Jamaal Charles Injury: Which Kansas City Backup Has More Fantasy Value?
Jamie Squire/Getty Images
With the news of Jamaal Charles getting carted off the field after colliding with the Lions' mascot, the fantasy football world immediately shifts to his replacements. The extent of the injury remains unknown, but Charles was seen wincing in pain on the sidelines before leaving the game.
Dexter McCluster
McCluster is easily the most explosive of the Chiefs' running backs behind Charles. This season, McCluster was expected to primarily play wide receiver, but he received carries in Week 1, and if Charles is out, McCluster's hand-offs should only increase.
McCluster also remains a dangerous receiver out of the backfield. Questions remain about his durability and blocking ability, though.
Thomas Jones
Immediately after the injury it appears that Jones is getting a majority of the carries out of the backfield with seven to Charles' three.
However, Jones' yardage remains low, averaging 3.6 yards per carry. He lacks explosiveness, but his value comes in his experience, familiarity with the Kansas City offense and trust of the coaching staff when it comes to blocking and picking up the blitz.
Conclusion
If Charles is out, it looks as if Jones will become the starting running back in Kansas City.
That said though, his upside would be limited.
McCluster would hold the most value, as his versatility allows him to get snaps on both rushing and passing scenarios, and his speed and explosiveness make him a home run threat every time he touches the ball.
But McCluster's small stature makes him an injury risk, which would factor into his workload.
Ultimately, the Kansas City backfield would turn into a running back by committee with Jones, McCluster and even Le'Ron McClain getting into the mix. McCluster is the one to own and should be picked up by any Ja-Cha owners as insurance—just don't count on 20 touches for him anytime soon.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?


0 Comments
Loading comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete