Darren McFadden: Raiders RB Not a Good Fantasy Option Against Broncos
I hope you've been active on the waiver wire, ladies and gentlemen.
Playing for the first time in roughly a month since injuring his ankle, Oakland Raiders running back Darren McFadden and his fantasy owners find themselves in a tough matchup on Thursday Night Football.
The Broncos defense ranks seventh in the NFL in terms of rushing yards allowed per game, surrendering just a little over 96 YPG.
Denver is even better at keeping its opponent out of the end zone via the rush, as it has allowed a mere five rushing touchdowns all season, which is tied for fourth-best in the league.
In case you didn't know, forgot or just don't care, McFadden was terrible against the Broncos earlier this season, rushing for just 34 yards on 13 carries.
Hence why I've been hoping you hit the waiver wire and have a suitable replacement for Mr. McFadden tonight.
After returning from an injury to his ankle—one that will take a pounding each time he takes a handoff—McFadden isn't poised to have a good night on the ground.
Even before he hurt his ankle, McFadden wasn't running the rock well.
In eight games, he sported a 3.3 YPC average, only scored two touchdowns and had just two games of 100 or more rushing yards.
If I haven't convinced you enough, maybe you'll listen to ESPN's Talented Mr. Roto:
Darren McFadden listed as probable. Have him @ 29 among RB's. But 1st gm back & vs DEN? I want no part of that in my playoffs— Matthew Berry (@MatthewBerryTMR) December 5, 2012
After this matchup with Denver, McFadden owners can rejoice, as he'll have favorable matchups through the rest of the season in the Kansas City Chiefs, Carolina Panthers and possibly the San Diego Chargers.
You already made it this far—utilizing great roster management and receiving a ton of luck to make the playoffs—and you don't want to ruin it in the first round by starting McFadden off injury against a solid rush defense.
Follow me on Twitter for more fantasy football information: 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?