Why is Arian Foster so widely under-rated?

[Crash 105]

We can't know what Davis would have done elsewhere because his entire career was in Denver. But Portis was very good- if not quite as good- after he left for Washington.

He was a good a runningback no doubt but just another good runningback whose name will eventually be lost in this era of football

[BradyFan81 404]

He's one of the best RBs in the league, most definitely top 5 IMO. Impossible to stop with 1 tackler alone, very good combo of elusiveness and power. He's a beast, plain and simple.

[Crash 105]

I never said he was better, just that he was more talented. Even then, there can be an argument that Portis was better.

Did Portis run for 2000 yards? Was he a Super Bowl MVP? League MVP? Portis was nowhere near better

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

I'm just having a hard time grasping a couple of you guys saying that Foster doesn't break tackles or avoid defenders. It's pretty clear to me that the guys here saying these things have obviously not watched too much of Arian Foster and are rather just spewing stats and going off highlights they've seen.

 

2010 Arian Foster LED THE LEAGUE in broken tackles amongst running backs:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/broken-tackles-2010-part-ii

 

2011: 8th

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2012/broken-tackles-2011

 

How about 2012? Where did Foster rank this past season? 7th.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2013/broken-tackles-2012

 

Your argument that Foster doesn't break tackles "like other backs" is absolutely ridiculous and holds NO merit. So, next argument please.

 

Out running defenders? Making "would-be" tacklers miss? That's a load too.

 

Now, highlight videos are JUST that. Highlights. But this shows on numerous occasions as do a hundreds of other videos that Foster DOES have moves and CAN use them when he needs to. He has a great burst, one of the best in the league. He may not have straight away speed like Charles, Johnson or even Peterson, but he gets up to his top speed just as fast if not faster when he needs to. Can you use arguments that actually hold merit?

 

You point out a bunch of things the guy "doesn't do like others" but then have nothing to prove your facts or even marginally support that.

[KempBolt 498]

He's one of the best RBs in the league, most definitely top 5 IMO. Impossible to stop with 1 tackler alone, very good combo of elusiveness and power. He's a beast, plain and simple.

 

Hmm. Not sure about that. PFF's numbers on him are 32 missed tackles on 391 touches (or one missed tackle every 12th touch) and 2.18 yards after contact per carry.

 

Compare that to Alfred Morris, who runs in the same scheme: 59 missed tackles on 345 touches (or one every 6th touch) and 2.99 yards after contact per carry.

 

Or how about Doug Martin? 68 missed tackles on 368 touches (1 every 5th) and 3.15 yards after contact per carry.

 

And that's not even comparing him to the best in the leave- guys like Spiller, Peterson, and Lynch.

[KempBolt 498]

I'm just having a hard time grasping a couple of you guys saying that Foster doesn't break tackles or avoid defenders. It's pretty clear to me that the guys here saying these things have obviously not watched too much of Arian Foster and are rather just spewing stats and going off highlights they've seen.

 

2010 Arian Foster LED THE LEAGUE in broken tackles amongst running backs:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/broken-tackles-2010-part-ii

 

2011: 8th

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2012/broken-tackles-2011

 

How about 2012? Where did Foster rank this past season? 7th.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2013/broken-tackles-2012

 

Your argument that Foster doesn't break tackles "like other backs" is absolutely ridiculous and holds NO merit. So, next argument please.

 

Out running defenders? Making "would-be" tacklers miss? That's a load too.

 

Now, highlight videos are JUST that. Highlights. But this shows on numerous occasions as do a hundreds of other videos that Foster DOES have moves and CAN use them when he needs to. He has a great burst, one of the best in the league. He may not have straight away speed like Charles, Johnson or even Peterson, but he gets up to his top speed just as fast if not faster when he needs to. Can you use arguments that actually hold merit?

 

You point out a bunch of things the guy "doesn't do like others" but then have nothing to prove your facts or even marginally support that.

 

His net totals are fine because he gets so many touches. Look at your 2012 link again. 7th in total, but 2nd to last in actual rate. Obviously backs with more touches have more opportunity to force missed tackles. You have to adjust for that.

 

Even in 2010, when he LED THE LEAGUE, his rate his 14th on that list.

Edited June 30, 2013 by KempBolt

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

You can't rank it based on rate. That's where your argument of zone blocking schemes comes 2 fold. You want to sit and say how much easier it is for a running back in a zone blocking scheme to run the football because all they have to do is "get there" but then you penalize him for the line doing what you said they SHOULD be doing which is creating larger holes.

