Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Should foster be next to go?

Is it time to part ways with Foster?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 30.5%

  • No

    Votes: 82 69.5%
  • Total voters
    118
M

mussop

Hall of Fame
I know foster has a lot off supporters here but when you look at his mileage, contract, injury history and current off field issues it should be considered. I believe his value will only decline from this point forward. IMO we should seeing what we can get in return for him in a trade.

There should be some very good backs available late in this draft.
 
He will have the season to get right because we currently do not have a better option. I suspect this will be his last season here and we will draft or pick-up some UFAs to fill the backup role.
 
Just a tid bit.. salary and cap hit stay roughly 5 and 9 million respectively over the remainder of his contract. 7.5 dead money this yr, 5 million next, 2.5 last yr.

All depends on his current value and what we would get in return. Everything is for sale. Just depends.
 
Texaninlild said:
He will have the season to get right because we currently do not have a better option. I suspect this will be his last season here and we will draft or pick-up some UFAs to fill the backup role.
Click to expand...

The point is this is a rebuilding year and he probably doesn't have much value left after this year so why not get something for him now while we still can?
 
Not released...but he should be the next 1 they ask to take a pay cut though...given his off season shenanigans & his injury history the last 2 years. He's got to be brought back into affordability.
 
There is negligible cap savings to trading him. He is coming off an injury and hasn't had an opportunity to show he has recovered. Combine that with the Texans trying to trade him and his value will be squat. Let him play next year and then re-ask the question.
 
mussop said:
The point is this is a rebuilding year and he probably doesn't have much value left after this year so why not get something for him now while we still can?
Click to expand...

Not sure you can get anything for a high paid RB coming off back surgery and constant hamstring issues. I believe Arian will remain for one more year. Very good 3 down back regardless.
 
I don't think this is the good time for that.

I don't think he's going to be what he was in the past but he should still give us a few good games.

BUT.

When you look at the Patriot model for using RBs, they tend to platoon the position (although they had some pretty good success with Corey Dillon as the feature back, iirc). I'm expecting them to move to that 2-3 back rotation that NE uses. So Foster's career could be extended because he'll be used more in rotation and situationally. I was a little surprised we didn't go after Blount.
 
I vote no at least for now. Apparently he is healthy & if he can get a reduced load, could be excellent. We need to bring in a replacement though & I was leaning towards Knoshown Moreno before he went to Miami. I like Carlos Hyde @#33 with a trade to Browns getting #4 & #26 but am mocking no RB until third day with Storm Johnson UCF.
 
I think the better question should be...

Should he have been given that big money contract to begin with?
 
What are the cap savings for releasing him now ? If they are significant I would lean towards releasing him. He's had a few real good years here, once was named to the All-Pro team if I'm not mistaken and he finally got that one big pay day after receiving little compensation comparativly speaking when first signing with the Texans as an UDFA when initially coming into the league. He'll soon be 28, and there's the history with the injures, and most of all a new HC who wants his own guys on the roster.
 
This is another question that cannot be answered until it's too late.

Two important factors need careful analysis before one can give an intelligent answer:
1) Will he be the pre-contract/pre-injury Foster in 2014?
and
2) How important will Foster's running style and talents be in the new O'Brien offense?

Does O'Brien need a 25-30 carry/game RB like Kubiak's offense did? Or will O'Brien - as N.E. seems to do - run a lot of delays, draws, and screens that can be achieved by committee?

If the answer is yes to the 25-30 carry/game question AND Foster is the 2011 Foster, then we keep him. IF our newfangled offense mirrors the Patriot offense where you mainly run when you catch the defense with the wrong personnel set on the field then maybe RBBC will do just fine and we try to trade him.

After getting a 6th for Schaub I'm shopping EVERYbody around before they're just plain released. Never hurts to ask.

My answer to the original question: I don't know yet.
 
Baltimore has a lot of picks and needs a RB. Just saying :swatter:


However, I think it'd be good to give Foster a year. I admit I'm curious to see how O'Brien's offense incorporates him into the attack. Foster running well could also help our rookie QB/Keenum/Yates/Fitzpatrick/whoever settle down through the year.
 
infantrycak said:
There is negligible cap savings to trading him.
Click to expand...

This is where I'm at. What's the point?

