PDA

View Full Version : Maurice Jones-Drew on Arian Foster


TexasBoY25
08-04-2010, 03:38 PM
Source RotoWorld

Maurice Jones-Drew has selected Arian Foster as his fantasy sleeper for 2010.

TexasBoY25
08-04-2010, 03:41 PM
"I really like Arian Foster," said MJD. "I think heís a good running back, especially in their system, the Denver system. And I watched him in college too. Itís his style -- in that zone system, a bigger back (6-foot-1, 229 pounds) who can get a cut and get his shoulders square. Heís going to be a force to be reckoned with. I really like him and Iíve got some sources, too."

jaayteetx
08-04-2010, 03:44 PM
Got a good feeling bout Arian.

Thorn
08-04-2010, 07:00 PM
If Foster is really that good, what happens to Tate? We all know what happens to Slaton, he's already the 3rd down back and slot reciever.

They didn't draft Tate in the 2nd round to have him sit on the bench.

IF, and I must say IF again, Foster really does do his thing this season, we really are looking at a 3 back running system and Kubiak wearing a steel jock to hide his wood. :lol:

JB
08-04-2010, 07:03 PM
If Foster is really that good, what happens to Tate? We all know what happens to Slaton, he's already the 3rd down back and slot reciever.

They didn't draft Tate in the 2nd round to have him sit on the bench.

IF, and I must say IF again, Foster really does do his thing this season, we really are looking at a 3 back running system and Kubiak wearing a steel jock to hide his wood. :lol:

Nice! :lol:

Carr Bombed
08-04-2010, 07:18 PM
If Foster is really that good, what happens to Tate? We all know what happens to Slaton, he's already the 3rd down back and slot reciever.

They didn't draft Tate in the 2nd round to have him sit on the bench.

IF, and I must say IF again, Foster really does do his thing this season, we really are looking at a 3 back running system and Kubiak wearing a steel jock to hide his wood. :lol:


What happens to Connor Barwin if we sign Aaron Schobel? Connor Barwin was last year's 2nd round pick.

However I am happy that we are developing enough depth to make high draft picks become reserve players.

TimeKiller
08-04-2010, 07:21 PM
Gotta believe MJD wouldn't be blowing smoke up a division opponent's ass. AF has every physical skill you could dream up in a RB except homerun speed. If he's doing Mr. Kubiak's homework there is a good chance he becomes a wrecking ball that keeps chains moving and defenses huffing. There is only more good that comes from that, 1 defenses will over-react to stop him then get caught on a play action to an elite aerial attack and 2 defenses will be so tired of trying to catch a slower (relatively speaking) guy they won't stand a chance to catch a fresh legged, fast guy like Tate or Slaton.

Hey, the sky could fall and this entire team could burn down but when exactly has the RB position looked soooo interesting for the Texans?

TheRealJoker
08-04-2010, 07:23 PM
What happens to Connor Barwin if we sign Aaron Schobel? Connor Barwin was last year's 2nd round pick.

However I am happy that we are developing enough depth to make high draft picks become reserve players.

If anything, Schobel will eat into Smith's reps at DE, causing him to bump inside more often. With Barwin and Smith's versatility, they will get their reps. Adding Schobel would just give us another quality player to add to the team. His addition would certainly help the defense.

A quality vet on the team for a change? Heck yes!!!

The Pencil Neck
08-04-2010, 09:53 PM
If Foster is really that good, what happens to Tate? We all know what happens to Slaton, he's already the 3rd down back and slot reciever.

They didn't draft Tate in the 2nd round to have him sit on the bench.

IF, and I must say IF again, Foster really does do his thing this season, we really are looking at a 3 back running system and Kubiak wearing a steel jock to hide his wood. :lol:

It's like I said in another thread, Foster pounds on the defense for 3 quarters with Slaton coming in occasionally to catch screens and things and then in the 4th quarter, a totally fresh Tate comes in and destroys whatever's left.

If all three guys find their mojo, this could be an EPIC offense. And an offense that does things just the way Kubiak wants them done.

JB
08-04-2010, 09:56 PM
It's like I said in another thread, Foster pounds on the defense for 3 quarters with Slaton coming in occasionally to catch screens and things and then in the 4th quarter, a totally fresh Tate comes in and destroys whatever's left.

If all three guys find their mojo, this could be an EPIC offense. And an offense that does things just the way Kubiak wants them done.

I envision it to fall pretty much like that, but with Tate coming in for the last 8 min. of each half. Or two series for Foster and then one for Tate, unless one of them is just blowing the d up.