 

Another thing to account for is that the rate percent you're looking at isn't just his running plays, it's receptions and all.

 

I'm honestly asking, how much of Arian Foster have you actually seen? Legitimately sat and watched him run the football? As opposed to just sitting online and reading opinions and statistics?

 

I'm not trying to question your knowledge, but at some point you need to actually watch a guy play as opposed to looking at stats. Especially when the debate that you're bringing up is the fact that zone blocking makes a guy better. Well, if that's the case, then yes the STATISTICS will be in your favor or at least lopped your way. However, the tape will not be if he's truly a better player than what you think.

 

PS - Doug Martin isn't a guy I like to talk about, none of the rookies are. Doug Martin was great for a rookie, but when it comes down to it, he wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen. 5 games. That's what Martins season came down to. One game is really what made his season what it truly was, that was the 251 yard and 4 TD performance against Oakland. He's a solid back, I don't think he was as phenomenal as led to believe.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I would easily take beast mode over foster without a second thought

 

I wouldn't. Give me the more versatile player who can stay on the field on 3rd downs.

[Crash 105]

I wouldn't. Give me the more versatile player who can stay on the field on 3rd downs.

And I'll take the guy who literally could break 9 tackles on one run at any point. A zone RB is great but ill take the fucking monster that takes the whole defense to tackle

[Crash 105]

You can't rank it based on rate. That's where your argument of zone blocking schemes comes 2 fold. You want to sit and say how much easier it is for a running back in a zone blocking scheme to run the football because all they have to do is "get there" but then you penalize him for the line doing what you said they SHOULD be doing which is creating larger holes.

 

Another thing to account for is that the rate percent you're looking at isn't just his running plays, it's receptions and all.

 

I'm honestly asking, how much of Arian Foster have you actually seen? Legitimately sat and watched him run the football? As opposed to just sitting online and reading opinions and statistics?

 

I'm not trying to question your knowledge, but at some point you need to actually watch a guy play as opposed to looking at stats. Especially when the debate that you're bringing up is the fact that zone blocking makes a guy better. Well, if that's the case, then yes the STATISTICS will be in your favor or at least lopped your way. However, the tape will not be if he's truly a better player than what you think.

 

PS - Doug Martin isn't a guy I like to talk about, none of the rookies are. Doug Martin was great for a rookie, but when it comes down to it, he wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen. 5 games. That's what Martins season came down to. One game is really what made his season what it truly was, that was the 251 yard and 4 TD performance against Oakland. He's a solid back, I don't think he was as phenomenal as led to believe.

I'm not denying that Foster is a good zone RB but c'mon look at the stats of zone RB. Morris had 1600 yards last year, mike Anderson got 1200-1400 yards twice, tatum bell had over 1000, Reuben droughns had 1400 yards, orlandis Gary had over a 1000. It's a proven zone scheme that guarantees 1000-1400 yards

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Alright, the 3rd or 4th time, I'm not saying the Zone blocking scheme doesn't help running backs. It certainly does. The debate here is how good Foster is, NOT how much the ZBS helps backs. If you watch Foster, Foster has a whole hell of a lot more talent and skills than ANY of those backs you just mentioned. He's not even in the same park as those backs. Not even close.

 

Arian Foster would be able to put up the same numbers he's putting up now in a different scheme, probably not the same amount of touchdowns. The guys the complete package. The problem is that no one actually watches the guy play, they just say, yeah well he's in a zone blocking scheme. Big deal.

[Crash 105]

Alright, the 3rd or 4th time, I'm not saying the Zone blocking scheme doesn't help running backs. It certainly does. The debate here is how good Foster is, NOT how much the ZBS helps backs. If you watch Foster, Foster has a whole hell of a lot more talent and skills than ANY of those backs you just mentioned. He's not even in the same park as those backs. Not even close.

 

Arian Foster would be able to put up the same numbers he's putting up now in a different scheme, probably not the same amount of touchdowns. The guys the complete package. The problem is that no one actually watches the guy play, they just say, yeah well he's in a zone blocking scheme. Big deal.

