Player Spotlight: Nate Burleson (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

[SIZE=14pt]2006 Player Spotlight Series[/SIZE]

Over the course of the offseason, we will be evaluating a multitude of players at every fantasy position. One such way we go about that is through the Player Spotlight series. Think of the Spotlights as a permanent record on some of the more intriguing players for the upcoming season. Each Spotlight will be featured in an article on the main website.

[SIZE=14pt]Thread Topic: Nate Burleson, WR, Seattle Seahawks[/SIZE]

Player Page Link: Nate Burleson Player Page

Each article will include:

[*]Detailed viewpoint from a Footballguys staff member

[*]Highlighted member commentary from the message board threads

[*]FBG Projections

[*]Consensus Member Projections

[SIZE=14pt]The Rules[/SIZE]

In order for this thread to provide sustainable value, we ask that you follow a few simple guidelines:

[*]Focus commentary on the player in question, and your expectations for said player

[*]Back up your expectations in whatever manner you deem appropriate; avoid posts that simply say "I hate him" or "He's the best"

[*]To be included in the final synopsis and consensus outlook, you MUST provide projections for the player

Projections should include (at a minimum):

[*]For QBs: Passing Yards, Passing TDs, Ints, Rush Yards, Rush TDs

[*]For RBs: Rushes, Rushing Yards, Rush TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs

[*]For WRs & TEs: Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs

[SIZE=14pt]Best of Luck and ENJOY![/SIZE]

 

[Wade]

Nate Burleson had a nice sophomore season for the Vikings in 2004, catching 68 passes for 1006 yards and 9 touchdowns. That year, he had the most wide receiver receptions in Minnesota, and was short of team-leader TE Jermaine Wiggins by just three receptions.

Burleson moves to Seattle this season, but will not enjoy the same opportunity he enjoyed in 2004. He comes in as the third wide receiver behind entrenched starters Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram. Burleson can certainly lock up that third spot, but without an injury to one of Hasselbeck's two favorite wide receivers, Burleson will be limited to WR3 numbers.

Nate Burleson, WR SEA

40 REC, 450 YDS, 2 TD

 

[fridayfrenzy]

He comes in as the third wide receiver behind entrenched starters Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram.  Burleson can certainly lock up that third spot, but without an injury to one of Hasselbeck's two favorite wide receivers, Burleson will be limited to WR3 numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree.....Engram will move back to his original position in the slot, and Burleson and Jackson will be out wide.

 

[Wade]

I disagree.....

Engram will move back to his original position in the slot, and Burleson and Jackson will be out wide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2003 Seattle Seahawks WRs.Jackson: 68 REC, 9 TD

K.Robinson: 65 REC, 4 TD

B.Engram: 52 REC, 6 TD

2004 Seattle Seahawks WRs:

D.Jackson: 87 REC, 7 TD

K.Robinson: 31 REC, 2 TD

B.Engram: 36 REC, 2 TD

It's difficult to tell whether or not his "original position" does or does not make Engram the WR2; either way, I think he finishes with more receptions and touchdowns than Burleson in 2006.

 

[DevilintheDetail]

Seattle has already said that Burleson will be lining up opposite Jackson. They didn't spend a third round pick on him to be a #3. Engram moves back into the slot.

 

[Wade]

Seattle has already said that Burleson will be lining up opposite Jackson.  They didn't spend a third round pick on him to be a #3.  Engram moves back into the slot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you have a link please? I took a look, and this is what I found, from April 5th:

"I'm not going to press as much without being 'The Guy,"' Burleson said of his Seahawks debut.

He'll only be one of the guys in Seattle. Burleson joins a team with Darrell Jackson as its top receiver and Bobby Engram as its No. 2. He theoretically replaces Joe Jurevicius, who left as a free agent for his hometown of Cleveland.

"I haven't decided exactly yet how we are going to plug everything in here," Holmgren acknowledged.

The architect of Seattle's NFL-leading offense from last season said that by the summer, Jackson, Engram and Burleson will know all three wide receiver positions: both flanks and the inside slot. But Holmgren added he wants each to find his semi-permanent place in one of those three spots.

Then it will be up to Holmgren to determine how much all three play. Last season, once Jackson returned, the Seahawks often used three-wide receiver sets -- even on non-passing downs -- often with NFL rushing leader Shaun Alexander as the lone running back.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

Engram isn't a TD threat, so expect Burleson to put up strong #'s in that category.

