Why is Arian Foster so widely under-rated?

[KempBolt 498]

Not at all. Two posts ago I tried explaining why you can't base it off of rate percent and in the same post you say that his scheme gives him better chances to run effectively and complain his BT % rario is too low compaired to his carries. It contradicts itself, but that's when you said not to question it and that you were confident in the stats you read.

 

As far as him being a below average back, conversation over, that's the most retarded thing I've ever read. I can't even take your posts seriously now, honestly.

 

I'm not grasping, you keep repeating the same facts over and over instead of actually discussing something. Then when you know your wrong you get pissed off and complain that it's your opinion and no one else's matters. So, perhaps I'm still trying to figure out the point of posting if you're not even open for debate.

 

You never explained why the scheme helping him and the BT% hurting his reputation are contradictory. You'd have to argue that somehow backs in ZBS's don't have chances to break tackles (not true).

 

And I never compared him to all those other zone backs. Crash did. My reasons for not being high on Foster are unrelated to the scheme. I only mention that by way of explaining why a back who I consider to be overrared can be so productive. And I've repeated my reasons over and over, like you're alluding to. But you can't except a difference of opinion so you've started trying to discredit me, my references, and whether I even know what I'm talking about. The ironic thing is that you didn't like my use of numbers because that must mean that I don't actually watch him play. But then you used numbers. That made me laugh a little.

 

And that's what I asked you to stop- to not come after me or whether I'm watching or know what I'm seeing. Because that's pointless. Obviously you're questioning my opinion and that's the point here. But when you start trying to discredit me instead of my argument, you're losing. I could just say something like "you're just obsessed with his fantasy football value" but I don't. Because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know what you're talking about. That's the only way we can have any kind of sensible debate.

[KempBolt 498]

Oh, and I said Foster is below average at creating yards after contact- that specific aspect of his game.. Because he is. Not that he's a below average running back. Try to stick what I'm actually saying.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Well, 2.2 Yards after contact per carry isn't all bad, but it is indeed below average for last season, tied for 29th out of 42 backs with 100+ carries (With Jamaal Charles). Of course Foster also led the league in carries, and touchdowns, so he got his fair share of unfavourable situations. I won't call Foster elite, but if I need a back for 16 games a year, Foster is pretty high on my list because I know I can use him 20-25 time a game carrying the ball, and another 5 times on checkdowns. Despite not seeming lie it, being ale to take a ton of carries is an important skill for running backs.

[lordnate 6]

I don't buy this logic that RBs in zone blocking schemes are automatically productive. If that was the case, then why doesn't every team run a zone blocking scheme? Actually, teams run pretty diverse play books and most teams run at least some zone block plays. So, every team kind of does run a zone blocking scheme. I guess zone block teams are just teams that run it more often. It just doesn't make sense, if this scheme guarantees production with any back, that every team doesn't use it all the time.

 

There has to be a draw back. Maybe you need more talent at other positions to make it work. I know you need quick lineman. Does zone block put more pressure on your lineman to make good blocks? If that were true, then couldn't you blame the OL if a zone block RB doesn't preform well? How would zone block be any kind of indication of a RB one way or another if the success is not dependent on the RB.

[lordnate 6]

I think there is a huge piece to the puzzle missing. Something that many people seem to over look. The production of a RB is largely dependent on what part of the field he normally gets the ball. If a RB gets most of his carries at mid field, he's going to have a much higher rush average than if he's getting all his carries down around the goal-line. I believe that many speed backs are over-rated because most of them are not used in goal-line situations, but they rack of the stats running at mid field.

 

Unfortunately I don't have the statistics on Arian Foster and what part of the field he normally gets the ball at. What I can say is that he lead the league in rushing TDs, which indicates that he got a lot of red zone carries. Maybe this is why his yards after contact is so low. If you break a tackle on the 1-yard line, you're not going to get more than one yard. If you break a tackle at the 50 yard line, you can potentially, get 50 yards after contact on that play. Further, I would assume his broken tackles would go down when running in short yardage situations as defenses have bigger guys on the field, he has less room to make a defender miss, and he'd get caught up in more gang tackles.