Is he really that talented though? He hasn't been in anything but a zone scheme and his numbers are exactly what previous runningbacks put up. It's hard to think he's that good when his numbers look like every Denver running back from 2000-2008

[KempBolt 498]

You can't rank it based on rate. That's where your argument of zone blocking schemes comes 2 fold. You want to sit and say how much easier it is for a running back in a zone blocking scheme to run the football because all they have to do is "get there" but then you penalize him for the line doing what you said they SHOULD be doing which is creating larger holes.

 

Another thing to account for is that the rate percent you're looking at isn't just his running plays, it's receptions and all.

 

I'm honestly asking, how much of Arian Foster have you actually seen? Legitimately sat and watched him run the football? As opposed to just sitting online and reading opinions and statistics?

 

I'm not trying to question your knowledge, but at some point you need to actually watch a guy play as opposed to looking at stats. Especially when the debate that you're bringing up is the fact that zone blocking makes a guy better. Well, if that's the case, then yes the STATISTICS will be in your favor or at least lopped your way. However, the tape will not be if he's truly a better player than what you think.

 

PS - Doug Martin isn't a guy I like to talk about, none of the rookies are. Doug Martin was great for a rookie, but when it comes down to it, he wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen. 5 games. That's what Martins season came down to. One game is really what made his season what it truly was, that was the 251 yard and 4 TD performance against Oakland. He's a solid back, I don't think he was as phenomenal as led to believe.

 

I fail to see the connection between rate and the zone blocking scheme. Why can't I use rate? I don't pernalize Foster for running behind a good line in a scheme that fits him. I rate him lower than most because of what happens when he actually has to make a defender miss or break a tackle. And that's independent of the scheme- something I tried to illustrate by using Morris as an example (a RB in the same system who broke tackles or forced missed tackles about twice as often last year).

 

I included all touches because it seems that one of the big arguments in favor of Foster is his ability as a receiver. So why not see what he does in that situation? But if you prefer to just go with the straight rushing numbers, that's fine- his rate is actually worse than it would be if you include receptions (1 missed tackle every 13 attempts). Regardless of the inclusion of receptions, he went from slightly better than average in 2010, to slightly below average in 2011, to just plain "bad" in 2012.

 

I've probably watched 3 Texans games on average over the past three years. So if I remember rightly, I've seen Foster play about 9-10 times in his career. Plus the odd highlight and snipet of game. So I've actually observed the reality that I'm referring to. But we can't exactly break down tape together, so I allude to the metrics (like you did) to give us something tangible to look at. I guess I could provide a clip, but what does that do? We're discussing his whole body of work, so individual videos are just going to be plucked to support our position and won't necessarily be representative of his ability on the whole. But how are the numbers getting "lopped" my way? Is it really a manipulation to look at the actual rate of missed tackles as opposed to just volume? I think that's just being statistically honest. Example: if one running back reaches 1000 yards on 200 carries and another reaches 1000 yards on 400 carries, are you going to consider them equal? Because my guess is you'd divide for the average and recognize that the former runner is likely the superior talent by a wide margin.

 

And if you don't like discussing rookies, fine. But the reality is that two rookies (and many other backs, veteran and otherwise) were able to make people miss a whole lot more often than Foster was last season.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

And I'll take the guy who literally could break 9 tackles on one run at any point. A zone RB is great but ill take the fucking monster that takes the whole defense to tackle

 

And I'll take 1000+ rushing yards + 600+ receiving yards over 1000+ rushing yards 200+ receiving yards and broken tackles.

[Crash 105]

And I'll take 1000+ rushing yards + 600+ receiving yards over 1000+ rushing yards 200+ receiving yards and broken tackles.

I should have known with a name like Donavan mcnabb for HOF. He got 1500 yards last year, I can't see how it's even that close but I have more expierence with zone RB so I'm not wowed by foster

Edited July 1, 2013 by Crash

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

I fail to see the connection between rate and the zone blocking scheme. Why can't I use rate? I don't pernalize Foster for running behind a good line in a scheme that fits him. I rate him lower than most because of what happens when he actually has to make a defender miss or break a tackle. And that's independent of the scheme- something I tried to illustrate by using Morris as an example (a RB in the same system who broke tackles or forced missed tackles about twice as often last year).

 

I included all touches because it seems that one of the big arguments in favor of Foster is his ability as a receiver. So why not see what he does in that situation? But if you prefer to just go with the straight rushing numbers, that's fine- his rate is actually worse than it would be if you include receptions (1 missed tackle every 13 attempts). Regardless of the inclusion of receptions, he went from slightly better than average in 2010, to slightly below average in 2011, to just plain "bad" in 2012.

 

I've probably watched 3 Texans games on average over the past three years. So if I remember rightly, I've seen Foster play about 9-10 times in his career. Plus the odd highlight and snipet of game. So I've actually observed the reality that I'm referring to. But we can't exactly break down tape together, so I allude to the metrics (like you did) to give us something tangible to look at. I guess I could provide a clip, but what does that do? We're discussing his whole body of work, so individual videos are just going to be plucked to support our position and won't necessarily be representative of his ability on the whole. But how are the numbers getting "lopped" my way? Is it really a manipulation to look at the actual rate of missed tackles as opposed to just volume? I think that's just being statistically honest. Example: if one running back reaches 1000 yards on 200 carries and another reaches 1000 yards on 400 carries, are you going to consider them equal? Because my guess is you'd divide for the average and recognize that the former runner is likely the superior talent by a wide margin.

 

And if you don't like discussing rookies, fine. But the reality is that two rookies (and many other backs, veteran and otherwise) were able to make people miss a whole lot more often than Foster was last season.

 

The rate % isn't based on the only the times he was hit by a defender. The rate % is based on just broken tackles to touches. His broken tackle percent would be lower if he carried the ball more often without being hit than he did while being hit. Does that make sense? In other words, if a running back breaks 20 tackles but was hit 100 times, his rate % wouldn't be 20%, it could be closer to 4 or 5% if he had 350-400 carries. See where I'm getting at? So it doesn't matchup. He broke 30 tackles, the way you're using it is as if he was hit by a defender and tackled on every other touch, not the case. See where I'm getting now?

 

 

Foster doesn't go with contact on quite a few runs, why? Because of the Zone blocking scheme just as you said. The point of the highlights isn't to show you those highlights and to show he makes big plays, it's to actually watch him as a player. Watch his moves, his strides, watch him hitting the gap and his burst. His cuts, burst, and complete vision of the field are miles ahead of any previous zone blocking running backs from Denver that you mentioned. He's got one of the most devastating cut moves in the league right now. I feel like you look at Adrian Peterson running through guys and instantly think to be great that's what you have to be. He doesn't do that nearly as often, but he does do it when needed and he does have the power to do so. Or you look at Charles/Johnson and see their speed, you don't need that kind of speed to be great. Watch the player when ranking them, not the team around him or teams around the players in the past.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I'm confused. What does any of this have to do with Donovan Mcnabb?

 

Also what do any of the HBs you've seen have to do with Arian Foster because they all had a season or two where they play great they are all the sudden the same as Arian Foster? Lazy arguments like using the system he runs for is the kinda stuff that grinds my gears.

 

Do all of Mike Shanaham's HBs that you've seen have Arian Foster's elite vision? Balance? Cut-back abilities? Blend of size and speed? Nose for the endzone? Elite receiving skills?

 

Why don't you also highlight me the long list of HBs not from Denver and Houston (Steve Slaton's fluky season) who have managed to produce like Foster since it's such a "plug and play" scheme?

 

How about you highlight the fact that Foster in the last 3 years combined, has managed to outgain Terrell Davis' entire career total yardage in the passing game?

 

How many QBs are in systems that highlight their strengths? Should QBs who play in West Coast offenses get knocked for being "system QBs"?

 

This thread isn't about why Orlandis Gary, mike Anderson, tatum bell, mike bell, Clinton Portis, Reuben droughns, selvin young, Roy helu, Alfred Morris, Ben Tate are underrated.

 

It's about why Arian Foster is underrated. Stop grouping them all together and making claims that because he's producing in the same scheme as they played or are playing, he's just like them. Because he isn't. And he has skills that translate to him being productive in any schemes played by NFL teams.

[Crash 105]

I'm confused. What does any of this have to do with Donovan Mcnabb?

 

Also what do any of the HBs you've seen have to do with Arian Foster because they all had a season or two where they play great they are all the sudden the same as Arian Foster? Lazy arguments like using the system he runs for is the kinda stuff that grinds my gears.

 

Do all of Mike Shanaham's HBs that you've seen have Arian Foster's elite vision? Balance? Cut-back abilities? Blend of size and speed? Nose for the endzone? Elite receiving skills?

 

Why don't you also highlight me the long list of HBs not from Denver and Houston (Steve Slaton's fluky season) who have managed to produce like Foster since it's such a "plug and play" scheme?

