One of the pitfalls of deck analysis is the question "why aren't you running X?" X can be anything, new or old, tested or untested, released or just on the horizon. It's not a very good question because diminishes the importance of the rest of the deck. 99.9% of the time players are trying to run 75 cards total, so each suggested card comes at the expense of another card. When you say "why aren't you running X?", you can take your question one step further and say "why aren't you running X in place of Y?" Y can still be broad, but it helps both parties understand that we are on the same page to how the deck functions.
@serracollector, your suggestion suggests you don't understand the deck's plan.
@tittliewinks22, your suggestion is much better, but again, readers of the thread may benefit by knowing where you are suggesting this change occur. Broken Bond is a Naturalize effect with the rider of an extra land drop. In the build I posted above, copies could replace some number of Nature's Claim (same effect), Ancient Grudge (same effect plus some), Abrupt Decay (some of the same effect), or Song of the Dryads (some of the same effect). I know what I would do, but what were you considering when you suggested it?
If this post comes off heavy-handed it's because it is. Too often threads like this are filled with every poster's passing thoughts that benefit no one.