Foster is an Elite back

[Rey]

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

Do you think he's going to play another year for peanuts? I don't. I completely expect him to hold out if that's all Rick offers him, and I wouldn't blame him at all if he did. He's outperformed his contract for two years straight now, and he deserves a pay raise, even if he has to sit out a season.

How much money are we talking for a high tender?

[TexansForTheW]

I say somewhere around 8 to 10 million for 5 years.

[Dutchrudder]

Originally Posted by Rey

How much money are we talking for a high tender?

Depends on what draft pick value is assigned. I'm assuming Foster is regarded as a third year RFA next year. Previously the values were:

Veterans with 3 accrued seasons:
3.317 - 1st & 3rd round compensation*
2.611 - 1st round compensation*
1.835 - 2nd round compensation*
1.200 - original round compensation*
1.200 - right of first refusal

* or 110% of the previous year's pay (whichever is higher)

I don't know if that has changed significantly with the new CBA, but 3.3 million likely isn't enough to make Foster happy. Not only that, but another team could still try to sign him, and the Texans would have right of first refusal, but end up paying that contract. Ought to be interesting to see what happens with him, he sure would be a hot commodity on the market.

The Texans did this with Owen Daniels in the past the year he got hurt. I recall OD being very unhappy with his contract but still played begrudgingly. I think his was worth about 3.4 million due to the 110% increase or something like that.

[Texecutioner]

Originally Posted by TexansForTheW

I say somewhere around 8 to 10 million for 5 years.

You'd pay 8 Mill a year for a RB?? That's to much.

Look at the last few SB teams of the last few seasons and decade?? How many of them had a top 3 best RB in the league?? NONE OF THEM.

GB had one of the worst running games in the league and won the SB.

NO didn't have that strong of a running game at all. THey had a platoon of guys behind a pretty good O line. (Which is what I said was more important.)

The Steelers had Willie Parker and Mendenhall in their last SB, neither of which was anywhere close to being the best RB in the league.

The Patriots have never had a top RB in the league playing for any of their teams that won the SB.

The Bucs that won the SB had a guy that I can't even remember his name at the time.

The Ravens won with Jamal Lewis as a rookie, and he was good, but far from being the best in the league.

The Colts won their first SB with Edge if I'm not mistaken or it might have been with Addai. Either way, the Colts never had the best RB in the league with Addai there.



So you can look at all of these great teams that won SB's and the common denominator there has never been a team that needed a top 3 RB in the league to win the SB. A good running game is very important, but all of those teams put their money elsewhere instead of paying Chris Johnson or Deangello Williams type of money for their RB.

[TexansFanatic]

Can't stop laughing at this.

[Jaysol]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

You'd pay 8 Mill a year for a RB?? That's to much.

Look at the last few SB teams of the last few seasons and decade?? How many of them had a top 3 best RB in the league?? NONE OF THEM.

GB had one of the worst running games in the league and won the SB.

NO didn't have that strong of a running game at all. THey had a platoon of guys behind a pretty good O line. (Which is what I said was more important.)

The Steelers had Willie Parker and Mendenhall in their last SB, neither of which was anywhere close to being the best RB in the league.

The Patriots have never had a top RB in the league playing for any of their teams that won the SB.

The Bucs that won the SB had a guy that I can't even remember his name at the time.

The Ravens won with Jamal Lewis as a rookie, and he was good, but far from being the best in the league.

The Colts won their first SB with Edge if I'm not mistaken or it might have been with Addai. Either way, the Colts never had the best RB in the league with Addai there.


So you can look at all of these great teams that won SB's and the common denominator there has never been a team that needed a top 3 RB in the league to win the SB. A good running game is very important, but all of those teams put their money elsewhere instead of paying Chris Johnson or Deangello Williams type of money for their RB.

The common denominator is they were all great teams.

GB, NO, Pitt, NE, and Colts all had premiere quarterbacks and other pieces to puzzle needed to accomplish that final win.