ObsiWan
08-06-2010, 06:58 PM
Of course this projected "stellar" running game still depends on how our O-line jells...
...and whether they can stay healthy for 18-19 games...

ubecool454
08-07-2010, 09:08 AM
If Foster is really that good, what happens to Tate? We all know what happens to Slaton, he's already the 3rd down back and slot reciever.

They didn't draft Tate in the 2nd round to have him sit on the bench.

IF, and I must say IF again, Foster really does do his thing this season, we really are looking at a 3 back running system and Kubiak wearing a steel jock to hide his wood. :lol:

If the Giants were able to run Ahmad Bradshaw, Ward, and Jacobs then I think we can find enough carries for Slaton, Foster and Tate.

ubecool454
08-07-2010, 09:12 AM
What happens to Connor Barwin if we sign Aaron Schobel? Connor Barwin was last year's 2nd round pick.

However I am happy that we are developing enough depth to make high draft picks become reserve players.

What happens to Barwin? He gets better because he can learn a lot from Schobel. If we sign Schobel we shouldn't be looking to get but 2 years out of him anyway.

thunderkyss
08-07-2010, 10:18 AM
What happens to Barwin? He gets better because he can learn a lot from Schobel. If we sign Schobel we shouldn't be looking to get but 2 years out of him anyway.

I agree, if we can get 4 guys to pressure the QB from the ends, then the QB will never be able to take a break. The OL will have to work every down.

We all know that we have an issue bringing pressure for 4 Qtrs... signing Schobel can only help Barwin, Mario, & Antonio.

BigBull17
08-07-2010, 11:55 AM
If anything, Schobel will eat into Smith's reps at DE, causing him to bump inside more often. With Barwin and Smith's versatility, they will get their reps. Adding Schobel would just give us another quality player to add to the team. His addition would certainly help the defense.

A quality vet on the team for a change? Heck yes!!!

Schobel would take reps from the Boulmen and Nadding before he would take them from Barwin and Smith.

Hervoyel
08-07-2010, 03:08 PM
I keep thinking the same thing over and over again when I look at the various "crowded" positions like this, WR, and potentially DE if we sign Schobel. "This is a really nice problem to have and a welcome change of pace".

Lucky
08-07-2010, 10:11 PM
I keep thinking the same thing over and over again when I look at the various "crowded" positions like this, WR, and potentially DE if we sign Schobel. "This is a really nice problem to have and a welcome change of pace".
He's back!

I like how the Texans have gone from hemorraging at the RB position in '09 to becoming one of the deepest positions in '10. Foster, Slaton, Tate, and even Chris Henry look great. Any would have started for the 2002, 2006, or 2007 versions. This organization has seemed to learn that RB is more than just an afterthought.

The Pencil Neck
08-07-2010, 10:19 PM
He's back!

I like how the Texans have gone from hemorraging at the RB position in '09 to becoming one of the deepest positions in '10. Foster, Slaton, Tate, and even Chris Henry look great. Any would have started for the 2002, 2006, or 2007 versions. This organization has seemed to learn that RB is more than just an afterthought.

Yep.

Like I said before the draft, this is supposed to be a running team. If that's the case, then the running back HAS to be an important position. Running backs may have a short shelf life but instead of being an argument for only picking up running backs in later rounds and as UDFA's, that could actually be looked at as an argument for picking them early and often.

I feel a lot better about this team knowing that we're stocked with talent at the RB spot. (Or at least, thinking we're stocked with talent at the RB spot.)

Hervoyel
08-07-2010, 11:03 PM
I think you pick them early when you're at a point where their shorter shelf life will compliment the longer careers of the linemen ahead of them and the QB/WR1 who will most likely feature with them.

JB
08-07-2010, 11:09 PM
I think you pick them early when you're at a point where their shorter shelf life will compliment the longer careers of the linemen ahead of them and the QB/WR1 who will most likely feature with them.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. You fill your holes. No need to take a RB early if you do not have an OL or a QB to help them out. Denver struck gold in TD, amd we may have done the same in Foster. Having the other pieces in place assures that you will get the most value out of the short lived career of a rb. See Dominick Davis-Williams.

thunderkyss
08-08-2010, 09:39 AM
He's back!

I like how the Texans have gone from hemorraging at the RB position in '09 to becoming one of the deepest positions in '10. Foster, Slaton, Tate, and even Chris Henry look great. Any would have started for the 2002, 2006, or 2007 versions. This organization has seemed to learn that RB is more than just an afterthought.

Are we really doing anything different?

2009, it was Slaton, Brown, Moats, Foster, Henry, Johnson.

2010, it is Foster, Slaton, Tate, Henry, Johnson.

