Which RFA would you prefer: Arian Foster or Mike Wallace? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

Blizzzard · 03-02-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Wallace, 100 times out of 100

Just curious why you feel this way Deus?

Interested to hear your answer.

MP-Logick · 03-02-2012, 06:14 PM

When was the last time that a team with one of those "elite" running backs actually won a Super Bowl?

***Deus Irae*** · 03-02-2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blizzzard

Just curious why you feel this way Deus?

Interested to hear your answer.

1.) Patriots aren't a running team and Foster's not going to change that. He's not that sort of back.

2.) The league is no longer a running league. If I'm going to drop $10 million, I'm dropping it in the passing game.

3.) Wallace opens up the whole field to the offense. Foster just causes the opposing safeties to play closer to the line. Since the current Patriots receivers can't really take advantage of that, it's not much of an improvement.

PatsSweFan · 03-02-2012, 07:53 PM

If we have a playbook with Foster 60 catches 750yds + 250 carries I'd take Foster. 10m for Foster's running skills, a few screens and check downs - no thanks.
Current need and and style it's Wallace, easy.

***DaBruinz*** · 03-02-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sfpat

Local radio in Houston is reporting that the Texans will not franchise Arian Foster, thus allowing him to be a restricted free agent. Texans are also stretched regarding the salary cap. To add to the situation, I don't believe Foster is keen to give the Texans a home town discount. After his breakout season two seasons ago, he asked for a pay boost and the Texans said no (prove it). Arian shut his mouth and played at the NFL minimum without complaining this past season but I have to believe he's a bit pissed at the Texans.

So who do you prefer the Pats use the 31st pick on - Foster or Wallace (I lean towards Foster).

Who cares.. It's not even a remote possibility for the Pats to consider..

BTW, for the other people, by doing the RFA, the Texans only have to guarantee Foster $2.611 million as opposed to $7.7 million (the RB franchise tag). In addition, they get the right of first refusal, meaning they could match the contract if someone else signed Foster for less than $7.7 million a year.

cmasspatsfan · 03-02-2012, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

Who cares.. It's not even a remote possibility for the Pats to consider..

BTW, for the other people, by doing the RFA, the Texans only have to guarantee Foster $2.611 million as opposed to $7.7 million (the RB franchise tag). In addition, they get the right of first refusal, meaning they could match the contract if someone else signed Foster for less than $7.7 million a year.

Right, hes not going anywhere, Wallace is different since Pitts payroll is so high

alvinnf · 03-02-2012, 09:04 PM

Boy, not giving carries to Arian Foster would be exciting!

Crazy Patriot Guy · 03-02-2012, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvinnf

Boy, not giving carries to Arian Foster would be exciting!

A reasonable question fans could have asked after the 2010 draft: What was the point of us just drafting two TEs in the first 4 rounds when the TE position is such an afterthought in our offense?

We had a deep, vertical passing game when Moss was here and switched back to the short, ball control offfense when Moss was traded and Branch was brought back. It seems our offense is based on the players in it. The idea that we would ignore Foster based on the fact that we didn't run the ball very much with Green-Ellis (who I love but isn't close to Arian Foster) is a little crazy.

s3antana5757 · 03-02-2012, 09:38 PM

Does no one remember Corey Dillon? Foster could come take alot of pressure off Brady and the passing game.

With that being said, I'd take Wallace. We all know what Moss did for so many years, and with all the picks/FA/backs you can find for cheap, I'd take the WR who can stretch the field.

I'd rather have a Wallace/Hillis than Foster/H. Ward.

***Aßßynormal*** · 03-02-2012, 10:24 PM

It's fun to think about. I vote for Wallace.

Even if we part ways with Welker, which would be likely if we sign Foster, I think we're good at RB receiver. A better choice (resource wise) would be Johnathon Stewart. He was a late season pass-catching demon for Newton. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of money at the RB position. Also, we've added Kettani again and Faulk isn't going quietly. So, we're set at RB (keeping BJGE, else a late pix).

Less interesting is Michael Bush ........ Jets or Cinncy as the likely new home.