 

Another factor to look at is attempts. A RB that leads the league in attempts, like Arian Foster, typically sees his stats per carry diminish. To get a lot of rush attempts, a RB has to play through more fatigue and typically ends up having to play through injuries. Not necessarily things that end up on the injury report either, but just the normal wear and tear that the game puts on the player's body throughout the season. It is more than likely that he played some games where he wasn't 100%.

 

I think the main reason why Arian Foster tends to be under-rated by some is that his game isn't flashy. He just plays solid football. He doesn't have blazing speed, an elite juke move, or amazing power. He's not Chris Johnson or Marshawn Lynch, but he's good at everything you'd want a RB to do and that's usually harder to stop than the more highlight reel friendly one dimensional backs. Further, he's a low profile guy. He went undrafted and doesn't do a lot to bring attention to himself. To add to it, he plays for the Texans who are 24th in the league in popularity.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/59058/where-every-nfl-team-ranks-in-popularity

[KempBolt 498]

Well, 2.2 Yards after contact per carry isn't all bad, but it is indeed below average for last season, tied for 29th out of 42 backs with 100+ carries (With Jamaal Charles). Of course Foster also led the league in carries, and touchdowns, so he got his fair share of unfavourable situations. I won't call Foster elite, but if I need a back for 16 games a year, Foster is pretty high on my list because I know I can use him 20-25 time a game carrying the ball, and another 5 times on checkdowns. Despite not seeming lie it, being ale to take a ton of carries is an important skill for running backs.

 

I think that's a fair assessment. Probably more favorable than mine, but that's fine. I just tend to argue with the idea that he's an elite talent. I have no problem calling him a good player, but you see him pop up in a little of top 10 NFL players lists, and I think he's a borderline top 10 RB- let along NFL player. Heck, I've heard people mention his name as a potential hall of famer. Those are the "overratings" that I think are kind of crazy.

[KempBolt 498]

I don't buy this logic that RBs in zone blocking schemes are automatically productive. If that was the case, then why doesn't every team run a zone blocking scheme? Actually, teams run pretty diverse play books and most teams run at least some zone block plays. So, every team kind of does run a zone blocking scheme. I guess zone block teams are just teams that run it more often. It just doesn't make sense, if this scheme guarantees production with any back, that every team doesn't use it all the time.

 

There has to be a draw back. Maybe you need more talent at other positions to make it work. I know you need quick lineman. Does zone block put more pressure on your lineman to make good blocks? If that were true, then couldn't you blame the OL if a zone block RB doesn't preform well? How would zone block be any kind of indication of a RB one way or another if the success is not dependent on the RB.

 

Basically every team in the league runs some zone. But Houston and Washington are unique in that they run almost nothing but zone. To run that "pure" version, you do need a specific type of lineman with usually above average athleticism and initial quickness. But it also limits the play book. So there are pros and cons to running it.

 

And running backs in the ZBS aren't automatically productive. There is a required skillet- you need to be able to cut decisively, have patience in waiting for the hole, the vision to see it, and the acceleration to hit it. Those are things that Foster has in addition to being a good receiver. And that's why I would say that he's a good running back. But I want something more if I'm going to term a running back "elite," or rank him top 10 at his position.

[KempBolt 498]

I think there is a huge piece to the puzzle missing. Something that many people seem to over look. The production of a RB is largely dependent on what part of the field he normally gets the ball. If a RB gets most of his carries at mid field, he's going to have a much higher rush average than if he's getting all his carries down around the goal-line. I believe that many speed backs are over-rated because most of them are not used in goal-line situations, but they rack of the stats running at mid field.

