Darren McFadden's Injury Didn't Stop Him from Wanting to Return Sunday
Darren McFadden went down on Sunday with what appeared to be an ankle injury. Per Contra Costa Times writer Steve Corkran on Twitter, after the game, Oakland Raiders head coach Dennis Allen said, "he wanted to be back out there."
Darren McFadden's injury may not be severe, but is it even worth it anymore to have this guy start for your fantasy team?
Through eight games this year, McFadden has rushed the ball 139 times for 455 yards and two touchdowns. He has also added 31 catches for 190 yards and no scores.
Don't forget that 13 of McFadden's 31 catches came in Week 1 for 86 yards. Since then, he has only caught 18 balls for 104 yards.
Last season, before McFadden went down in Week 7 with an injury, he rushed the ball 113 times for 614 yards and four touchdowns. He added 19 catches for 131 yards and a touchdown through the air.
McFadden has not shown at all this year that he can be reliable in terms of fantasy production. McFadden owners are concerned as to what they should do in McFadden's absence if his injury does indeed turn out to be severe.
Picking up Marcel Reece to replace him, or even picking up Reece for a team that doesn't include McFadden on the roster, is a low-risk, high-reward move.
After McFadden went down with his ankle injury, Marcel Reece was quarterback Carson Palmer's favorite target out of the backfield. Palmer and Reece hooked up eight times for 95 yards and a touchdown against the Buccaneers in a rematch of Super Bowl XXXVII.
Regardless of whether or not McFadden is healthy, Reece will be a reliable threat out of the backfield for Palmer due to the fact that he is Oakland's full-time fullback.
In my opinion, if McFadden were to play this Sunday, he wouldn't be a reliable option in fantasy leagues anyway. It is rare that you see a player perform well when hindered by any injury.
It seemed to be a promising and rewarding season for fantasy owners who possess Darren McFadden on their team. If anything, he has turned into a liability.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?