I'm curious about the bolded portion of your comment, at least as it pertains to comparing him to Jonathan Stewart. I am by no means a Mendenhall apologist and am not under the illusion that he is a transcendent talent, but his production this year has been quite impressive to me. He may not be a super special talent, but he is showing he is among the 10-12 most talented players at his position, at least in my eyes. He is playing behind one of the single worst offensive lines in football that went from bad to worse this year with a myriad of injuries, not unlike Jonathan Stewart (and after watching games closer this year, I can say that they are not a good run blocking line, which some people said entering the season). For the first 4 games of the season, the Steelers passing offense was as bad or worse than the Panthers, making the Steelers situation very equal to the Panthers (terrible offensive line and terrible passing attack). The difference was that during those first 4 weeks, Mendenhall posted impressive totals and showed previously unseen big play ability, while Stewart floundered. Now, I still fully believe that Stewart is the more talented player, but I am no longer convinced that he is a better dynasty asset. They are a push on age, but I think your bolded comment sells the ability Mendenhall has flashed way, way short. To me, he is easily close enough in talent to Stewart to warrent being above him, given how incredibly murky Stewart's situation figures to remain for the forseeable future.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
I think it's obvious that Fitz was nothing but a stop gap fill in originally. But...Just set aside his fantastic performance vs. Baltimore two weeks ago and look what he did against Buffalo Sunday. Not a good fantasy day, but Fitz showed a lot of poise and leadership. The Bills lost, but Fitz gave a gutsy performance. If not for a missed FG, Buffalo wins that game. I think Fitz can win this job for a long time with a few more performances like that.
Law Firm has now scored in 5 straight games, and he's had solid yardage (76, 104, 123) in 3 of the 5. He's not a workhorse, but he's gotten 10 or more carries every single week for 6 straight weeks. I wouldn't count on him as an RB1, but I've been using him as a low-end RB2 on a squad that's been wrecked at the position and he has consistently delivered. He's a fantastic flex play at this point. He's improved dramatically as a player from where he was a year or two ago. Now, I'm not advocating trading a future 1st for him, but I'd be very intrigued by the possibility of shipping off a 2nd rounder for him and seeing where he goes from here.
Very, very good question. I'm a bit at a loss with what to do with McFadden. Obviously I was higher on him than most coming into this season (I declared him a "must buy" last year and said that I'd easily give up a future 1st for him), but now I feel like he's hitting a bit of a mental glass ceiling in my rankings, and I'm not sure why. I have a hard time putting him in the top 6 or 8 right now, and I don't know if it's legitimate concerns, or if it's just that everyone else's bias against him has rubbed off on me and now I've got a bit of a mental block on him.If I'm being 100% objective, McFadden should be a top 6 dynasty back right now. Top 10 pedigree, and he's currently performing at around a 2400/16 level. Yet, subjectively, I'm balking at pulling the trigger. I'd really be interested in discussing McFadden more in detail, because right now I can't tell if my hesitance is some subconscious indicator, or if it's just cognitive bias getting the better of me.
Mendy's ypc has dropped from 4.6 to 4.1. His success rate has dipped from 46% to 44%. While your point about how bad Pittsburgh's passing game was to start the season is well taken, I don't know how relevant it is since Mendenhall's production has only gotten worse since Ben came back (he's averaging 3.37 ypc since Ben returned, a figure nearly identical to Stewart's).I'm not saying that Mendenhall isn't a phenomenal dynasty asset, I'm just saying that he's been struggling as much as Stewart recently (awesome aggregate stats notwithstanding), and for the exact same reason- the guys in front of him aren't getting it done. Instead of moving him up the rankings, I'm actually thinking of moving him down in favor of guys like Charles (who may be stuck in a time share, but who has somehow miraculously managed to perform EVEN MORE IMPRESSIVELY than last season) or McFadden.
corpcow
Footballguy
He was reportedly just waived. Yes, waived. It's a good thing, I guess, given that he can now choose where to go. (I'd love to see teh Jets take him, haha).In any case - aside from the mess that is MIN right now, this MAY also be a sign that Rice is on schedule.... unless they've just totally packed it in which is just as plausible.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Nice timing!
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
People who say Arian Foster is a product of the offensive line in Houston obviously do not watch the games. Foster shows great burst on his runs, catches the ball well and makes great cuts as well.
