Texans RB Breakdown (1 Viewer)

[hines]

with Foster seemingly having no limitations tonight and getting the lions share of the touches (18 carries and 6 receptions to Tate's 9 and 2) are things back to normal for Houston with Foster getting his and Tate working in or do we think Tate will be so effective he will force his way to more carries? Tonight Tate averaged 6.1 and Foster 3.2 but I think the true gap came in the eyeball test. Foster was solid picking his way through holes and avoiding hard contact as usual but Tate brought a lot more punch to his runs and looks like the faster player.

Will it stay 2/1 in favor of Arian all season?

 

[Eminence]

Tate looked too good not to be getting carries. Foster is definitely the goal line, short yardage, garbage time back. But Tate is definitely a guy they call on to spark a big play, he's more explosive than Foster, imo. Uses his raw athleticism to eat up yards.

 

[ChainsawU]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

 

[ChainsawU]

Uses his raw athleticism to eat up yards.

 

[hines]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

yes I did. bringing punch to his runs means he is running more physical and powerful and faster is self-explanatory. you are saying that Foster played worse than Tate because he is mad about a situation that has him getting 2/3rds of the carries? that is far fetched. I think Tate is the much better runner at this point

 

[Otis]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

Foster owner?

 

[kd1]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

yes I did. bringing punch to his runs means he is running more physical and powerful and faster is self-explanatory. you are saying that Foster played worse than Tate because he is mad about a situation that has him getting 2/3rds of the carries? that is far fetched. I think Tate is the much better runner at this point

lol "much better runner at this point". when did the change take place over who was the better runner? somewhere between the texans last postseason game, and the 1st regular season game of this season?

so weird how badly people want to write off foster.

 

[ChainsawU]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

Foster owner?

I am not biased as a Foster owner. I am biased from having money on the Texans and needing yardage from a lesser RB than the one standing on the sideline.

 

[Eminence]

Uses his raw athleticism to eat up yards.

You watch the game? He shot out of the gate like a Championship race horse. Shed one tackle in particular that caught my attention.

 

[Otis]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

Foster owner?

I am not biased as a Foster owner. I am biased from having money on the Texans and needing yardage from a lesser RB than the one standing on the sideline.

I think you meant to say "yes."

 

[ChainsawU]

I don't own Arian Foster in any leagues. Never have.

 

[hines]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

yes I did. bringing punch to his runs means he is running more physical and powerful and faster is self-explanatory. you are saying that Foster played worse than Tate because he is mad about a situation that has him getting 2/3rds of the carries? that is far fetched. I think Tate is the much better runner at this point

lol "much better runner at this point". when did the change take place over who was the better runner? somewhere between the texans last postseason game, and the 1st regular season game of this season?

so weird how badly people want to write off foster.

he's not done, he's still a good runner and they clearly trust him in passing situations more than Tate but my eyes and the stats tonight show Tate as the stronger runner

 

[citsalp]

Foster was rusty, and it showed, Tate did look good. Foster's glide step was less explosive than normal, the vision was there but the legs wouldn't get him where he wanted fast enough. Tate had more burst, but less vision....That's what I saw anyway...and yes I own Foster.

 

[[icon]]

Definitely the start of the changing of the guard.... Fosters decline definitely starts this year. Will be surprised if Tate doesn't begin taking the job next year if still around.

 

[duaneok66]

• For those that watched the game, I think we can agree that at least in this game, Tate looked like the better player. Now Foster probably comes back and shows more next week. It's hard to be at the top of your game in your first action off a long layoff.

We will see.

 

[Papa Georgio]

Foster owner

Tate has more burst always has. Foster is a glider. It appeared with my biased eyes the defense was keying more on Foster and that Tate had more room to run. I'm actually happy with the split and worked out more in Fosters favor than I expected for this game. Foster did look rusty (at least I hope that's it and not a true decline).

 

[jsharlan]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

 

[We Tigers]

Foster was rusty, and it showed, Tate did look good. Foster's glide step was less explosive than normal, the vision was there but the legs wouldn't get him where he wanted fast enough. Tate had more burst, but less vision....That's what I saw anyway...and yes I own Foster.

