Hasselbeck and Burleson Clicking. (1 Viewer)

[Pick]

Per the blogger.

QB Hasselbeck And WR Burleson Clicking

Clare Farnsworth, SeattlePI.com - Full Article

Seattle Seahawks QB Matt Hasselbeck is developing a good rapport with WR Nate Burleson. They continued to click, hooking up for short, intermediate and deep completions. Part of it is that Burleson is healthier after starting the minicamp last week with a leg injury that limited his participation.

 

[BigJim®]

Per the blogger.

QB Hasselbeck And WR Burleson Clicking

Clare Farnsworth, SeattlePI.com - Full Article

Seattle Seahawks QB Matt Hasselbeck is developing a good rapport with WR Nate Burleson. They continued to click, hooking up for short, intermediate and deep completions. Part of it is that Burleson is healthier after starting the minicamp last week with a leg injury that limited his participation.

Most undervalued WR... Period.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Per the blogger.

QB Hasselbeck And WR Burleson Clicking

Clare Farnsworth, SeattlePI.com - Full Article

Seattle Seahawks QB Matt Hasselbeck is developing a good rapport with WR Nate Burleson. They continued to click, hooking up for short, intermediate and deep completions. Part of it is that Burleson is healthier after starting the minicamp last week with a leg injury that limited his participation.

Most undervalued WR... Period.

More undervalued than Koren Robinson?

 

[Big Score]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

 

[BigJim®]

Per the blogger.

QB Hasselbeck And WR Burleson Clicking

Clare Farnsworth, SeattlePI.com - Full Article

Seattle Seahawks QB Matt Hasselbeck is developing a good rapport with WR Nate Burleson. They continued to click, hooking up for short, intermediate and deep completions. Part of it is that Burleson is healthier after starting the minicamp last week with a leg injury that limited his participation.

Most undervalued WR... Period.

More undervalued than Koren Robinson?

I'd say yes. Burleson's opportunities with Hasselbeck exceed anything I'm expecting from Krob being thrown to by Brad Johnson. Just a conservative guess I'd say Hasselbeck with throw for 900-1000 more yards than Johnson, assuming both stay healthy. Johnson is a far greater injury risk to me given his age, and if Johnson get's injured, Hasselbeck would outpass McMahon by at least 1500 yards. Lastly, even if Darrell Jackson recovers fully by mid-camp, his injury will give much time for Burleson to get on the same page with Hasselbeck, and I'm still not ruling out Jackson being stymied by ongoing knee issues as he continues to recover.I just don't see Minnesota as a high opportunity location for a WR, and suspect T.Taylor, Krob and Williamson will all put up somewhat pedestrian numbers; hope I'm wrong because I'm a Krob dynasty owner.

 

[BigJim®]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

[BigJim®]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

And thank you. Please continue helping me obtain a WR2 for the cost of a WR6.

 

[Big Score]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Sorry, you're right BigJim®. I meant he was overhyped last year and I'm beginning to see the same thing this year.

While you may not see revisiting his 2005 season as worthwhile, it does give us a an opportunity to judge him when healthy and without Moss.

Only look at his games before he & CPep were injured, as I agree with you that looking at what he did after the injuries, would be very missleading.

 

[Big Score]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

And thank you. Please continue helping me obtain a WR2 for the cost of a WR6.

It won't work that way BigJim®. There will be enough people like yourself, who will take Burleson a tad too early thinking they've struck Gold, when in reality, all they've found is Fools Gold.

You'll end paying WR#3 rates, thinking you're getting a WR#2, when you'll actually be drafting a WR#4.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

And thank you. Please continue helping me obtain a WR2 for the cost of a WR6.

It won't work that way BigJim®. There will be enough people like yourself, who will take Burleson a tad too early thinking they've struck Gold, when in reality, all they've found is Fools Gold.

You'll end paying WR#3 rates, thinking you're getting a WR#2, when you'll actually be drafting a WR#4.

If Nate Burleson is your #4 WR, you're in pretty damn good shape.

 

[Big Score]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

And thank you. Please continue helping me obtain a WR2 for the cost of a WR6.

It won't work that way BigJim®. There will be enough people like yourself, who will take Burleson a tad too early thinking they've struck Gold, when in reality, all they've found is Fools Gold.

