Rams hurting your fantasy life too?
by Ryan Van Bibber on Oct 10, 2009 7:06 AM CDT
in Fantasy Football
Email
PrintIn fantasy sports - well, at least baseball and football, since that's where my fantasy experience is - it seems like there's always that one team where you don't want any of the players they have. Have the St. Louis Rams become that team? Running back Steven Jackson is still an elite player, but in terms of fantasy points, the Rams are holding him back...well, not just in terms of fantasy points either, I guess. Here's what I wrote for SBN Fantasy Friday:
It’s a tough week to recommend anybody from the St. Louis Rams for your fantasy lineup. The Rams play the Minnesota Vikings this week, and it’s one of the best overall defenses they’ll see this year. RB Steven Jackson is a good bet for 20+ carries, but with Jason Smith not starting on the offensive line I question whether or not Jackson can rack up 100 yards. A touchdown almost seems out of the question based on the stagnant play of the rest of the Rams offense.
With a capable guy like Jackson, you can usually throw the Rams kicker, Josh Brown, into the mix for a decent fantasy option. Not this year. So far, the Rams have hit just 1 of 4 field goals. They do play at the Dome this week, which is a bit more favorable than the windy fields up and down the West Coast, but the offense will likely need to collect more than three points at a time.
The Rams have quickly become one of those teams you generally avoid in fantasy play, especially this week. On the flip side of that, it’s probably a great week to play any Vikings you might have on your roster.
Is this accurate? Do you avoid the Rams in fantasy? How many people out there start other RBs over Steven Jackson?
You can get more fantasy reports every week via SBN's Fantasy Friday.
4 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I voted no
for a simple reason: TDs. Anyone who has played fantasy football should know that TDs are the difference maker in 99% of leagues. A RB who runs for 120 yards and no TDs is less valuable than a running back who runs for 50 and 3. Without a passing game to get us in the red zone, SJax won’t get the kind of opportunities that other RBs are getting. He’s still a valuable 2nd RB, but fantasy-wise, he’s not a top-tier guy.
Your uncle molests collies.
the TDs in fantasy
have given people a distorted view of a player’s total contributions.
Turf Show Times
by Ryan Van Bibber on Oct 10, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I voted yes
since you have to consider the alternatives.
I figure Jackson was most peoples first RB taken (i have him in one league…I took him with the 10th pick in the 1st rd). My other RBs are Joseph Addai, Darren Sproles (bye week), Ahmad Bradshaw, and Fred Taylor (out).
Really, what option do I have especially now that we’re into the Bye weeks? With injuries and the fact that so many teams employ a RB-by-committee approach it’s tough to go against a guy like Jackson who will always get almost all of the teams carries.
Sure, I could go with Bradshaw, but he’s going to get probably less than half the carries Jackson will. I have to hope to catch lighting in a bottle (a TD) in order for Bradshaw to put up more points than Jackson. Then again, he is going against Oakland so there’s a great chance he gets a ton of carries.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
If he had still been there
when my first round choice came up, I would have taken him. And I would still be playing him. As it is I took Frank Gore, who did great while healthy, but you don’t get points when they are hurt. It really is too bad the rest of the team can’t do enough to give Jackson more of a chance.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
