Quote:
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