Lawrence Tynes: Giants K Is Still a Great Fantasy Option Despite Poor Week 4
Lawrence Tynes suddenly became a popular target on the fantasy football waiver wire last week after the New York Giants kicker tallied 35 points over the previous two games. That's a crazy amount from a position that's usually completely ignored.
Tynes was only able to convert on one of his two field goal attempts against the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night, however, providing his legion of new fantasy owners with just five points total.
It was a disappointing result to say the least.
Even though kickers are at the bottom of the list in terms of importance when it comes to fantasy starting lineups and should never be taken before the final round on draft day, they are still a key factor on a weekly basis.
Due to that, it's not a surprise there was a rush to add Tynes after his hot streak because his points count the same as a quarterback or running back. While he didn't live up to the hype in Week 4, he's still a reliable option moving forward.
What should fantasy owners do with Tynes?
He was averaging more than 13 fantasy points per week before his poor showing against the Eagles, which ranked second in the league to Jason Hanson of the Detroit Lions.
If you must have a kicker, there's far worse options than Tynes.
The Giants offense is going to move the ball consistently with Eli Manning leading the way. That's important because it means Tynes should continue to see a lot of field goal attempts, and that's what really generates the points.
One other thing working in Tynes' advantage is that he doesn't have a bye until Week 11. That means fantasy owners won't have to worry about wasting any more moves on kickers for a couple months, giving them one less thing to be concerned about.
When it comes to fantasy kickers, it all comes down to being as low-maintenance as possible. Thanks to his scoring average and late bye, Tynes remains a top option in Week 5 and beyond.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?