Arian Foster (1 Viewer)

[FantasyTrader]

Arian Foster, who has a higher ceiling but a lower floor.

Can we even say that?This season will likely end up being Foster's "floor" because of 3 games missed... even in this case, his floor will be higher than Rice's ceiling has been to date.

In only his second starting season to date, I believe Foster has both the higher floor and higher ceiling. But I still may consider Rice the safer pick. (seems counter intuitive, but it makes sense to me)

But since I am not really a safe pick kind of guy, Foster would always go #1 overall if I had the pick.

What I've come to learn is that IMO we're all full of S*** when we talk about players "floors" and "ceilings". I'm guilty of it myself. Ask Chris Johnson owners about his floor now or Sproles owners about his ceiling. Anybody would have been laughed off this board for suggesting either of those extremes in the offseason. The NFL landscape changes way too fast. All I know is that right now both Rice and Foster are very VERY good. We're splitting hairs trying to distinguish the two.

 

[Foxhound]

Foster's PPG currently takes into account his week 2 clunker, in which many, many, many owners had him on their bench in a wait and see mode. If you take that game out, he is actually averaging 26.75 points per game (closer to 27.0 than 26.0). I think it is somewhat acceptable to pull that game from his actual PPG total even though I am generally not a fan of removing outliers because so many of his owners would have had him on their bench and would not have been burned by it. So instead of the 3 point per game difference you suggested, in reality is is more like a ~6 point per game difference.

W... ...T ...F !!!!I've heard of manipulating stats to back your point, but this is some of the best work I've ever seen. Well played sir. Throwing out Foster's worst game because he probably wasn't in most owners lineups.

His worst game he reaggravated his injury and came out half way through. Also, he wasn't the feature back and was being spelled by Tate because of this injury. Ya it was a game he played in, but it wasn't a true mark of his performance. It's like including Jamaal Charles or Andre Johnson's game where they were injured in their average. They didn't play the entire game, and in Foster's case, he had training wheels on the plays he DID actually play in. Try do do some research before you accuse someone of manipulating stats.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Foster's PPG currently takes into account his week 2 clunker, in which many, many, many owners had him on their bench in a wait and see mode. If you take that game out, he is actually averaging 26.75 points per game (closer to 27.0 than 26.0). I think it is somewhat acceptable to pull that game from his actual PPG total even though I am generally not a fan of removing outliers because so many of his owners would have had him on their bench and would not have been burned by it. So instead of the 3 point per game difference you suggested, in reality is is more like a ~6 point per game difference.

W... ...T ...F !!!!I've heard of manipulating stats to back your point, but this is some of the best work I've ever seen. Well played sir. Throwing out Foster's worst game because he probably wasn't in most owners lineups.

His worst game he reaggravated his injury and came out half way through. Also, he wasn't the feature back and was being spelled by Tate because of this injury. Ya it was a game he played in, but it wasn't a true mark of his performance. It's like including Jamaal Charles or Andre Johnson's game where they were injured in their average. They didn't play the entire game, and in Foster's case, he had training wheels on the plays he DID actually play in. Try do do some research before you accuse someone of manipulating stats.

So it doesn't count. Got it.

 

[Herm23]

Foster's PPG currently takes into account his week 2 clunker, in which many, many, many owners had him on their bench in a wait and see mode. If you take that game out, he is actually averaging 26.75 points per game (closer to 27.0 than 26.0). I think it is somewhat acceptable to pull that game from his actual PPG total even though I am generally not a fan of removing outliers because so many of his owners would have had him on their bench and would not have been burned by it. So instead of the 3 point per game difference you suggested, in reality is is more like a ~6 point per game difference.

W... ...T ...F !!!!I've heard of manipulating stats to back your point, but this is some of the best work I've ever seen. Well played sir. Throwing out Foster's worst game because he probably wasn't in most owners lineups.