You'll end paying WR#3 rates, thinking you're getting a WR#2, when you'll actually be drafting a WR#4.

If Nate Burleson is your #4 WR, you're in pretty damn good shape.

Depends on league size.8 - 10 teams, he's definitely in the WR#4 range.

12 - 16 teams, I'm not exactly sure at which point, but he might move up to WR#3.

 

[mightyeskimo]

I'm in a 10 team league and I would only see him as a WR#4. However, if he ends up getting 1000 yards he'll end up being a great value if chosen late.

 

[BigJim®]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Sorry, you're right BigJim®. I meant he was overhyped last year and I'm beginning to see the same thing this year.

While you may not see revisiting his 2005 season as worthwhile, it does give us a an opportunity to judge him when healthy and without Moss.

Only look at his games before he & CPep were injured, as I agree with you that looking at what he did after the injuries, would be very missleading.

I'm confident we could play point-counterpoint on Burleson all afternoon. However, to the points you raised I wanted to respond.(1) Burleson played in 1 full game in 2005 vs. TB before injuring his knee in week 2 during a blow-out loss to Cincinatti. As far as the partial game vs. Cincinatti, it was 27-0 by halftime and the Bengals had the luxury of using 6 defensive backs by the mid 2nd quarter since the Vikes would obviously not be running the ball at that point. I view that as far too small a sample to judge Burleson without Moss.

(2) To draw a better parellel to his situation in Seattle, IMHO it makes far more sense to judge Burleson "when healthy, without Moss, over a large chunk of the season, with a legit offensive coordinator in a passing offense" by looking back to 2004 when he played the majority of the season without Moss at all (6 games) or with a decoy Moss (3 games). His totals were 1000/9, and the fact he produced without Moss over a large chunk of the season was why he was overhyped heading into the following season without Moss. But he didn't head into 2005 just without Moss; he headed into 2005 without Moss, without OC Linehan, without Matt Birk, and with an obviously confused Culpepper under OC(?)OL coach Steve Loney.

 

[BigJim®]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

And thank you. Please continue helping me obtain a WR2 for the cost of a WR6.

It won't work that way BigJim®. There will be enough people like yourself, who will take Burleson a tad too early thinking they've struck Gold, when in reality, all they've found is Fools Gold.

You'll end paying WR#3 rates, thinking you're getting a WR#2, when you'll actually be drafting a WR#4.

See ya in January. Burleson should absolutely not wind up with the stats of a WR#4, and there is simply no way in hades I'll be drafting him "a tad early" as a WR#3 when antsports ADP does not even list him in the top 53 WRs taken, which is as deep as they list.

 

[Big Score]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Sorry, you're right BigJim®. I meant he was overhyped last year and I'm beginning to see the same thing this year.

While you may not see revisiting his 2005 season as worthwhile, it does give us a an opportunity to judge him when healthy and without Moss.

Only look at his games before he & CPep were injured, as I agree with you that looking at what he did after the injuries, would be very missleading.

I'm confident we could play point-counterpoint on Burleson all afternoon. However, to the points you raised I wanted to respond.(1) Burleson played in 1 full game in 2005 vs. TB before injuring his knee in week 2 during a blow-out loss to Cincinatti. As far as the partial game vs. Cincinatti, it was 27-0 by halftime and the Bengals had the luxury of using 6 defensive backs by the mid 2nd quarter since the Vikes would obviously not be running the ball at that point. I view that as far too small a sample to judge Burleson without Moss.

(2) To draw a better parellel to his situation in Seattle, IMHO it makes far more sense to judge Burleson "when healthy, without Moss, over a large chunk of the season, with a legit offensive coordinator in a passing offense" by looking back to 2004 when he played the majority of the season without Moss at all (6 games) or with a decoy Moss (3 games). His totals were 1000/9, and the fact he produced without Moss over a large chunk of the season was why he was overhyped heading into the following season without Moss. But he didn't head into 2005 just without Moss; he headed into 2005 without Moss, without OC Linehan, without Matt Birk, and with an obviously confused Culpepper under OC(?)OL coach Steve Loney.