He also makes great decisions, which is important in the 1-cut scheme. There's not a single prescribed hole that the runner is targeting before the snap- instead, he's going down the line watching for a defensive lineman to get caught in the wash. Sometimes, the runner even has to make his cut before the hole opens in anticipation of a gap that hasn't even developed yet. Foster is very good at making the right choice, an attribute that is going to make it difficult for anyone else in Houston to unseat him.Back in the day Sean Alexander was EXCELLENT at this exact same thing.He also makes great decisions, which is important in the 1-cut scheme. There's not a single prescribed hole that the runner is targeting before the snap- instead, he's going down the line watching for a defensive lineman to get caught in the wash. Sometimes, the runner even has to make his cut before the hole opens in anticipation of a gap that hasn't even developed yet. Foster is very good at making the right choice, an attribute that is going to make it difficult for anyone else in Houston to unseat him.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
That's a pretty good comp. Alexander had more power, Foster better hands and maybe more elusive.Back in the day Sean Alexander was EXCELLENT at this exact same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
I don't know if we can compare him to Shawn Alexander just yet. Alexander the Great was a beast for years and had over 20 td's one year I believe. He is faster than Alexander though.That's a pretty good comp. Alexander had more power, Foster better hands and maybe more elusive.Back in the day Sean Alexander was EXCELLENT at this exact same thing.He also makes great decisions, which is important in the 1-cut scheme. There's not a single prescribed hole that the runner is targeting before the snap- instead, he's going down the line watching for a defensive lineman to get caught in the wash. Sometimes, the runner even has to make his cut before the hole opens in anticipation of a gap that hasn't even developed yet. Foster is very good at making the right choice, an attribute that is going to make it difficult for anyone else in Houston to unseat him.
FWIW, even when Shaun Alexander was putting up obscene stats year-in and year-out, people were still questioning his talent and his toughness and calling him a product of the system.
EBF
Footballguy
It's possible that Alexander was a product of the system, but also a great back. I think both of those things are true. I don't recall ever being blown away by his ability in the NFL, but if you go back and watch his college clips you can see that he was a pretty special talent in his day.
As for Foster, it's hard to argue with the results at this point. I do think Houston is a friendly offense that inflates RB production, but that doesn't mean Foster isn't a good back. I think he's definitely a cut or two above Steve Slaton, Ron Dayne, Ryan Moats, and whichever other jokers have had some success in Houston under Kubiak. I would say he's somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between Mike Anderson and Terrell Davis. At this point I really don't see Ben Tate threatening his job next year nor do I think the Texans will invest heavily in an upgrade, so I'd feel pretty comfortable with Foster as a RB starter for my dynasty team going forward.
As for Foster, it's hard to argue with the results at this point. I do think Houston is a friendly offense that inflates RB production, but that doesn't mean Foster isn't a good back. I think he's definitely a cut or two above Steve Slaton, Ron Dayne, Ryan Moats, and whichever other jokers have had some success in Houston under Kubiak. I would say he's somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between Mike Anderson and Terrell Davis. At this point I really don't see Ben Tate threatening his job next year nor do I think the Texans will invest heavily in an upgrade, so I'd feel pretty comfortable with Foster as a RB starter for my dynasty team going forward.
theglorydays
Footballguy
If given the choice, who would you guys rather have? Darren Mcfadden or Mark Ingram?
I'm in the process of attempting to trade for either Mcfadden or the first overall pick (the owner is now 0-8)
I'm leaning towards Mcfadden because if i can get him for this year i think i will have the best team and should win it this year.
I'm in the process of attempting to trade for either Mcfadden or the first overall pick (the owner is now 0-8)
I'm leaning towards Mcfadden because if i can get him for this year i think i will have the best team and should win it this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Babu Bhatt2
Footballguy
They weren't skinny, that's just the white socks tricking you.
EBF
Footballguy
Give me Ingram. I think he and teammate Trent Richardson could start for most NFL teams. They're the only two "can't-miss" RB prospects coming down the pipeline for 2011 and 2012. Ingram is a pretty complete franchise back. A rock solid 220ish pounds with plenty of speed, quickness, and agility. Those guys are rare. Maybe 1-2 per year on average. He's basically another Mendenhall/JStew/Gore/Portis/SJax without the mileage. I would take that over McFadden without much hesitation if I'm thinking long term.
theglorydays
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
It looks close right now because McFadden is in the NFL and producing, but I think you would eventually regret passing on Ingram. He's a bad man:http://espn.go.com/video/clip?categoryId=2...&id=5589012
Look at the cuts and the burst on that run starting at 0:28. That's Pro Bowl stuff.