Yep, not a shock. He didn't practice all preseason so I'm not surprised he's not at maximum Foster. Perhaps most importantly, the back and calf issues he had in the preseason showed no sign of lingering effects--he didn't shy from contact, didn't get up slow, wasn't tentative. He got more work than I expected (in part because I didn't expect the Texans to have to scrape and claw for the win).Tate looked very good, and a healthy Tate likely means the 8-12 touches a game he got in 2011.

 

[zamboni]

For a team with deep playoff expectations, the Texans could very well want to keep both backs fresh and use both liberally.

Could be another team added to the RBBC pile. Sucks for fantasy purposes, but that's the way it is these days in the NFL.

 

[Bad_Mo]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

I didn't watch every snap of the game but do remember seeing Foster drop at least two catchable passes. His hands didn't look impressive at all last night.

 

[Buckna]

Definitely the start of the changing of the guard.... Fosters decline definitely starts this year. Will be surprised if Tate doesn't begin taking the job next year if still around.

Tate is an UFA, and Hou will be giving Watt the largest contract ever for a defensive player next year. Tate will be playing for someone else.

 

[hxperson]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean?

I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

 

[Shutout]

What I saw loast night as a long-time Texans and Foster watcher is:

Foster is clearly working his way in. The points in the game where Tate was playing is very typical for how the splits have been handled in the past. However, Tate was getting an extra play here and there and got an extra series last night, back to back, and that never happens.

Foster was rusty is the best way to say it. He clearly isn't polished in his route running yet and his hands showed he hasn't practiced at game speed. He dropped a few balls that are normally no problem with him.

His vision is there. His power is not. He does not have his "game legs" under him yet. He is much more powerful than he showed last night. Could that be a related issue to his back? Sure. But the fact that he is out there I think suggests that his strength and conditioning isn't there yet and that makes sense, given his limitations in training camp.

The texans were emptying the backfield more last night than normal. I usually don't see that like that. Usually it is Foster swinging out of the backfield but not going into motion. Not sure if that was a game-specific thing or a new wrinkle this year but Foster didn't look well rehearsed with it.

They were running Foster to the left a lot last night and the left side of the line struggled with SD. Tate was doing a lot of running to the right and they fared much better. Both backs, to me, did well when they went off-center on either side and I'm surprised they didn't do that more.

There have been very few games over the last few years where Foster only touched the ball this many times but it IS consistent with his fantasy production when he does. Against the Titans last year he had about the same ff points with 14 touches and again against the Patriots on 15.

Instead of looking at Foster under the microscope, I look at it from a broader sense, understanding Foster's situation and his role. He was in there when he should have been. He is still the guy in there during the heavy lifting and at the goal line.

Overall, he will be fine. Last night, much like this week, was a quirky one. The opportunities were there where Foster easily could have had a TD but the Texans threw 3 TDs all to TEs (very unusual for them). Of all the RBs taken in the 1st round this year and expected to put up big numbers, only ADP, Charles, Rice, and Martin outscored him (edited to add Shady). There is a LONG list of RBs (and other skill players) that found themselves with strange stats this week.

 

[We Tigers]

Overall, he will be fine. Last night, much like this week, was a quirky one. The opportunities were there where Foster easily could have had a TD but the Texans threw 3 TDs all to TEs (very unusual for them). Of all the RBs taken in the 1st round this year and expected to put up big numbers, only ADP, Charles, Rice, and Martin outscored him (edited to add Shady). There is a LONG list of RBs (and other skill players) that found themselves with strange stats this week.

That always cracks me up. The play action to the TE is ALWAYS there for the Texans at the goal line. I guess teams don't have a choice, but I still chuckle.

 

[jsharlan]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

I didn't watch every snap of the game but do remember seeing Foster drop at least two catchable passes. His hands didn't look impressive at all last night.

So based on a few snaps in one game, you have deemed Tate a better receiver? If only the two of them had played in dozens of games in the past so a evaluated opinion could be formed.....oh wait.

 

[jsharlan]

Overall, he will be fine. Last night, much like this week, was a quirky one. The opportunities were there where Foster easily could have had a TD but the Texans threw 3 TDs all to TEs (very unusual for them). Of all the RBs taken in the 1st round this year and expected to put up big numbers, only ADP, Charles, Rice, and Martin outscored him (edited to add Shady). There is a LONG list of RBs (and other skill players) that found themselves with strange stats this week.