If you want to look at Burleson's numbers without Moss from 2004, you do not get 1,000 yards.Moss was out weeks 7 thru 11.

During that 5 game span Burleson had these numbers - 6-53, 6-43, 1-8, 11-141, 5-52.

Yes the 11 receptions for 141 yards is excellent, but what the heck happened those other 4 weeks?

Especially the week where he went 1 recpt for 8 yards

You won't see Burleson on any of my rosters, as there are too many people like yourself, who will take him long before he actually warrants being drafted.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

If you want to look at Burleson's numbers without Moss from 2004, you do not get 1,000 yards.

Moss was out weeks 7 thru 11.

During that 5 game span Burleson had these numbers - 6-53, 6-43, 1-8, 11-141, 5-52.

Yes the 11 receptions for 141 yards is excellent, but what the heck happened those other 4 weeks?

Especially the week where he went 1 recpt for 8 yards

You won't see Burleson on any of my rosters, as there are too many people like yourself, who will take him long before he actually warrants being drafted.

That projects to 92 catches for 947 yards over a 16 game season...that isn't too bad for a WR4!!

 

[Gopher State]

His value all depends on Jackson's knee, if Jackson is ok, Nate is a #4 or 5 WR in most 10 team leagues, but if Jackson is slow to come back move him up to #3. I think people will over pay for Nate based on one good season in Minny, and they feel he will shine in Seattle, but theirs a lot of talent in Seattle, and he could get lost in the sea of it(talent).

 

[cstu]

His value all depends on Jackson's knee, if Jackson is ok, Nate is a #4 or 5 WR in most 10 team leagues, but if Jackson is slow to come back move him up to #3. I think people will over pay for Nate based on one good season in Minny, and they feel he will shine in Seattle, but theirs a lot of talent in Seattle, and he could get lost in the sea of it(talent).

I agree. It's a mistake to think that Burleson will get 1000 yards with a healthy DJax and SA getting his 14+ TD's a year. I do think he's a good #3 (25th to 36th WR), but if he gets over 800/5 I'll be surprised.

 

[Big Score]

If you want to look at Burleson's numbers without Moss from 2004, you do not get 1,000 yards.

Moss was out weeks 7 thru 11.

During that 5 game span Burleson had these numbers - 6-53, 6-43, 1-8, 11-141, 5-52.

Yes the 11 receptions for 141 yards is excellent, but what the heck happened those other 4 weeks?

Especially the week where he went 1 recpt for 8 yards

You won't see Burleson on any of my rosters, as there are too many people like yourself, who will take him long before he actually warrants being drafted.

That projects to 92 catches for 947 yards over a 16 game season...that isn't too bad for a WR4!!

Yeah it does....when he was the #1 WR target his team.Unless you think Burleson supplants DJax, Burleson won't be getting the WR#1 targets, will he?

Next time give a little though to engaging your brain before posting!

 

[Big Score]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

And thank you. Please continue helping me obtain a WR2 for the cost of a WR6.

It won't work that way BigJim®. There will be enough people like yourself, who will take Burleson a tad too early thinking they've struck Gold, when in reality, all they've found is Fools Gold.

You'll end paying WR#3 rates, thinking you're getting a WR#2, when you'll actually be drafting a WR#4.

See ya in January. Burleson should absolutely not wind up with the stats of a WR#4, and there is simply no way in hades I'll be drafting him "a tad early" as a WR#3 when antsports ADP does not even list him in the top 53 WRs taken, which is as deep as they list.

Looking at Burleson's antsports ADP today, will not represent Burleson's ADP come late July - early September.Unfortunately as more & more people, like yourself, drink the Burleson kool aid, you'll push up his stock.

By the time you actually get around to drafting, you'll have to pick him sooner than he will warrant.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The only time's Seattle's #2 WR has put up WR2 numbers is when D-Jax has been hurt for significant stretches (2002/2005).

Banking on WR2 numbers from Burleson may not be a wise choice. He'll be a WR3 with upside surely.

 

[gang-wars]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Sorry, you're right BigJim®. I meant he was overhyped last year and I'm beginning to see the same thing this year.

While you may not see revisiting his 2005 season as worthwhile, it does give us a an opportunity to judge him when healthy and without Moss.