Baltimore was led by Ray Lewis and other Defensive players, but Jamal Lewis was 7th in rushing yards for that season, he wasn't a slouch. It was a close game that the defense helped push over the top to a 3 point win.

The point is, just because you don't NEED a premiere running back to win a Super Bowl, doesn't mean that you undervalue what Foster has brought to this team. I feel his play the last two seasons more than warrants 7+ million a year as long as he continues to perform adequately so. If anything, to help compensate for the time he performed for far below what he contributed to the team.

[Jaysol]

There is also something to be said about star value of a player. Foster is the type of player that get's people into the stands. His explosiveness and ability to put 6 on the board everytime he touches the ball gets people to buy tickets and memorabilia. That is definetly something that should be on the front office's mind when they negotiate with him, because I'm certain it will be on Foster and his agent's mind.

Let's face it, Texan's fans have been spoiled by our strength at the running game. It has someone become our calling card these last two years, along with our defense this year. We don't need a Brady, Rodgers, or Brees to win, we pound it out on the ground. I'm certain there would be serious backlash from the fans if we don't do whatever it takes to sign Foster and he goes on to be incredibly successful elsewhere.

In short, PAY HIM, RICK!

[silvrhand]

Originally Posted by Jaysol

There is also something to be said about star value of a player. Foster is the type of player that get's people into the stands. His explosiveness and ability to put 6 on the board everytime he touches the ball gets people to buy tickets and memorabilia. That is definetly something that should be on the front office's mind when they negotiate with him, because I'm certain it will be on Foster and his agent's mind.

Let's face it, Texan's fans have been spoiled by our strength at the running game. It has someone become our calling card these last two years, along with our defense this year. We don't need a Brady, Rodgers, or Brees to win, we pound it out on the ground. I'm certain there would be serious backlash from the fans if we don't do whatever it takes to sign Foster and he goes on to be incredibly successful elsewhere.

In short, PAY HIM, RICK!

Disagree, wins gets fans in the stands.. they usually don't care too much long as they are winning. Offer Arian a reasonable offer 4-5 million a year, and if not put Tate in the 2-3 million a year, and put Ward back to work.. Draft another good RB in the second round and call it done.

[Corrosion]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

Mario gets the franchise tag. I believe salary caps are suppose to increase the year after next.

I dont think you can franchise MW ..... he would get like $23m for one year , since its either top 5 avg money OR 120% of the preevious years salary , whichever is greater .... the 120% would be the greater. Thats just too much money for one player.

[Texecutioner]

Originally Posted by Jaysol

The common denominator is they were all great teams.

GB, NO, Pitt, NE, and Colts all had premiere quarterbacks and other pieces to puzzle needed to accomplish that final win.

Baltimore was led by Ray Lewis and other Defensive players, but Jamal Lewis was 7th in rushing yards for that season, he wasn't a slouch. It was a close game that the defense helped push over the top to a 3 point win.

The point is, just because you don't NEED a premiere running back to win a Super Bowl, doesn't mean that you undervalue what Foster has brought to this team. I feel his play the last two seasons more than warrants 7+ million a year as long as he continues to perform adequately so. If anything, to help compensate for the time he performed for far below what he contributed to the team.

Which sort of makes my point for me doesn't it than?? If a great team was great enough to win the SB without a top 3 RB, than obviously it isn't something that is "needed" at all to where you have to pay a guy that kind of money at that position.

I've already provided enough evidence that consistent winning teams don't need a star at RB. I made the statement and provided information to back up that assertion.

I never have stated that I don't want Foster. No one would suggest that. If Foster wants a contract that is way over what any RB should get considering their worth, than he should be let go or traded at that point.

RB's aren't a pivatol piece in winning a SB. They're important just like any position, but not at a salary like that when you have a great blocking scheme that's working with other great talent on the team who can be productive.


You can also look at all of the teams that lost to SB winners over that period of time and hardly any of them had a top 3 RB than either. The only one I can think of from the last decade is the Rams who lost to the Patriots.

[Rey]

I think you have to take into consideration how teams are built.

