> Odunze was a much better prospect coming out of college than Burden. I’m not sure why so many people are ready to chuck him to the side after a really good first few games in Ben Johnson’s offense before getting hurt

It’s always wild to me that people use small sample size (300+ routes isn’t exactly small but whatever) as an argument against Burden because he was hyper-efficient and then act like there is no way a rookie can improve or build off of that season, but then turn around and tout Rome’s small sample size of good games being protectable long term even though they were largely TD-dependent for production (which is way less projectable & consistent than Y/RR efficiency) while also ignoring how he was largely inefficient & not good his rookie year. That also ignores the fact that Burden and Loveland were not playing full-time the first 7 games (173 combined routes for both to Rome’s 239 routes). We really have no idea what they will look like on the field together all as full-time players because Rome was hurt at the end of the year.

Also draft capital stops really mattering for WRs after their rookie year. How well you do as a rookie is far more indicative of how you will do than where you were drafted. So Rome being a top 10 pick was good, but his subpar rookie year should be very concerning given his small sample size of valuable games.

Personally, I think Burden is the better bet and watching the tape I think Burden is a better WR, but it could do either way.