Only look at his games before he & CPep were injured, as I agree with you that looking at what he did after the injuries, would be very missleading.

I'm confident we could play point-counterpoint on Burleson all afternoon. However, to the points you raised I wanted to respond.(1) Burleson played in 1 full game in 2005 vs. TB before injuring his knee in week 2 during a blow-out loss to Cincinatti. As far as the partial game vs. Cincinatti, it was 27-0 by halftime and the Bengals had the luxury of using 6 defensive backs by the mid 2nd quarter since the Vikes would obviously not be running the ball at that point. I view that as far too small a sample to judge Burleson without Moss.

(2) To draw a better parellel to his situation in Seattle, IMHO it makes far more sense to judge Burleson "when healthy, without Moss, over a large chunk of the season, with a legit offensive coordinator in a passing offense" by looking back to 2004 when he played the majority of the season without Moss at all (6 games) or with a decoy Moss (3 games). His totals were 1000/9, and the fact he produced without Moss over a large chunk of the season was why he was overhyped heading into the following season without Moss. But he didn't head into 2005 just without Moss; he headed into 2005 without Moss, without OC Linehan, without Matt Birk, and with an obviously confused Culpepper under OC(?)OL coach Steve Loney.

If you want to look at Burleson's numbers without Moss from 2004, you do not get 1,000 yards.Moss was out weeks 7 thru 11.

During that 5 game span Burleson had these numbers - 6-53, 6-43, 1-8, 11-141, 5-52.

Yes the 11 receptions for 141 yards is excellent, but what the heck happened those other 4 weeks?

Especially the week where he went 1 recpt for 8 yards

You won't see Burleson on any of my rosters, as there are too many people like yourself, who will take him long before he actually warrants being drafted.

*lol*What happened those other 4 weeks? Average those "crappy" 4 weeks out, 72 catches 624 yards. That's without his monster game. Add that into the mix, span his 5 games you get 90ish catches and 950 yards.

So with or without his monster game, his numbers are pretty impressive.

Steve Smith had a game last year with 2 catches for 12 yards. EEK. AAHH. EEK EKK EEEEK. Not sure what that means.

He's 26 years old. He's going to a great offense. He's healthy. His best year was better then AJs/Roy/Evans/Stallworth/Housh's best year. That's not to say I'd draft him before any of those guys, the point is Burleson has produced, he's young, he's on a better team, better offense, where last year the #2 WR produced very well.

So there's nothing to dislike. He's ADP is reasonable (WR28). He has tons of upside. If you can get Burleson as your 4th WR, it's a steal.

People went nuts on projecting him last year, took him way too early, got burned. Has nothing to do with this year. Burleson got hurt. Cpepp got hurt. Team was a mess. Coach got fired. So I do hope all the people who bought the hype on Burleson stay away, will make him much better value. =)

 

[Big Score]

What happened those other 4 weeks? Average those "crappy" 4 weeks out, 72 catches 624 yards. That's without his monster game. Add that into the mix, span his 5 games you get 90ish catches and 950 yards.

So let me see if I've got this right.Burleson would have projected out to less than a 1,000 yards as his teams WR#1

over 16 games......and you see that as a good thing?

Then we factor in that he's changing teams, terminology, schemes & plays, will not be the #1 target, in fact we don't know for sure if he'll even be Seattles #2 target and you guys see him as good value?

Keep up the pimping guys.

That'll just leave better WR's for the rest of us.

 

[BigJim®]

Most undervalued WR... Period.

Heard this last year too.

I'd disagree with this. If anything Burleson was overvalued last year; as I recall his ADP was roughly WR10-WR18, which struck me as too high. Also, both he and Culpepper were injured during 2005, and his offensive coordinator was an OL coach. I don't see much value in revisiting 2005 to judge this guy, and since others are he will remain a great value pick for 2006.

Burleson will be good for 850 yards, 5 TDs this season.The fact that he caught a couple passes from Hasselbeck in practice doesn't fill me with confidence.

And thank you. Please continue helping me obtain a WR2 for the cost of a WR6.

It won't work that way BigJim®. There will be enough people like yourself, who will take Burleson a tad too early thinking they've struck Gold, when in reality, all they've found is Fools Gold.

