seattle wide receivers (1 Viewer)

[jadams209]

is nate burleson the most underrated play going into the early weeks of the fantasy football season? personally, i have never been a fan of his, but when you lose your 3 or your top 4 wide receivers as the Seahawks have, you have a chance to put up good/ even GREAT numbers. i know branch is rehabbing but he seems a while away. Am i missing something? would you really rather start someone like reggie brown, derrick mason, or santana moss, when many attempts will be coming nate's way?

J

 

[KingEl]

I have Driver starting over him at my #3wr spot right now, but I keep wanting to pull the trigger. Burleson is a homerun WR it seems- potential for a few long balls, etc, but he doesn't catch alot of balls... In my ppr league, I think Driver may get a few more thrown his way...

Like you said though, with the lack of options, maybe he does get alot of catches!!!

 

[jaybebo]

I believe Burleson becomes a heavy sleeper. He and Hasselbeck have been working together most of the pre-season, so it would only be natural for them to become a good combo on the field.

 

[gianmarco]

I believe Burleson becomes a heavy sleeper. He and Hasselbeck have been working together most of the pre-season, so it would only be natural for them to become a good combo on the field.

I heard Orton and Brandon Lloyd have been working together most of the pre-season, so it would only be natural for...Oh, nm.

 

[MarcO]

I don't think so. Holmgren has always said this offense is about the system and not the individual players. Just becasue Burleson is the only experienced WR in this offense does not mean that they will try to force the ball to him. He plays his position and Hass goes to him when the opportunity is there - I don't think he will see an exponential increase in targets. I think where you will see a slight increase are the plays that Hass has to make something happen and Burleson will probably have an edge on the younger guys as far as finding spots in the DEF to sit in. But I don't think that equates to a huge bump in value for Burleson.

 

[Statcruncher]

Nate is WAY underrated as a WR. Last year only eleven WR's & TE's had more TD catches than Nate (9), and Nate added 2 more TD's in the return game. Plugging him in my line-up after my starter went down late last season is a part of the reason I cashed a check last year. Unfortunately he's not a great route runner and has stone hands. Like a a previous poster said, he's a homerun threat but too inconsistent and only caught 50 passes last year.

He had 5 games with only 1 catch. He also had 10 games with at least 1 TD (receiving or return). I don't know if he has the skill to be effective as the #1 WR and that put me off this year. He's best suited to the #2 WR or slot position where his athletic abilities can overpower lesser defenders.

 

[thehornet]

Nate Burelson. This guy was in jepoardy of being cut at the beginning of last year. Now he is the talk of the town in Seattle. This guy really isn't any good, imo. Good luck to anyone that puts any stock in last years epiphany.

 

[TaxMan]

Burleson hasn't reached over 100+ targets in his 4 year career, so he hasn't had the opportunity to be a volume catcher. This year, with all the injuries to the WRs, he can get at least 8 targets per game which is around 130 for the year. If he cannot get 70+ this year with the opportunity he got, then time to give up on him. I tend to think he'll deliver the goods this year and be a pretty good WR2, high end WR3.

 

[davearm]

is nate burleson the most underrated play going into the early weeks of the fantasy football season? personally, i have never been a fan of his, but when you lose your 3 or your top 4 wide receivers as the Seahawks have, you have a chance to put up good/ even GREAT numbers. i know branch is rehabbing but he seems a while away. Am i missing something? would you really rather start someone like reggie brown, derrick mason, or santana moss, when many attempts will be coming nate's way?

J

I agree with the premise, and I'm bullish on Burleson too, but it bears mentioning that Derrick Mason is a poor guy to bring up as an inferior alternative. Mason was #4 amongst WRs last year with 164 targets, and indications are that the Ravens' young QBs were looking his way early and often this preseason.

It'd be easy to argue that Mason's an even more underrated play, for basically the same reasons that Burleson is.

 

[thehornet]

is nate burleson the most underrated play going into the early weeks of the fantasy football season? personally, i have never been a fan of his, but when you lose your 3 or your top 4 wide receivers as the Seahawks have, you have a chance to put up good/ even GREAT numbers. i know branch is rehabbing but he seems a while away. Am i missing something? would you really rather start someone like reggie brown, derrick mason, or santana moss, when many attempts will be coming nate's way?

J

I agree with the premise, and I'm bullish on Burleson too, but it bears mentioning that Derrick Mason is a poor guy to bring up as an inferior alternative. Mason was #4 amongst WRs last year with 164 targets, and indications are that the Ravens' young QBs were looking his way early and often this preseason.

It'd be easy to argue that Mason's an even more underrated play, for basically the same reasons that Burleson is.

The biggest difference between Mason and Burleson is simple. Mason is good and Burleson isn't. Only thnig holding Mason back is his QB.

 

[Hue G]

Nate Burelson. This guy was in jepoardy of being cut at the beginning of last year. Now he is the talk of the town in Seattle. This guy really isn't any good, imo. Good luck to anyone that puts any stock in last years epiphany.

The Vikings thought he could handle #1 WR duties after he had a big year playing along side Moss, didn't work out so well, he's nothing more that a middle of the road #2 WR or a pretty good #3, and I'm talking on his NFL team not on your fantasy roster.

 

[aburt19]

He will be targeted a lot more this season (at least until some of the injured receivers come back). But because none of the other receivers on the current

roster scare anyone, he will also get the most attention and could be double teamed a lot.