That always cracks me up. The play action to the TE is ALWAYS there for the Texans at the goal line. I guess teams don't have a choice, but I still chuckle.

Its there because the defense is afraid of the run, Foster has been too good at the goal line. They would rather take the chance of Schaub making a mistake, which is usually more likely. Last night Schaub was actually the main bright spot.

 

[jsharlan]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean?

I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

 

[hxperson]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean?

I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

When a player gets more first team reps, they are going to understand the plays better with the starters in place, and therefore get a better sense for the timing of the holes and recognition of how the holes will develop. This could in turn make a player look like they have better vision on the field than someone who isn't getting those reps. My point isn't that hard to understand, so I'm a bit surprised that it was lost on you. Note that I also said "could"...meaning that I'm open to that possibility but don't neccessarily believe it, and stated twice that think Foster has better vision.

I don't disagree with your thought on the splits - Kubiak trusts him, has done a great job at the starting position and is clearly not worse than Tate (yet?). There is no reason to change the starter when he is doing a good job. But I disagree with the notion that Foster is more talented or obviously better than Tate.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean?

I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Aren't power runners usually the ones that break tackles. Seems contradictory.

 

[We Tigers]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean? I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Aren't power runners usually the ones that break tackles. Seems contradictory.

I don't think so. Power and zone are schemes; breaking tackles/evasiveness are skill coupled with scheme.

 

[hxperson]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean? I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Aren't power runners usually the ones that break tackles. Seems contradictory.

I don't think so. Power and zone are schemes; breaking tackles/evasiveness are skill coupled with scheme.

Yeah..from what I've observed I feel Foster is better at breaking tackles, while Tate is better at moving the pile.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean? I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Aren't power runners usually the ones that break tackles. Seems contradictory.

I don't think so. Power and zone are schemes; breaking tackles/evasiveness are skill coupled with scheme.

Yeah..from what I've observed I feel Foster is better at breaking tackles, while Tate is better at moving the pile.

I see where you are coming from. I would phrase a power runner as someone who breaks tackles but an elusive runner as someone who makes people miss. Either way, I get what you are saying. I have been a Foster owner for a few years but I am not as high on his prospects as I have been in the past. Hope I am wrong...

 

[Hybrid]

Subjectively, Tate is the better runner, Foster has better vision and is better on third downs and near the goal-line. I could see the Texans going to more of a 50/50 split with carries unless Tate proves unworthy, with Foster getting the receptions and touchdowns. Not saying this WILL happen, but I could see it easily, which would concern me as a Foster owner.

 

[jsharlan]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean?

I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

When a player gets more first team reps, they are going to understand the plays better with the starters in place, and therefore get a better sense for the timing of the holes and recognition of how the holes will develop. This could in turn make a player look like they have better vision on the field than someone who isn't getting those reps. My point isn't that hard to understand, so I'm a bit surprised that it was lost on you. Note that I also said "could"...meaning that I'm open to that possibility but don't neccessarily believe it, and stated twice that think Foster has better vision.

I don't disagree with your thought on the splits - Kubiak trusts him, has done a great job at the starting position and is clearly not worse than Tate (yet?). There is no reason to change the starter when he is doing a good job. But I disagree with the notion that Foster is more talented or obviously better than Tate.

The point being lost is you think it is simply a skill acquired through repetition, where I believe much like speed, it is a natural ability you either have or you don't. No amount of reps is going to make Tate have a better football mind than Foster. Much like no amount of sprinting is suddenly going to make Foster faster than Tate.

 

[jsharlan]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean? I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Aren't power runners usually the ones that break tackles. Seems contradictory.

I don't think so. Power and zone are schemes; breaking tackles/evasiveness are skill coupled with scheme.

Well said.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I genuinely think Tate is the better athlete at this point in their careers. Granted, Foster was obviously rusty but he still looks like the same high volume back that's going to struggle to maintain any type of gaudy YPC this year.

Foster's intangibles dwarf Tate's however and that's never going to change. When HOU needs to win (like last night) we will always see a heavy dose a Foster. I'd be afraid of blowouts if I was a Foster owner however. I don't think Kubiak will hesitate to sit Foster in the 4th quarter of games where they are well ahead this year.

