Why New York Giants WR Hakeem Nicks Has Nothing to Prove in 2013
After an injury-riddled season last year, New York Giants wide receiver Hakeem Nicks may have to prove himself to fantasy football owners in 2013, but certainly not to the real world. You would have to be living in a fantasy world if you think the 25-year-old has something to prove this coming season.
Giants brass and fans know who he is and what he brings.
Nicks has never played a full 16-game season in any of his first four years with the Giants, but he has corralled 255 passes for 3,726 yards and 27 touchdowns in 55 career games.
Nicks is widely heralded as the Giants' biggest wide receiver threat.
Yes, Victor Cruz negotiated his new contract which is valued at six years and $45.9 million, but Nicks is still Eli Manning's No. 1 target and the biggest focus of opposing defenses. No. 88 and No. 10 are making sure that they take advantage of any time they have to re-familiarize themselves with each other.
“We hooked up twice this week already,” said Nicks to Dave Hutchinson of the Star Ledger. “We’re going to do it again about two or three more times before (training) camp starts.”
This is not to say that Cruz and second-year man Rueben Randle take a back seat—far from it—but Nicks is just looking to validate his value.
Yes, the left knee that ended up requiring arthroscopic surgery back in February confirmed a personal subpar season for Nicks, but the Giants still finished last year as the No. 12 passing offense.
“No I really don’t worry about that at all,” he said on WFAN. “I have a good relationship with the Giants organization. I believe that something will get done.”
The cliche that says it's more about the name on the front of the jersey than the back couldn't be more true when pertaining to Nicks.
All Nicks has to do is stay healthy, and in doing so, Cruz, Randle, Ramses Barden and newcomer Brandon Myers will all benefit.
In fact, those receivers are the ones with something prove in 2013, not Nicks.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?