Beanie Wells Injury: Which Cardinals Players' Fantasy Stock Will Rise?
Arizona Cardinals running back Beanie Wells will be inactive with a hamstring injury for the team's Week 3 matchup with the Seattle Seahawks. Will Carroll is reporting that Wells made the decision to sit out, despite the fact that the Cardinals thought he could go.
In Wells' place, Chester Taylor and La'Rod Stephens-Howling will likely carry the load against the Seahawks. While those two options aren't incredibly appealing, Taylor is a solid back who could chew up some yards and be a decent check-down option in the passing game. Stephens-Howling has a hand injury and was listed as questionable as recently as yesterday.
What you should expect fantasy-wise is for the Cardinals to attack Seattle through the air. Without a solid ground game to rely on—again, Taylor is alright, but nothing to get excited about—Kevin Kolb, Larry Fitzgerald and the league's 12th-ranked passing attack should be expected to see a lot of action.
The Seahawks have shown a decent defense this season, and are allowing just 210.5 yards per game through the air (12th in the league). But their offense sits dead-last in the NFL, averaging a horrendous 191.5 yards per game. That means Arizona should have the ball a lot.
Taylor will certainly be fresh heading into today's game, as he has just one attempt for no yards so far this season. With Wells out and eying a comeback in Week 4, Taylor will have this week to show his value to the Cardinals and other teams around the league who might look at him in the future.
Make no mistake, the chance to re-establish himself as a back who can still do some things in the league will motivate Taylor today. He'll have the chance to do some things, but don't expect any miracles.
Arizona will likely focus on its aerial attack against a Seahawks team that can't generate anything offensively. Even if the Cardinals make mistakes through the air, it's unlikely Seattle will be able to make them pay.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?