I probably stated it more poorly than I intended, but what I meant to infer was that Foster was still hurt, was not going to be the feature back even going into that game (the Texans had publicly talked about easing him in), and re-aggravated his injury to cause him to miss the 2nd half. While it is certainly a data point because of the fact that he played, it actually functions more like a false data point because it provides incomplete data given the circumstances at the time. Add to this the fact that most owners had him benched due to the injury concerns and the Texans comments about easing him (as opposed to Beanie Wells or Darren McFadden from this past weekend, who likely burned every one of their owners) and it is more fruitful to the discussion and analysis to exclude it.Put another way, the Arian Foster that isn't coming off a hamstring injury, isn't being eased in by his coaches, and doesn't re-injure his hamstring during the game is a 27.0 PPG player as opposed to the 24.0 PPG average that includes the injury game. I don't expect him to get hurt or sit out the 2nd half or be eased into any more games this season, thus the 27.0 PPG player is the relevant one for the discussion to me.

 

[Herm23]

Arian Foster, who has a higher ceiling but a lower floor.

Can we even say that?This season will likely end up being Foster's "floor" because of 3 games missed... even in this case, his floor will be higher than Rice's ceiling has been to date.

In only his second starting season to date, I believe Foster has both the higher floor and higher ceiling. But I still may consider Rice the safer pick. (seems counter intuitive, but it makes sense to me)

But since I am not really a safe pick kind of guy, Foster would always go #1 overall if I had the pick.

You may be entirely right that Arian Foster's floor will be the 2011 season. However, I don't feel comfortable saying that. I do feel fairly comfortable saying that I don't expect Ray Rice to perform worse than he did in 2010, which means I have a relative gauge on his floor. It may be a bad dynasty strategy on my part, but I try to avoid the unknown as much as possible when debating between otherwise like commodities. In this case, I feel I have a better feel overall for Rice- both on the high end and the low end. While I do truly believe both are dead even in terms of value, if I had a gun to my head, I would ever so slightly lean towards choosing Rice specifically because I believe I have a better feel for what I will get no matter what changes are made or where he might go in the next 3 years.That doesn't in any way make Rice more valuable. All it really says is that I take a conservative approach to my dynasty strategy and would rather go for the double/triple than the home run/grand slam because that home run/grand slam also presents a tiny, miniscule higher chance that it ends in a strikeout (to use a bad analogy that probably doesn't fit...but oh well). Home runs are great and provide more than triples, but a strikeout -vs- a triple would end in a bad loss of value (in this case, the strikeout would be that Foster leaves and/or Kubiak gets fired and Foster's stats suffer a decline).

Last but not least in this already too long post, note that I don't believe Foster would suffer greatly if the offense changed. I believe he is a top level running back and would perform as such regardless of the changes around him. However, I don't have a gauge for how much he might suffer if his situation changed from "golden" to "blah" (because I think we can all agree it would suffer to some degree, however small) which makes me feel like Rice is the safer, albeit less boom potential, play (since we have already seen his production level in a "blah" situation).

 

[Hoosier16]

Last but not least in this already too long post, note that I don't believe Foster would suffer greatly if the offense changed. I believe he is a top level running back and would perform as such regardless of the changes around him. However, I don't have a gauge for how much he might suffer if his situation changed from "golden" to "blah" (because I think we can all agree it would suffer to some degree, however small) which makes me feel like Rice is the safer, albeit less boom potential, play (since we have already seen his production level in a "blah" situation).

I'm not sure we've seen Rice in a "blah" situation yet. He has only played for Cameron, who made Ronnie Brown into the best FF RB in the league.

 

[Foxhound]

Foster's PPG currently takes into account his week 2 clunker, in which many, many, many owners had him on their bench in a wait and see mode. If you take that game out, he is actually averaging 26.75 points per game (closer to 27.0 than 26.0). I think it is somewhat acceptable to pull that game from his actual PPG total even though I am generally not a fan of removing outliers because so many of his owners would have had him on their bench and would not have been burned by it. So instead of the 3 point per game difference you suggested, in reality is is more like a ~6 point per game difference.

