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!
If you look at the table Foster is only at 4.3 YPC. It's clear Tate is the superior runner. Although, Foster definitely is one of the best receiving backs in the NFL.
Either my sarcasm detector needs adjusting, or you really needs to watch some Texans' games.
swing, and a miss.
Drawing any definitive conclusions based upon the stats from 66 carries is just silly.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Obviously the system in Houston makes / has made a few guys, including Tate himself, look pretty good.Tate being better is still utterly absurd considering that a pretty solid NFL franchise gave Foster almost 3x the carries while trying to win games last season, then made Foster one of the highest paid RBs in football this offseason while letting Mario Williams and some starting OL walk. If Houston thinks Tate is even in the same ballpark as Foster neither the workload nor Foster's contract shake out the way they did.
Again, the problem with starting Tate in those games is that while they appear to look like great starts, they don't look any better than the week 16 game at home versus Indy in 2011. In that game, Tate went 6 for (-1).
This is a great point. Nobody is in a better position to truly evaluate Foster vs. Tate than the coaching staff and front office in Houston. With the large contract extension given to Foster (while showing a willingness to let other great players walk away) definitely is a very strong indication that they view Foster as a pretty special RB. They also had to have known that a contract this big means that they may have to let Tate walk in FA if he gets a big deal.I often err on the side of trusting NFL decision makers (when you can figure out what they are likely thinking) over the insights of fantasy football commentators. For example, I wasn't sure what to think of Cam Newton last year. The fantasy football folks in general thought very little of him and you'd see him rated below mid-round draft picks that they fell in love with (Greg Salas, Kendall Hunter, etc.). I read about how much due diligence the Panthers front office put into finding out as much as they could about Newton and trusted that they knew what they were doing and ended up w/ Newton in all of my dynasty leagues. While it is always easy to find examples of football people making bad decisions, overall I think people pay too little attention to contract and draft decisions that NFL front offices make. (Obviously trusting front office decisions doesn't always lead to success. I overpaid for Santonio Holmes in one dynasty in part due to the fact that he was such a hot commodity in FA. That didn't end up working out quite so well....)
Couldn't agree more with the bolded. I always chuckle a bit when I see people trusting their own eyes based on a two minute YouTube video over the opinions of people who invest millions into making personnel decisions.'bengalbuck said:
If Foster is truly an elite back then Tate doesn't have to be as good as him to be a productive NFL starter. Foster is a popular choice as one of the top 3-4 RBs picked in dynasty and redraft leagues. If we assume that he's actually that good, it stands to reason that Tate could be quite a bit worse and still have a long and productive career as a starter in the league. Moreover, there are lots of variables involved in personnel decisions. It's not necessarily accurate to frame Houston's decision to hand Foster an extension as choosing him over a guy like Mario Williams or a guy like Ben Tate. We don't know what type of money Williams was looking for and whether or not his demands would have been absurd (well...at least I don't). It seems he got a lot more money than Foster though. And with Tate already on a cheap contract for another two years, there's really no reason why they'd extend him. Having said that, I agree that their decision to pay Foster a lot of money shows they think he's a very good player and a significant improvement over a street-level replacement. In that regard he's obviously different than a guy like Ron Dayne or Steve Slaton. I don't personally believe he's a top 3 NFL runner, but he's a solid starter with two very good years under his belt and he brings a lot of value in the passing game. As a pure runner, I still think it's possible that Tate is superior.ETA: The "personnel departments know best" argument is generally a pretty good one, but also an ironic choice considering that all 32 teams passed on Foster when he was coming out of college. If he's such an obviously elite talent, why did he go undrafted? The answer is that personnel departments don't get every evaluation right. And obviously that's relevant to this particular argument.'bengalbuck said:
Reasonable people change their minds all the time when presented with new information. I was skeptical of Foster at first also. Then he ripped the league a new ##### in 2010, and again last year. Consider my mind changed. At this point, I don't really care if he's a top-10 NFL guy in a top-2 system or a top-2 guy in a top-10 system. What matters is that over a pretty good sized sample he's been the best RB in fantasy football. By a lot. The extension locks him into the great situation for as far out as is reasonable to project, so he's easily a top-3 fantasy RB by any measure.It's absolutely unreasonable to assume that Houston gave the better pure runner 7 carries / game while the other guy got 20 and the team was in the midst of a push to make the playoffs.
There's a long list of elite running backs who were backups at various points in their NFL careers. LeSean McCoy, Ray Rice, Shaun Alexander, Deuce McAllister, Larry Johnson, Rashard Mendenhall, Darren Sproles, Michael Turner, and Priest Holmes didn't start out as "the man" for their teams. Arian Foster got half as many carries in 2009 as Steve Slaton. Does that mean it was "absolutely unreasonable to assume" that Houston gave the better pure runner half as many carries as a scrub like Slaton?
By your criteria, virtually any RB in the NFL "might be elite." Most of us prefer to look at "within the realm of reasonable possibilty." You're still holding on to your totally untenable "Foster isn't any good because he wasn't drafted" position, but now doing so indirectly by saying things like he's not a top-3 talent and talking about how the system makes him better. Let's nail things down. Where do you rank both Foster and Tate for dynasty purposes, both among RBs and overall?