Patriots, colts and packers all had the top three qb's in the league. Same with the saints.

Baltimore had one of the best defenses ever.

We depend heavily in foster and Tate. You can point to the oline but this is pretty much the same or a very similar line that blocked for slaton and ahman green and Ron dayne.

Then besides the running game foster is a great pass protector at the position and he is a great receiver coming out of the back field.

I disagree that he is expendable simply because of the position he plays and the money he may command. I think you have to look at this individual teams make up and how much this offense actually depend on foster and the running game in order to be successful.

[fiasco west]

Foster is a franchise player.

Pay him whatever it takes to get him back. For all the RBs have a short lifespan, this is true...when you rely too much on one RB and run him to the ground. This will not be the case. The man is carrying the offense on his back and we are 9-3, I think that's enough to warrant a big pay-day.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

Depends on what draft pick value is assigned. I'm assuming Foster is regarded as a third year RFA next year. Previously the values were:

Veterans with 3 accrued seasons:
3.317 - 1st & 3rd round compensation*
2.611 - 1st round compensation*
1.835 - 2nd round compensation*
1.200 - original round compensation*
1.200 - right of first refusal

* or 110% of the previous year's pay (whichever is higher)

I don't know if that has changed significantly with the new CBA, but 3.3 million likely isn't enough to make Foster happy. Not only that, but another team could still try to sign him, and the Texans would have right of first refusal, but end up paying that contract. Ought to be interesting to see what happens with him, he sure would be a hot commodity on the market.

The Texans did this with Owen Daniels in the past the year he got hurt. I recall OD being very unhappy with his contract but still played begrudgingly. I think his was worth about 3.4 million due to the 110% increase or something like that.

Yeah, I don't see us doing this.

[Texecutioner]

Originally Posted by Rey

I think you have to take into consideration how teams are built.

Patriots, colts and packers all had the top three qb's in the league. Same with the saints.

Baltimore had one of the best defenses ever.

We depend heavily in foster and Tate. You can point to the oline but this is pretty much the same or a very similar line that blocked for slaton and ahman green and Ron dayne.

Then besides the running game foster is a great pass protector at the position and he is a great receiver coming out of the back field.

I disagree that he is expendable simply because of the position he plays and the money he may command. I think you have to look at this individual teams make up and how much this offense actually depend on foster and the running game in order to be successful.

The Texans went 2-1 without Foster and their only loss was to the Saints where they put up like 30 something points. That was with Tate. I agree that he is great in this offense, but with the way the O line looks right now a lot of backs can be very productive in this offense.

You can't get just any safety to be spectacular on a defense. You can't get just any CB to be spectacular on any defense. You can't get any D lineman or O lineman to be spectacular at their positions. Those are all positions where you "need" great players at those positions if you want high quality production. It's been proven time and time again that with a good blocking scheme in the running game that average backs can be very consistent. The NE Patriots have done that for years especially the last 4 seasons.

[Fox]

Foster's an integral part of this team and this offense. Good locker room guy, great in pass pro, an elite screen guy, and most importantly a top 5 runner. Pay him.

[TimeKiller]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

You're in for a rude awakening big time.

I only read the first page so Idk if someone else brought this up but this is the same guy who when asked about playing big time for a measly NFL contract answered something to the extent of, "I grew up worrying about the lights being on, sometimes you just take a blessing for a what it is." This guy has his feet on the ground. He's going to get a big contract, no sense in blabbering on about it. So he came out and did his work. He's not a fluke. He's not a stable horse either. He's the stud. You don't need to pay him ridiculous money and I personally don't think he'll ask for it. I think someone who portrays himself as an intellectual knows that there is more to life than money and there's a lot more in Houston than there is in BFE Tennessee. You want money so bad? Go do advertisements until it makes you sick, until your pillows are stuffed with benjamins instead of cotton. You know how hard it is to read off a couple lines for a commercial? It's ridiculous....ly easy.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

The Texans went 2-1 without Foster and their only loss was to the Saints where they put up like 30 something points. That was with Tate. I agree that he is great in this offense, but with the way the O line looks right now a lot of backs can be very productive in this offense.