W... ...T ...F !!!!I've heard of manipulating stats to back your point, but this is some of the best work I've ever seen. Well played sir. Throwing out Foster's worst game because he probably wasn't in most owners lineups.

His worst game he reaggravated his injury and came out half way through. Also, he wasn't the feature back and was being spelled by Tate because of this injury. Ya it was a game he played in, but it wasn't a true mark of his performance. It's like including Jamaal Charles or Andre Johnson's game where they were injured in their average. They didn't play the entire game, and in Foster's case, he had training wheels on the plays he DID actually play in. Try do do some research before you accuse someone of manipulating stats.

So it doesn't count. Got it.

Why would it? He played less then half the game on an injured hammy and wasn't widely started because of it. If you use this game to downplay the amazing season he is otherwise having, then you are manipulating statistics much more then the guy who wants to omit this game. And in reality, a healthy Foster is head and shoulders better then any other RB in the league fantasy football wise today.

 

[Herm23]

Last but not least in this already too long post, note that I don't believe Foster would suffer greatly if the offense changed. I believe he is a top level running back and would perform as such regardless of the changes around him. However, I don't have a gauge for how much he might suffer if his situation changed from "golden" to "blah" (because I think we can all agree it would suffer to some degree, however small) which makes me feel like Rice is the safer, albeit less boom potential, play (since we have already seen his production level in a "blah" situation).

I'm not sure we've seen Rice in a "blah" situation yet. He has only played for Cameron, who made Ronnie Brown into the best FF RB in the league.

From what I have seen from Cam Cameron, he hurts Rice much more than he helps him. I obviously say this with no inside information and mostly as hyperbole, but I find it hard to believe that Rice is benefiting greatly from the offensive design. It seems to me that the Ravens shy away from the run more than most teams and have some of the more unoriginal run play calling in the league (this may simply be due to skill set, but I rarely ever see them run any tosses, sweeps, or outside running plays). When I mention his "blah" situation, I am referring to 2010 when he suffered from the same stubborn refusal to rely on the run game combined with a very mediocre offensive line (and mediocre is probably being too nice. The offensive line was terrible last year). On top of all that, he had a touchdown vulture in Willis McGahee, which severely limited his scoring opportunities. I can't help but view 2010 as the most "blah" Ray Rice's situation will ever get during his prime, although I openly admit to the possibility that I am wrong.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I own Ray Rice and am thinking about making an offer of Rice for Foster..my thinking is that at 5-1 I can take the extra bye week (Rice already had his) whereas at 2-4 the Foster owner can benefit from not having a bye...(we also give playoff spots for total points and I am way ahead and the Foster owner way behind so the bye week issue is more than a one week implication. Foster vs. Car and then Indy in weeks 15 and 16 has me drooling.

Not an insulting trade - especially in dynasty. But I'd never trade Foster for Rice. They have practically the same amount of fantasy points, and Foster missed two entire games.

 

[golfguy]

I own Ray Rice and am thinking about making an offer of Rice for Foster..my thinking is that at 5-1 I can take the extra bye week (Rice already had his) whereas at 2-4 the Foster owner can benefit from not having a bye...(we also give playoff spots for total points and I am way ahead and the Foster owner way behind so the bye week issue is more than a one week implication. Foster vs. Car and then Indy in weeks 15 and 16 has me drooling.

Not an insulting trade - especially in dynasty. But I'd never trade Foster for Rice. They have practically the same amount of fantasy points, and Foster missed two entire games.

i think you are ignoring the defenses that ray rice has played against so far compared to foster. foster also has a solid rb right behind him in tate. rice doesn't not.in ppr i'd rather have rice. foster is nice don't get me wrong, but rice has a few proven years under him. foster has 1 season and a few games.

