Nick Foles Updated Week 6 Fantasy Outlook After Michael Vick's Injury
Michael Vick's flat tire will likely keep him sidelined for at least a week, but for fantasy football purposes, the downgrade from the explosive Vick to Nick Foles is like going from a Cadillac to a Geo Metro.
First, the news of Vick's injury, via ESPN's Adam Schefter:
Eagles QB Michael Vick is expected to miss Sunday's start vs. Tampa Bay due to his hamstring injury. Nick Foles time.— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) October 7, 2013
Head coach Chip Kelly, via the team's official Twitter feed, called Vick "day-to-day":
#Eagles Coach Chip Kelly: I don't know if Vick will play Sunday. Right now he's day to day.— Philadelphia Eagles (@Eagles) October 7, 2013
Now, let's get this straight. The Geo Metro comparison wasn't meant as an insult toward Foles. I had one of those in high school and it treated me like a brother.
It's just not a Cadillac.
Vick's ability to run and throw in Kelly's wide-open offense made him an elite fantasy quarterback thus far in 2013. You shouldn't expect a replication of production just because Foles is stepping in for him as starter, but—much like the Geo—he will be serviceable.
After a shaky rookie season, Foles has shown improvement and a nice comfort level in Kelly's new system this year.
Thirty total pass attempts is too small of a sample size to jump to any major conclusions, but at the same time, a 63.3 percent completion rating, 8.2 yards per attempt, three touchdowns and zero interceptions aren't stats to scoff at in the NFL. He stepped in seamlessly last week and led the Eagles to a win over the New York Giants:
Moreover, the Eagles run a fast-paced offense and have a colander-like defense, two things that often lead to fantasy-friendly numbers.
Where do you rank Nick Foles among QBs in Week 6?
Tampa Bay is eighth in the NFL in yards per pass attempt allowed and coming off a bye week, so this isn't a great matchup for Foles. But we know Vick's injury history. The potential for more starts is there.
In small, one-quarterback leagues, it might be worth adding Foles on a speculative basis if you don't have a viable backup, although it's not a necessity with his long-term value still unknown.
But in deeper or two-quarterback leagues, he should be universally owned as a solid QB2.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?