Nate Burleson (1 Viewer)

[CD Dragon]

just a small question. why does FBG have burleson ranked so low?

he is ranked WR73 in dynasty and around WR50 in redraft.

hackett is gone.

branch (WR39) is coming off ACL and wont be ready for the reg. season

engram (WR45) is in year 13 and had the best year of his career at 1150/6 but hasnt broke 800 yds since 1999 otherwise.

SEA didnt draft a WR of the future

burleson had 700/9 last year and has another year of 1000+/9 in his 5 seasons

at 6' / 200 he has about ideal size and holmgren says that he will be stripped of his PR/KR duties if he is the starter.

i dont get it. he's ranked behind 11 rookie WRs and is barely ranked above dwayne jarrett

is it related to the substance abuse policy? or that he only caught a little more than half his targets last year?

ENLIGHTEN ME

 

[aposulli]

just a small question. why does FBG have burleson ranked so low?he is ranked WR73 in dynasty and around WR50 in redraft.hackett is gone.branch (WR39) is coming off ACL and wont be ready for the reg. seasonengram (WR45) is in year 13 and had the best year of his career at 1150/6 but hasnt broke 800 yds since 1999 otherwise.SEA didnt draft a WR of the futureburleson had 700/9 last year and has another year of 1000+/9 in his 5 seasonsat 6' / 200 he has about ideal size and holmgren says that he will be stripped of his PR/KR duties if he is the starter.i dont get it. he's ranked behind 11 rookie WRs and is barely ranked above dwayne jarrettis it related to the substance abuse policy? or that he only caught a little more than half his targets last year?ENLIGHTEN ME

He'll be a nice value play this year.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

:scratchburlesonoffmysleeperlist:

 

[supa mann]

I believe his upside is in the WR25-30 range and he will be dirt cheap. As in, I picked him up off the waiver wire in a dynasty and you can probable get him in the last round of a redraft, about the time you would select a kicker. For a guy who will get you 8-10 pts/week you could do worse for a 3rd WR or bye week guy. I think he outproduces 85% of the rookies at least.

 

[Enforcer]

I have to agree, but I would rather not. I see Burleson getting lots of action, but he doesn't deserve it. He's not that talented* and he's going to get targets because the young guys aren't ready, Branch is hurt, and Hackett is gone.

* When I say "Not that talented" I mean:

1. He sucks at catching the ball with his hands. Way too many body-traps resulting in lots of drops. I read on a beat writer's blog that he had a bunch of drops (nothing new) in minicamp.

2. He is notorious for running the wrong routes and also giving up on routes. I can remember two specific Hasselbeck interceptions that should be pinned on Burleson.

Ugh. This whole situation makes me a bit queasy as a Seahawk fan. Burleson is great once he secures the ball. He makes people miss and gets lots of YAC. I would feel much better if they had kept Hackett and just let Burleson return kicks full time.

 

[zamboni]

The other thing to consider is that even with the underperforming Alexander gone, their running game doesn't appear markedly better this year. Julius, Duckett and Morris are serviceable but don't exactly strike fear into defenses. I could see Hasselback having to air it out as usual.

 

[Enforcer]

The other thing to consider is that even with the underperforming Alexander gone, their running game doesn't appear markedly better this year. Julius, Duckett and Morris are serviceable but don't exactly strike fear into defenses. I could see Hasselback having to air it out as usual.

I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that the running game will be better. Rave reviews so far with regards to the addition of new line coach Solari and LG Wahle. Further, watching Alexander last year was painful. You must not know how much better "serviceable" will be when comparing them to Alexander. I'll take serviceable and smile.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Bring the Logan Payne!

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

 

[Enforcer]

Bring the Logan Payne!

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2...inicamp_practic

If I had to point to one “gee-whiz” guy who consistently makes impressive plays, it’s receiver Logan Payne. As he did last year in practices, Payne shows amazing hands, focus and concentration. We don’t have much evidence on whether he’ll sustain that when safeties start putting helmets to his ribs in games, but in terms of shaking free and catching the ball in traffic, the guy is a major talent.

 

[Verbal Kint]

Bring the Logan Payne!To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

Furiously updating my notebook.

 

[Sebowski]

He will be rated higher by the time training camp and preseason gets under way.

