Hakeem Nicks: Fantasy Owners Must Start Disappointing WR This Week vs Bengals
With the next few weeks crucial to your fantasy team's chances of making it into the playoffs, New York Giants WR Hakeem Nicks needs to be in your starting lineup this week when his team takes on the Cincinnati Bengals.
Whether you drafted him or traded for him thinking that he was a great "buy low" candidate, anyone who has Nicks on their fantasy squad has been thoroughly disappointed with his production in 2012.
Aside from his 10-reception, 199-yard performance against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Week 2—one that saw him haul in his only touchdown catch of the season—Nicks has basically been a fantasy non-factor.
In his other five games, he's caught 17 passes for 191 yards, averaging just over three catches and 38 yards per game—numbers you can find from almost any No. 3 receiver sitting on your waiver-wire.
While he had swelling in his knee this week, Jenny Vrentas of the Newark Star-Ledger says that Nicks is fine and will play against the Bengals, something ESPN New York also confirms (just in case you wanted a second opinion):
Vrentas (@JennyVrentas) November 8, 2012
Hakeem Nicks of New York Giants says he will play against Cincinnati Bengals dlvr.it/2S9QFD— ESPN New York (@ESPNNewYork) November 8, 2012
While the Bengals have not allowed a receiver to eclipse 100 yards receiving yet in 2012, they have allowed a WR to eclipse 90 yards receiving in each of their past three games.
The Giants prolific passing attack has been embarrassed by its performance in each of the past two weeks, and Eli Manning has a chip on his shoulder heading into this game.
He's going to look to get his big-play receivers involved early and often—a group that includes Nicks.
While he might not equal his early season performance against Tampa Bay, multiple catches for 90 yards and a touchdown is well within reach for the talented wide receiver.
Don't make the mistake of having him put those numbers up on your bench; get Nicks into your starting lineups this week.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?