Pro Bowl Stuff:[proh bohl stuhf]
-noun
1. skills, production, or talent which differentiates a player from his peers by a great enough degree to warrant an invitation to Hawaii.
2. what Darren McFadden has been showing every single week this season.
Seems silly to me that you're recommending passing on McFadden for Ingram because a college highlight clip of Mark Ingram is showing him demonstrating "pro bowl stuff"... while actual NFL game film of McFadden is showing the exact same thing against much stronger competition.
EBF
Footballguy
Only I don't think McFadden is showing Pro Bowl talent. I know this is hard for some people to fathom, but I genuinely don't believe that Darren McFadden is an above average NFL starting RB. To me he's a guy with lots of flaws and a few nice qualities. He has looked that way regardless of whether his stat line has been 21 carries for 111 yards or 12 carries for 35 yards. He has looked like the exact same guy. I have talked in the past about how results and performance are two different things.
The stats a player produces (or doesn't produce) aren't always a perfect indicator of how well he plays. We have seen numerous guys like Steve Slaton, Chris Brown, and Anthony Thomas post gaudy stats over a fairly large sample size. If all you had done was looked at their numbers, you might have reached the conclusion that they were elite talents, but if you had qualitatively evaluated their performance then maybe you would've realized that they were mediocre players benefiting from circumstance to ride a wave of fluke production. According to your line of thinking, it would've been foolish to advocate ranking Adrian Peterson ahead of Julius Jones in 2004. After all, Jones was "showing the exact same thing against much stronger competition" while Peterson was just a prospect dominating amateurs. Thing is, even though Jones was putting up stats against NFL competition, he wasn't "showing the exact same thing." Peterson had abilities that Jones didn't possess. This was something that could only be detected qualitatively, not through a stat sheet.EBF said:
I believe that sound player analysis involves a mixture of quantitative and qualitative work. If all you do is look at the stats, you'll fall for every Braylon Edwards, Julius Jones, and Derek Anderson who comes along and plays over his head for a while. However, if you're able to add a qualitative element to your analysis, you might recognize cases of players being over or undervalued based on discrepancies between their talent level and their results. Sometimes good players produce crappy stats. Sometimes crappy players produce good stats. I don't claim to be perfect at making accurate qualitative judgments of players and prospects, but that doesn't stop me from trying to form a solid opinion of a player's skills independent of his production.
In the case of McFadden, my qualitative opinion is that he's still a very flawed back despite his recent surge in production. He actually looks exactly the same as he has always looked. I find it silly that because he has had a few good statistical games against NFL defenses, I should suddenly be required to rank him below players who look clearly superior to me. My qualitative opinions tell me that Mark Ingram, Trent Richardson, and Jonathan Stewart are all better running backs than Darren McFadden. Does the fact that McFadden is the only one of the group currently producing useful stats in the NFL somehow nullify this? No. He just happens to be the flavor of the week because things are going his way right now. Last year everyone would've rather had Stewart. A year from now everyone will rather have Ingram. People are fickle and myopic. When attempting to gauge a player's long term value, I try not to let the short term results sway my judgment. On any given game day I'm more concerned with how a player looks than with what his stat line happens to read. I think the former is a far more important indicator of ability.
McFadden still gets an emphatic "meh" from me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate your approach...a lot of us do...but your stance on McFadden is making less and less sense. Mostly because of the bolded line. He does NOT look the same as he did last year or in college. He still has the speed. He still has decent hands. But he's NOT going down at first contact. He's shown good (not great) power and a willingness to put his pads down and drive through defenders (a player with his speed doesn't need great power...just good.) He's shown good hands, and perhaps most importantly, he's shown solid decision making.EBF said:
Darren McFadden 2010 looks like an elite back. He's not just "putting up the stats"...he looks the part.
