Fantasy Rankings: Baltimore Ravens' Ray Rice
Taking Over as the Top Runner in Baltimore
Rice showed flashes of being a good runner in the NFL last year. But Ray was held back most of the year, being the third runner in a three man committee.
This off-season Willis McGahee had two more surgerys on his knee and there is some doubt he will come back and play much or at all this year.
At the start of June camps, McGahee has already been demoted to the second string behind Rice. When Willis was asked about his feelings on the demotion, he told reporters, "work is work."
Now for the record McGahee has never been shy of letting people know when he's not happy. So to see him satisfied with any work at all, should tell you he's not right physically.
LeRon McClain will still get the goal line work
While Rice is the most talented runner overall in the Ravens offense. It will be
LeRon McClain that receives most of the work inside the red zone, as the Ravens will use him to pound out the tough yards.
Ray Rice's Fantasy Football Value in 2009
If in fact McGahee can not play effectively this year, Rice will be a 1,000 yard runner this season. Beyond a good rushing total, Rice also supports solid hands for the receiving game, as he had 33 receptions a year ago. Ray will also benefit from a run friendly coordinator in Cam Camren and a strong offensive line.
Even with all those positives the man won't be a No.2 runner for your fantasy team until he can take some of the touchdowns (Rice had zero TD's in 2008) away from McClain.
Until that time Rice will be a boom or bust runner in 2009. Mainly because when he does score a touchdown it will come from a distance. If you select Rice as a fill in player for your fantasy team, just remember he will at least make a great start four weeks (against Bengals and Browns) out of the year.
- Good Overall Skills
- Great Offensive Line
- Run Heavy Offense
- Good Hands
- Watch McGahee's progress
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?