Fantasy Spotlight: Jamal Lewis ~ The Little Running Back That Could
Eric Mangini is a cheese-weenie, bumbleheaded, pimpstick. There I said it. He already knows he wants Derek Anderson to be his quarterback, despite the fact that the whole world believes it should be Brady Quinn. Ask Mangini, and it’s still too close to call. He’s a pretty predictable guy for an NFL coach. That’s why I think Jamal Lewis is going to have a solid if not spectacular fantasy season. I know rookie James Davis has been a stud this preseason, and he is the best back on the team. His ADP has shot up 14 points, while Jamal’s is down by two. However, that’s all meaningless. What matters is Mangini.
In Mangini’s world, Lewis is KING!
Last season Mangini took an old, tired RB in Thomas Jones and turned him into the little running back who could. Jones had a career year. Sure he’s got a couple grand less on his legs than Jamal, but I believe in Lewis…and Mangini. Jamal is the same age as Jones was last season (in fact Lewis turned 30 over the weekend). He knows he’s almost done and he has vultures already picking over his locker. He’s got more than 10,000 yards on those treads, but he ain’t done yet. Hell, he’s only had one season with less than 1000 yards in his career. His current ADP is in the mid-80s, which is insane for a starting RB in a run-always offense. He’s being snagged as an RB4 when he will perform no worse than an RB2. I’ll wager my genuine faux Rollie Finger replica wax moustache on it.
I’m not one to haphazardly throw reckless fantasy advice about like some Matthew Berry bobblehead. So I’m being earnest when I say, snag Jamal late and celebrate early. By all means cuff him to Davis like a drunk stripper in a seedy hotel. But rejoice in knowing that Mangini has your fantasy back, and he will once again bring the dead back to life. He is to running backs what Viagra to for college frat boys.
Now about that quarterback controversy…
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?