Jamie Harper: Why Titans RB Is Worth an Add in Fantasy Football
Chris Johnson’s fantasy football owners hate Jamie Harper.
Is Harper worth a roster spot?
As soon as CJ2K began playing like he deserved that "2K" attached to the end of his initials again, Harper swooped in and turned what could’ve been two absolutely phenomenal weeks for Johnson into two (just) phenomenal ones. In fact, Harper has stolen so many fantasy points from him that the second-string back is actually worth an add.
As the Tennessee Titans’ designated goal-line back, Harper has rushed for three touchdowns in the past two weeks. As long as the Titans continue to move the football like they did against the Pittsburgh Steelers and Buffalo Bills, Harper will continue to put up eye-opening touchdown totals.
Let me take you back to 2008 when Tennessee had a similar situation in its backfield. While Johnson was the primary ball-carrier, LenDale White played the role of battering ram. And while White did carry the football at a much more frequent rate than Harper, he recorded a whopping 15 touchdowns because the Titans consistently fed him inside the five—just like they’re currently doing with Harper.
And at 5’11”, 233 pounds, Harper isn’t scoring fluke touchdowns—he was built to pound it in the end zone.
Now, in the past two weeks when Harper has made a name for himself, he’s only rushed for nine yards on nine carries. Again, he’ll only be a viable fantasy option if Tennessee’s starters excel. And they’re doing exactly that right now as, in the last two games, Johnson boasts over 300 yards from scrimmage.
Throw in the fact that Jake Locker could return to start under center as early as next week, and the Titans offense should stay marching. Locker boasts a 90.2 passer rating this season compared to Matt Hasselbeck, who led their offense the past two games with a 78.2 rating.
Harper is worth a roster spot.
David Daniels is a featured columnist at Bleacher Report and a syndicated writer.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?