Far as I know, the guy can still play. You're not going to sign a replacement for what you'll be saving. I have no problem with the Texans drafting his replacement, & letting that guy show that he can be as good as Tate was when he was healthy.

We'll save $1M if we cut him this year. $4M to cut/trade him next year.

Makes more sense to have this discussion after the 2014 season.
 
Can we at least see if the guy is back to form?. We just let Tate walk and now you guys want to let Foster go too?.
 
mussop said:
I know foster has a lot off supporters here but when you look at his mileage, contract, injury history and current off field issues it should be considered. I believe his value will only decline from this point forward. IMO we should seeing what we can get in return for him in a trade.

There should be some very good backs available late in this draft.
Click to expand...

I said "No" but it was really more of a "Not quite yet'. I know the day is coming and I know that we maybe even run the risk of keeping him a year too long but Foster even last year until he got hurt was a complete game changer for us. Ben Tate and all the guys who came after him weren't even close to being what Foster was when he was healthy. I think with a new QB coming in (and I think a young QB will be starting by mid-season if we take one) we would be foolish taking a veteran like Foster away from him.

Maybe next year. I know one thing. By next year the answer to this question will be apparent to everyone.
 
thunderkyss said:
Makes more sense to have this discussion after the 2014 season.
Click to expand...

This. A thousand times this. Unless Foster is injured again and becomes useless forever, he could very well have a season or two left in him of greatness. We have ZERO RBs worth a damn on the roster other than Foster as it is, lets not get rid of the only RB we have that we know can play.
 
Hervoyel said:
...but Foster even last year until he got hurt was a complete game changer for us. Ben Tate and all the guys who came after him weren't even close to being what Foster was when he was healthy. I think with a new QB coming in (and I think a young QB will be starting by mid-season if we take one) we would be foolish taking a veteran like Foster away from him.
.
Click to expand...

Just imagine if we fix our OL issues.
 
thunderkyss said:
Just imagine if we fix our OL issues.
Click to expand...

Then I think we'd be looking at the possibility of seeing a young QB flourish in a very supportive environment. Granted most of us wouldn't recognize what we were seeing since that would be damn near unprecedented for any Houston football team but hey, it sure would be nice to see it happen here for a change.

Seems like we get our young QB's when there's nothing there for them to work with or to protect them. Pastorini, Carr, it's the same situation. You can't see what you got because he's running for his life and has no running game. Pastorinis youth was wasted and Carr's shortcomings hid far too long on that barren expansion team. Even Moon came into a team that was years from coming together. The next Houston QB would look a lot better with time to throw and a guy to hand the ball of to who was a legitimate threat to break one off.
 
Hervoyel said:
Then I think we'd be looking at the possibility of seeing a young QB flourish in a very supportive environment. Granted most of us wouldn't recognize what we were seeing since that would be damn near unprecedented for any Houston football team but hey, it sure would be nice to see it happen here for a change.

Seems like we get our young QB's when there's nothing there for them to work with or to protect them. Pastorini, Carr, it's the same situation. You can't see what you got because he's running for his life and has no running game. Pastorinis youth was wasted and Carr's shortcomings hid far too long on that barren expansion team. Even Moon came into a team that was years from coming together. The next Houston QB would look a lot better with time to throw and a guy to hand the ball of to who was a legitimate threat to break one off.
Click to expand...

Right. I think a lot of people don't give Schaub his due. The line looked a lot better with him behind it, because he know how to work a 3 & 5 step drop. I might recall one time that he's been able to stand in a pocket & survey the field without having to use play action or a boot.
 
No...

I don't think he's going to be the guy he was a couple years ago, but I think he's at least solid at this point in his career. Likely going to have a rookie QB, so you want a reliable back that also understands pass protection. Arian will still be a good dump off option.

I expect OB to use Arian more wisely than Kubiak did as well. He's talked about having different types of RB's. He called Arian an every down back, but I think he'd like to use a scat back and bruiser back type as well...depending on various factors.

But overall, Arian should at least be here one more year. IMO.
 
As many have said, his trade value is low because of the contract, and there's almost no cap saving. We should spend a mid-late pick on trying to find his long term replacement and pick up a couple of UDFAs.

There's still a decent chance he's got a bit left in the tank and a smaller (but still significant) chance that he can come back strong.

Keep.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I don't think this is the good time for that.

I don't think he's going to be what he was in the past but he should still give us a few good games.

BUT.

When you look at the Patriot model for using RBs, they tend to platoon the position (although they had some pretty good success with Corey Dillon as the feature back, iirc). I'm expecting them to move to that 2-3 back rotation that NE uses. So Foster's career could be extended because he'll be used more in rotation and situationally. I was a little surprised we didn't go after Blount.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is just a NE thing now. A lot of teams seem to go with 3 mid level guys that can provide some decent numbers but don't break the bank. In the current NFL I'd rather have 3 1.5-2 million/year guys than a $5 million guy and 2 guys at the league minimum.
 
TexanBacker93 said:
I don't think that is just a NE thing now. A lot of teams seem to go with 3 mid level guys that can provide some decent numbers but don't break the bank. In the current NFL I'd rather have 3 1.5-2 million/year guys than a $5 million guy and 2 guys at the league minimum.
Click to expand...

I brought up NE because of the O'Brien connection to NE.
 
Sure why not I was on they Lets d a complete 100% Purge along with the GM but hey .... and it looks like there doing that but on a much slower pace we shall see ..???



its not like we are going any where dis year
 
mussop said:
I know foster has a lot off supporters here but when you look at his mileage, contract, injury history and current off field issues it should be considered. I believe his value will only decline from this point forward. IMO we should seeing what we can get in return for him in a trade.

There should be some very good backs available late in this draft.
Click to expand...

I would let him go. Hollywood is calling.
 
I'm for keeping Foster for another year and seeing how he does. I have high hopes that the new S&C team will do wonders with the team, as a whole, and Foster in particular.

It's going to be interesting to see OB's approach as far as schemes go. All of this talk of different schemes for different teams has me wondering how the final roster will look and what OB covets at different positions. A one cut and go RB fits just about any scheme. I doubt any coach has every wanted a "dance around in the backfield and see what happens" RB that wasn't named Barry Sanders or maybe Chris Johnson.

I would think the OL would be the biggest difference compared to Kubiak's scheme.
 
infantrycak said:
There is negligible cap savings to trading him. He is coming off an injury and hasn't had an opportunity to show he has recovered. Combine that with the Texans trying to trade him and his value will be squat. Let him play next year and then re-ask the question.
Click to expand...

This. We don't have a better option either. I think that he'll be in a position where he'll know that he has to work hard next year and produce. New coach, new situation. I think he will probably be cut after next season though. Even with a good season he likely won't be worth the contract.
 
Texecutioner said:
This. We don't have a better option either. I think that he'll be in a position where he'll know that he has to work hard next year and produce. New coach, new situation. I think he will probably be cut after next season though. Even with a good season he likely won't be worth the contract.
Click to expand...
As long as he produces in 2014, who cares?
 
DocBar said:
I'm for keeping Foster for another year and seeing how he does. I have high hopes that the new S&C team will do wonders with the team, as a whole, and Foster in particular.

It's going to be interesting to see OB's approach as far as schemes go. All of this talk of different schemes for different teams has me wondering how the final roster will look and what OB covets at different positions. A one cut and go RB fits just about any scheme. I doubt any coach has every wanted a "dance around in the backfield and see what happens" RB that wasn't named Barry Sanders or maybe Chris Johnson.

I would think the OL would be the biggest difference compared to Kubiak's scheme.
Click to expand...

I don't expect there to be too many OL changes. The main thing is solving the question of RT and deciding what they want to do at LG. I think the rest of it will be stable.

OB's offense will employ a lot of zone based schemes when it comes to blocking. Although he'll pepper in some more power and trapping and whatnot, I think he'll work with the pieces that we've got.

The defensive front 7, otoh...
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I don't expect there to be too many OL changes. The main thing is solving the question of RT and deciding what they want to do at LG. I think the rest of it will be stable.

OB's offense will employ a lot of zone based schemes when it comes to blocking. Although he'll pepper in some more power and trapping and whatnot, I think he'll work with the pieces that we've got.

The defensive front 7, otoh...
Click to expand...
How do you come to these decisions?
 
DocBar said:
How do you come to these decisions?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the question.

But...