 

Unfortunately I don't have the statistics on Arian Foster and what part of the field he normally gets the ball at. What I can say is that he lead the league in rushing TDs, which indicates that he got a lot of red zone carries. Maybe this is why his yards after contact is so low. If you break a tackle on the 1-yard line, you're not going to get more than one yard. If you break a tackle at the 50 yard line, you can potentially, get 50 yards after contact on that play. Further, I would assume his broken tackles would go down when running in short yardage situations as defenses have bigger guys on the field, he has less room to make a defender miss, and he'd get caught up in more gang tackles.

 

Another factor to look at is attempts. A RB that leads the league in attempts, like Arian Foster, typically sees his stats per carry diminish. To get a lot of rush attempts, a RB has to play through more fatigue and typically ends up having to play through injuries. Not necessarily things that end up on the injury report either, but just the normal wear and tear that the game puts on the player's body throughout the season. It is more than likely that he played some games where he wasn't 100%.

 

I think the main reason why Arian Foster tends to be under-rated by some is that his game isn't flashy. He just plays solid football. He doesn't have blazing speed, an elite juke move, or amazing power. He's not Chris Johnson or Marshawn Lynch, but he's good at everything you'd want a RB to do and that's usually harder to stop than the more highlight reel friendly one dimensional backs. Further, he's a low profile guy. He went undrafted and doesn't do a lot to bring attention to himself. To add to it, he plays for the Texans who are 24th in the league in popularity.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/59058/where-every-nfl-team-ranks-in-popularity

 

A few of notes on your points in bold.

 

1) While I see what you mean about goal line carries, that doesn't explain his low missed tackle rate. It could help explain his low yds after contact per carry number.

 

2) That said, there are several other backs in the league who got a whole lot of goalline work, like Morris (13 TD), Peterson (12 TD), Lynch (11 TD), and Martin (11 TD), and their yds after contact per carry numbers are a whole lot better than Foster's. So if the goalline work hurt Foster and he's a top RB, why didn't it hurt the other ones?

 

3) And lastly, your point of carry volume is true. Lots of carries leads to natural stat regression. But I'll do the same thing and point to backs who significantly outperformed Foster in terms of missed tackles who had a ton of carries themselves. Peterson (348), Morris (335), Martin (319), Lynch (315). None of them had 351 carries like Foster, but I would have a hard time believing that it was the extra 3-36 carries that made all the difference.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Well lets just settle it at Foster is one of the worst backs in the league because he isn't at par in broken tackle percentages. No need to continue or discuss the actual fact of how Foster runs the ball or the consistency he has.

[KempBolt 498]

Well lets just settle it at Foster is one of the worst backs in the league because he isn't at par in broken tackle percentages. No need to continue or discuss the actual fact of how Foster runs the ball or the consistency he has.

 

Let's just settle it at you probably shouldn't ask questions you don't want answered if you're just going to pitch a fit when someone has a difference of opinion.

[SolomonGrundy 10]

I don't buy this logic that RBs in zone blocking schemes are automatically productive. If that was the case, then why doesn't every team run a zone blocking scheme? Actually, teams run pretty diverse play books and most teams run at least some zone block plays. So, every team kind of does run a zone blocking scheme. I guess zone block teams are just teams that run it more often. It just doesn't make sense, if this scheme guarantees production with any back, that every team doesn't use it all the time.

 

There has to be a draw back. Maybe you need more talent at other positions to make it work. I know you need quick lineman. Does zone block put more pressure on your lineman to make good blocks? If that were true, then couldn't you blame the OL if a zone block RB doesn't preform well? How would zone block be any kind of indication of a RB one way or another if the success is not dependent on the RB.