 

[hxperson]

Tate was fortunate to have some wide open lanes created by the line when he got his touches. Foster not so much. Foster is still more talented, has better vision, is a better receiver, and is plain tougher. Anyone you thinks Tate is better simply doesn't watch the Texans very often.

Disagree with this. Talent is such a subjective measure - what does that even mean?

I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. Having both guys on my fantasy teams throughout the years, as well as other Texans, I have watched nearly every Texans game over the last few years, as have I'm sure many people here who would agree with me in saying that I have never observed Foster to be either faster or stronger than Tate. There are times when Foster looks that way, but as a whole I'd say Tate is slightly better in that area. Foster definitely has the edge in vision and elusiveness though.

Yesterday I think it was quite obvious that Tate was faster, stronger, and more explosive. Foster was likely rusty so his vision and elusiveness weren't good enough to match Tate's attributes last night.

His vision be better because he plays more? Thats like saying someone is fast because they run alot. Its ridiculous. You either have an analytical mind or you don't. I will give you that Tate has more straight line speed than Foster. Unfortunately for Tate, just being faster doesn't make you a better running back. Foster is better at the cut back, he is better at breaking tackles, and he has better awareness of first down markers when he is going down. Tate is a better power runner. Thats why he is the complimentary back. The ZBS requires vision. This is why Tate will never supplant Foster without injury. Thats if he stays healthy himself. Tate has missed much more time than Foster ever has. People are looking at this one game in a vacuum. Foster's body of work is much better and I expect him to receive 2/3 of the carries every week they are both healthy. Tate will make an excellent power back on someone else's roster next season. I have a very hard time seeing any scenario where a healthy Tate gets more opportunities than a healthy Foster.

When a player gets more first team reps, they are going to understand the plays better with the starters in place, and therefore get a better sense for the timing of the holes and recognition of how the holes will develop. This could in turn make a player look like they have better vision on the field than someone who isn't getting those reps. My point isn't that hard to understand, so I'm a bit surprised that it was lost on you. Note that I also said "could"...meaning that I'm open to that possibility but don't neccessarily believe it, and stated twice that think Foster has better vision.

I don't disagree with your thought on the splits - Kubiak trusts him, has done a great job at the starting position and is clearly not worse than Tate (yet?). There is no reason to change the starter when he is doing a good job. But I disagree with the notion that Foster is more talented or obviously better than Tate.

The point being lost is you think it is simply a skill acquired through repetition, where I believe much like speed, it is a natural ability you either have or you don't. No amount of reps is going to make Tate have a better football mind than Foster. Much like no amount of sprinting is suddenly going to make Foster faster than Tate.

OK. In that case I'm quite certain you are flat out wrong. Most people do in fact acquire skills through repetition, and especially skills that incorporate some sort of pattern recognition. Have you not read Malcolm Gladwell's book?

As I've said before, I do think Foster naturally has better vision, but we can't possibly be certain of that unless we have observed the players in a vaccuum where both players have received the same amount of first team reps. The evidence points towards it, but there could be some bias in it.

I also think your comparision is silly, because there is nothing ridiculous about saying that someone is a faster runner because they work on their running more than someone else. Do you really think people can't improve on something by working hard at it?

 

[jsharlan]

Improving on something doesn't replace natural talent. I could make the dumbest kid in school better at math with alot of work, but he will still never catch the smart kid that comes in and just aces tests without even studying. I could run 40s all day for a year and Barry Sanders would still get off the couch and put a whooping on me. Not to mention you act like Tate doesn't get lots of reps in practice, he does. If his vision was better than Fosters, the coaches would see it and he'd play more. Foster simply has more natural talent in that area and its the #1 ability the scheme requires.

 

[hxperson]

Improving on something doesn't replace natural talent. I could make the dumbest kid in school better at math with alot of work, but he will still never catch the smart kid that comes in and just aces tests without even studying. I could run 40s all day for a year and Barry Sanders would still get off the couch and put a whooping on me. Not to mention you act like Tate doesn't get lots of reps in practice, he does. If his vision was better than Fosters, the coaches would see it and he'd play more. Foster simply has more natural talent in that area and its the #1 ability the scheme requires.

