Kansas City Chiefs Sign Thomas Jones: 2010 Fantasy Impact
Former New York Jets running back, Thomas Jones , has found a new home and he hasn't officially been on the open market for even an entire week.
Jones was signed by the Kansas City Chiefs on Tuesday, after he was released by the Jets last Friday, after posting back-to-back 1,300+ yard seasons.
Jones also rushed for at least 12 touchdowns in each of the past two seasons, and helped the Jets gain momentum at the end of the year and make a push all the way to the AFC Championship game.
However, in the process, he began to wear down some and played second-fiddle to rookie running back Shonn Greene.
This is his fourth team since being drafted as the seventh overall pick by the Arizona Cardinals in 2000, and at 32, is almost guaranteed to be playing a minimal role in Kansas City, where he is expected to back-up Jamaal Charles.
Jones still has some tread on his tires, even as a back over 30 years of age, but in order to prolong his career and keep him effective, the Chiefs will likely limit him to 10-15 carries, while giving their running game another solid option to lean on.
Jammal Charles will keep his starting job and approach 15-20 carries per game, while Jones will almost certainly take over near the goal-line and in short yardage, and can also be useful on passing downs when Charles is unavailable.
Fantasy Perspective: This move doesn't hurt Charles's stock nearly as much as some will suggest. In fact, it might help it. The touchdowns may go down, but Charles progressed into a feature back last year, so the yards and overall touches will undoubtedly be there.
For Jones, his days as a full-time starter are done (as the Jets probably guessed), but if Charles goes down, he could still fill-in as a very capable feature back. He could still be a solid back in fantasy football if he gets close to 10 carries per game, and he should remain effective in the red-zone.
For more Fantasy advice and NFL Free Agency coverage, head over to NFL Soup.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?