 

Because generally teams that primarily run the ZBS have smaller quicker o-linemen so they get pushed back in short yardage situations, especially on the goalline. This is why you see so many zone blocking teams go with bigger RBs. RBs that don't break tackles are heavily dependent on their o-line (Tatum Bell for example) and that's when you start having problems converting short yardage plays. It also requires smarter o-linemen as well because there are so many variables in the ZBS. Chemistry amongst the o-linemen becomes even more important as well as the chemistry between the RB and the o-line.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Because generally teams that primarily run the ZBS have smaller quicker o-linemen so they get pushed back in short yardage situations, especially on the goalline. This is why you see so many zone blocking teams go with bigger RBs. RBs that don't break tackles are heavily dependent on their o-line (Tatum Bell for example) and that's when you start having problems converting short yardage plays. It also requires smarter o-linemen as well because there are so many variables in the ZBS. Chemistry amongst the o-linemen becomes even more important as well as the chemistry between the RB and the o-line.

 

The chemistry was the prime reason as to why the Zone Blocking Scheme didn't have any success what so ever in Oakland this past season. I think that was also a prime example of the fact that a zone blocking scheme doesn't help just any running back. Darren McFadden is a great running back when he's healthy, and I think everyone saw how much he had struggled in the zone blocking scheme. I think that in itself should speak worlds in terms of Fosters skill set and what he's accomplishing. If he had one good year, or a good game here and there, I think I would be able to submit to the fact that he could possibly be a system guy. The fact that he's so consistent on a week to week basis is what kind of puts that entire theory to rest IMO.

 

To each their own KempBolt, it is what it is. I just think that it's lame of you to base the entire opinion that you believe Foster is a bad back when compared to others off of the fact that he doesn't break as many tackles. Look at Jamaal Charles. Broken tackles isn't what makes a great back. It definitely helps when a guy is getting yards after contact, but I think the elusive rating that PFF does makes it clear that it's not everything. Would you consider LeSean McCoy, Steven Jackson, Ray Rice, and Frank Gore are bad backs? The only back higher in elusive rating is LeSean McCoy.

 

Ray Rice clocked in at an abysmal (According to the list, abysmal) 108 missed tackles to 1069 touches. I don't think even you would say that Ray Rice is a bad running back. Frank Gore didn't really fare too much better. The way these guys run the football, see the field, make cuts into open space is really what we should be paying attention to.

[KempBolt 498]

The chemistry was the prime reason as to why the Zone Blocking Scheme didn't have any success what so ever in Oakland this past season. I think that was also a prime example of the fact that a zone blocking scheme doesn't help just any running back. Darren McFadden is a great running back when he's healthy, and I think everyone saw how much he had struggled in the zone blocking scheme. I think that in itself should speak worlds in terms of Fosters skill set and what he's accomplishing. If he had one good year, or a good game here and there, I think I would be able to submit to the fact that he could possibly be a system guy. The fact that he's so consistent on a week to week basis is what kind of puts that entire theory to rest IMO.

 

To each their own KempBolt, it is what it is. I just think that it's lame of you to base the entire opinion that you believe Foster is a bad back when compared to others off of the fact that he doesn't break as many tackles. Look at Jamaal Charles. Broken tackles isn't what makes a great back. It definitely helps when a guy is getting yards after contact, but I think the elusive rating that PFF does makes it clear that it's not everything. Would you consider LeSean McCoy, Steven Jackson, Ray Rice, and Frank Gore are bad backs? The only back higher in elusive rating is LeSean McCoy.

 

Ray Rice clocked in at an abysmal (According to the list, abysmal) 108 missed tackles to 1069 touches. I don't think even you would say that Ray Rice is a bad running back. Frank Gore didn't really fare too much better. The way these guys run the football, see the field, make cuts into open space is really what we should be paying attention to.

 

I'm fine with that. You and I have different standards of what makes a running back elite. And that's been my only point- that Foster isn't elite. I've never called him bad or said that if you're not especially good at getting yards after contact or making tacklers miss, you're necessarily bad. You're just not top-tier player in my book.

