While the Chicago Bears were busy with their draft strategy and ensuring a strong class for 2026, their rival Green Bay Packers didn't own a pick on Day 1. Yet, the Packers were still busy.
On Day 2 of the 2026 NFL Draft, Green Bay announced an extension with wide receiver Jayden Reed; 3-years, $50 million.
While one could argue the contract as being a steal, I might lean the other way. Roughly $17 million per season is quite a deal for someone who has flashed like Reed has. But, on the other hand, the Packers just gave a bag of money to a guy who missed 10 games in 2025 and is seeminly always banged up.
If only Reed was Luther Burden III, the Packers might be in better shape.
A quick, petty comparison between Chicago Bears WR Luther Burden III and Packers WR Jayden Reed
Why am I the way that I am?
Because I can be, and because it's always Bears vs. Packers. It isn't in my nature to say anything remotely positive about Green Bay. So, here we go.
So far, Burden has been more durable in one year than Reed has over his first three, and that's an understatement. Yes, Burden missed two games last year. However, just ask Packer fans and they'll tell you it has felt like he's been on the injury report more often than not since entering the league.
If you want specifics, Reed has shown up on the injury report for the following: a shoulder, collarbone/clavicle, foot, toe, back, and hip. And we're only three years in.
Of course, being available has been the biggest early disappointment out of Reed. He's been dynamic, but if he isn't on the field, he's doing the Packers no good.
How about a few numbers?
If you ask some of the big numbers guys out there, there's one stat that typically leads to wide receivers having a strong career -- yards per route run. As a rookie, Burden ranked third in the NFL in this category at 2.67, behind only Puka Nacua and Jaxon Smith-Njigba.
Reed has topped out at 2.20 like he did in 2024, but Burden's rookie campaign puts that to shame.
Burden's rookie year has him sitting above Reed in yards per reception, as well (13.9 vs. 13.5). That's not a major difference, but Burden is still ahead there.
So, with both of these receivers having similar traits, quickness and the ability to gain yards after the catch, the efficiency goes to Burden overall.
If Burden is better efficiency-wise and health-wise, by simple logic, I would argue that the Packers sort of wish Reed was more like his rival.
Put it this way: if you have two guys with similar traits, but one's efficiency stats are a bit higher and he's more likely to be on the field, which one would you pick?
It's an easy decision, and fortunately, the Bears don't have to have the same worries over Burden as Packer fans have had -- and will continue to have -- over Reed.
And just for good measure, because this is a Bears vs. Packers conversation, let's look at both of their Combine performances and take away two key numbers. Burden's 40-yard dash time (4.41 vs. 4.45) and 10-yard split (1.54 vs. 1.57) were also better.
Just by a smidge, but they were better.
It's going to be a blast to watch Burden further blossom into an even better and more dependable weapon in 2026.
Read more: Dillon Thieneman brought a Bears draft dream to life no fan thought was possible
Full disclosure: I do not think Reed is a bad player but, I believe Burden is better. What else would you expect out of this site?
Add us as a preferred source on Google