Foster vs. Tate

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Roy P

Then we have a difference of opinion. I am not making my argument based upon past projections or stats. To be honest, I'd have to look up what their ypc stats are. You make a good point that goal line runs that start at the 3 yard line would decrease Tate's average. What I see on the field is that Tate gets more out of a play. I then project that over the course of a season, he'd gain more yards if he were getting the carries that Foster had, thus making his ypc higher. I think you are assuming that I am utilizing his current ypc & simply multiplying that by more carries to come to my conclusion. In this instance, I'm just using my eyeballs and not crunching numbers. (I know that's not my usual methodology.)

If its just an eyeball thing than I got you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My only real problem was the original statement by nunus that "everyone" knows Tate is the better runner. I love Tate as a Texan but that is definitely a minority opinion.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by barrett

If its just an eyeball thing than I got you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My only real problem was the original statement by nunus that "everyone" knows Tate is the better runner. I love Tate as a Texan but that is definitely a minority opinion.

I am not sure about "everyone" but just wanted to say that I happen to hold that opinion. Could care less if I'm in the minority or not. I have to admit that I'm biased since I would have drafted Tate in the first round being scared he wouldn't last until the 2nd. Of course we didn't know what we had in Foster at that point either since he had not shown it on the field.

[Warren]

Tate doesn't have Foster's vision, but few RBs do. Foster is great at spotting holes, sometimes before they've really opened up, and cutting through them while Tate tries to slam through the defense and create his own. That reading ability makes Foster a perfect fit for this offense.

[Joe Joe]

Originally Posted by Warren

Tate doesn't have Foster's vision, but few RBs do. Foster is great at spotting holes, sometimes before they've really opened up, and cutting through them while Tate tries to slam through the defense and create his own. That reading ability makes Foster a perfect fit for this offense.

I loathe the title of this split thread. It shouldn't be "vs"..it should be "and".

Tate is less creative than Foster, but he has a good feel for the initial gap and makes his cut. When it isn't there, he slams into weak spot and gets whatever he can. Foster, last season, tended to try for the big play too much instead of taking what was there. Tate was averaging nearly 6 yards per carry if I remember correctly between the 20's...and that is without the 70+ yard runs. He gets a lot of 5-20 runs and has one of the highest success rates on runs in the NFL.

I love both guys. Foster is the better back as he can run anywhere well, block, and receive. Tate is better between the 20's as a rusher, but he isn't a good enough rusher between the 20's to make up for lack of receiving and blocking skills. Foster is an amazing RB...very few RBs would have been able to keep their job starting against Tate in a ZRB scheme.

I also want to say I read somewhere that Tate was third in NFL RBs in rushing after contact last season. His strength and speed to get through congested holes really helps. The problem with this is that it will most likely shorten his career.

If you can't enjoy watching both RBs, there is something wrong. If you think Tate is the better overall RB than Foster, it wasn't shown last season. If you are looking at what they did rushing last season between the 20's last season, Tate is the easy winner. Tate is a little more dependent on blocking. I don't know what the future holds, but I like both backs.

In the name of peace...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWiuo...eature=related

[Roy P]

I don't think Tate is a better "Overall" RB. I am merely of the opinion that he is a better runner. I wish I could look at carries just between the 20's and compare Foster vs. Tate. I'd like to see how many runs were between 0-5 yards and how many were 6-11 yards. Hat way we could compare apples to apples. Tate might not have 3 plays of 70+ yards, but he does get more chunks I would guess. He has burst through the hole and gets to the second level quickly, that's what I like about him.

[Nconroe]

I too like both Foster and Tate. Their styles are complimentary. Foster seems to have shown more game breaking skills. Both do good in posession game. Hope they remain a dup for many years to come. My eyeball loves to watch Foster, very explosive.

[chuck]

I prefer discussing the relative merits of our two excellent backs to wondering what week the coach is going to get fired.