Steven Jackson: St. Louis Rams RB Is Risky Fantasy Play Against Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams running back Steven Jackson always seems to be nursing an injury, but he's still run for 1,000-plus yards in seven of his nine NFL seasons.
He's used to being banged up. He played through his current groin injury last week, despite reports that he wouldn't, eventually running for 29 yards on 11 carries.
Jackson's participation last week makes his status for Week 4 seem pretty straight-forward, but ESPN's Tony Softli reported on Wednesday that Jackson did not practice:
Rams RB Steven Jackson DNP today—Tony Softli (@SoftliSTL) September 26, 2012
There are worse practices to miss than a Wednesday, especially for a proven veteran, but it's still not encouraging. He could still play in Week 4 against the Seattle Seahawks, with a game-time decision scenario looking very likely.
Seattle is second in the NFL against the run, allowing less than 60 yards per game so far. They've proven themselves as one of the league's most stellar units, and Jackson may be rendered ineffective even if he is able to lace 'em up.
This is an old hat for someone like Jackson. He's missed 13 regular-season games in his nine-year career. If you've owned Jackson in previous fantasy football seasons, you're all too familiar with the frustrations associated with him.
If St. Louis was playing anyone else, playing Jackson wouldn't be a stretch. Seattle plays tough, gritty defense, and they know who they must stop to win Sunday's game. All of their focus will rest on Jackson's shoulders.
Jackson is probably a regular starter on your squad, but you should heavily consider giving him a week off. He hasn't scored a touchdown yet this season, making the possibility of scoring this week more unlikely.
Don't substitute Jackson just for the sake of sitting him, but keep an eye on it. Changing your lineup too much can be an issue; playing the matchup this week isn't. It's unfavorable in every conceivable way for the Rams' ball-carrier.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?