 

[Kit Fisto]

He comes in as the third wide receiver behind entrenched starters Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram.  Burleson can certainly lock up that third spot, but without an injury to one of Hasselbeck's two favorite wide receivers, Burleson will be limited to WR3 numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree.....Engram will move back to his original position in the slot, and Burleson and Jackson will be out wide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[slatercove1]

I think he'll be overvalued....again. I see him and Engram ending with similar stats.

 

[Wade]

Engram isn't a TD threat, so expect Burleson to do put up strong #'s in that category.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Generally, the last three seasons, there has only been one WR to put up strong TD numbers; the remaining WRs having middling to low TD totals:2003:

D. Jackson -- 9

B. Engram -- 6

K. Robinson -- 4

A. Bannister -- 1

2004:

D. Jackson -- 7

J. Rice -- 3

B. Engram -- 2

K. Robinson -- 2

J. Urban -- 1

2005:

J. Jurevicius -- 10

B. Engram -- 3

D. Jackson -- 3

DJ. Hackett -- 2

Are you suggesting that N. Burleson will be the main TD wide receiver for Seattle? Or that his arrival signals the end of the one-WR-TD trend? Or that the TD production will be more like 2003, with D.Jackson at 9, N.Burleson at 6, and B.Engram at 4?

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

Engram isn't a TD threat, so expect Burleson to do put up strong #'s in that category.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Generally, the last three seasons, there has only been one WR to put up strong TD numbers; the remaining WRs having middling to low TD totals:2003:

D. Jackson -- 9

B. Engram -- 6

K. Robinson -- 4

A. Bannister -- 1

2004:

D. Jackson -- 7

J. Rice -- 3

B. Engram -- 2

K. Robinson -- 2

J. Urban -- 1

2005:

J. Jurevicius -- 10

B. Engram -- 3

D. Jackson -- 3

DJ. Hackett -- 2

Are you suggesting that N. Burleson will be the main TD wide receiver for Seattle? Or that his arrival signals the end of the one-WR-TD trend? Or that the TD production will be more like 2003, with D.Jackson at 9, N.Burleson at 6, and B.Engram at 4?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Last year was misleading. Had Jackson been healthy, the TD's production #'s would have been far more balanced. I think Jackson and Jurevicius would have combined for about 15-16 TD's with Jackson coming out slightly on top. Anyway, I'm expecting Jackson to have a monster year (at least 10 TD's), and Burleson to fall in the 5-7 TD range.

 

[mlball77]

Its really hard to say this early what to expect out of Burleson... but there are some significant questions surrounding him at this point. How will he fit in with SEA's passing scheme... what will his role be? And was his sophmore season with Minnesota an aberration?

I think it is clear that DJax, if healthy, is likely to post at least 1100 rec yards. Jeremy Stevens also seems likely to go for around 500 yards in 06. Although old, I don't think you can count out Bobby Engram and the fact that Hasselbeck has voiced appreciation for the aging WR's skills.

In my view, (barring injury) there are only two ways that Burleson can post anything near the numbers that he did in in 2004 for Minnesota: 1. DJ Hackett sees a marked decrease in production along with Engram experiencing a decent decline as well... this decline being the direct result of significant targets and involvement for Burleson -OR- 2. Seattle passes for many more yards in 06 than they have in recent years... Burleson being one of the primary beneficiaries.

Because I don't believe either one of these scenarios to be probable... my projection for Burleson is modest at this point:

Recs: 42

Rec Yds: 505

TDs: 4

 

[sacked4loss]

48 rec 600 yards 5tds unless dj gets hurt then will go up some

 

[Jason Wood]

Perhaps I'm drinking the Burleson Kool-Aid but I think the projections I've seen on this thread so far are far too low for this guy. The Seahawks certainly didn't pay him the kind of $$$ he signed for to be another cog in the wheel IMHO. Admittedly, his showing in Minnesota last year after a strong 2004 leaves me with more questions than answers, but if Burleson is healthy and productive during training camp I have a hard time seeing him as anything less than a 800-900 yard, 6 TD+ guy in that potent offense.

Let's also not forget that DJax had another surgery, which leaves the door open for Burleson becoming the WR1, at least for a time.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

40 600 5

 

[Gargoylez]

Recs: 45

Rec Yds: 625

TDs: 3

Not drinking the kool-aid

Wasn't impressed with him in MInnesota, and he kinda disappeared in Minnesota when they needed him the most, whether or not it was a team issue or he just sucked, I don't know.