You can't get just any safety to be spectacular on a defense. You can't get just any CB to be spectacular on any defense. You can't get any D lineman or O lineman to be spectacular at their positions. Those are all positions where you "need" great players at those positions if you want high quality production. It's been proven time and time again that with a good blocking scheme in the running game that average backs can be very consistent. The NE Patriots have done that for years especially the last 4 seasons.

We've gone 2-0 without schaub. Weve won quite a few games without Andre.

I think other backs could be successful, no doubt. But like I mentioned foster does other things besides running well. And I've seen other backs in this offense that have not looked so hot either, so really it's a gamble. If you let foster go that's another spot you have to fill as well.

And I get that ne and other teams don't have great rb's but that is not how their team is built. Ne has Brady. Saints have brees. The mannings have manning. Gb has Rodgers. Steelers rb is actually pretty good but they have big Ben who makes a lot of plays for that team.

Every team is built differently. If you get rid of foster there is no doubt in my mind that is a step back for us offensively.

I can actually get behind the idea of letting go of Mario before I can think about letting foster go. He and Tate together are potent.

[Jaysol]

Originally Posted by Rey

We've gone 2-0 without schaub. Weve won quite a few games without Andre.

I think other backs could be successful, no doubt. But like I mentioned foster does other things besides running well. And I've seen other backs in this offense that have not looked so hot either, so really it's a gamble. If you let foster go that's another spot you have to fill as well.

And I get that ne and other teams don't have great rb's but that is not how their team is built. Ne has Brady. Saints have brees. The mannings have manning. Gb has Rodgers. Steelers rb is actually pretty good but they have big Ben who makes a lot of plays for that team.

Every team is built differently. If you get rid of foster there is no doubt in my mind that is a step back for us offensively.

I can actually get behind the idea of letting go of Mario before I can think about letting foster go. He and Tate together are potent.

This is essentially the point I was trying to make earlier, but didn't word it as well as you did. Every team that wins a Super Bowl takes their own route, I believe 100% that ours includes at least Foster, if not both Foster and Tate. Having two great backs will go a long way to increase their sustainability as backs in this league.

I totally agree with being able to get behind the idea of letting go of Mario, Reed is playing well for a rookie and seems to have good synergy with the other 6 in the front.

[Say Watt]

You guys are nuts. You have been spoiled by the greatness of Arian and have forgotten what it was like to suffer like we did for so many years.

Every single one of you saying we should low ball Arian and should just let him walk need to go watch some footage of Sophomore Slaton, Chris Brown, Ahman Green, Wali Lundy, Samkon Gado, and Ron Dayne in Texans uniforms. Once you do that, you will be willing to pay Arian whatever he wants.

Without an elite QB, we need a big time running game. You might think Ben Tate can carry the load, but keep in mind he has suffered injuries the last two years, he takes a beating when he plays with his running style, and so what are we going to do if Tate gets injured with no Arian? Send out a 32 year old Derrick Ward?!?!? You're nuts!!!

[Say Watt]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

It's been proven time and time again that with a good blocking scheme in the running game that average backs can be very consistent. The NE Patriots have done that for years especially the last 4 seasons.

I'm curious what your response is to my post above. Don't you remember how long we suffered looking for even a decent running back?!? The idea that we can simply plug in any running back and have them rush for 1,000 yards just isn't true. You majorly underestimate all that Arian brings to the table.

With Andre getting older, and basically becoming injury prone, we are weak at WR. We just about need to draft one WR to be our future #1 plus a WR to be our #3 and eventual #2 very soon. OD isn't getting any younger, although he still has some good years ahead of him. Schaub is not the kind of elite QB that can be good without a good team around him.

We NEED Arian Foster. Without Andre, he is the only elite offensive weapon we have on this team. All those Super Bowl teams you mentioned have QBs much better than our own and (without Andre) better WRs.

I think you're missing the mark on this one, Tex.