Isaac Redman: Steelers RB Carries No Fantasy Value, Even If Healthy
If you own Redman and you're white-knuckle gripping your iPhone ESPN Fantasy Football app, waiting on Redman's Week 7 status, you have much bigger problems.
Even if the Steelers ball-carrier is healthy, he's not starting running back material in the fantasy realm.
According to ESPN, Redman is owned in nearly 66 percent of standard-scoring leagues. He's only scored 30 points all season, with an 11-point output against Tennessee on Thursday being his biggest performance. Even in that game, Redman's production was courteous of 100-plus receiving yards.
Unless you're banking on Redman breaking a 55-yard reception again versus Cincinnati in Week 7, there's no reason to slot him in amongst your starters.
On the year, Redman has 127 yards and a touchdown on 50 carries. He's not a home-run threat, and that's made more obvious by the Steelers' poor offensive line play.
Without a consistent group blocking in front, Redman doesn't stand much of a chance. He's not shifty, explosive or particularly agile. He's a grinder—which is fine for backups in the NFL, but not in fantasy land.
On top of that, you have Rashard Mendenhall's presence. He's listed as questionable on the injury report, but it looks like there's a good chance of him playing. Even if he's not 100 percent, he will take touches away from Redman.
It's hard to justify starting either Mendenhall or Redman, especially if either is banged up. Pittsburgh's run game has struggled all season long, which is forcing Todd Haley to hand his entire offense over to Ben Roethlisberger and the Steelers receivers.
The Bengals are 21st in the NFL against the run. With bye weeks in full tilt, playing Redman may be your only choice.
If you do slot him in, don't expect much. He could be splitting time with Mendenhall, and Baron Batch could be in the mix as well. Either way, the Steelers' primary focus won't be on their backfield.
Redman is good for two-to-three yards per carry, but that doesn't translate to fantasy glory.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?