DJ, Stevens, Alexander... all look to get there fair sahre, and I dont remember Burleson being a redzone threat either.

Maybe a #3 WR in fantasy... just my 2 cents.

 

[cws3030]

Perhaps I'm drinking the Burleson Kool-Aid but I think the projections I've seen on this thread so far are far too low for this guy. The Seahawks certainly didn't pay him the kind of $$$ he signed for to be another cog in the wheel IMHO. Admittedly, his showing in Minnesota last year after a strong 2004 leaves me with more questions than answers, but if Burleson is healthy and productive during training camp I have a hard time seeing him as anything less than a 800-900 yard, 6 TD+ guy in that potent offense.

Let's also not forget that DJax had another surgery, which leaves the door open for Burleson becoming the WR1, at least for a time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i've been thinking the sme thing. though i hope i'm not folling myself since i own him. baring injuries i'll take guy with a floor of 800yds/6td (IMO). throw in djax's bum knee right now there is definitely a high upside there.70rec / 950yrds / 7tds

 

[DevilintheDetail]

Yeah, as a Seahawks fan, I'm suprised that more people didn't see the Burleson signing as a major insurance option for Jackson, who has had major problems staying healthy and obviously just had another major surgery. I think Jackson misses a few games/is limited somewhat and we see Burleson with about 1000 yards and 6-7 TDs.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Yeah, as a Seahawks fan, I'm suprised that more people didn't see the Burleson signing as a major insurance option for Jackson, who has had major problems staying healthy and obviously just had another major surgery.  I think Jackson misses a few games/is limited somewhat and we see Burleson with about 1000 yards and 6-7 TDs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jackson didn't have a "major surgery" this offseason, it was a minor surgery to follow up on the major one he had during the year.

 

[Workhorse]

Perhaps I'm drinking the Burleson Kool-Aid but I think the projections I've seen on this thread so far are far too low for this guy. The Seahawks certainly didn't pay him the kind of $$$ he signed for to be another cog in the wheel IMHO. Admittedly, his showing in Minnesota last year after a strong 2004 leaves me with more questions than answers, but if Burleson is healthy and productive during training camp I have a hard time seeing him as anything less than a 800-900 yard, 6 TD+ guy in that potent offense.

Let's also not forget that DJax had another surgery, which leaves the door open for Burleson becoming the WR1, at least for a time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salary and intentions are not exactly a guarantee of success.See Price, Peerless - WR - ATL...

 

[ImTheScientist]

He comes in as the third wide receiver behind entrenched starters Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram.  Burleson can certainly lock up that third spot, but without an injury to one of Hasselbeck's two favorite wide receivers, Burleson will be limited to WR3 numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree.....Engram will move back to his original position in the slot, and Burleson and Jackson will be out wide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nate will be #2Based off of past information the Hawks number 2 WR will recieve around 110 TRG's..... This should translate to 60-70 rec, 800-900 yds, and 4-6 TD's for either Engram or Burleson (depends on what you believe). I say Burleson is #2.

 

[Traders2001]

He comes in as the third wide receiver behind entrenched starters Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram.  Burleson can certainly lock up that third spot, but without an injury to one of Hasselbeck's two favorite wide receivers, Burleson will be limited to WR3 numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree.....Engram will move back to his original position in the slot, and Burleson and Jackson will be out wide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nate will be #2Based off of past information the Hawks number 2 WR will recieve around 110 TRG's..... This should translate to 60-70 rec, 800-900 yds, and 4-6 TD's for either Engram or Burleson (depends on what you believe). I say Burleson is #2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed . They would not pay 49 millions for a #3 receiver plus Engram is not entrenched as the #2 because he is that good , but because no one else.

