Rueben Randle: NY Giants' Backup Is Not the Answer for Fantasy Woes
Rookie Giants wide receiver Rueben Randle had the kind of breakout day that makes fantasy owners take notice. However, it is only the shrewd owners that will notice and then forget everything they just saw.
While the performance is promising for his career, it should not drastically change his projections for this season.
Randle, a second-round pick out of LSU, entered the Giants' Week 5 contest with just one catch for four yards. His disappointing showing was already earning murmurs of the dreaded "bust" term.
Those murmurs are gone now. Randle went out and performed the way the Giants needed him to, catching six balls for a total of 82 yards. Both of those numbers led New York—as did his nine targets.
Those kinds of numbers are certainly worthy of fantasy consideration, and any receiver who leads their team in targets deserves serious inspection.
The problem in this case is that Randle's performance was a mirage.
The reason he was involved so heavily in this game was because fellow receivers Hakeem Nicks and Ramses Barden were both out with injuries.
While Randle played a solid game, it is very unlikely that he will pass either on the depth chart. Nicks will start as long as he is healthy enough to play, and Barden has looked strong with his increased role. Randle will have to have more than one solid outing to supplant Barden on the depth chart.
No one wants a fourth-string receiver on their fantasy roster, which is what Randle is, and will likely be all this season.
I will add a slight qualifier: If any of the receivers ahead of Randle on the depth chart are going to be out for a lengthy period of time, he will be worthy of starting consideration.
He proved in this game that he has what it takes to succeed in this league, and Eli Manning showed he would not hesitate to throw to him. However, anything short of that, and Randle is fantasy fool's gold.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?