Greg Jennings: Packers Wideout Not WR1 Worthy in Fantasy Leagues
While a healthy Jennings spells good things for the Packers' offense, it may not have as big of an effect on your fantasy team.
No one's doubting Jennings' skill, but from a fantasy standpoint, it's extremely risky to expect him to be at WR 1 status after returning from groin surgery.
It's always been tough to be an owner of a Green Bay wide receiver since Aaron Rodgers spreads the ball around like butter, but now with Randall Cobb emerging as Rodgers' favorite target, it's going to be tough for Jennings owners.
Here's a look at your competition if you have Jennings on your squad:
Randall Cobb: 58 receptions on 78 targets, 613 yards and seven touchdowns.
Jordy Nelson: 45 receptions on 67 targets, 648 yards and six touchdowns.
James Jones: 42 receptions on 67 targets, 495 yards and eight touchdowns.
That said, I think it would be wise to give it a week to see how many looks Jennings gets against the Vikings on Sunday. If you're a DeSean Jackson owner and are trying to fill the gap with Jennings, I think that's acceptable, but expecting Jennings to come out and light it up just isn't realistic.
Will you be using Greg Jennings as a WR 1 this weekend?
In no way, shape or form am I telling you that Jennings is going to be a complete bust this weekend. I don't think it's going to take him long to get back into the swing of things, but I think he's a WR 2 at most this weekend.
I fully expect him to work the middle of the field out of the slot and be effective, but as far as a big fantasy day is concerned, I don't see it happening.
If you take a look at ESPN's projections for Week 13, they don't have Jennings being crazy productive, either.
For many of you, Week 13 is the most crucial fantasy week of the season. You're better served inserting a healthy WR than one who is returning from surgery and hasn't seen action since Week 4.
Follow me on Twitter: Follow @Pete_Schauer
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?