I don't expect there to be any changes at LT, C, or RG. Brown, Myers, and Brooks are solid pieces there.

The biggest question is Quessenberry. OB has specifically mentioned him as someone his line coach has been looking forward to work with. I am one of the people who has a really high expectation for Q. Best case, I think he becomes our RT and solves that problem for years and worst case, I think he becomes a backup to LG, RG, and RT. Well. Actually. Worst case is he doesn't get healthy.

If we take Robinson or Matthews, I expect them to become the RT and Q to be our LG. However, this is a draft rich in guards. So we could nab a guard later in the draft to go in at LG.
 
I honestly wouldn't want to see him go but I'm sure no one in philly wanted jackson gone

Maybe you let him go if you don't want to have that kind of money invested in the running back position

Kubiak was a players coach.. we will have to wait and see if foster is gonna have the right kind of work ethic for OB
 
DocBar said:
I'm for keeping Foster for another year and seeing how he does. I have high hopes that the new S&C team will do wonders with the team, as a whole, and Foster in particular.

It's going to be interesting to see OB's approach as far as schemes go. All of this talk of different schemes for different teams has me wondering how the final roster will look and what OB covets at different positions. A one cut and go RB fits just about any scheme. I doubt any coach has every wanted a "dance around in the backfield and see what happens" RB that wasn't named Barry Sanders or maybe Chris Johnson.

I would think the OL would be the biggest difference compared to Kubiak's scheme.
Click to expand...


Not sure it was by you, maybe by many, but I swear I read this same exact thing before in this forum
 
JB said:
Not sure it was by you, maybe by many, but I swear I read this same exact thing before in this forum
Click to expand...

From what I heard, the S&C coaches under Casserly & Capers were old style, bodybuilding based weight training. Very idiotic chrome and tone kinda stuff.

Kubiak and Smith kept those guys for the first few years. THEN they changed to what was said to be a more free-weight based approach. And I'm all for that. I prefer a free weight approach based on simulating the things they need to strengthen to perform the functions of their positions as well as pre-hab lifts to correct various imbalances, to work on specific weaknesses, and to work on general physical preparedness (GPP).

Now... these guys are coming in and saying that they're the free-weight based approach and the LAST guys weren't.

I don't know what to think anymore.
 
JB said:
Not sure it was by you, maybe by many, but I swear I read this same exact thing before in this forum
Click to expand...

I also read the the exact same thing every year. There are "many" who overplay the significance of the S & C coaches. Especially at finger-pointing time. It's the player himself that decides how dedicated he is in getting in shape.
 
acal21 said:
I honestly wouldn't want to see him go but I'm sure no one in philly wanted jackson gone

Maybe you let him go if you don't want to have that kind of money invested in the running back position

Kubiak was a players coach.. we will have to wait and see if foster is gonna have the right kind of work ethic for OB
Click to expand...

Hmm.....I'm trying to think of the last time a big-name free-agent RB who signed the big-money contract, didn't already have his best years behind him.

It makes more sense to draft 1 or 2 of them on the cheap each year, run them til the wheels fall off in about 2 or 3 years, and then stick another one in there. Like changing tires when the tread is worn. Sounds impersonal, but to me, it's a lot more practical than having a high paid RB, past his prime, sitting hurt on the bench.
 
Marcus said:
Hmm.....I'm trying to think of the last time a big-name free-agent RB who signed the big-money contract, didn't already have his best years behind him.

It makes more sense to draft 1 or 2 of them on the cheap each year, run them til the wheels fall off in about 2 or 3 years, and then stick another one in there. Like changing tires when the tread is worn. Sounds impersonal, but to me, it's a lot more practical than having a high paid RB, past his prime, sitting hurt on the bench.
Click to expand...

Are you essentially saying only play rookie contract RBs?

The answer to your question is not very many because if a RB is productive the team that drafted him signs him to at least one contract after his rookie contract just like the Texans did with Foster. You don't see productive RBs hit free agency after their rookie contract.
 
infantrycak said:
Are you essentially saying only play rookie contract RBs?

The answer to your question is not very many because if a RB is productive the team that drafted him signs him to at least one contract after his rookie contract just like the Texans did with Foster. You don't see productive RBs hit free agency after their rookie contract.
Click to expand...

