Peyton Manning's Updated 2013 Fantasy Outlook Heading into Week 3
Peyton Manning once again rewarded fantasy owners with a great performance Sunday, although his numbers were down from the seven-touchdown explosion in the season opener.
The Denver Broncos quarterback connected on 30-of-43 passes for 307 yards and two touchdowns against his younger brother Eli Manning’s New York Giants in a 41-23 rout.
The Oakland Raiders are up next for the Broncos in an AFC West battle that will be showcased in primetime on Monday Night Football. It’ll be yet another chance for Manning to showcase his pinpoint accuracy and elite decision-making, especially against a team with a mediocre at best secondary.
It wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect at least three touchdowns and another 300 yards at minimum from the veteran signal-caller, as those are highly attainable goals inside the team’s offense.
As has been the case over the first fortnight, the Raiders secondary will be overwhelmed and will eventually find it impossible to cover the numerous options that Manning has at his disposal. There’s no telling just how great he can be in this showdown, especially with Oakland’s starting safety Tyvon Branch out indefinitely with a fractured fibula, via ESPN.
How will Peyton Manning perform in Week 3?
The Raiders’ already slim chances of actually limiting the four-time MVP to human numbers took a big hit with that injury. It now seems that Oakland’s best option is just going to be trying to score as many points as possible on offense to hang with the Broncos.
This is all great to hear for fantasy owners of the 37-year-old signal-caller and his pass-catchers but awful to stomach for Raiders fans and owners of the team’s defense.
As usual, Manning is a QB1 this week and should be started regardless of format every game this season.
Predicted Stat Line: 31-of-45 passing for 368 yards and four touchdowns, with one interception.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?