View Single Post
Old 09-18-2012   #19
Dutchrudder 
COOL BEANS!
 
Dutchrudder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Houston
Section: Fort Kickass
Age: 30
Posts: 15,063
Rep Power: 150980 Dutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respectedDutchrudder is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: Are we overusing Foster?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nero THE zero View Post
And Clay Matthews is on pace for 48 sacks. What he's on pace for after 2 games is wholly irrelevant.

We haven't played a good team and have played two games with large, early leads. He's not going to be carrying it 28 times when we are playing New England and Green Bay and Detroit. He'll be carrying is 15, 17 times and his carries will level out to around 300, his career average.
Whoopty doo, why would any coach in their right mind send their #1 RB out there against a losing, frustrated, crappy team in the 4th quarter? They are looking to strip the ball, they are looking to lay out the player because that's the only way they get back in the game. It's not just a factor of the number of carries, but it's about giving him carries that matter, and not exposing him to potential injury during irrelevant garbage time. It's called "garbage time" for a good reason. Tate and Forsett are perfectly capable of carrying the ball during that time, but an injury to them doesn't impact the team anywhere near as much as Foster would.
__________________
Life is too important to be taken seriously. -Oscar Wilde
Dutchrudder is offline   Reply With Quote