Foster vs. Tate
 

Where are you getting this from? You are the only one I've ever heard that from.

Tate a better pure RB than Foster? I don't know about that.

Sick of these injury concerns, man.

I would agree with this assessment. If given the opportunity, I believe Tate could perform better than Foster in terms of ypc. The Texans thought so too, when they drafted Tate in the 2nd round, before Foster became the Man when Tate was injured. After Foster's performance, the safe bet was to keep things status quo with the 'proven' performer. It's a nice problem to have (having two great RBs) especially when that position has a high risk for injury. If Tate improves on his pass protection and can prove to be a threat receiving the ball, I'd imagine his touches would increase and Foster's work load could decrease.

Are you seriously claiming that the Texans drafting Tate 3 years ago has some relevance on who is better? I think the contract they gave Foster unequivocally proves who they think is better.

Foster is head and shoulders above Tate in almost every possible area of playing RB in the NFL.

As a pure runner he is far better in short yardage and as a big play threat. Then you add in the night and day differences in the passing game. Tate is a very good backup RB and could be a very good starter in the right offense and with the right 2nd back paired with him to cover where he lacks. Foster is likely the best RB in the NFL. Basing it on YPC is like claiming Jacoby Jones is better than Andre Johnson since he had a higher average last year.

I am saying that Tate would gain more yards than Foster if given the same number of carries. Foster obviously does other things better than Tate which is why he was rewarded with his contract. Playing RB is more than simply running with the ball after taking a hand-off. We shall see how quickly Foster's knee heals, I'm sure he doesn't want to lose his job by giving Tate an extended look.

I am saying he wouldn't. We aren't talking about the draft and projecting players or 3 year old draft grades. We are talking about actual production for guys who have been in the NFL for multiple years. One guys is among the best in the NFL and the other guy is a great backup.

YPC on limited carries does not translate to starting. If Tate was asked to run in short yardage (something he would have to do to get equal carries) his YPA would immediately go down because there are fewer yards to be gained. Every time Foster gets a 1 yard TD or first down his average drops even though it is a highly successful play. YPA is extremely deceptive for a backup RB who only runs on 1st and 2nd down and only between the 20s (both scenarios that result in higher YPA no matter who the RB is). Notice that Tate's YPA was far higher in games Foster played than when Foster sat.

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.) ;)

The big problem with Foster is a lack of elite speed. But Terrell Davis lacked elite speed and he was pretty good. I think Tate can get from point A to point B a little faster than Foster but I think Foster does a better job of getting one or two more yards out of a run when he meets a defender.

I think, in today's NFL, you need two very good backs so I'm happy we have both.

I love Tate, but to say he's better than Foster is just crazy, IMO. Even if we just use the eyeball methodology, I have yet to see Tate shaking and running around defenders for a long TD run where you say, wow, this guy's a stud. And he's had opportunities. Foster has had multiple runs like that. It still amazes me today how people are just waiting for Foster to fail, or at minimal, under-value his talent. Maybe it's the UDFA thing. I don't get it.

Foster has at least 3 TDs of 70+ yards in 2 seasons as a starter. At the RB position only mcCoy and Chris johnson (from 2010) can compare in terms of game breaking. Not to mention I can never remember him being caught from behind. He has elite RB speed.

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.

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

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.

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.

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