Jamaal Charles is 29 and coming off a torn ACL, but he's still got plenty left in the tank. Or does he? Former running back Marshall Faulk doesn't think so, or at least not enough that Kansas City will keep him around.
Faulk told the Kansas City Star that based on what Charcandrick West and Spencer Ware showed in relief, he wonders why the team would bring Charles back in 2016. They could save more than $5 million by releasing Charles, which would help them in terms of retaining other players.
Long-term I have my doubts about Charles; I'm hoping to deal him in my dynasty league. He's 29 and has suffered a pair of torn ACLs in the last five years.
But if healthy, he's an elite running back, worth that price tag to any offense. And while West and Ware filled in pretty well, neither look like sure things.
West, after a fast start, faded down the stretch, ultimately losing work to Ware. And Ware doesn't bring the passing game dimension that Charles and West do; he was a non-factor as a receiver.
So while it's possible Faulk is correct, I don't think it's clear that Kansas City will be eager to move on from Charles.
West's numbers in 12 games after Charles got hurt are shown below; he was a lot better in the first four games. The second table shows Ware's numbers in his seven games.
| WEST AFTER CHARLES INJURY | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opp | Run | Rec | Total | TD |
| @ MIN | 33 | 6 | 39 | 0 |
| PIT | 110 | 19 | 129 | 1 |
| DET | 97 | 25 | 122 | 1 |
| @ DEN | 69 | 92 | 161 | 2 |
| @ SD | 16 | 48 | 64 | 0 |
| @ OAK | 35 | 9 | 44 | 0 |
| SD | 54 | 0 | 54 | 0 |
| @ BAL | 76 | 9 | 85 | 1 |
| CLE | 62 | -1 | 61 | 0 |
| OAK | 34 | -2 | 32 | 0 |
| @ HOU | 26 | 9 | 35 | 0 |
| @ NE | 61 | 15 | 76 | 1 |
| WARE (AFTER ENTERING ROTATION) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opp | Run | Rec | Total | TD |
| @ SD | 96 | 5 | 101 | 2 |
| BUF | 114 | 1 | 115 | 1 |
| @ OAK | 26 | -1 | 25 | 1 |
| SD | 52 | 0 | 52 | 0 |
| CLE | 15 | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| OAK | 76 | 0 | 76 | 1 |
| @ HOU | 67 | 0 | 67 | 1 |
--Andy Richardson