[Dutch 874]

I think there is a huge piece to the puzzle missing. Something that many people seem to over look. The production of a RB is largely dependent on what part of the field he normally gets the ball. If a RB gets most of his carries at mid field, he's going to have a much higher rush average than if he's getting all his carries down around the goal-line. I believe that many speed backs are over-rated because most of them are not used in goal-line situations, but they rack of the stats running at mid field.

 

Unfortunately I don't have the statistics on Arian Foster and what part of the field he normally gets the ball at. What I can say is that he lead the league in rushing TDs, which indicates that he got a lot of red zone carries. Maybe this is why his yards after contact is so low. If you break a tackle on the 1-yard line, you're not going to get more than one yard. If you break a tackle at the 50 yard line, you can potentially, get 50 yards after contact on that play. Further, I would assume his broken tackles would go down when running in short yardage situations as defenses have bigger guys on the field, he has less room to make a defender miss, and he'd get caught up in more gang tackles.

 

Another factor to look at is attempts. A RB that leads the league in attempts, like Arian Foster, typically sees his stats per carry diminish. To get a lot of rush attempts, a RB has to play through more fatigue and typically ends up having to play through injuries. Not necessarily things that end up on the injury report either, but just the normal wear and tear that the game puts on the player's body throughout the season. It is more than likely that he played some games where he wasn't 100%.

 

I think the main reason why Arian Foster tends to be under-rated by some is that his game isn't flashy. He just plays solid football. He doesn't have blazing speed, an elite juke move, or amazing power. He's not Chris Johnson or Marshawn Lynch, but he's good at everything you'd want a RB to do and that's usually harder to stop than the more highlight reel friendly one dimensional backs. Further, he's a low profile guy. He went undrafted and doesn't do a lot to bring attention to himself. To add to it, he plays for the Texans who are 24th in the league in popularity.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/59058/where-every-nfl-team-ranks-in-popularity

 

Here ya go. http://www.nfl.com/player/arianfoster/79555/situationalstats

 

86 carries in the redzone, 240 yards, 2.8 avg, and scored all 15 of his rushing TDs there and 2 of his receiving Tds. It appears he got more redzone carries than any top running back in the league.

[lordnate 6]

A few of notes on your points in bold.

 

1) While I see what you mean about goal line carries, that doesn't explain his low missed tackle rate. It could help explain his low yds after contact per carry number.

 

2) That said, there are several other backs in the league who got a whole lot of goalline work, like Morris (13 TD), Peterson (12 TD), Lynch (11 TD), and Martin (11 TD), and their yds after contact per carry numbers are a whole lot better than Foster's. So if the goalline work hurt Foster and he's a top RB, why didn't it hurt the other ones?

 

3) And lastly, your point of carry volume is true. Lots of carries leads to natural stat regression. But I'll do the same thing and point to backs who significantly outperformed Foster in terms of missed tackles who had a ton of carries themselves. Peterson (348), Morris (335), Martin (319), Lynch (315). None of them had 351 carries like Foster, but I would have a hard time believing that it was the extra 3-36 carries that made all the difference.

 

1) RBs will probably evade less tackles in a goal-line situation because they have less room to work.

 

2) Morris doesn't yet have the body of work to really say exactly what he is. Peterson is an absolute beast and IMO, the clear cut number 1 RB in the league. I was impressed enough with Martin coming out of college, that I actually thought as a rookie he is a potential hall of famer. He has that same compact frame that Emmitt Smith had. Marshawn Lynch is the best pure power runner in the league. So, there are 4 guys that did significantly better, but I would also put those guys in the elite group.

 

3) Stats regression is a trend, but its not 100% the same for every back. It depends on the health of the back throughout the season. Some RBs will end up regressing more than others with more carries, just due to circumstance. Still Foster does tend to have similar stats every season even in terms of missed tackles and yards after contact. I would put all four of the RBs you listed ahead of him, but that would be Foster at about 5th. I'd say top 5 is elite.

