What Raiders Committee?
LaMont Jordan's surprise start in Oakland didn't get much attention because it happened opposite the Patriots-Dallas game and most fantasy lineups were set. Plus Jordan didn't make owners pay for benching him with 86 total yards on 24 touches, including six catches.
It was surprising that Jordan played despite being listed as doubtful, but it's shocking he had 24 touches, while Justin Fargas had three, and Dominic Rhodes had zero.
Jordan owners should be very encouraged. The Raiders showed a lot of faith in Jordan by refusing to go to a committee despite a serious injury. This was a huge game for them, and they clearly believe Jordan is their best option on the field.
Rhodes owners have to be concerned they have a lemon. He's halfway decent insurance, but it looks like Fargas is ahead of him on the depth chart. And third place on the Oakland depth chart is not exactly a road to fantasy stardom.
Comments
Speaking of Raiders, I think I'm starting to sour or Ronald Curry. He hasn't even come close to his big first game numbers, and everyone scores big against Detroit. Not going to drop him, but he's more like 35th ranked than top 20 now I think.
Posted by: Tony C | October 15, 2007 08:11 PM
i blame it on culpepper. he's still getting his targets, but pep's accuracy is, shall we say, erratic. at best.
this game tonight is killing me...
i want my falcons to win, but there's so many sidebars for me tonight my head is spinning.
in one league, up 30 with jacobs going against plaxico and manning.
in another, down 34 with jacobs, burress, NY defense, and michael boley going against dunn and crumpler.
so, ideally, i want the falcons to win with dunn and crumpler contributing nothing while plaxico and jacobs score multiple TDs and eli somehow disappears.
lookin' alright so far, except eli is still there, making his always-grumpy face.
i swear he looks pouty even when he smiles.
Posted by: The Dox | October 15, 2007 09:17 PM
Would you rather have Jordan or Gore going forward? Where would you rank Jordan overall for RBs from here on out?
Posted by: Matt | October 15, 2007 11:11 PM