 

[BigJim®]

Bring the Logan Payne

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

Wow. A 1000/9 TD year as a sophomore and another 9 TD's in limited touches last year... merits this assessment? Not that good? I mean he's no Logan Payne mind you, but he's probably a better playmaker than 75% of NFL WRs.

 

[cacksman]

Burleson is a pretty good WR. He is the most dangerous player Seattle has with the ball in his hands. He had 11 TDs last year and another year of chemistry with Hasselbeck and in the WCO, he should be better than he was last year. I agree with the OP, there is no way in hell 11 rookie WRs should be ahead of him.

As a Seahawk fan, I honestly believe he can have 1100+ yards and 7 TDs receiving. His return numbers should only help that.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Bring the Logan Payne

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

Wow. A 1000/9 TD year as a sophomore and another 9 TD's in limited touches last year... merits this assessment? Not that good? I mean he's no Logan Payne mind you, but he's probably a better playmaker than 75% of NFL WRs.

He's physically talented and can get open, but his hands are spotty and he is an inconsistent player in general - a less dynamic but sure handed WR would do better in his role than he has. The numbers are there because Hasselbeck gives him a lot of chances and the offense is generally potent more than Burleson being a gifted player - Patten could do the same or better in his role.

 

[zamboni]

The other thing to consider is that even with the underperforming Alexander gone, their running game doesn't appear markedly better this year. Julius, Duckett and Morris are serviceable but don't exactly strike fear into defenses. I could see Hasselback having to air it out as usual.

I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that the running game will be better. Rave reviews so far with regards to the addition of new line coach Solari and LG Wahle. Further, watching Alexander last year was painful. You must not know how much better "serviceable" will be when comparing them to Alexander. I'll take serviceable and smile.

I agree that it can't be worse than last year, but I also don't expect the running game to be as productive as in SA's glory years. Of course, even if it is, that's good for the offense overall, including Burleson.

 

[BigJim®]

Bring the Logan Payne

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

Wow. A 1000/9 TD year as a sophomore and another 9 TD's in limited touches last year... merits this assessment? Not that good? I mean he's no Logan Payne mind you, but he's probably a better playmaker than 75% of NFL WRs.

He's physically talented and can get open, but his hands are spotty and he is an inconsistent player in general - a less dynamic but sure handed WR would do better in his role than he has. The numbers are there because Hasselbeck gives him a lot of chances and the offense is generally potent more than Burleson being a gifted player - Patten could do the same or better in his role.

Sorry, that's crazy. Patten has equaled Burleson's 23 TDs over 11 NFL seasons, 4 of which he failed to distinguish himself from other mediocre Tom Brady targets when Brady had pretty good production. But Patten would score 9 TDs battling for catches with Engram, Hackett, Branch in Seattle? MmmmmK.I'm not calling Burleson a top 20 WR, all I know is he somehow outproduces guys getting far more opportunities than he gets. I'd love it if he was still a Viking WR.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Bring the Logan Payne

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

Wow. A 1000/9 TD year as a sophomore and another 9 TD's in limited touches last year... merits this assessment? Not that good? I mean he's no Logan Payne mind you, but he's probably a better playmaker than 75% of NFL WRs.

He's physically talented and can get open, but his hands are spotty and he is an inconsistent player in general - a less dynamic but sure handed WR would do better in his role than he has. The numbers are there because Hasselbeck gives him a lot of chances and the offense is generally potent more than Burleson being a gifted player - Patten could do the same or better in his role.

Sorry, that's crazy. Patten has equaled Burleson's 23 TDs over 11 NFL seasons, 4 of which he failed to distinguish himself from other mediocre Tom Brady targets when Brady had pretty good production. But Patten would score 9 TDs battling for catches with Engram, Hackett, Branch in Seattle? MmmmmK.I'm not calling Burleson a top 20 WR, all I know is he somehow outproduces guys getting far more opportunities than he gets. I'd love it if he was still a Viking WR.

Totally agree. It's one thing to say "Burleson isn't very good".....that much is true....but it's a far different thing to say "David Patten would do better". That's a really difficult statement to back up.