What I think has happened is that McFadden learned the hard way he can't dominate with his speed like he did in college. He gained a little bit of lower body strength and made slight adjustments to his approach (a little more physical in game). That combined with his elite speed and voila...he's an elite back again (just like in college). Your argument is based on the flawed assumption that RB's can't make significant improvements after one season in the NFL.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
Unless you're bringing your anti-McFadden bias into the game watching experience with you (and how could you not?), I don't see how you can watch him play this year and come away with the thought that he's not playing at a Pro Bowl level. Because he absolutely is playing at a Pro Bowl level. I don't care if you pay attention to the numbers. You can ignore the fact that he's first in the NFL in rushing yards per game (111.3), yards from scrimmage per game (147.5), and first in fantasy points per game (20.5). You can ignore the fact that he's averaging more than 3.0 yard per carry above his first two years in carries up the middle, where he was supposedly weak.EBF said:
But you can't ignore the film. The game tape shows McFadden to be one of the top three or four backs in the NFL this year. He's been successful inside and outside, against bad defenses and good defenses. He's showing big-play ability while still grinding out positive yardage, finishing his runs with authority and lowering the boom on defenders.
If McFadden gets an emphatic "meh" from you, I've lost faith in your ability to judge football talent. Unless, of course, you're not watching him consistently this season. You know what they say about the eye in the sky.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
Tau837
Footballguy
Agree 100% with renesauz and F&L here. We had a similar conversation with EBF in this thread about McFadden about a week ago, and he had similar sentiments then. He went so far as to suggest that those who would change their opinions on McFadden are just following the herd by overrating the flavor of the week. IMO there is little point in debating it with him. He generally thinks that those who agree with him are "perceptive football followers" and those who don't aren't.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
His nine yard TD run last night was nice to watch. Yeah, Houston blocks the hell out of people. But he showed nice vision and strength in that TD run. People are really undervaluing Foster's talent.eaglesfan7 said:
EBF
Footballguy
Again, I don't see any difference in his physique or his play. He has always been willing to lower his shoulder and run hard. You can find plenty of runs of him doing that at Arkansas. What's changed this year is not McFadden, but the Raiders. They are more competitive than they have been in recent seasons, keeping games close and sometimes even running away with blowout wins. As a result, McFadden has been put in much more favorable situations than in the past.
If you go back and read my posts about him prior to the 2008 season, I consistently tried to acknowledge that he had some nice qualities and was capable of contributing in the NFL. If there's anything I regret about my analysis of him it's not that I was down on him compared to the other backs in the draft, but rather that I completely wrote him off after 2008/2009 instead of being receptive to the idea that he could still do something in Oakland. He's the best back on their roster and that gives him some value automatically. As to whether or not he's an above average NFL starter, I'd still say no.
No, it's based on the assumption that Darren McFadden isn't a great RB, although I don't necessarily disagree with the argument you're attributing to me. I can't think of very many running backs who went from crap to Pro Bowl caliber. Maybe Tiki Barber, Cedric Benson, and Thomas Jones qualify, but in the latter two cases you could argue that the change in situation was responsible for their success. I don't generally believe that RBs improve much in the NFL. Most of the great ones show greatness almost immediately upon receiving their first extended playing time.
Spin
Footballguy
FWIW, I gave up Blount for a first, which will probably be in the 7-10 range to someone looking to make the push into the playoffs and was hurting at RB.BJGE and (what should be) an early 2nd was also traded after this weeks games.. for (what should be) a mid 1st.
We just flat out disagree, then. Darren McFadden has easily been one of the most impressive RBs I have watched all season. Completely different player. I'm not saying "take McFadden over Ingram because McFadden is producing pretty stats", I'm saying "take McFadden over Ingram because Ingram looks like a stud against college players while McFadden looks like a stud against NFL players".EBF said:
Also, sorry for the delay on the rankings update, guys, but this week instead of just tweaking my existing rankings, I'm starting completely over from scratch. It produces a more accurate set of rankings, but obviously it takes a lot longer. I've got the Quarterback rankings updated and a change log available for you guys to peruse. I'm going to knock out the TEs right now because they should be relatively quick, but the RBs and WRs are taking a while and probably won't be finished until late tonight.
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
What kind of value does L Blount have for the rest of this season? Wondering if he is worthy of a 1st round pick. I'm not sure he holds on to the job next season or if the Bucs go and draft a back in 2011. Any thoughts on his value for the future?
This is a little harsh.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
Maybe, but it's also true. I've always appreciated EBF's ability to judge talent, so I'm hoping he just hasn't seen much of McFadden this year.
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
McFadden has been great this season. He has shown good burst, great hands, he's breaking tackles and isn't afraid to take it up the middle any longer. Denying his ability is a mistake. He was always a great prospect and has now stayed somewhat healthy and shown he can play in the NFL and produce great numbers at the same time. Oh yeah, he has great speed as well.