 

How about you highlight the fact that Foster in the last 3 years combined, has managed to outgain Terrell Davis' entire career total yardage in the passing game?

 

How many QBs are in systems that highlight their strengths? Should QBs who play in West Coast offenses get knocked for being "system QBs"?

 

This thread isn't about why Orlandis Gary, mike Anderson, tatum bell, mike bell, Clinton Portis, Reuben droughns, selvin young, Roy helu, Alfred Morris, Ben Tate are underrated.

 

It's about why Arian Foster is underrated. Stop grouping them all together and making claims that because he's producing in the same scheme as they played or are playing, he's just like them. Because he isn't. And he has skills that translate to him being productive in any schemes played by NFL teams.

Because its a representation of your judgment with football. If your mind is so closed off to see that other nobody runningbacks produced the same stat line as foster for years in that system then there's no point in talking with you about it, you just refuse to accept that that system makes average RB look good. TDs job wasn't to catch the ball, it was to be better runner then what foster is. I couldn't care less about receiving yards from a running back when he's running for 2000 yards and carrying a team to 2 Super Bowls. If foster played for shanny he would've been traded already and replaced by another zone back because he is just like all the other ones

[KempBolt 498]

The rate % isn't based on the only the times he was hit by a defender. The rate % is based on just broken tackles to touches. His broken tackle percent would be lower if he carried the ball more often without being hit than he did while being hit. Does that make sense? In other words, if a running back breaks 20 tackles but was hit 100 times, his rate % wouldn't be 20%, it could be closer to 4 or 5% if he had 350-400 carries. See where I'm getting at? So it doesn't matchup. He broke 30 tackles, the way you're using it is as if he was hit by a defender and tackled on every other touch, not the case. See where I'm getting now?

 

 

Foster doesn't go with contact on quite a few runs, why? Because of the Zone blocking scheme just as you said. The point of the highlights isn't to show you those highlights and to show he makes big plays, it's to actually watch him as a player. Watch his moves, his strides, watch him hitting the gap and his burst. His cuts, burst, and complete vision of the field are miles ahead of any previous zone blocking running backs from Denver that you mentioned. He's got one of the most devastating cut moves in the league right now. I feel like you look at Adrian Peterson running through guys and instantly think to be great that's what you have to be. He doesn't do that nearly as often, but he does do it when needed and he does have the power to do so. Or you look at Charles/Johnson and see their speed, you don't need that kind of speed to be great. Watch the player when ranking them, not the team around him or teams around the players in the past.

 

No, I'm sorry that doesn't make sense. Are you saying that he doesn't get opportunities to break tackles? The more touches a player gets, the more opportunity said player has to force missed tackles. So if you want to compare "elusiveness" between players, you have to adjust for touches and then look at the rates because otherwise you're comparing players with unequal opportunity. And when you do that for Foster, he doesn't rate very highly.

 

To me, what sets apart top tier backs from the rest of the crowd is how much they create on their own. That can be through breaking tackles (Peterson, Lynch), forcing tacklers to miss (Spiller, McCoy), or outrunning would be tacklers (Charles, Johnson). Foster doesn't do that very well at all lately, and hasn't even been average in that regard since 2010. But he's still been able to produce because his skillset lends itself to getting the yards that are there in the zone scheme. That's my take. It's not that I write off all ZBS backs, it's that I recognize the reality that- at times- backs in that scheme can produce even though they aren't great talents. And that's my standard for being a great running back. It doesn't have to be yours. But you posed the question so I answered it.

 

And can we dispense with the stuff in bold please? I'm confident in knowing what I'm seeing and I feel confirmed by analysis that supports what I'm seeing. If you see something different in Foster or any other player, that's great- this game is complex enough that there will always be conflicting opinions. But this is the second time you've questioned whether I'm actually watching the player or even know how to watch the player, and I've answered you already.