 

[kevinallen]

just a small question. why does FBG have burleson ranked so low?he is ranked WR73 in dynasty and around WR50 in redraft.hackett is gone.branch (WR39) is coming off ACL and wont be ready for the reg. seasonengram (WR45) is in year 13 and had the best year of his career at 1150/6 but hasnt broke 800 yds since 1999 otherwise.SEA didnt draft a WR of the futureburleson had 700/9 last year and has another year of 1000+/9 in his 5 seasonsat 6' / 200 he has about ideal size and holmgren says that he will be stripped of his PR/KR duties if he is the starter.i dont get it. he's ranked behind 11 rookie WRs and is barely ranked above dwayne jarrettis it related to the substance abuse policy? or that he only caught a little more than half his targets last year?ENLIGHTEN ME

Furthermore, how is Hasselbeck the #7 QB in redraft rankings and his first WR ranked is Bobby Engram #37? Seattle threw the ball 562 times last year! You would think either Burleson, Branch, or Engram would find themselves in the Top 30 at least, just based on the numbers.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I'm not calling Burleson a top 20 WR, all I know is he somehow outproduces guys getting far more opportunities than he gets. I'd love it if he was still a Viking WR.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I'm not calling Burleson a top 20 WR, all I know is he somehow outproduces guys getting far more opportunities than he gets. I'd love it if he was still a Viking WR.

yeah, it'd be great to see Burleson's production decline due to poor QB performance....

 

[iSnitch]

Furthermore, how is Hasselbeck the #7 QB in redraft rankings and his first WR ranked is Bobby Engram #37? Seattle threw the ball 562 times last year! You would think either Burleson, Branch, or Engram would find themselves in the Top 30 at least, just based on the numbers.

It's still early in the the ranking season so I'm sure a lot of things will change, but I don't understand how Hasselbeck will be very productive without even having a moderately successful wr.Too many people make their rankings without the math adding up.

 

[packersfan]

Furthermore, how is Hasselbeck the #7 QB in redraft rankings and his first WR ranked is Bobby Engram #37? Seattle threw the ball 562 times last year! You would think either Burleson, Branch, or Engram would find themselves in the Top 30 at least, just based on the numbers.

It's still early in the the ranking season so I'm sure a lot of things will change, but I don't understand how Hasselbeck will be very productive without even having a moderately successful wr.Too many people make their rankings without the math adding up.

I think both Burleson and Engram are being under-valued right now. In 12 games as a starter last season, Burleston put up 42-558-7. If you project that out to 16 games (flawed I realize but let's do it for the sake of discussion) that comes to 56-744-9. Those are good numbers for a guy who you can get for a song right now.With regard to Engram, I realize he's about 90 years old but he also finished 15th in WR scoring last season. He's by far the receiver Hasselbeck trusts the most. He runs great routes, has good hands and is dependable. He has durability issues and his age is an issue as well but he should be the No. 1 WR in this offense and No. 1 WRs in Mike Holmgren offenses tend to do very well. I'd be very happy with Engram as my WR2 and Burleson as my WR3. The beauty right now, though, is you can get both of them later than that. So if you're going with Engram as your WR3, for example, and Burleson as your WR4 I think there's a very good chance you're going to get some real good production out of this position this season.

 

[phthalatemagic]

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good

This is the type of in depth reporting everyone raves about

 

[Enforcer]

Too many people make their rankings without the math adding up.

I don't think its necessary for everything to "add up" at this point. We can be confident that Hasselbeck will throw X amount of touchdowns, but be uncertain who's going to be catching them.

 

[Summer Wheat]

I will draft Nate late in most of my drafts.

 

[Payne]

When is Branch scheduled to return?

 

[Big Score]

When is Branch scheduled to return?

Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Deion Branch suffered a torn ACL in Saturday's playoff loss to the Packers and might not be ready to go in time for the start of the 2008 regular season.

The Seahawks say they think it will take Branch nine months to rehabilitate, which means he would miss not just all of the off-season and preseason, but the first month of the regular season as well. Players rehabbing from ACL surgery are rarely back to full speed immediately when they do return to the field.

Even if he makes it back in just the 9 months the Seahawks think & only misses the first month of the season, physically he probably won't be up to speed for another 3 months. ACL repairs are a generally 12 month deal. Then there's the mental hurdle for the individual to overcome in fully trusting the repaired knee to handle the tremendous torque of sharp cuts WR's must make.

 

[teamroc]

When is Branch scheduled to return?

Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Deion Branch suffered a torn ACL in Saturday's playoff loss to the Packers and might not be ready to go in time for the start of the 2008 regular season.

The Seahawks say they think it will take Branch nine months to rehabilitate, which means he would miss not just all of the off-season and preseason, but the first month of the regular season as well. Players rehabbing from ACL surgery are rarely back to full speed immediately when they do return to the field.

Even if he makes it back in just the 9 months the Seahawks think & only misses the first month of the season, physically he probably won't be up to speed for another 3 months. ACL repairs are a generally 12 month deal. Then there's the mental hurdle for the individual to overcome in fully trusting the repaired knee to handle the tremendous torque of sharp cuts WR's must make.

Peopel are going to talk about Deuce, Edwards, Palmer, McNabb. All of them struggled in the 1st year back. Look at Edwards, once he got back to 100%, the guy just dominated. So sure Branch might play, but he's not 100%. Guys do come back from it, but they're no where close to 100% at the start.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Furthermore, how is Hasselbeck the #7 QB in redraft rankings and his first WR ranked is Bobby Engram #37? Seattle threw the ball 562 times last year! You would think either Burleson, Branch, or Engram would find themselves in the Top 30 at least, just based on the numbers.

It's still early in the the ranking season so I'm sure a lot of things will change, but I don't understand how Hasselbeck will be very productive without even having a moderately successful wr.Too many people make their rankings without the math adding up.

Rankings though take risk into the equation. Hasslebeck will produce - his track records indicates this to be a good prediction- but perhaps we do not know which WR on Seattle will step up and be the man. Hence Hasselbeck is safe bet for top 10 but it could be one of Burleson, Engram, Obamanu, Branch or another WR that steps up to be THE MAN or it could just be that their production is so spread out amongst them that none crack the Top-30 individually but the unit as a whole is productive.

 

[IndyHavoc]

And just how much can a less than 100% Deion Branch steal out of the overall 'Hawks kitty? I'm going to go out on a limb and say; not very much! I'm with the poster above (*too lazy to look*) who said that getting Engram at WR3 and Burleson at WR4 is gold.

It's gold, Jerry!!!

 

[Addicted2Football]

engram now wants more money. be interesting if he tries to sit out.

 

[Mark Wimer]

just a small question. why does FBG have burleson ranked so low?he is ranked WR73 in dynasty and around WR50 in redraft.hackett is gone.branch (WR39) is coming off ACL and wont be ready for the reg. seasonengram (WR45) is in year 13 and had the best year of his career at 1150/6 but hasnt broke 800 yds since 1999 otherwise.SEA didnt draft a WR of the futureburleson had 700/9 last year and has another year of 1000+/9 in his 5 seasonsat 6' / 200 he has about ideal size and holmgren says that he will be stripped of his PR/KR duties if he is the starter.i dont get it. he's ranked behind 11 rookie WRs and is barely ranked above dwayne jarrettis it related to the substance abuse policy? or that he only caught a little more than half his targets last year?ENLIGHTEN ME

I have him as the #24 WR on my redraft WR board, based on his huge opportunity in Seattle. He is going to be a starter (I don't think Branch sees the field until very late in the year, if at all), and 35 year olds like Engram don't usually repeat career years. This is a case of Burleson being in the right place at the right time. Whatever his flaws as a receiver may be, he's going to see a ton of targets and catch a lot of balls - and he is good at YAC as other posters have mentioned. Perhaps the reps as a starter will help alleviate his route-running errors, reducing them a good bit. That's a distinct possibility. In any case, though, the #1 Seattle WR should be a solid fantasy starter in a typical start-3 WR league, and that's what my #24 ranking reflects. Last night, in a staff mock draft, I landed Burleson with 9.06 (102 overall) as the 42nd WR off the board, and think I got tremendous value picking him at that position - he's the #3 WR in that stable behind Terrell Owens and Jerry Porter. Right now Burleson is very undervalued and can be picked up on the cheap, for sure.

 

[Team Legacy]

Bring the Logan Payne

To answer the OP question, he's just not that good, although you're right that he should be a little higher in the rankings.

Wow. A 1000/9 TD year as a sophomore and another 9 TD's in limited touches last year... merits this assessment? Not that good? I mean he's no Logan Payne mind you, but he's probably a better playmaker than 75% of NFL WRs.