We kick Brown & Moats to the curb, & Draft Tate in the second. We haven't had a lot of second round picks to be able to say this regime wouldn't use a second on a RB (truth be told, rumor has it in 2006, we thought about D'Angelo Williams in the first).

Instead of "This organization has seemed to learn...." maybe things are just starting to work out for them. Us.

2009, Only one running back was taken in the second round. LeSean McCoy. The rumor was of all the backs on the board in the third (after Greene??) Smithiak felt they could find just as good a back undrafted. And we got Foster, and Johnson. Foster will be going into camp starting... so I don't buy the, "they screwed up the draft by not getting Greene, in 2009" argument.

beerlover
08-08-2010, 10:15 AM
ideally you build through the draft by taking the best player available regardless of position or need. plenty mock drafts had the Texans taking Dan Williams, Texans addressing inside under nose type DT. They waited until rd. 3 for Mitchell instead, is there anyone here who doesn't think Kareem is the higher rated player while not a big drop off from Williams to Mitchell?

so the Texans had the weakest set of RB's last year to one of the deepest this year, thats really amazing to me :thinking: I'll beleive it when I see it :barman:

gary
08-08-2010, 10:21 AM
A little less than a week and then the ball gets rolling.

Lucky
08-08-2010, 01:02 PM
Are we really doing anything different?

2009, it was Slaton, Brown, Moats, Foster, Henry, Johnson.

2010, it is Foster, Slaton, Tate, Henry, Johnson.
In Kubiak's eyes, the Foster of 2010 is ++++ over the Foster of 2009. And as we know, it's his opinion that counts. From the two practices I've seen, I tend to agree with him.

Slaton as lost weight and may have rediscovered his explosiveness.

Tate has to be a major improvement over Brown & Moats combined.

Chris Henry having gone through mini camps and training camp has to be improved over a Chris Henry plucked off the waiver wire.

So yeah, this set of RBs should be vastly different (and superior) in comparison to the 2009 group. Really, it's just argumentative to suggest otherwise.

TheRealJoker
08-08-2010, 01:07 PM
In Kubiak's eyes, the Foster of 2010 is ++++ over the Foster of 2009. And as we know, it's his opinion that counts. From the two practices I've seen, I tend to agree with him.

Slaton as lost weight and may have rediscovered his explosiveness.

Tate has to be a major improvement over Brown & Moats combined.

Chris Henry having gone through mini camps and training camp has to be improved over a Chris Henry plucked off the waiver wire.

So yeah, this set of RBs should be vastly different (and superior) in comparison to the 2009 group. Really, it's just argumentative to suggest otherwise.

Perhaps most important is that Foster has gained Kubiak's trust. Kubiak has a problem letting young guys get reps which cost us games where he let Chris Brown have the ball in his hands. Had he gotten over his trust issues earlier and let Foster go through his growing pains we could've found at least one more win in our schedule with the improvements we would've had in the running game.

Lucky
08-08-2010, 01:11 PM
Had he gotten over his trust issues earlier and let Foster go through his growing pains we could've found at least one more win in our schedule with the improvements we would've had in the running game.
I agree. But, I'm trying to put on a happy face :) and let bygones be bygones.

thunderkyss
08-08-2010, 03:42 PM
Kubiak has a problem letting young guys get reps which cost us games where he let Chris Brown have the ball in his hands. Had he gotten over his trust issues earlier and let Foster go through his growing pains we could've found at least one more win in our schedule with the improvements we would've had in the running game.

Or we could have had one more loss. We have no idea what Foster's growing pains would have been like. Didn't he put the ball in the kids hands, and the first thing he did was drop it?

We all like this team that Kubiak has put together. We like the players he's selected, and we like how many of the lesser known guys have come along. Diles, Jacoby, Quinn, Briesel, Owen Daniels...

He's started Charles Spencer, Wali Lundy, Duane Brown, Brian Cushing, and he'll start Kareem Jackson from day one.

I for one, trust if he says Foster wasn't ready, Foster wasn't ready.

TheRealJoker
08-08-2010, 04:01 PM
Or we could have had one more loss. We have no idea what Foster's growing pains would have been like. Didn't he put the ball in the kids hands, and the first thing he did was drop it?

We all like this team that Kubiak has put together. We like the players he's selected, and we like how many of the lesser known guys have come along. Diles, Jacoby, Quinn, Briesel, Owen Daniels...

He's started Charles Spencer, Wali Lundy, Duane Brown, Brian Cushing, and he'll start Kareem Jackson from day one.

I for one, trust if he says Foster wasn't ready, Foster wasn't ready.