Edited July 1, 2013 by KempBolt

[SolomonGrundy 10]

Did Portis run for 2000 yards? Was he a Super Bowl MVP? League MVP? Portis was nowhere near better

 

It took Davis until his 4th season to rush for 2000 yards. That season he averaged 5.1 ypc. Portis only had 2 seasons in the ZBS and he averaged 5.5 ypc in both seasons. It wasn't until Davis 3rd season that he rushed for 15 TDs, Portis did it his first season. Davis never scored more than 3 TDs in a single game, Portis scored 4 TDs in one game his rookie season and 5 TDs in one game his 2nd season. Davis also had a much better team around him and having Elway was huge for Davis. Actually once Elway retired and Griese took over, Davis was well below 4 ypc in 99. And he played 3 full games before he got hurt. And don't even try to tell me that it was because he was facing 8 men in the box, Portis had Griese his rookie year and Plummer his 2nd year, he went through the same thing. Steve Beuerlein, Danny Kannell, and Jarious Jackson also started a few games while Portis was there. I don't think it's too outlandish to say that Portis could have topped Denver's rushing records had he stayed in Denver.

 

Anyway back on topic, Foster isn't a product of the system. People aren't as enamored with how he runs the ball because he isn't as flashy as Jamaal Charles or as ruthless as Adrian Peterson. I believe Foster would put up similar numbers in any blocking scheme, but he has to get 300 or so carries. But it's irrelevant because I don't think Foster will be around much longer. RBs over 6 feet tend to get hurt a lot more than their shorter counterparts. Foster has been relatively healthy so far, but we're starting to see him get more and more dinged up. And Houston isn't liberal with his carries, but they have a solid backup in Tate so they may very well be comfortable running Foster into the ground like this.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Because its a representation of your judgment with football. If your mind is so closed off to see that other nobody runningbacks produced the same stat line as foster for years in that system then there's no point in talking with you about it, you just refuse to accept that that system makes average RB look good. TDs job wasn't to catch the ball, it was to be better runner then what foster is. I couldn't care less about receiving yards from a running back when he's running for 2000 yards and carrying a team to 2 Super Bowls. If foster played for shanny he would've been traded already and replaced by another zone back because he is just like all the other ones

 

Yea, the Houston Texans agree so much with you on his value and how easy he'd be to replace that they gave him as much guaranteed money on his new contract as AP.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

No, I'm sorry that doesn't make sense. Are you saying that he doesn't get opportunities to break tackles? The more touches a player gets, the more opportunity said player has to force missed tackles. So if you want to compare "elusiveness" between players, you have to adjust for touches and then look at the rates because otherwise you're comparing players with unequal opportunity. And when you do that for Foster, he doesn't rate very highly.

 

To me, what sets apart top tier backs from the rest of the crowd is how much they create on their own. That can be through breaking tackles (Peterson, Lynch), forcing tacklers to miss (Spiller, McCoy), or outrunning would be tacklers (Charles, Johnson). Foster doesn't do that very well at all lately, and hasn't even been average in that regard since 2010. But he's still been able to produce because his skillset lends itself to getting the yards that are there in the zone scheme. That's my take. It's not that I write off all ZBS backs, it's that I recognize the reality that- at times- backs in that scheme can produce even though they aren't great talents. And that's my standard for being a great running back. It doesn't have to be yours. But you posed the question so I answered it.

 

And can we dispense with the stuff in bold please? I'm confident in knowing what I'm seeing and I feel confirmed by analysis that supports what I'm seeing. If you see something different in Foster or any other player, that's great- this game is complex enough that there will always be conflicting opinions. But this is the second time you've questioned whether I'm actually watching the player or even know how to watch the player, and I've answered you already.

 

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.

[KempBolt 498]

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.

 

Figure out who the hell you're debating with and then get back to me. You're picking up Crash's points here. My assessment of Foster factors in the scheme in which he plays, as all player assessments should, but nowhere did I compare him to the guys you're talking about or claim that the scheme disqualifies him. In fact, the only comparisons I made were to other current running backs to demonstrate the sub-standard rate at which he makes tacklers miss- which was my answer to your question. Need me to spell it out for you?

 

I don't think Arian Foster is elite because I think he is below average at creating yardage on his own when the blocking isn't there. I think he's been a good back, and is now declining but was never elite. I think his skillet was perfect for his scheme and he was also a nice receiver. But MY standard for greatness among running backs are those that excel on getting more yards that what's blocked for them. And I don't think Foster has ever been better than average in that regard and I think he's below average now.

 

Is that clear enough? Was that pussyfooting? Or are you just that incapable of having someone disagree with you?

 

Oh, and the bold is so weak. 10 games is plenty to get an idea of what a back is like. And when the numbers confirm what I saw, it's more than enough. You're grasping to try and discredit me and frankly it's pitiful.

[Dutch 874]

Edited July 2, 2013 by dutchff7

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

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.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Rain Man