 

Additional

 

I wouldn't put any of the RBs that are speed backs ahead of Foster. IMO, the most important role for a RB is being able to finish drives. I looked at a statistical breakdown one time that showed passing is statistically more efficient than running on all parts of the field except inside the 10 yard line. That doesn't mean you should pass on every down, but where you really need to run is in goal-line situations. Arian Foster has lead the league in TDs twice in the past 3 years. This is running in a zone blocking scheme that people have been telling me, is weak in short yardage situations. TDs aren't the end all, but I'll list some of the better TD machines at RB in the NFL over the past 3 years below.

 

1. Arian Foster 42

2. Adrian Peterson 36

3. Michael Turner 33

 

After these three, it gets hard to find as these are the only three with double digit TDs in all three of the past 3 years. (I just looked up TD leaders on ESPN.com) Lynch has come on in Seattle with double digit TDs in each of the past 2 years. I think most people would agree with me, though Michael Turner is on this list, he's in decline.

 

Then Foster has another ability, though it didn't show up in the stat book last season, Arian Foster is a well respected receiving back. With the league getting more pass happy, RBs that can catch passes out of the back field are needed. I've never heard anyone say Turner or Lynch were good receiving backs. Take it as a grain of salt since it comes from the Bleacher Report, but this list from 2011 has Arian Foster as the 2nd best receiving back in the league.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/763365-the-top-15-receiving-threats-from-the-running-back-position/page/15

Edited July 3, 2013 by lordnate

[HUMCALC 3]

Because Gary Kubiak and the ZBS can make any RB look good. In HOU he did it with: Foster, Forsett, and Tate. In DEN he did it with a lot of different RBs

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

1) RBs will probably evade less tackles in a goal-line situation because they have less room to work.

 

2) Morris doesn't yet have the body of work to really say exactly what he is. Peterson is an absolute beast and IMO, the clear cut number 1 RB in the league. I was impressed enough with Martin coming out of college, that I actually thought as a rookie he is a potential hall of famer. He has that same compact frame that Emmitt Smith had. Marshawn Lynch is the best pure power runner in the league. So, there are 4 guys that did significantly better, but I would also put those guys in the elite group.

 

3) Stats regression is a trend, but its not 100% the same for every back. It depends on the health of the back throughout the season. Some RBs will end up regressing more than others with more carries, just due to circumstance. Still Foster does tend to have similar stats every season even in terms of missed tackles and yards after contact. I would put all four of the RBs you listed ahead of him, but that would be Foster at about 5th. I'd say top 5 is elite.

 

Additional

 

I wouldn't put any of the RBs that are speed backs ahead of Foster. IMO, the most important role for a RB is being able to finish drives. I looked at a statistical breakdown one time that showed passing is statistically more efficient than running on all parts of the field except inside the 10 yard line. That doesn't mean you should pass on every down, but where you really need to run is in goal-line situations. Arian Foster has lead the league in TDs twice in the past 3 years. This is running in a zone blocking scheme that people have been telling me, is weak in short yardage situations. TDs aren't the end all, but I'll list some of the better TD machines at RB in the NFL over the past 3 years below.

 

1. Arian Foster 42

2. Adrian Peterson 36

3. Michael Turner 33

 

After these three, it gets hard to find as these are the only three with double digit TDs in all three of the past 3 years. (I just looked up TD leaders on ESPN.com) Lynch has come on in Seattle with double digit TDs in each of the past 2 years. I think most people would agree with me, though Michael Turner is on this list, he's in decline.

 

Then Foster has another ability, though it didn't show up in the stat book last season, Arian Foster is a well respected receiving back. With the league getting more pass happy, RBs that can catch passes out of the back field are needed. I've never heard anyone say Turner or Lynch were good receiving backs. Take it as a grain of salt since it comes from the Bleacher Report, but this list from 2011 has Arian Foster as the 2nd best receiving back in the league.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/763365-the-top-15-receiving-threats-from-the-running-back-position/page/15

 

Turner is only on here because Mike Smith prefers to run the football once inside the 10 yard line. He was absolutely terrible running the football recently.

