Wide Receiver Options to Replace Pierre Garcon in Your Fantasy Lineups
Many fantasy football owners' lineups have taken a hit due to the injury sustained by Pierre Garcon (including my own), but let's not throw in the towel just yet.
While Garcon's status is still up in the air for Week 4, you may want to start planning who you'll start if he isn't a go on Sunday afternoon.
Here's where I can help:
Remember when Santana Moss was the No. 1 WR on your fantasy team?
So do I. While he's no longer a No. 1, he's a viable option this week if Garcon doesn't play.
Moss is tied for the third most targets on the Redskins, and with Leonard Hankerson and Aldrick Robinson emerging as threats, that leaves less coverage for Moss to battle.
Moss still has the speed and the hands to be a deep threat in this league. Against a weak pass defense, he's worth a shot in Week 4.
Cecil Shorts leads the Jacksonville Jaguars in receiving yards and touchdowns, so why not take a shot?
The Bengals rank No. 22 against the pass, making this a smart matchup for fantasy owners. As we saw in Week 3, Shorts had one reception for 80 yards and a TD. Shorts is a legitimate deep threat and can put up solid points for your lineup.
He emerged as a viable option at WR after his Week 1 performance that saw him go for four catches, 74 yards and a touchdown.
I'll admit, he did drop off a bit in Week 2 (OK, a lot actually), but he redeemed himself last week—at least enough to make him an option to fill in for Garcon in Week 4.
With Hakeem Nicks listed as doubtful for Week 4, Barden's role in the Giants offense becomes all the more important.
Victor Cruz had a career day against the Eagles in 2011, one that I'm sure they haven't forgotten. Look for Philly to direct most of its coverage toward Cruz, leaving the 6'6" Barden open, especially as a red-zone threat.
Add this guy while you can, before he dominated in Week 4 and you lose your chance.
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?