missed 6 games in three years, and you want to compare him to Javid Best.


Games played in first two NFL seasons; Best = 20, Manningham = 21

I guess if Best had played in one more game the comparison would be fair?

I'll give you that a DC doesn't pay the same attention to Manningham to Burleson, that said with CJ on the team I don't think it makes a bit of difference as neither Mario or Nate are going to require any extra attention from a safety so it makes zero difference. The defense is still going to cheat towards CJ and take their chances with the other WRs on the field.


So you're telling me that Best is going to play in 14 games this coming year? You're going to tell me that you think it's feasible that Best stays as healthy for the rest of his career as Manningham will. C'mon Pablo, you know that's bunk.

Secondly, from what I can tell, Manningham did hurt his "quad/hip" in training camp his first year, but really only missed time due to his talent. He wasn't ever seemingly hurt enough to keep him out of a game, but it took him a while to crack the top 4 on the depth chart, especially on the Giants squad with Smith and Burress. This is evident by the fact that he was "active" but his stats for weeks of football with zero stats or almost zero stats, prior to week 17 he literally had two catches for 5 yards. They simply weren't using him, it wasn't that he was hurt. I don't fault him for that, and I don't see why anyone else would. He was more or less a 4th round rookie (selected the very last pick of the 3rd round) that took a while to make the depth chart.

The difference in defensive scheme, IMO, that that the DC would likely leave BOTH the FS and SS back in coverage, but if we had any sort of running game the DC would have to make a decision. Right now they don't, which is my point. Right now they can ignore Nate, single cover him, know that's more or less locked down, bring the SS up against the run, and double CJ. Sending someone like Manningham deep we would AT LEAST have the option of sending Manningham and making it look like CJ is running a shallow route and the FS is going to bite. If we have enough time in the pocket for CJ to run an "out (or in) and up" route that FS isn't going to be able to come down and double CJ in his "out" or "in" he's going to be forced to bite on Manningham (or leave him single covered post 20 yards with nothing but a 5'10" CB on him), and CJ will be "freed" up some. Manningham has the capability of opening up CJ at least in some limited capacity.

Nate literally brings nothing to the table for CJ, nothing.


One thing you are completely missing here WJB - 0-16 and 2-14. Nate signed that contract and got paid because nobody else would come to Detroit. He does what he is asked to do though - and to the contrary when you 3rd and 3 on the goal line, and you have Calvin Johnson, I don't care who the number 2 is, you throw that ball to Calvin Johnson.

Is he overpaid compared to similar number 2 receivers - YES. Is anyone going to leave a winning franchise to come to a laughing stack if you dont entice them? naw, not so much.

So yeh, he has had decent production in the form of receptions, and he is overpaid. But he has done alot to drag the franchise out of the dumps on and off the field, and the Lions have had a couple years to start to find the pieces to replace him. They are building the right way, but you really really can't possibly argue that the 2 - 28 LIONS had "other options" at that time, can you?

_________________
[b]New York Giants 26 - San Fransisco 3 - CandleStick Park - Who's got it better than us???[/b]


May 23rd, 2012, 7:56 am
Profile WWW
Online
Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 9:03 am
Posts: 2315
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Went backand looked at the FA class of WRs that year and compared to what was out there the Lions did pretty well with the addition of Nate. Most of the bigger names re-signed with their teams and a lot of the others were over 30 and/or haven't done much, especially compared to what the Lions have been getting from Nate. I do have a feeling though if Nate returns next year he might be asked to redo his contract.


May 23rd, 2012, 8:49 am
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Id compare Nate and KVB's deals with the Lions to Pudge and Magglio contracts with the Tigers. They may mean more to the Lions than they would any other team and are paid like it, but its the cost of moving up from the doldrums. Nate has been fine.


May 24th, 2012, 10:08 am
Profile
Post Re: Nate Burleson
Ferris wrote:
One thing you are completely missing here WJB - 0-16 and 2-14. Nate signed that contract and got paid because nobody else would come to Detroit. He does what he is asked to do though - and to the contrary when you 3rd and 3 on the goal line, and you have Calvin Johnson, I don't care who the number 2 is, you throw that ball to Calvin Johnson.

Is he overpaid compared to similar number 2 receivers - YES. Is anyone going to leave a winning franchise to come to a laughing stack if you dont entice them? naw, not so much.

So yeh, he has had decent production in the form of receptions, and he is overpaid. But he has done alot to drag the franchise out of the dumps on and off the field, and the Lions have had a couple years to start to find the pieces to replace him. They are building the right way, but you really really can't possibly argue that the 2 - 28 LIONS had "other options" at that time, can you?


Ferris, I would never argue that Nate was a bad signing. I'm only arguing that he is a bad employee, or an employee that has moved up in pay grade to the point where he could and should be replaced much more cheaply. IF Nate were sure handed, didn't drop easy balls, and was effective at getting open, I would be all for keeping him, but that simply isn't true. IMO he's part of our offensive problem, not part of the solution.

Think about it for one minute. Why do we have no mid-range game? Because we have no legitimate #2 WR. Why is CJ always AT LEAST double teamed, if not triple teamed when he goes deep? Because we have no 2nd legitimate deep threat. What killed our offense the most last year? Drops!

Swapping Manningham (or any legitimate, speedy, sizable #2 WR) cures all (or most) of those problems (I agree that Manningham may drop just as many as Nate, but he'll do the first two things much, MUCH more effectively, and help CJ get open), AND we can we can do it for HALF the current cost of Nate B.

sweetd20 wrote:
Went backand looked at the FA class of WRs that year and compared to what was out there the Lions did pretty well with the addition of Nate. Most of the bigger names re-signed with their teams and a lot of the others were over 30 and/or haven't done much, especially compared to what the Lions have been getting from Nate. I do have a feeling though if Nate returns next year he might be asked to redo his contract.


I don't disagree, one bit.

dh86 wrote:
Id compare Nate and KVB's deals with the Lions to Pudge and Magglio contracts with the Tigers. They may mean more to the Lions than they would any other team and are paid like it, but its the cost of moving up from the doldrums. Nate has been fine.


I agree here too, but the difference between Pudge and Mags is that in Football your contract isn't guaranteed. We couldn't cut Pudge or Mags in the middle of their contract and save any money, and you bet your bottom we would have if it were possible. Instead Mags was likely unwillingly held out of games to keep him from reaching escalators in his contract, signed a smaller deal, and ultimately left the team, as did Pudge.

I appreciate that Nate helped us go from the cellar to a winning organization, but the fact of the matter is that he was paid a premium to come to a crappy team, and we're not a crappy team. We should be able to get FAs at a discount being a "playoff caliber team." He should not keep getting his "premium" now that we're better situated.


May 24th, 2012, 12:58 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DayDreamer, sweetd20 and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.