And you make it sound like Tate always makes the wrong cuts or can't find any holes. You don't have a career YPC of 5.1 with poor vision, or average more than a half a yard per carry more than your counterpart if the difference in vision between the two is that of the "dumbest kid in school" and the "smart kid" that aces tests, considering that vision is so important to ZBS as you suggest.

Anyways, you have your closed minded thoughts and I disagree with them....good luck to you. I'm sorry to everyone else for dragging this out.

 

[ChainsawU]

Have you not read Malcolm Gladwell's book?

 

[Chaka]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

Why do you think Foster is pissed about the timeshare?

 

[GregR]

Lately I'm getting the impression that Foster is not running as physically as he did early on. I probably need to go watch a bunch of his runs specifically for that and compare to some in his first season. But feeling like he's more likely to go low and avoid contact at times now, when getting physical and attacking the defender might have gotten a few more yards, possibly broken a tackle.

 

[ChainsawU]

Foster was pissed off about the timeshare and it was in his head enough to cause him a few dropped passes and lapses in judgement because of the frustration. I don't think the timeshare is good for him. And I disagree with Tate "bringing punch to his runs" and being faster than Foster. What does that even mean? Trust me though, Arian is not digging this timeshare at all and it is affecting his play. Did you watch the game?

Why do you think Foster is pissed about the timeshare?

Reading his lips, he said it was "####### bull####" when there was confusion about him missing the second series in a row.

 

[Buckna]

I genuinely think Tate is the better athlete at this point in their careers. Granted, Foster was obviously rusty but he still looks like the same high volume back that's going to struggle to maintain any type of gaudy YPC this year.

Foster's intangibles dwarf Tate's however and that's never going to change. When HOU needs to win (like last night) we will always see a heavy dose a Foster. I'd be afraid of blowouts if I was a Foster owner however. I don't think Kubiak will hesitate to sit Foster in the 4th quarter of games where they are well ahead this year.

No need to worry about that this year. Hou's schedule is brutal. They are going to be in for a tough year with @Balt, Sea, @SF, Stl, @KC before the bye. There's an easier stretch in the middle with division games & Oak & Ari but they've got the Pats & Bronco's late in the season too.

 

[jsharlan]

Improving on something doesn't replace natural talent. I could make the dumbest kid in school better at math with alot of work, but he will still never catch the smart kid that comes in and just aces tests without even studying. I could run 40s all day for a year and Barry Sanders would still get off the couch and put a whooping on me. Not to mention you act like Tate doesn't get lots of reps in practice, he does. If his vision was better than Fosters, the coaches would see it and he'd play more. Foster simply has more natural talent in that area and its the #1 ability the scheme requires.

And you make it sound like Tate always makes the wrong cuts or can't find any holes. You don't have a career YPC of 5.1 with poor vision, or average more than a half a yard per carry more than your counterpart if the difference in vision between the two is that of the "dumbest kid in school" and the "smart kid" that aces tests, considering that vision is so important to ZBS as you suggest.

Anyways, you have your closed minded thoughts and I disagree with them....good luck to you. I'm sorry to everyone else for dragging this out.

You claim Foster's vision is better solely because of more game reps, and I'm the close minded one? I'll give you my analogies are exaggerated, Tate by no means has bad vision, but I think the gap between him and Foster in that area is still significant. Tate will run hard through holes and put his head down to drive defenders forward, but Foster has always been more patience to let a stretch play develop and better at finding cut back lanes when the designed one isn't there. Tate will be a very good power back for someone next year, but until Foster breaks down I think he is the superior back for this system.

 

[GregR]

I don't remember the moment Chainsaw is talking about with Foster, but then I'm frequently rewinding to watch a play again and then fast forwarding right up to the snap.

But Houston media guy Nick Wright was just on NFL Network and tore Foster a new one over what Chainsaw is talking about. He also was getting on Foster about his attitude in general.

For those who didn't hear about it, Foster had a press conference when he was first returning from injury where he was not exactly very cooperative with the media. A lot of the media got up in arms about it. I thought they had a point but also thought it was a little overblown based on that actual presser. Though it had the feel of them letting out what they'd maybe kept inside for a bit. Anyway, Wright was getting on Foster for his attitude towards preseason, etc. (Wright is a radio host, but I'd put him in the bottom quarter of Houston radio for who I'd turn to for good opinions.)