He's physically talented and can get open, but his hands are spotty and he is an inconsistent player in general - a less dynamic but sure handed WR would do better in his role than he has. The numbers are there because Hasselbeck gives him a lot of chances and the offense is generally potent more than Burleson being a gifted player - Patten could do the same or better in his role.

Whoa... These are strong statements to be making about Burleson. Now he's not as good as Patten? That to me is borderline absurd. I spoke out about Burleson earlier this year, so rather than repeat that here, I'll just link to the thread:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...amp;hl=burleson

Nate has had a great comeback year for a kid with high hopes just a few years back. If you were like me, a few years ago, you were scooping him up in the WR8-10 area, the Steve Smith area at the time, and feeling great about it. Well things went well for him financially, signing the lucrative contract in Seattle, but he hasn't made an impact... until now.

He's looking good guys and I think we'll see even bigger and better things from him in the future, whether that's in Seattle or somewhere else. In THE MOST crowded WR corps in the league, he's managed 50 balls and 9 TDs ranking as the 33rd best receiver in the league, a servicable WR#3. I think you'll likely see good things in the playoffs from him and the price will go even higher. If you have the chance, deal for him now.

 

[Enforcer]

engram now wants more money. be interesting if he tries to sit out.

This is not necessarily so. He hasn't said anything yet. The blog writer from the TNT is speculating as to why he missed yesterday's voluntary practice. Seattle fans are making themselves look like fools in that blog going nuts on him over what may be nothing.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

In the Any Time, Any Place inaugural veteran draft, Burelson went at 13.05 (to me ) as the 43rd WR taken and the 197th player taken overall. That's a 16 team league with IDP. He'll be 27 when the season kicks off, and is 2 for 5 in having decent fantasy seasons in his career. IMO his value is big at that spot and in general. In that scoring he was the #17 WR last season, but 15 other long time FF vet owners overlooked the guy. Heck, I kept looking at him and waiting to pull the trigger for players I thought were more "sure" to perform.

IMO you can sit on him a little, but be sure to make other teams pay for not picking him up. I hope that's what happens for me

EDIT: In a blog I keep elsewhere, my thoughts at the time I drafted him were:

Fact is that Burelson is only 27, is playing with a good QB, and is a virtual lock to start in SEA with Matt Hasselbeck throwing to him. He has had 2 good NFL seasons out of 5. Here's hoping that the bad seasons had more to do with circumstance, and he finally catches the consistency bug. And following my "last 6 weeks of the season" theory Burelson was the # 40 player overall and the #10 WR. The potential is here.

 

[iSnitch]

Furthermore, how is Hasselbeck the #7 QB in redraft rankings and his first WR ranked is Bobby Engram #37? Seattle threw the ball 562 times last year! You would think either Burleson, Branch, or Engram would find themselves in the Top 30 at least, just based on the numbers.

It's still early in the the ranking season so I'm sure a lot of things will change, but I don't understand how Hasselbeck will be very productive without even having a moderately successful wr.Too many people make their rankings without the math adding up.

Rankings though take risk into the equation. Hasslebeck will produce - his track records indicates this to be a good prediction- but perhaps we do not know which WR on Seattle will step up and be the man. Hence Hasselbeck is safe bet for top 10 but it could be one of Burleson, Engram, Obamanu, Branch or another WR that steps up to be THE MAN or it could just be that their production is so spread out amongst them that none crack the Top-30 individually but the unit as a whole is productive.

Let's say he plays all 16 games and throws for 3,500 yards...you're absolutely right when you say we don't know who will be on the receiving end of all those yards. It could be spread about or a sizeable chunk could go to one guy.But EVERYTHING is an unkown at this point. Whatever we predict could end up being wrong but that doesn't mean we should refuse to predict things. 3,500 yards will be tossed through the air this season. Who is even ON the roster to catch those passes?Deion BranchNate BurlesonTJ DuckettJulius JonesSeneca WallaceCourtney TaylorJeb PutzierLogan PayneBen ObomanuJoe NewtonJordan KentBobby EngramI doubt the rb's will steal too many of Matt's passing yards. A backup qb? I wouldn't put money on Wallace exploding. Branch is hurt...Are those yards going to be evenly split up between all those guys?