No, I'm not "holding on to" that position. I haven't said that anywhere in this thread or even implied it. All I've said is that I have my doubts about whether or not Foster is truly an elite top 3-4 type of NFL RB, and that I think it's possible that Tate is better. This is not even remotely close to saying Foster is not any good. What I'm saying is actually not very controversial at all, but you're just extending it to absurd extremes. Reasons to like Tate? He had a high YPC, was a high draft pick, has great physical tools, and passes the eyeball test. Plenty of good reasons there. None of this means he is certainly better than Foster, and I've never suggested that he's clearly the superior option. Looking around the league though, he's one of the current backups that I'd target if I were looking to gamble on someone who could eventually jump up into the top 10-20 range. I think he has that potential. I don't feel that way about "virtually any RB in the NFL." I don't keep a constantly updated list of dynasty rankings, so I can't really say where I'd rank them. In terms of relative cost, I probably like Tate more in the middle rounds than Foster in the top 10. I wouldn't spend a top 10 dynasty pick on Foster. To me he's a bit overvalued right now.
I watch as much football as my time allows, college and NFL. Comparing Tate to the likes of Hillis and Bush are laughable.Explain to me why Tate has a better YPC in the situations noted above when he is not threat at all in the receiving game. Foster is a threat to run and receive, why is his YPC so putrid?'Coeur de Lion said:
Tate had a better YPA than McCoy, Rice, Foster, Peterson, MJD, Lynch, CJ2K etc etcWhat is your point? is he a better back than ANY of those guys? Nearly all of those guys I just mentioned are major threats in the receiving game.
You obviously haven't been paying attention. When did I say that "because Tate had a better (overall) YPC it makes him better than those guys" you listed? Can you even read?
I can read quite well. Perhaps you forgot what you wrote not 5 posts above the last one. So I posted it for you, again. And since YPC is the ONLY thing that Tate had better #s in than Foster, than you must be basing you're idiotic "How much better tate is than foster" statement on just that; YPC.Cuz it sure as hell isn't rushing yards... rushing touchdowns... receiving yards... receiving TDs..... First downs... etc etc
Try again.
You sound like you watch enough Texans games to tell me I should watch some more. So tell me, did the Texans run more or less single-back sets in 2011 versus 2010? How about I-Formations? Tell me who was the better runner in single-back sets last year? Does excelling in single-back sets (you know, the formation where a "true" Zone-blocking scheme is run from), compared to I-formation (where there is a lead blocker), signify that you are a more dynamic RB and better suited to run behind the Texans O-line and their Zone-blocking?
Please refrain from spoiling Xue's fantastic arguments of how Tate is the superior back.I'm starting to consider taking Tate #1 overall and handcuffing him with Foster in rnd 7-8
Not many straight backups come with a 7th round price tag either. That's Tate's problem this year, IMO. I don't hate Tate himself, but he's a pure backup being drafted ahead of guys that can start for teams every week.
He scored 6 PPG (RB50) when Foster played last year; that's more of a "what the #$%&!?!?" flex to me. In 10 - 12 team leagues there will be better guys on the waiver wire all year to cover byes and/or injuries.
The ratio of carries between Foster and Tate was 20 : 7 last year. I see zero to indicate that Ben Tate is going to see a 70% increase in his touches if Foster is healthy. 6 - 8 carries is a much more realistic number to project as far as carries go.
Yes it can be run in any formation, but last season the Texans ran the majority out of singleback sets. Foster's YPC was much better in 2010 compared to 2011 in the singleback. Texans ran more I-Formation in 2010, but ran it less probably due to the departure of Vonta Leach.
How about you show me where Foster is better than Tate. Unless it's just your opinion. Which of course couldn't be any better than mine. And I watch football just fine, thank you. Always trying to learn things I don't already know.How am I being selective? What other stats should I cite that you feel is relevant? Yes Tate is no threat in passing game at all. Yet he averaged a better YPC in the formation I stated, and overall. Weren't defenses keyed in to stop the Run? When Foster is on the field they have to defend the run AND pass, so why doesn't Foster have a better YPC? Is it possible Foster is a lesser runner than Tate? Oh my!
I think the highly paid talent scouts and coaching staff of Houston has spoken as to who the better back us.... .... unless you think their opinion "isn't any better than yours" either?
False. Tate had a much better success rate than Foster last year. That indicates that it was Foster that had more ineffective runs than Tate.Tate was also more valuable per run and more valuable running overall. footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb
You want someone to explain to you how one of the better backs in the league is better than his backup?
Worst. Troll. Ever.
You mean the ones who drafted Tate in the 2nd and signed Foster as an Undrafted Free Agent?
I like the concept of what football outsiders tries to do, but football is not as quantifiable as they attempt to make it. I watch every Texans snap at least once (more often multiple times) and the offense is just flat better with Foster. Tate is a darn good Rb, foster is better.
romo, warner, holmes, welker, harrison, gates, randle, moon.....ps: shutup
Tate averaged 5.7 yards in the 1st half. Foster was at 4.4.
So if a guy makes one run for 12yds and sits all season, he's the best of the 3?
1. Pass blocking- Foster is actually pretty damn good at it while Tate has no clue WTF he is doing.2. Pass catching- Foster is one of the best, if not the best receiving RB in the league, not including passing downs ONLY RBs like Sproles. I would actually put McCoy above him in that category.'Xue said:
How are you so sure? A run heavy team like that with only Forsett and two UDFAs behind Foster and Tate this late in the off-season?
Tate has too much value as a back-up for little money. If anything the texans should be sending the Packers a pick for a WR. NFL is not a heavy trading league so i would be surprised if any deal pans out.
I agree with this. Packers are deep at WR and are gonna lose some of them once they are placed on the practice squad more than likely. Would be nice though if they could work something out.