ButI can't say I disagreed with much that he said about the on field stuff. I'm not going to say Foster has definitely become entitled, but I've been starting to feel a bit of that vibe from him a number of different times now. This is the first I'm starting to actually worry about impact on football performance though. He's always been a different kind of guy than most, but through that I always felt he was dedicated to his play on the field. Now I am starting to wonder a little.

 

[hxperson]

Improving on something doesn't replace natural talent. I could make the dumbest kid in school better at math with alot of work, but he will still never catch the smart kid that comes in and just aces tests without even studying. I could run 40s all day for a year and Barry Sanders would still get off the couch and put a whooping on me. Not to mention you act like Tate doesn't get lots of reps in practice, he does. If his vision was better than Fosters, the coaches would see it and he'd play more. Foster simply has more natural talent in that area and its the #1 ability the scheme requires.

And you make it sound like Tate always makes the wrong cuts or can't find any holes. You don't have a career YPC of 5.1 with poor vision, or average more than a half a yard per carry more than your counterpart if the difference in vision between the two is that of the "dumbest kid in school" and the "smart kid" that aces tests, considering that vision is so important to ZBS as you suggest.

Anyways, you have your closed minded thoughts and I disagree with them....good luck to you. I'm sorry to everyone else for dragging this out.

You claim Foster's vision is better solely because of more game reps, and I'm the close minded one? I'll give you my analogies are exaggerated, Tate by no means has bad vision, but I think the gap between him and Foster in that area is still significant. Tate will run hard through holes and put his head down to drive defenders forward, but Foster has always been more patience to let a stretch play develop and better at finding cut back lanes when the designed one isn't there. Tate will be a very good power back for someone next year, but until Foster breaks down I think he is the superior back for this system.

where did I say that? I didn't say anything close to that.

I said "I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. " Do you know the definition of "could"? It means something very different from "solely". Also, "first team reps" are a bit different from "game reps". I suggest you talk to Allen Iverson.

 

[jsharlan]

Here is a gif of the moment I think Chainsaw is talking about:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/br-cdn/temp_images/2013/09/10/fosterunhappy.gif

I also think Foster overblew his injuries because he didn't want to go to camp.

 

[cstu]

Getting tired of the pissing match. Tate is good, we've known that since his rookie year. He's going to get 8-10 carries a game.

Foster didn't look himself last night but it was only one game. For each of the last 3 years he's never had higher that a 3.3 YPC in week 1.

 

[jsharlan]

Improving on something doesn't replace natural talent. I could make the dumbest kid in school better at math with alot of work, but he will still never catch the smart kid that comes in and just aces tests without even studying. I could run 40s all day for a year and Barry Sanders would still get off the couch and put a whooping on me. Not to mention you act like Tate doesn't get lots of reps in practice, he does. If his vision was better than Fosters, the coaches would see it and he'd play more. Foster simply has more natural talent in that area and its the #1 ability the scheme requires.

And you make it sound like Tate always makes the wrong cuts or can't find any holes. You don't have a career YPC of 5.1 with poor vision, or average more than a half a yard per carry more than your counterpart if the difference in vision between the two is that of the "dumbest kid in school" and the "smart kid" that aces tests, considering that vision is so important to ZBS as you suggest.

Anyways, you have your closed minded thoughts and I disagree with them....good luck to you. I'm sorry to everyone else for dragging this out.

You claim Foster's vision is better solely because of more game reps, and I'm the close minded one? I'll give you my analogies are exaggerated, Tate by no means has bad vision, but I think the gap between him and Foster in that area is still significant. Tate will run hard through holes and put his head down to drive defenders forward, but Foster has always been more patience to let a stretch play develop and better at finding cut back lanes when the designed one isn't there. Tate will be a very good power back for someone next year, but until Foster breaks down I think he is the superior back for this system.

where did I say that? I didn't say anything close to that.

I said "I think Foster definitely has better vision, but that could be a function of having more first team reps. " Do you know the definition of "could"? It means something very different from "solely". Also, "first team reps" are a bit different from "game reps". I suggest you talk to Allen Iverson.

Tate got all of the first team reps in camp(got alot last camp too since Foster had another preseason "injury"), and when he comes in the game he's playing with the first team so not sure what you're driving at. Regardless,I'm beating my head against a wall, so I'm gonna check out of this one.