 

[mad sweeney]

He comes in as the third wide receiver behind entrenched starters Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram.  Burleson can certainly lock up that third spot, but without an injury to one of Hasselbeck's two favorite wide receivers, Burleson will be limited to WR3 numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree.....Engram will move back to his original position in the slot, and Burleson and Jackson will be out wide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nate will be #2Based off of past information the Hawks number 2 WR will recieve around 110 TRG's..... This should translate to 60-70 rec, 800-900 yds, and 4-6 TD's for either Engram or Burleson (depends on what you believe). I say Burleson is #2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed . They would not pay 49 millions for a #3 receiver plus Engram is not entrenched as the #2 because he is that good , but because no one else.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you're joking about the 49 mil. I still see his real contact numbers and a draft pick given away for him as a hope for him to be more than a #3. And I agree in part about Bobby being #2 by default. I really think he's much better suited in the slot and comes up big on 3rd down for us. Hopefully Nate ends up out wide with Bobby moving the chains on 3rd.Edit: 40s for rec, 800ish and 7 or 8 TDs

 

[DoctorDetroit]

He comes in as the third wide receiver behind entrenched starters Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram.  Burleson can certainly lock up that third spot, but without an injury to one of Hasselbeck's two favorite wide receivers, Burleson will be limited to WR3 numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree.....Engram will move back to his original position in the slot, and Burleson and Jackson will be out wide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nate will be #2Based off of past information the Hawks number 2 WR will recieve around 110 TRG's..... This should translate to 60-70 rec, 800-900 yds, and 4-6 TD's for either Engram or Burleson (depends on what you believe). I say Burleson is #2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed . They would not pay 49 millions for a #3 receiver plus Engram is not entrenched as the #2 because he is that good , but because no one else.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you're joking about the 49 mil. I still see his real contact numbers and a draft pick given away for him as a hope for him to be more than a #3. And I agree in part about Bobby being #2 by default. I really think he's much better suited in the slot and comes up big on 3rd down for us. Hopefully Nate ends up out wide with Bobby moving the chains on 3rd.Edit: 40s for rec, 800ish and 7 or 8 TDs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, he's a type. Tried it on draft day and got shut down.Guy can't even get his avatar right. What do you expect?

 

[Biabreakable]

Its really hard to say this early what to expect out of Burleson... but there are some significant questions surrounding him at this point.  How will he fit in with SEA's passing scheme... what will his role be?  And was his sophmore season with Minnesota an aberration?

I think it is clear that DJax, if healthy, is likely to post at least 1100 rec yards.  Jeremy Stevens also seems likely to go for around 500 yards in 06.  Although old, I don't think you can count out Bobby Engram and the fact that Hasselbeck has voiced appreciation for the aging WR's skills. 

In my view, (barring injury) there are only two ways  that Burleson can post anything near the numbers that he did in in 2004 for Minnesota: 1. DJ Hackett sees a marked decrease in production along with Engram experiencing a decent decline as well... this decline being the direct result of significant targets and involvement for Burleson  -OR- 2. Seattle passes for many more yards in 06 than they have in recent years... Burleson being one of the primary beneficiaries. 

Because I don't believe either one of these scenarios to be probable... my projection for Burleson is modest at this point:

Recs: 42

Rec Yds: 505

TDs: 4

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good post. I agree with most of what you said.One thing that could lead to the Seahawks passing for more TDs is the loss of Hutchinson at LG. Alexander may not be able to cross the stripe as easily without him. And pass attempts may increase if the running game is not as effective.

That in turn could create a larger pie for the recieving corps across the board. And Burelson should be Wr option 2a or 2b along with Stevens. Depending on how quickly he works his way into the system.

Burelsons talents are well suited for the WCO crossing patterns and he has good RAC ability. Which is the reason I think the Seahawks targeted him to compliment Darrell Jackson.

 

[mlball77]

Its really hard to say this early what to expect out of Burleson... but there are some significant questions surrounding him at this point.  How will he fit in with SEA's passing scheme... what will his role be?  And was his sophmore season with Minnesota an aberration?

I think it is clear that DJax, if healthy, is likely to post at least 1100 rec yards.  Jeremy Stevens also seems likely to go for around 500 yards in 06.  Although old, I don't think you can count out Bobby Engram and the fact that Hasselbeck has voiced appreciation for the aging WR's skills. 

In my view, (barring injury) there are only two ways  that Burleson can post anything near the numbers that he did in in 2004 for Minnesota: 1. DJ Hackett sees a marked decrease in production along with Engram experiencing a decent decline as well... this decline being the direct result of significant targets and involvement for Burleson  -OR- 2. Seattle passes for many more yards in 06 than they have in recent years... Burleson being one of the primary beneficiaries. 

