Jackie Battle: Fantasy Expectations for San Diego Chargers RB Moving Forward
Jackie Battle, for the second time in as many years, has become a viable fantasy option.
The San Diego Chargers running back has been putting up decent stats over the last three games, including a 15-carry, 39-yard, one-touchdown performance, plus four receptions for 42 yards and a score against the Kansas City Chiefs in Week 4. He also took 14 rushes for 69 yards and two touchdowns against the Tennessee Titans in Week 2.
He may not be a week-to-week fantasy stud like Arian Foster, but the Bolts back is certainly a viable play in deeper leagues and as a bye-week replacement. His emergence has Ryan Mathews' owners furious, but it seems that Battle is here to stay, especially after getting the bulk of the carries in that blowout victory over KC.
So what should you look to get out of the 29-year-old back if he’s on your fantasy team?
It’s reasonable to expect that from here on out, the Chargers will continue to use a platoon system in their backfield. Barring an injury, Battle can be counted on for approximately 10 carries per game, with that more or less depending on the score.
What do you think of Battle's fantasy prospects?
With those carries, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate the former Houston Cougars star to earn anywhere between 30 to 60 yards per outing, with a touchdown coming every other contest or so.
Battle’s real value will lie in PPR leagues, where it seems he is becoming more integrated into the passing offense and getting comfortable with QB Philip Rivers. He hadn’t had a catch in 2012 before Week 4, but made the most of his four receptions and scored a TD.
While Battle isn’t going to be an absolute beast in fantasy, he can be counted on to have production similar to Mathews, who was a second-round pick in many drafts this preseason. Don’t hesitate to pick up the emerging RB if you need a quick fill-in or play in a deep league.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?