Babu Bhatt2
Footballguy
Probably worth a high 2d rounder or late first rounder. He has opportunity, but he strikes me as an Earnest Graham clone.
To continue the Arian Foster discussion, do you think he is a sell-high in dynasty leagues this off-season? He seems to be in a perfect storm and his value is at its absolute highest point and I don't know what to think of him 2 or 3 years down the road. To me I'm worried of him being another Rudi Johnson where he'll dominate for a few years and then fade away after that. I'm on the fence about whether taking advantage of his great year to make a killing is worth it or if he's the type of guy you'd be wanting to build around.
I owned Schaub and Roeth last season and was faced with the choice of trading either, and I deliberately sold Schaub over Roeth. I was sweating it for a while (especially over the offseason as Roethlisberger did his best to get kicked out of the league), but the results this season have restored my faith in the decision and reminded me why I made it in the first place. Schaub was never as talented as the guys ranked around him. Guys like that can be very productive for a very long time (witness: Marc Bulger, Rudi Johnson), but at the same time, their value can evaporate a lot more quickly than the guys ranked strictly on ability.Schaub has been seriously hurt by Houston's developing running game. He was last year's Kyle Orton. I'd take this opportunity to caution Orton owners about holding on to him... except for some reason, Orton's perceived value doesn't seem to be skyrocketing this season like Schaub's did last season. In most of my fantasy leagues, he's the #2 fantasy QB between Rivers and Manning, yet people are reluctant to give so much as a handful of beans for him. When the Brees owner in my dynasty league suggested that the reason he was willing to trade Brees was because he had Orton and Bradshaw on his bench, he was laughed at.All that said, it's not like Schaub's career is over. He's still just 29. He still plays for a phenomenal offensive mind. He still has Andre Johnson to throw to. If I owned him, I'd be holding him until he rides out his current slump.
I understand that a lot of scouting is subjective, and so I try to cut people some slack when we disagree, but I question how anyone could watch McFadden this season and not be impressed. Subjective or not, some things are so blindingly obvious to me that I wonder how other people don't see them. FWIW, I largely feel the same way about Arian Foster. I simply do not understand how anyone can watch him play and come away thinking he's a system back, or a product of his offense, or a fungible piece who is very likely to be shuffled off in coming seasons. I'm not saying he's Adrian Peterson, but he's a damn sight better than a lot of people are giving him credit for.
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
His value is at his highest but what would you be able to get for him? In my opinion, I would hold since he is legit and should produce no matter where he goes. He has running, receiving and blocking skills in every aspect and we saw on Monday night he is a ALL-AROUND back. He caught a bunch of passes and gets the redzone work. I have him in my dynasty league but no way am I selling right now unless I get blown away.
Babu Bhatt2
Footballguy
Too many are hung up on pre-draft value. Foster will easily be a top-10 pick next year. Don't trade him unless you get top-10 value in return.
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
Last night was the first time I got to see Foster play extensively. I was floored. I've been enjoying his points all season, but didn't realize just how good he truly was. That's just not a system back. He's fast, decisive, and doesn't seem phased when he takes a good shot. Highly impressed.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
What is so hard to, believe? EBF made a couple good points: Did the Raiders change, or did DMC change? and: RBs rarely go from bad, or below average, to great. History shows it more likely that Oakland changed, than DMC changed. So lets assume that it is a little of both. DMC is maturing and being more patient, and the OAK scheme, line, and skill players put DMC in a better position.
If you pride yourself of judging talent - so well that you KNOW that an opposing view on McFadden is simply un-thinkably wrong - you also know that RB is one of the hardest spots to judge: there are so many variables. For the same reason that late round runningbacks can regularly perform at high levels,again, external variables. Assuming we all agree on those, and remove them from the "vacuum", there is still one factor that applies to the RB position much more than any other: burst. Again, assuming you are as skilled or practiced as you think you are, you know burst is one of the more subjective, hard-to-define, intagible qualities that a player can have. We can all agree that McFaden has it right now. Under the same assumptions regarding your eability to judge talent: we can also assume that burst + room = production. I can point to any number of backs this year, or any year, really - Torain, Foster, Barber, Bradshaw to name a few.
