xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement
Advertisement

NFL e-mail: Burleson or Bruce?

From Brad:

Hey Dave, I know training camps aren't open yet, but my league held its fantasy draft last night and I'm already looking to bolster my lineup through trades. Here's my roster:

Advertisement

QB: David Garrard, Philip Rivers

RB: Adrian Peterson, Jonathon Stewart, Matt Forte, Chester Taylor

Advertisement
Advertisement

WR: Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Patrick Crayton, Issac Bruce

TE: Chris Cooley

K: Jeff Reed

I like that Bruce is probably the #1 WR in San Francisco with Mike Martz leading the offense, but their QB situation is in the air. I'm thinking about dealing Bruce for Nate Burleson. Burleson is gonna be the #2 in Seattle, possibly #1 if Bobby Engram holds out, plus he has punt/kick return upside, which is a scoring category in our league. I like the value of Bruce (got him in the 11th round), but I feel like Burleson could do alot more.

Looking forward to your opinion, thanks alot.

I thought about this for a while, but I think you might have six of one, half-dozen of the other.

British idioms aside, I mean you've got Isaac Bruce, who is at the end of his career, but could be in a potentially good situation in San Francisco with Mike Martz running the show. He's a proven commodity, but is working with an unproven commodity in Alex Smith.

Nate Burleson is the unproven commodity in Seattle, but is working with a proven commodity at quarterback in Matt Hasselbeck. Burleson clearly has more potential, but we've been saying that for years. The Seahawks pass-run ratio is 60-40, which is why I'd lean to Burleson, but Martz is typically 90-10, when he is allowed to run the show.

I'd go with Burleson. He had nine touchdowns last year and a lot of the bad things he does don't affect fantasy pools. Dropped passes don't hurt you (I mean they don't subtract negative points), running poor routes don't hurt you, and that's where Bruce has the edge. His edge doesn't give you a fantasy edge, if you know what I mean.

Also, I don't think Bruce's situation in SF is better than what it was over the last two years in STL. He was good for seven touchdowns in that span, although the 1,100 receiving yards was nice in 2006. He has to play outdoors more, too.

I'd rather bank on Burleson's potential (again) because he's essentially the top target by default. You can hope for him to have a breakout year rather than bank on Bruce to have a solid season at age 36 with an unproven QB.

Also, when you look at the situation, Deion Branch is out for six weeks, so really Burleson and Engram are the only wideouts. In San Fran, they have Arnaz Battle and Bryant Johnson, as well as some other guys like Vernon Davis.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement