Andrew Hawkins & Under the Radar Wide Receivers Your Fantasy Team Needs
If you're looking for depth at the wide receiver position on your fantasy football team, you've come to the right place.
Whether it's a rash of injuries or lack of production that's plaguing your lineup, I'm here to help you with your fantasy woes.
Below you will find three under-the-radar wideouts who will immediately impact your squad.
*All fantasy scoring via ESPN Standard Leagues
Buried on the Indianapolis Colts' wide receiver depth chart is T.Y. Hilton, a versatile rookie from Florida International.
With just one reception to his credit this season prior to Week 3, Hilton went for four receptions, 113 yards and a TD on Sunday, amassing 17.3 fantasy points.
Hilton was targeted eight times by Andrew Luck, which is a good sign for owners who are looking for wide receivers on pass-happy teams.
The Colts get an average Green Bay Packers pass defense in Week 5, as they're on a bye in Week 4.
If you're in a deeper league and looking to change things up a bit, try Cecil Shorts of the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Shorts made the most of his one reception on Sunday by going 80 yards for the score.
Shorts was a surprising fantasy standout in Week 1, hauling in four passes for 74 yards and a TD.
Shorts has put up 13 fantasy points in two of his three games this season and has been effective when the ball is thrown his way.
Again, if you're in a 14 or 16-team league, you may want to give this guy a go.
Andrew Hawkins made two receptions for 66 yards and a TD against the Washington Redskins on Sunday, netting owners 14.2 fantasy points.
On Friday, I advised fantasy owners to add Andrew Hawkins while they could.
Hopefully they listened.
He's now found the end zone in two straight games and is cementing himself as the No. 2 wideout on the Cincinnati Bengals depth chart.
If this dude is still available, snag him before it's too late.
Or before your Week 4 opponent does.
Follow me on Twitter: Follow @Pete_Schauer
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?