Because I don't believe either one of these scenarios to be probable... my projection for Burleson is modest at this point:

Recs: 42

Rec Yds: 505

TDs: 4

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good post. I agree with most of what you said.One thing that could lead to the Seahawks passing for more TDs is the loss of Hutchinson at LG. Alexander may not be able to cross the stripe as easily without him. And pass attempts may increase if the running game is not as effective.

That in turn could create a larger pie for the recieving corps across the board. And Burelson should be Wr option 2a or 2b along with Stevens. Depending on how quickly he works his way into the system.

Burelsons talents are well suited for the WCO crossing patterns and he has good RAC ability. Which is the reason I think the Seahawks targeted him to compliment Darrell Jackson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, I like Nate pretty well... and wanted to project him for a higher produciton than what my post shows, but after considering things, I just don't see it happening in SEA (again, barring INJ to DJax). I do think there could be some legitimacy to the scenario you laid out which results in the SEA run blocking dropping a notch, thus forcing them to pass more in 06. If that is the case, the receiving pie will/should be bigger... and Nate could get a noticeably larger slice in such a case. But how likely is this? I don't have a good gauge either way here... maybe the die-hard SEA fans do.I do think that Nate brings a solid skill-set into the mix for the WCO, but I think DJax is clearly the primary target there... so Nate will really have to steal targets from Engram, Stevens, and Hackett if he's to top 600-650 yds (imo)... again, this being if the 'pie' doesn't increase in size.

 

[gang-wars]

I like Burleson, I like the situation, I think he'll be a great #2.

Problem is SA taking 18-20 TDs, and that’s being conservative. If you have a stud RB scoring 15+ TDs, its really hard to give the #2 WR even 6 tds. I just don't see how he can even sniff the top 20 WRs.

Project about 45 catches 600 yards, 4 tds.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Burleson IS a #2. I think he'll be a lot more comfortable there.

Problem is, there's so much going against him. He's on a new team, it's a rushing team, and when they do pass, they look for Jackson, Engram, and Stevens.

How he'll fit in remains to be seen, but I just don't see huge upside here. However, I don't think it's as bleak as many of you are painting it.

3 rushes, 20 yards. 49 receptions, 550 yards, 4 TD.

 

[jurb26]

I'm pegging Burleson as a one yr wonder in Min. I've never really felt this guy had the talent to be a top WR in the NFL and now I think he goes to less desirable situation in Sea. The pecking order for touches is SA, Jackson, SA... everyone else.

55 rec, 715 yds, 4 TDs

 

[PACKER 7]

Hadn't really seen much talk about this guy lately. I think he's not really being noticed much.

I know D. Jax will probably be back and fine, but even though this is a high powered offense that will heave the ball.

I see 65/930/5

I know it's higher than most or probably all NB projections, but someone's gotta catch all those 3700+ yds that I have Hasselbeck tabbed for.

Anyone else seen in camp what this guy is doing or have other opinions?

 

[Secret Agent Money Moves]

Hadn't really seen much talk about this guy lately. I think he's not really being noticed much.I know D. Jax will probably be back and fine, but even though this is a high powered offense that will heave the ball.I see 65/930/5I know it's higher than most or probably all NB projections, but someone's gotta catch all those 3700+ yds that I have Hasselbeck tabbed for.Anyone else seen in camp what this guy is doing or have other opinions?

70-1050-11......yes 11ala Price in 2002. Everyone was scared of Moulds and Henry that year. and for all of you TE fans...they had Centers for that slot.not enough quality dbs to cover 'em all.bank on it.

 

[Eviloutsider]

Now with still questions about whether DJax will be ready anyone want to reconsider their projections.

 

[suchislife]

Now with still questions about whether DJax will be ready anyone want to reconsider their projections.

 

[cantstop1999]

Hadn't really seen much talk about this guy lately. I think he's not really being noticed much.I know D. Jax will probably be back and fine, but even though this is a high powered offense that will heave the ball.I see 65/930/5I know it's higher than most or probably all NB projections, but someone's gotta catch all those 3700+ yds that I have Hasselbeck tabbed for.Anyone else seen in camp what this guy is doing or have other opinions?

70-1050-11......yes 11ala Price in 2002. Everyone was scared of Moulds and Henry that year. and for all of you TE fans...they had Centers for that slot.not enough quality dbs to cover 'em all.bank on it.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

For those of you implying that Nate Burleson's 2004 was just an aberration and he is really the player who generated such pedestrian production last season, I have an alternate interpretation for you.

