Fantasy Football 2012: Calvin Johnson Should Be Traded Away Now
Calvin Johnson, the No. 1 ranked fantasy wide receiver heading into 2012, has been a beast for his owners over the last few years. Owners of Megatron have come to expect double-digit points each and every week.
Johnson has provided two double-digit games so far this year, including a monster 22-point Week 3.
So why would anyone in their right mind trade away this type of production?
One reason could be the dreaded "Madden Curse." Johnson is featured on the cover of the popular video game. Players such as Michael Vick, Chris Johnson and Peyton Hillis all suffered disappointing seasons after appearing on the video game cover.
Of course, we all know that's ridiculous
Joking aside, Johnson is a perfect candidate to place on the trade block and see what kind of hits he gets. Johnson had a poor showing in Week 4 against the Vikings, catching on five passes for 54 yards and just five fantasy points.
Hurting Johnson's fantasy value is the fact that his quarterback Matthew Stafford has not had the season that was expected from him. Also hurting Johnson is the lack of weapons surrounding him. Opposing defenses can key on him, making huge statistical days more difficult.
The Lions are on a bye in Week 5, so that could be an interesting time to try and make a trade. The first three games after the bye could go a long way to determining what kind of fantasy season Johnson is going to have. The Lions face three solid defenses in Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle.
Sure, Johnson is bound to have a few huge games this season that could have owners kicking themselves for trading him. That being said, it's worth taking the chance, especially if you are thin at the running back position.
Emerging wide receivers such as Brian Hartline and Andre Roberts are guys who could be picked up from the waiver wire to add depth at wide receiver.
There's nothing to lose by just seeing what options exist in your league. Throw Johnson's name out there to fellow owners and see what the response is.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?