So let's assume that DMC is a great talent, in a vacuum, independant of our burst + room = production equation. What do we have? What does he have that makes him better than average, better than above average, better than just good? He is faster than most backs in the NFL, elite even. He has good quickness and good vision, which most NFL runningbacks do. He still lacks balance, and while his patience is coming around, it is not above average. Other than that, what makes him great? Please help me understand what I am missing. Because I can tell you why, based on NFL play, McFadden would not be having this resurgence in Dallas, and if Felix was in Oakland, he would.
And before you "lose all faith" in anyone else, you can start with the FBG staff, who has yet to move McFadden in to dyansty RB1 status, even as recently as October.
Your statement re: EBF is FAR more dramatic and unreasonable than his re: McFadden, silly even.
In fact, lets make it easy, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAM2TX1I8yI
Please, do us all a favor and tell us what makes McFadden special, and what top 15 RBs in the NFL couldn't make those plays. These are his highlights from week two (simple Google search). You can use any clip you want, and tell us what RB can't get 10 yards when they aren't touched for 9. Tell us all what EBF is missing that is so clearly obvious. Use your scout lingo; use your own "film" if you want to - just share!
Last edited by a moderator:
Monday night was definitely an eye-opener. I never viewed him as much of a pass catching threat, but man did he ever impress in that area late in the game which is where the sell-high or hold dilemma came into play. The guy who currently has the 1.01 pick also has Roddy White and I'm intrigued to see if I could get both of those from him and end up with Ingram and White.
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
You're trying to get Roddy and the no. 1 pick for Foster? You would definitely have to throw something else in that deal like a mid to high tier receiver probably. I have Roddy and Foster on my dynasty team and value them about the same. I wouldn't give up either unless you overload the deal with big time upside.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
He looked really good, and Indy looked really bad.I won't get into too much, as most don't agree. But I think he is a good RB, and a good RB is still reliant on situation. Kubiak might not be there next year, Tate might be legit, Foster could want more than HOU wants to pay him, and so on and so on. Bottom line, he is scoring, and unless something changes, he will keep scoring. I wouldn't rush to sell, but I wouldn't value him as elite, either. He should be above guys like Beanie Wells, but well below Jamaal Charles, MJD, AP and players who put up elite numbers, but are also elite football players. Top 10-12. I like Leasean McCoy more, for reference, and I was not a fan of McCoy at all last year.
Last edited by a moderator:
First, I think we can put to rest any debate about what Foster's role will be next year. At this point, I don't think there can be ANY doubt that he will return as the #1 RB and the unquestioned bellcow. Barring injury, the best Tate can hope for is to carve out a solid backup role and reach something along the lines of a 70/30 split. I say this because players who look as good as Foster has, put up the numbers Foster has, and have the efficiency metrics Foster has simply don't lose their job the following season. You can lose your job if you only have production, or if you only look good, or if you only have good efficiency metrics over a small sample, but when you combine all 3, you return as the starter, plain and simple.The relevant dynasty question is what is the long term outlook for the Texans, specifically Kubiak. Foster returning as the bellcow in Kubiak's offense probably is a much better thing than Foster returning as the bellcow in a new coach's offense. Let's assume for the purpose of this discussion that Foster is the unquestioned starter again next season (which I think is a fair assumption) and not rehash that already beat to death argument. Where do people rank him if Kubiak is no longer there? What about 2 years from now, if the Texans struggle next year? This question is more important than discussing what will happen to Foster's role next year, as I think his role is firm. It's his situation that is up in the air.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
No doubt he will be the starter. I am not questioning that, unless something crazy happens and he tries to force a trade. But if Tate is a better player, eventually, Tate will take over. I don't think it is crazy to think Tate could be better. Not saying he is, or will be, I actually didn't like Tate at all, and did like Foster, sans the injury concerns, while at Rocky Top. Just pointing out that good RBs can be replaced and are on a pretty good rate, in the NFL. Elite RBs stay out of RBBC during thier careers; good RBs don't anymore.But again, like I said, he is putting up numbers, and that could continue. In FF, that is really all that matters.As for your question, honestly, I don't know. I would be quick to drop him down my personal rankings, because I am not sold. But, if I am being objective, I would also have to be just as quick to add to his staying power if he could put up these numbers wiht out the Texans running the stretch plays down teams' throat.
Last edited by a moderator:
eaglesfan7
Footballguy
I'm a Foster owner and have tried to get Ben Tate for insurance for future seasons but the owner who has him won't budge. I can't figure out the value of Tate. What should I be trying to give up to get Tate? Role player? Future pick? I don't know what to do.
Similar threads