 

[Foxhound]

I own Ray Rice and am thinking about making an offer of Rice for Foster..my thinking is that at 5-1 I can take the extra bye week (Rice already had his) whereas at 2-4 the Foster owner can benefit from not having a bye...(we also give playoff spots for total points and I am way ahead and the Foster owner way behind so the bye week issue is more than a one week implication. Foster vs. Car and then Indy in weeks 15 and 16 has me drooling.

Not an insulting trade - especially in dynasty. But I'd never trade Foster for Rice. They have practically the same amount of fantasy points, and Foster missed two entire games.

i think you are ignoring the defenses that ray rice has played against so far compared to foster. foster also has a solid rb right behind him in tate. rice doesn't not.in ppr i'd rather have rice. foster is nice don't get me wrong, but rice has a few proven years under him. foster has 1 season and a few games.

(Defense Rushing YPG Rank)Foster: Pittsburgh (12th), Oakland (16th), Baltimore (3rd), Tennessee (24th)

Rice: Pittsburgh (12th), Tennessee (24th), St. Louis (32nd), NY Jets (26th), Houston (7th), Jacksonville (10th)

What's your point? Foster's opponents are on average about 14th in the league. Rice's average about 18th.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I own Ray Rice and am thinking about making an offer of Rice for Foster..my thinking is that at 5-1 I can take the extra bye week (Rice already had his) whereas at 2-4 the Foster owner can benefit from not having a bye...(we also give playoff spots for total points and I am way ahead and the Foster owner way behind so the bye week issue is more than a one week implication. Foster vs. Car and then Indy in weeks 15 and 16 has me drooling.

Not an insulting trade - especially in dynasty. But I'd never trade Foster for Rice. They have practically the same amount of fantasy points, and Foster missed two entire games.

i think you are ignoring the defenses that ray rice has played against so far compared to foster. foster also has a solid rb right behind him in tate. rice doesn't not.in ppr i'd rather have rice. foster is nice don't get me wrong, but rice has a few proven years under him. foster has 1 season and a few games.

I'm not down on Rice. I think he's immensely talented. But he's never finished as the number one fantasy RB and Foster has. For me, this comes down to situation. Baltimore's offense is inconsistent these days, whereas Houston's offense is very good and about to get Andre Johnson back.

 

[davidwb]

what would be a fair equilizer in a Rice for Foster trade (which is even more uneven than it was when this thread was last live in late October)? would you trade foster for rise and cruz? for rice and mcgahee?

does it matter if you're the one in the position of strength? normally you would try to trade two good players for one great player in that position.

 

[jdoggydogg]

what would be a fair equilizer in a Rice for Foster trade (which is even more uneven than it was when this thread was last live in late October)? would you trade foster for rise and cruz? for rice and mcgahee? does it matter if you're the one in the position of strength? normally you would try to trade two good players for one great player in that position.

The only way a Foster owner makes either one of those trades is if he's desperate at another position.You'll need to upgrade the second player in those deals.

 

[flapgreen]

Very lucky to draw the first pick in the draft and get this guy. He will be the #1 reason I win the fantasy bowl.

 

[shadyridr]

Very lucky to draw the first pick in the draft and get this guy. He will be the #1 reason I win the fantasy bowl.

I got him 5th thanks to the hammy

 

[flapgreen]

Very lucky to draw the first pick in the draft and get this guy. He will be the #1 reason I win the fantasy bowl.

I got him 5th thanks to the hammy

Damn. Nice! Taking him first was worth the risk to me.

 

[ClownDogs]

what would be a fair equilizer in a Rice for Foster trade (which is even more uneven than it was when this thread was last live in late October)? would you trade foster for rise and cruz? for rice and mcgahee? does it matter if you're the one in the position of strength? normally you would try to trade two good players for one great player in that position.

The only way a Foster owner makes either one of those trades is if he's desperate at another position.You'll need to upgrade the second player in those deals.