You'll end paying WR#3 rates, thinking you're getting a WR#2, when you'll actually be drafting a WR#4.

See ya in January. Burleson should absolutely not wind up with the stats of a WR#4, and there is simply no way in hades I'll be drafting him "a tad early" as a WR#3 when antsports ADP does not even list him in the top 53 WRs taken, which is as deep as they list.

Looking at Burleson's antsports ADP today, will not represent Burleson's ADP come late July - early September.Unfortunately as more & more people, like yourself, drink the Burleson kool aid, you'll push up his stock.

By the time you actually get around to drafting, you'll have to pick him sooner than he will warrant.

Well, I'm personally only in one redraft league and it is in Minnesota, so I suspect that someone will be reaching too early for Burleson. That person will not be me, as I try to get value where it is value, rather than reaching for something I think may turn into value. That said, I remain confident that the vast majority of redrafts will allow Burleson to slip to a position of value, and people should seize the opportunity to get him cheap if they can. I just have a hunch that being traded to his hometown team will rekindle the promise I saw in Burleson 2004.

 

[Sea Bass]

Good news for Burleson owners, GREAT news for the Seahawk fans.

 

[Big Score]

I just have a hunch that being traded to his hometown team will rekindle the promise I saw in Burleson 2004.

Oh!Well that changes everything.

Now that you've explained yourself, I'm going to rush out and draft him based on your hunch.

 

[packersfan]

His value all depends on Jackson's knee, if Jackson is ok, Nate is a #4 or 5 WR in most 10 team leagues, but if Jackson is slow to come back move him up to #3. I think people will over pay for Nate based on one good season in Minny, and they feel he will shine in Seattle, but theirs a lot of talent in Seattle, and he could get lost in the sea of it(talent).

I agree. It's a mistake to think that Burleson will get 1000 yards with a healthy DJax and SA getting his 14+ TD's a year. I do think he's a good #3 (25th to 36th WR), but if he gets over 800/5 I'll be surprised.

I'll third that. I like Burleson a lot this season and I think he has value but I don't think he's going to emerge as a super sleeper. If DJax is healthy, I don't see Burleson getting more than 5 TDs which will keep his value from leaping into WR2 territory and likely making him a lower-end WR3. DJax will be the top target and if Stevens is healthy he was clearly emerging as a huge Red Zone option late last season for Hasselbeck. That could leave Burleson third on the picking order for TD receptions. The good news is his value as stated earlier is pretty low so you can grab him as your WR4 and consider him an upside play given his WR3 potential. If there are 45-50 WRs being drafted ahead of Burleson he will continue to represent good value. But if he moves up into the 30-35 range in terms of WR ADP then I think he will lose his upside value and simply be another decent WR you can get in the later rounds as your WR3.

 

[gang-wars]

What happened those other 4 weeks? Average those "crappy" 4 weeks out, 72 catches 624 yards. That's without his monster game. Add that into the mix, span his 5 games you get 90ish catches and 950 yards.

So let me see if I've got this right.Burleson would have projected out to less than a 1,000 yards as his teams WR#1

over 16 games......and you see that as a good thing?

Then we factor in that he's changing teams, terminology, schemes & plays, will not be the #1 target, in fact we don't know for sure if he'll even be Seattles #2 target and you guys see him as good value?

Keep up the pimping guys.

That'll just leave better WR's for the rest of us.

In his SECOND year, he projected out to 92 catches for 947 yards as a starter. Changing teams? That's a good thing. SEA > MINN. Hasselbeck > BJ.

Again, he's entering his 4th year in the league. He's already had a 1,000 yard 9 TD season in limited starts. He's young. He's in a better situation. His ADP is WR28. He has tons of upside.

So yes, for a 9th/10th round pick, he's great value. I'm not sure how you can argue taking Burleson in the 9th/10th is a bad pick.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

What happened those other 4 weeks? Average those "crappy" 4 weeks out, 72 catches 624 yards. That's without his monster game. Add that into the mix, span his 5 games you get 90ish catches and 950 yards.

So let me see if I've got this right.Burleson would have projected out to less than a 1,000 yards as his teams WR#1

over 16 games......and you see that as a good thing?