Yep and good teams will cut bait as soon as the RB isn't living up to his new contract.
 
Link

New Texans head coach Bill O'Brien said at the NFL Owners Meeting in Orlando to CBSSports.com that he expects running back Arian Foster to be ready to participate in offseason workouts. Foster effectively missed nine games last season with a back injury.

"He's good. He's going to participate in the spring," O'Brien said. "I've had like three conversations with Arian, good conversations, good guy. I believe he'll be ready to go in the minicamps."



Well doesn't look like it's going to happen. We'll see if he makes it to and through minicamps and spring. My money is on him pulling a hammy and having to sit out most of it.
 
infantrycak said:
Are you essentially saying only play rookie contract RBs?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying. I know it would have been an unpopular move. Yeah, you could cut him the following year, but that signing bonus is guaranteed, and that's a chunk against the cap. This is a position I've always had. And Chris Johnson was proving my point during Foster's contract year.

Now, I don't have stats to back it up, or if they even have a stat on it ... but my contention is, given today's NFL, is that by the time a RB, not just any position, a RB, finishes his rookie contract, he's already past his prime.

He might prove me completely wrong this season, but I'm not expecting it. What I am expecting, is more back issues, more hammy issues, saying all the right things to OB, and dare I say it, dedication issues.
 
Nobody is going to trade for Foster and he's the best back here by a long shot so I don't see any point in releasing him.
 
Marcus said:
That's exactly what I'm saying. I know it would have been an unpopular move. Yeah, you could cut him the following year, but that signing bonus is guaranteed, and that's a chunk against the cap. This is a position I've always had. And Chris Johnson was proving my point during Foster's contract year.

Now, I don't have stats to back it up, or if they even have a stat on it ... but my contention is, given today's NFL, is that by the time a RB, not just any position, a RB, finishes his rookie contract, he's already past his prime.

He might prove me completely wrong this season, but I'm not expecting it. What I am expecting, is more back issues, more hammy issues, saying all the right things to OB, and dare I say it, dedication issues.
Click to expand...

Unless your name is AP, then I think running backs have quickly reached their earning/trade potential in the NFL and their salaries and demand for "top" running backs will just continue to slide as more teams plug and play rookies and journeymen in their systems. I've never seen a position get devalued so quickly and so suddenly. It's going to take top-tier talent like AP to get the big bucks anymore.

I think Foster has one decent year left, and that's if he can stay healthy, which at this point, I highly doubt. His deal wasn't a fantastic idea a the time, even if RBs still yank at the heartstrings of fans who see them as a major cog in a successful offensive machine. Unpopular though it may be, "Random Running Back #12" might be how things shake out for many teams, including ours over the next few years. BOB may have learned that from the Pats and their faceless committee of unspectacular but workable backs over the last 10 years.
 
Marcus said:
That's exactly what I'm saying. I know it would have been an unpopular move. Yeah, you could cut him the following year, but that signing bonus is guaranteed, and that's a chunk against the cap. This is a position I've always had. And Chris Johnson was proving my point during Foster's contract year.

Now, I don't have stats to back it up, or if they even have a stat on it ... but my contention is, given today's NFL, is that by the time a RB, not just any position, a RB, finishes his rookie contract, he's already past his prime.
Click to expand...

Well teams disagree with you. You don't see healthy, above average backs hit the market. You don't need any magic stat. Of the top 10 RBs last year all but 1 were on the team that drafted them and only 2 were on rookie contracts. Marshawn Lynch was traded primarily due to off field issues. You'd have a good argument after the 2nd contract but not rookie contracts.

IlliniJen said:
Unless your name is AP, then I think running backs have quickly reached their earning/trade potential in the NFL and their salaries and demand for "top" running backs will just continue to slide as more teams plug and play rookies and journeymen in their systems. I've never seen a position get devalued so quickly and so suddenly. It's going to take top-tier talent like AP to get the big bucks anymore.
Click to expand...

Top backs aren't hitting the market place. What you are seeing is that mediocre backs are not getting FA premiums just because they are the best available anymore.
 
Foster is an asset in the backfield, both in terms of running the ball and picking up the blitz. With a new offense, and perhaps a rookie QB, having a veteran in the backfield protecting him is a positive thing.

Obviously health is an issue, but that's always a concern in football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top