I am a AFoster fan, but R.Rice/Cruz for AFoster is a pretty good offer. AFoster is 2.5ppg more than rrice in my leagues and Cruz is WR5.( i think cruz is more likely to preform this well more than not)

 

[FantasyTrader]

what would be a fair equilizer in a Rice for Foster trade (which is even more uneven than it was when this thread was last live in late October)? would you trade foster for rise and cruz? for rice and mcgahee? does it matter if you're the one in the position of strength? normally you would try to trade two good players for one great player in that position.

The only way a Foster owner makes either one of those trades is if he's desperate at another position.You'll need to upgrade the second player in those deals.

I am a AFoster fan, but R.Rice/Cruz for AFoster is a pretty good offer. AFoster is 2.5ppg more than rrice in my leagues and Cruz is WR5.( i think cruz is more likely to preform this well more than not)

I agree. I own Rice in one dynasty league and Foster in another. I don't see an appreciable difference between the two. As a Foster owner I'd be all over Rice + either McGahee/Cruz in return. Especially Cruz, I'd be hitting that Accept button the moment I saw it. And that's even factoring in that I think Cruz is playing WAY above himself this season and is more likely a mid-low WR2 long term.

 

[thatguy]

i think you are ignoring the defenses that ray rice has played against so far compared to foster. foster also has a solid rb right behind him in tate. rice doesn't not.in ppr i'd rather have rice. foster is nice don't get me wrong, but rice has a few proven years under him. foster has 1 season and a few games.

I'm not sure that PPR gives Rice the advantage you seem to think it does. In fact, the difference negligible at best; non-existent at worst.Over Rice's past 30 games: 134 receptions, 71 per/16 gamesOver Foster's past 28 games (excluding week 2 in which he played very little): 117 receptions, 67 per/16 gamesThat's 4 more points per season, or 0.25 PPG. I'd say Foster's edge in rushing yards and TD's more than makes up for that miniscule 0.25 PPG.Over the same time periods listed above:Foster: 2805 rushing yards, 1603 yards/16 games; 30 TD's, 17 TD's/16 gamesRice: 2309 rushing yards, 1231 yards/16 games; 18 TD's, 10 TD's/16 gamesThat is a HUGE difference. Granted, Rice's TD's have gone way up this season with McGahee's departure, so the TD stats are a bit misleading, but I still think Foster has the higher TD potential.As far as receiving yardage goes, it's basically a wash, with Foster having a tad more over the period in question, despite playing in 2 fewer games.Bottom line, I don't think going from non-PPR to PPR makes any difference whatsoever in the two player's respective values. Both are beasts no matter the scoring system, but no matter how you want to slice it, the numbers show that Foster is quite simply more beastly.

 

[thatguy]

All that being said, I do think Rice is the safer pick of the two, for two reasons:

1) This has been mentioned, but Foster would be hurt far more than would Rice by a change of scenery. And furthermore, I think Rice's position in Baltimore is more stable. It's hard to say what will happen when Foster inevitably asks to get paid, and Houston knows they have a very capable replacement in Ben Tate. Now, Tate is no Foster, but he is an extremely talented RB in his own right and would probably be starting for at least half the teams in the league right now. If Foster does eventually end up playing for another team, I think he'll still be a stud, but his numbers will surely take a hit. Houston is just about the best landing spot in the NFL for a RB, especially one with Foster's unique skillset.

2) While the 2 are essentially the same age (Foster is ~5 months Rice's elder), and Rice has about a season's worth of mileage on Foster, I get the feeling that Rice will nonetheless have a longer shelf life. I don't really know why, chalk if up to a gut instinct. He has a smaller frame, runs lower to the ground. It just seems like the bigger backs, especially those with more an upright running style, have more a tendency to break down sooner. Again, this is more of a gut feeling than anything--I have nothing verifiable with which to back it up.