 

Because Gary Kubiak and the ZBS can make any RB look good. In HOU he did it with: Foster, Forsett, and Tate. In DEN he did it with a lot of different RBs

 

Did you read any of the thread? I believe we already established this as a basis for the opposing.

 

Edited July 7, 2013 by Rain Man

[Crash 105]

You admitted to not even watching Foster outside of 9 or so games you've seen the Texans. You use expert statistics as your main argument. The problem with what you're saying is that you say how great the Zone blocking scheme is and how much it helps, but then you IGNORE the elite running back skills that Foster has because of the fact he's in that scheme.

 

I'm sorry, but if you're trying to say that guys like Tatum Bell, Mike Bell, and Mike Anderson amongst many others are the same level talent as Foster, I think that you're terribly mistaken and need to watch players play as opposed to just looking at stats. That's MY opinion, honestly.

 

Tatum Bell had the same stats as Foster? The guy had one year as a 1000 yard rusher. Mike Bell? What? Because he had 8 tds in one season? Get the hell out of here. Mike Anderson had TWO seasons with the Broncos that he ran for over 1000 yards and 10+ touchdowns. Those offensive lines were just stupid good, facts support that notion. (mind you he played 6 seasons in Denver) Orlandis Gary had ONE good season with the Broncos in a 4 season stint and it wasn't even great. 1,159 yards and 7 touchdowns. YEAH That's Arian Fosters stats! Anderson is your ONLY argument for comparison and even then he wasn't as consistent.

 

So with that said, maybe you can stop pussyfooting around the question, what leads you to believe that Arian Foster and all those Denver backs possessed the same skill set and talent? Because I don't see it, and the statistics you love to throw around don't SUPPORT it.

 

Clinton Portis is odd man out, he was great in both Denver and Washington (When healthy of course).

 

Here's a few more:

Steve Slaton: A legit talent (A lot like jamaal charles) until the coaches got tired of his constant fumbling and he tore his knee to shreds.

Selvin Young: was fucking garbage, in every way imaginable..?

Reuben Droughns: My favorite here, yes had a big year in Denver 2005 yardage wise, wasn't a red zone guy. Then he went to Clevelend the next year and accomplished the same thing with a team that didn't use the ZBS.

 

I'm tired of all these running back comparisons due to ZBS. It's hogwash. Outside of YPC you have NOTHING that is even close to relatively similar. Watch the players, don't read the statistics. I'll continue to sound like a broken record on that one.

Do you want to know why those RB only had one or two seasons that looked like fosters? Because shanahan knew that they weren't TD, they weren't a 2000 yard rusher, they were just another 1500 yard, ZBS RB that can be found anywhere. Foster isn't special, he's just another ZBS RB that kubiak hasn't traded off like shanny did with all his RB. Look at them, all the good ones are about the same height, same weight. They're just power backs with great vision and balance

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

One of the smoothest runners in the game today. Elite vision. Great set-up cuts, great back. Fuck the haters.

[Crash 105]

One of the smoothest runners in the game today. Elite vision. Great set-up cuts, great back. Fuck the haters.

All of the zone running backs had great vision and balance, that's why they were brought in to play in that scheme.

[KempBolt 498]

One of the smoothest runners in the game today. Elite vision. Great set-up cuts, great back. Fuck the haters.

 

Touche. I stand corrected.

[Bay 2,003]

One of the smoothest runners in the game today. Elite vision. Great set-up cuts, great back. Fuck the haters.

 

This is coming from a Jags fan, people.

[Dutch 874]

I wonder if Arian Foster's lack luster performance is a testament of him being overrated like Kemp believes or it was the Chargers defense.

[KempBolt 498]

I wonder if Arian Foster's lack luster performance is a testament of him being overrated like Kemp believes or it was the Chargers defense.

 

The answer is clear: yes.