There was no way Burleson could have been successful last season. First off, he was going from playing opposite Randy Moss (with Moss drawing the top cover corner, plus a safety over the top more often than not) to being the #1 WR. I don't think he is well suited to that role and even if he could grow into it, he didn't get the chance because...

The Vikings completely imploded, with Duante Culpepper playing the role of the detonator cord and the C-4 charge at the same time. Then, just as his game was starting to come around, Culpepper's knee shredded.

The Sex Boat scandal, Culpepper and a parade of other injuries didn't exactly set the stage for Burleson to be successful in his featured role.

In Seattle, once Darrell Jackson gets healthy (crossing fingers), Burleson will be back into the comfortable role of the complementary #2 receiver. I realize Jackson doesn't draw the same kind of defensive attention that Moss did, but there is no question he will be the one that defenses gameplan to contain.

Add to that the fact that the Seattle OL is unlikely to be as dominant as it has been in the past and you could see Seattle throwing the ball more. Hell, that is the offensive gameplan that Holmgren is most comfortable with (60-65% passing, not 50-50 run/pass). Additionally, Jerramy Stevens is out for a while and Mili is gimpy as well, so their will be more targets for WRs and perhaps Alexander as well.

Also, and this is a minor point, Burleson is from Seattle and is returning to play in front of his friends and family. The University of Washington didn't recruit Burleson out of HS and he had to go to Nevada, where he tore it up. I suspect he still has a bit of a chip on his shoulder (in a good way) over that.

I think there is a good case to be made for Burleson turning in a very solid year as the #2 WR for Seattle. 55-70 receptions, 750-950 yards, 7 TDs

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Do we cut bait with this underacheiver

now that Branch is in town ?

Or is the DJax injury ultimately the reason

why Branch was brought in ?

 

[zamboni]

Do we cut bait with this underacheiver now that Branch is in town ?Or is the DJax injury ultimately the reasonwhy Branch was brought in ?

He wasn't looking so good even without Branch. With Branch, it really clinches it.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

One game in. Definitely time to overreact. Panic is always the best option. Always.

 

[duaneok66]

The seattle situation is a mess . . .

DJ is not 100%

Burleson is new to the WCO

Branch won't play for at least 2 weeks . . .

Engram is there to pick up scraps . . .

Holmgren has a pleasant problem . . . Hasslebeck is a lock for top 5, but the WRs??

good luck to anyone that uses them on a weekly basis . . .

 

[mlball77]

Branch won't play for at least two weeks???

 

[Dulymus Mudhounds]

really considering dropping him for Cotchery as a bye-week filler. Especially with the Branch news.

mud out

 

[duaneok66]

Branch won't play for at least two weeks???

correct, they don't have to cut anyone until he gets in shape . . .

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Why not cut the ridiculously large contract

of Nate The Bait Burleson.

cut bait ?

 

[duaneok66]

Why not cut the ridiculously large contractof Nate The Bait Burleson.cut bait ?

Im not a a capologist by any stretch, but I've never seen a player cut in the 1st year of a decent sized contract . . . would probably be too much of an accelerated cap hit . . .

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I'm thinking of whacking him out

for either Colston or Fason.

opinions ?

 

[Hue G]

I'm thinking of whacking him outfor either Colston or Fason.opinions ?

I'm doing the same thing, he's pretty much worthless

 

[Godsbrother]

I am whacking him tonight for a backup defense or TE

 

[zoos]

well if you are like me and weak in WRs, he could have a nice two week run.

he could be pissed about all this and come out to prove his worth until branch is ready to go.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Seattle is going to throw the ball more this year. And with Stevens out until the middle of the season, more balls are going to go to WRs this year.

There is no doubt that Branch could potentially cut into Burleson's numbers, but I think he will have a bigger impact on Engram.

I understand being down on his fantasy prospects because of the Branch trade, but those of you who are assuming that he sucks because he only had one catch in the first game or that the Seahawks might cut him to make room for Branch are high.

 

[mad sweeney]

Why not cut the ridiculously large contractof Nate The Bait Burleson.cut bait ?

Because the ridiculously large contract is backloaded and only seems high because they strustured it to match the contract given to Steve Hutchinson. It's a very modest deal in reality, something like 4-5 yeears for $14mil.Burleson will never be a $49mil receiver