I have a hard time believing Foster getting Brown's reps earlier would've hurt our chances anymore than if we kept Brown in...

thunderkyss
08-08-2010, 04:15 PM
I have a hard time believing Foster getting Brown's reps earlier would've hurt our chances anymore than if we kept Brown in...

I understand. Just saying it wasn't because Kubiak has a problem putting the ball in rooks hands. He's done it, time and time again. If Kubiak didn't put Foster in the game, I believe it was for good reason, and Arian Foster may be the better for it today.

whiskeyrbl
08-08-2010, 04:35 PM
What happens to Connor Barwin if we sign Aaron Schobel? Connor Barwin was last year's 2nd round pick.

However I am happy that we are developing enough depth to make high draft picks become reserve players.

if we get Schobel i think he is a spell player( give another guy a rest) however how would you like to see on 3rd and longs Barwin and Schobel on the ends and Mario and Smith at DT ? Nice little line to get pressure on the ol QB i would think.

The Pencil Neck
08-08-2010, 04:59 PM
I have a hard time believing Foster getting Brown's reps earlier would've hurt our chances anymore than if we kept Brown in...

Something that's important to remember, and it might be difficult to get ones head around, but... of all our running backs, Chris Brown had the lowest rate of fumbles per attempt.

Arian Foster himself has said that at the beginning of last year, he had issues. He had issues on the field and off the field. He was missing meetings and basically being unprofessional and he had to get it together. THAT'S why Foster didn't get his chance earlier. He really wasn't ready for it. Even when he got it, he almost fumbled it away.

I think Foster is going to be really, really good this year. And that excites me.

ChampionTexan
08-08-2010, 05:19 PM
Something that's important to remember, and it might be difficult to get ones head around, but... of all our running backs, Chris Brown had the lowest rate of fumbles per attempt.

Arian Foster himself has said that at the beginning of last year, he had issues. He had issues on the field and off the field. He was missing meetings and basically being unprofessional and he had to get it together. THAT'S why Foster didn't get his chance earlier. He really wasn't ready for it. Even when he got it, he almost fumbled it away.

I think Foster is going to be really, really good this year. And that excites me.

This is one of those things (as many things are) where if you're pre-disposed to like Kubiak (and staff), then you view it as "They managed to get the guy's head straight, coach him up, and have him ready to play before the season was over". If you're pre-disposed to dis-like Kubiak (and staff), then they were oblivious to the guy's ability.

I don't know if either side is right (and neither do they).

thunderkyss
08-08-2010, 06:32 PM
This is one of those things (as many things are) where if you're pre-disposed to like Kubiak (and staff), then you view it as "They managed to get the guy's head straight, coach him up, and have him ready to play before the season was over". If you're pre-disposed to dis-like Kubiak (and staff), then they were oblivious to the guy's ability.

I don't know if either side is right (and neither do they).

So how does that work considering he has started rookies before?

Demeco at MLB
Wali Lundy at RB
Glover Quinn at CB
OD at TE
Duan Brown at LT
Charles Spencer at LT

ChampionTexan
08-08-2010, 07:01 PM
So how does that work considering he has started rookies before?

Demeco at MLB
Wali Lundy at RB
Glover Quinn at CB
OD at TE
Duan Brown at LT
Charles Spencer at LT

What does him starting rookies before have to do with the way folks react to this specific time? I'm saying lots of people have an agenda, and typically, their reaction to this type of thing is driven far more by that agenda than by facts (particularly when the facts are un-knowable).

If you're saying the fact that he's given rookies significant playing time before means he couldn't possibly have made that mistake with Foster, wasn't it Kubes himself who stated both Walter and Diles should have gotten more playing time their first year with the Texans.

thunderkyss
08-08-2010, 07:31 PM
What does him starting rookies before have to do with the way folks react to this specific time? I'm saying lots of people have an agenda, and typically, their reaction to this type of thing is driven far more by that agenda than by facts (particularly when the facts are un-knowable).

If you're saying the fact that he's given rookies significant playing time before means he couldn't possibly have made that mistake with Foster, wasn't it Kubes himself who stated both Walter and Diles should have gotten more playing time their first year with the Texans.

Yes.


Yes.

GP
08-08-2010, 07:55 PM
It's like I said in another thread, Foster pounds on the defense for 3 quarters with Slaton coming in occasionally to catch screens and things and then in the 4th quarter, a totally fresh Tate comes in and destroys whatever's left.

If all three guys find their mojo, this could be an EPIC offense. And an offense that does things just the way Kubiak wants them done.

Stop getting my expectations up.