I'm not sure that the extra targets will make up for the extra attention that opposing defenses give him. In addition, I'm not sure whether he is good enough

to beat double teams consistently.

ETA-I say this as an owner who drafted him as my number 3 WR. I'm comfortable with him there, but until Engram or Branch come back, I'm not real

comfortable with playing him.

 

[David Yudkin]

For those suggesting that Burleson is not a very talented receiver, how is his situation any different than Engram's heading into last year? Engram had never had 100 targets in Seattle and wound up with 97 catches on 134 targets last year.

I don't think Burleson is a world beater talent wise, but if he sees a lot of targets one would think that he would be a borderline WR2/WR3 fantasy candidate.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

is nate burleson the most underrated play going into the early weeks of the fantasy football season? personally, i have never been a fan of his, but when you lose your 3 or your top 4 wide receivers as the Seahawks have, you have a chance to put up good/ even GREAT numbers. i know branch is rehabbing but he seems a while away. Am i missing something? would you really rather start someone like reggie brown, derrick mason, or santana moss, when many attempts will be coming nate's way?

J

I agree with the premise, and I'm bullish on Burleson too, but it bears mentioning that Derrick Mason is a poor guy to bring up as an inferior alternative. Mason was #4 amongst WRs last year with 164 targets, and indications are that the Ravens' young QBs were looking his way early and often this preseason.

It'd be easy to argue that Mason's an even more underrated play, for basically the same reasons that Burleson is.

The biggest difference between Mason and Burleson is simple. Mason is good and Burleson isn't. Only thnig holding Mason back is his QB.

I actually think Burleson is one of the more overrated players going into the season. He's not going to be Seattle's only vet WR all year. I had my auction draft on Monday, and he went for more than twice as much as I got Mason for. When Engram comes back after missing probably 3 games at most, he'll probably be much more valuable than Burleson. If Burleson doesn't start for you week 1 anyway, I don't see how the extra 2 games over Engram will make him worth so much more. He'll probably score more than normal the first 3 games, but unless you have him as a starting WR those weeks, it does you no good. I got Engram as the last pick at $1, and expect to use him at least during the bye weeks.IMO, Engram is the most underrated WR on the Seahawks, not Burleson. Engram was WR12 in our scoring last year, far better than Burleson, and he's only missing probably 3 games with an injury that doesn't linger (cracked bone, unlike Branch's torn ACL). Holmgren has come out and said "he expects his starting flanker to lead the team in catches" http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9123477 . Engram plays flanker (Courtney Taylor will fill in for him), Burleson plays split end.

Burleson may have been underrated in early drafts before the injuries, but at least in drafts I've been involved in, he's been overvalued as people overcompensate for the injuries. He may do great, and may even do better than Mason this year (though I doubt it), but I don't think he'll be worth more than twice as much as Mason.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Coach Mike Holmgren commented that he expects the starting flanker to lead the Seahawks in catches this season, and ________ ________ is currently working in that spot with Deion Branch and Bobby Engram both on the shelf with injuries, according to the News Tribune. Nate Burleson is expected to play at split end.

just sayin...

 

[yinzer]

He's ranked in FBG's Top 30 WRs and I think thats an accurate placement for him

Is it just me, or doesnt that mean you should be considering starting him basically every week? Not sure how exactly he's a sleeper

Antonio Bryant is a sleeper. This is someone, depending on your WR corps and lineups obviously, you could possibly play every week

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

For those suggesting that Burleson is not a very talented receiver, how is his situation any different than Engram's heading into last year? Engram had never had 100 targets in Seattle and wound up with 97 catches on 134 targets last year.I don't think Burleson is a world beater talent wise, but if he sees a lot of targets one would think that he would be a borderline WR2/WR3 fantasy candidate.

Engram moved to starting flanker in Holmgren's offense last year, which gets a huge number of targets (remember the flankers getting huge #'s when Holmgren was in GB?). Burleson will be playing split end, and may get more defensive attention than normal while the other vet WR's are out (which is only for 3 games at most).People are rating Burleson as a borderline WR2/WR3, but IMO, that's his ceiling, with his highest potential early in the year, where he'll be less useful to fantasy teams.Engram should be back at starting flanker after their week 4 bye if not earlier. Given how late he's being drafted, he's the sleeper, not Burleson.

 

[David Yudkin]

Engram should be back at starting flanker after their week 4 bye if not earlier. Given how late he's being drafted, he's the sleeper, not Burleson.

If Branch and Engram are banged up, I'm not sure either of those two will be great options this year.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Engram should be back at starting flanker after their week 4 bye if not earlier. Given how late he's being drafted, he's the sleeper, not Burleson.

If Branch and Engram are banged up, I'm not sure either of those two will be great options this year.

Branch tore his ACL and had reconstructive knee surgery just in January, which is tough for a speedy/shifty WR to recover from so quickly -- he should be less than 100% most of the year. Engram cracked a bone in his shoulder, which should heal 100% within 6-8 weeks from his 8/8 injury, meaning, with Seattle's week 3 bye, he should only miss 3 games and not be "banged up" after that. If it were a ligament in his knee or something like turf toe or a hamstring, I'd be more worried, but a cracked bone shouldn't have lingering effects after it heals. Since it's not in his legs, he can also stay in shape while he's out.