Head to Head

Updated June 3, 2026 from live stats

Josh Jacobs vs Kimani VidalWho should you start in 2026 fantasy football?

Josh Jacobs is the better fantasy start for 2026, averaging 14.6 PPG to Kimani Vidal's 9.2 in 2025. Full head to head breakdown below.

The Bottom Line

Josh Jacobs is the better fantasy play this season.

The gap here is significant. Josh Jacobs outscored Kimani Vidal by 5.4 PPG in 2025 with 14 total touchdowns. If both are on your board, Josh Jacobs is the clear pick. Kimani Vidal profiles as a matchup-dependent running back who can spike but lacks the consistent floor.

High confidence: stats strongly favor the leader, and the gap is unlikely to close on matchup alone.

Want this verdict updated live on Sunday?

Track Josh Jacobs and Kimani Vidal in the DraftCall app and get their updates the moment they change.

Get the App

RBGreen Bay Packers#8PPG LEADER

Josh Jacobs

PPG

14.6

Games

Rush Yds

929

Rush TDs

Rec

Rec Yds

282

Bye

Week 11

RBLos Angeles Chargers#32

Kimani Vidal

PPG

9.2

Games

Rush Yds

643

Rush TDs

Rec

Rec Yds

136

Bye

Week 7

The Edge Chart

Josh Jacobs

Kimani Vidal

Head to Head

14.6 PPG9.2 PPG

15 GP12 GP

Bye: Week 11Bye: Week 7

Fantasy Tiers

Josh Jacobs: Tier 2 (Strong Starter) RB (ranked #8 at the position). Kimani Vidal: Tier 4 (Bench/Bye Fill) RB (ranked #32 at the position). Among the top 50 running backs this season, Josh Jacobs is producing at 66% of elite pace and Kimani Vidal at 42%. That ranking gap means Josh Jacobs carries more trade value and a higher draft cost in 2026.

Josh Jacobs vs Kimani Vidal: The Full Breakdown

Deciding between Josh Jacobs and Kimani Vidal is a common lineup dilemma for fantasy managers. The Green Bay Packers running back put up 14.6 PPG in 2025 over 15 games; Kimani Vidal of the Los Angeles Chargers averaged 9.2 in 12. A 5.4-point margin that could shift on any given week.

The per-game difference of 5.4 points favors Josh Jacobs, though savvy managers know that gap can shrink or widen depending on the weekly slate. Defensive matchup, recent scoring trends, and health status all shift the calculus from one running back to the other.

Both profile as early-down workhorses. Josh Jacobs ran for 929 yards and 13 touchdowns; Kimani Vidal posted 643 and 3. Goal-line share, red zone touches, and which team is favored are usually the tiebreaker when neither back offers passing-game volume.

One scheduling note: Josh Jacobs is off Week 11 and Kimani Vidal Week 7. If these two are on your roster, you will need a fill-in running back for both weeks. DraftCall flags bye conflicts so you can plan ahead rather than panic on waivers.

Trade Value + Dynasty Outlook

Josh Jacobs is a buy in trades where the other manager is chasing upside at a different position. Kimani Vidal is a hold unless you can flip him for a positional upgrade elsewhere on your roster. Dynasty outlook: Josh Jacobs (age 28, 6 years) is past the typical RB peak. Redraft value exceeds dynasty value. Kimani Vidal (age 24) has not yet hit the RB cliff. High dynasty ceiling if volume holds.

Did You Know?

•Josh Jacobs outscored Kimani Vidal by a projected 92 total fantasy points over a full 17-game season.
•Josh Jacobs played 15 games in 2025 compared to Kimani Vidal's 12. That durability gap means Josh Jacobs contributed more total fantasy points even before you look at per-game averages.
•Josh Jacobs scored 14 total touchdowns in 2025 (0.9 per game), making him one of the more reliable scoring options at running back.
•Josh Jacobs caught 36 passes in 2025. Pass-catching backs average 2-3 more PPG in half-PPR than their non-receiving counterparts.
•Kimani Vidal is 4 years younger than Josh Jacobs (24 vs 28), which significantly impacts dynasty league trade value.

Detailed Stat Breakdown

Josh Jacobs vs Kimani Vidal: 2025 fantasy football stat comparison in the half-PPR scoring format.
Stat	Josh Jacobs	Kimani Vidal
PPG (Half-PPR)	14.6	9.2
Games Played	15	12
Total Fantasy Pts (est.)	219	110
Rushing Yards	929	643
Rush Yds/Game	61.9	53.6
Rushing TDs	13	3
Receptions	36	16
Receiving Yards	282	136
Targets	44	22
Total TDs	14	4
Age	28	24
Experience	6 yrs	1 yrs
Bye Week	Week 11	Week 7

Summary

14.6 PPG for Josh Jacobs versus 9.2 for Kimani Vidal in 2025. The baseline favors Josh Jacobs, though the right weekly matchup can flip the script. For a full breakdown that weighs matchup quality, form, and injury reports, try DraftCall's AI comparison engine.

Website vs App

Get the AI verdict on Josh Jacobs vs Kimani Vidal

DraftCall's AI analyzes matchup quality, recent trends, injury impact, and game script to give you a clear start/sit recommendation.

See everything in the app →

Launch List

Get the live verdict on Josh Jacobs vs Kimani Vidal

The DraftCall app delivers live game-day verdicts on every matchup. Join the launch list and we will email you the day it goes live for the 2026 NFL season, with your direct iOS and Android install links.

We will never share your email. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I start Josh Jacobs or Kimani Vidal in fantasy football?▾

Based on 2025 season averages, Josh Jacobs has the edge at 14.6 PPG compared to Kimani Vidal's 9.2 PPG. However, the best start depends on weekly matchup, recent form, and injury status. DraftCall's app provides real-time AI-powered verdicts that factor in all of these variables.

How many fantasy points did Josh Jacobs and Kimani Vidal average in 2025?▾

Josh Jacobs averaged 14.6 fantasy points per game (half-PPR) across 15 games in 2025. Kimani Vidal averaged 9.2 PPG over 12 games. That is a difference of 5.4 points per game.

When are Josh Jacobs and Kimani Vidal's bye weeks in 2026?▾

Josh Jacobs (GB) has a bye in Week 11, and Kimani Vidal (LAC) has a bye in Week 7. Plan your roster accordingly if you are carrying both players.

Is Josh Jacobs or Kimani Vidal a better fantasy running back in 2026?▾

Josh Jacobs outscored Kimani Vidal by 5.4 PPG in 2025, which gives him the edge heading into 2026. For a week-by-week verdict, DraftCall's AI analyzes matchup quality and recent trends in real time.