Then we factor in that he's changing teams, terminology, schemes & plays, will not be the #1 target, in fact we don't know for sure if he'll even be Seattles #2 target and you guys see him as good value?

Keep up the pimping guys.

That'll just leave better WR's for the rest of us.

In his SECOND year, he projected out to 92 catches for 947 yards as a starter. Changing teams? That's a good thing. SEA > MINN. Hasselbeck > BJ.

Again, he's entering his 4th year in the league. He's already had a 1,000 yard 9 TD season in limited starts. He's young. He's in a better situation. His ADP is WR28. He has tons of upside.

So yes, for a 9th/10th round pick, he's great value. I'm not sure how you can argue taking Burleson in the 9th/10th is a bad pick.

yes, he'd be fine in those rounds. the point is that he'll likely be leaving the board 6/7th tops cuz of people thinking how great his potential is.

 

[Big Score]

What happened those other 4 weeks? Average those "crappy" 4 weeks out, 72 catches 624 yards. That's without his monster game. Add that into the mix, span his 5 games you get 90ish catches and 950 yards.

So let me see if I've got this right.Burleson would have projected out to less than a 1,000 yards as his teams WR#1

over 16 games......and you see that as a good thing?

Then we factor in that he's changing teams, terminology, schemes & plays, will not be the #1 target, in fact we don't know for sure if he'll even be Seattles #2 target and you guys see him as good value?

Keep up the pimping guys.

That'll just leave better WR's for the rest of us.

In his SECOND year, he projected out to 92 catches for 947 yards as a starter. Changing teams? That's a good thing. SEA > MINN. Hasselbeck > BJ.

Again, he's entering his 4th year in the league. He's already had a 1,000 yard 9 TD season in limited starts. He's young. He's in a better situation. His ADP is WR28. He has tons of upside.

So yes, for a 9th/10th round pick, he's great value. I'm not sure how you can argue taking Burleson in the 9th/10th is a bad pick.

If his ADP holds to where you can get him in the 9th or 10th round of a 12 team league or larger and you've got the roster size, yeah he's probably worth a flyer.But if your draft is late July or early Sept and his ADP has been bumped by the Burleson pimping.....I just don't see the value.

 

[NOSRAC247]

Regardless of how well these guys are clicking won;t even matter. Seattle got hit hard with the loss of their left side. That's Alexanders speciality. The NFC is going to be extremly hard this year, and they won't cakewalk into the Supe's like they did last year.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Good news for Burleson owners, GREAT news for the Seahawk fans.

It's a non news item. I hate to say it, but it's a "fluff piece". There will be hundreds of these little blurbs released in the coming weeks and maybe 1% of them will have been useful in hindsight.The only real good news story about a player is a promotion.

99% of news in the offseason that isn't about player movements, injuries and depth charts is useless.

Other than those three, I'd rather hear nothing about a player. Any meaningful news you can hear is going to be bad (demoted, injured, ran over his wife with a car).

Edit: subject verb agreement.

 

[Kleck]

Makes me smile. I hope he does well, but I fully expect Engram to start and post better stats. Which ever way it falls I see rankings changing drastically for lots of people (possibly me included) by the time the season starts.

 

[BigJim®]

I just have a hunch that being traded to his hometown team will rekindle the promise I saw in Burleson 2004.

Oh!Well that changes everything.

Now that you've explained yourself, I'm going to rush out and draft him based on your hunch.

I understand you were taking a humored jab at me here, but in seriousness people are kidding themselves if they believe their own sleepers are sleepers altogether as a matter of "fact." A lot of considerations go into my sleeper list and I just mentioned his homecoming to side note another reason I'll be keeping an eye on Burleson. If I have a hunch, I won't pretend it's anything more than that.

 

[Big Score]

I just have a hunch that being traded to his hometown team will rekindle the promise I saw in Burleson 2004.

Oh!Well that changes everything.

Now that you've explained yourself, I'm going to rush out and draft him based on your hunch.

I understand you were taking a humored jab at me here, but in seriousness people are kidding themselves if they believe their own sleepers are sleepers altogether as a matter of "fact." A lot of considerations go into my sleeper list and I just mentioned his homecoming to side note another reason I'll be keeping an eye on Burleson. If I have a hunch, I won't pretend it's anything more than that.