Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy P
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.