2009 Fantasy Scouting Report: San Diego Chargers WR Vincent Jackson
Vincent Jackson, WR San Diego Chargers
Weight: 230 pounds
Why We Like Him: Jackson is a big, physical target who fits perfectly in the vertical passing attack employed by the San Diego Chargers. He's got great balance and excellent footwork which he uses to "box out" defenders when going up for jump balls.
Jackson put together a career year in 2008, ranking 11th in receiving yards (1,098) and 10th in touchdowns (seven) while averaging a whopping 18.6 yards per reception on his way to a top-15 fantasy finish.
The Chargers offense poses serious matchup problems for opposing defenses because of the endless amount of weapons at their disposal. In addition to Jackson, defenses need to plan for running backs LaDainian Tomlinson and Darren Sproles while also looking to stop tight end Antonio Gates and wide receiver Chris Chambers.
Head coach Norv Turner loves to take deep shots down the field and Jackson is the No. 1 option when quarterback Philip Rivers is looking vertical.
Why We Don't Like Him: Despite posting terrific fantasy numbers in 2008, Jackson only caught 59 passes (33rd) while being targeted 101 times (35th). That's actually less targets than San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Isaac Bruce. While the amount of firepower on the San Diego offense helps Jackson by putting him in single coverage, it also takes away some of his opportunities, as Rivers has several passing options to chose from.
Fantasy Outlook: Sleeper Alert—We are expecting a very big year from Jackson in 2009. He had his "coming out" party last season and will no doubt improve on the numbers he posted as Rivers continues to take deep shots down the field.
The value here could be outstanding as some owners may not be sold on Jackson as a reliable WR1 in fantasy leagues. Don't get caught drinking the same Kool-Aid.
If you like these scouting reports be sure to check out the 2009 NFP fantasy football draft guide.
Hit me up on Twitter: @JoeFortenbaugh
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?