Which RFA would you prefer: Arian Foster or Mike Wallace?

[West Philly Patriot]

we are obviously just having fun with the off-season stuff, so no one should be at each other's throats in these threads. This stuff is the purest form of speculation.

I would take Mario over both, but if I'm forced to pick I like Arian Foster of the two. I love his game he is probably the most complete RB in the league along with Matt Forte, AP, MJD, Fred Jackson etc.

But does anyone really think that if BB had a top 3 RB he would not tailor the offense at all to their skillset? I mean seriously, does anyone really believe that Arian Foster would be splitting carries with woodhead, Ridley and possibly vereen while still allowing a 35 year old Tom Brady to throw the ball 30+ times? I strongly doubt that.

I think Foster's carries would decrease but his actual touches would be around the same. He is a better receiver out of the backfield than woodhead and better between the tackles than BJGE. The RBBC was born of necessity imo. He would be our second best offensive player immediately. We could also get a cheaper downfield threat than Wallace if we landed Foster(which will never ever happen)

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

What does that have to do with the fact your statement was stupid and wrong?

Thanks for showing your maturity with that response Andy Johnson. Now go back to your moms basement and possibly try and come up with a valid argument instead of name calling.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for showing your maturity with that response Andy Johnson. Now go back to your moms basement and possibly try and come up with a valid argument instead of name calling.

I didn't call you a name. Your argument is in fact stupid and wrong.
You are arguing that the only way a team who came one play from winning this years SB will ever win a SB is to make philopsophical changes. What else do you want me to call that statement?
They just proved that one way is to do exactly what they did this year, and make one more routine play. How can the only way they ever win be to make dramatic changes?

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

I didn't call you a name. Your argument is in fact stupid and wrong.
You are arguing that the only way a team who came one play from winning this years SB will ever win a SB is to make philopsophical changes. What else do you want me to call that statement?
They just proved that one way is to do exactly what they did this year, and make one more routine play. How can the only way they ever win be to make dramatic changes?

You are wrong to think we were one play away. You cannot predict what would have happened after even if welker or gronkowski made the play. You want to make yourself feel better by believing we were one play away. Reality check we lost and we haven't won a SB since our philosophy has been pass first with mediocre defense. Your argument is average at best and borderlines on what your mind wants to believe.

 

[Ring 6]

You are wrong to think we were one play away. You cannot predict what would have happened after even if welker or gronkowski made the play. You want to make yourself feel better by believing we were one play away. Reality check we lost and we haven't won a SB since our philosophy has been pass first with mediocre defense. Your argument is average at best and borderlines on what your mind wants to believe.

If welker holds the ball, the Patriots run out the clock and win the game.
They also win by making a play on defense.
Regardless of whether it is one play or not, they proved they were capable of winning the SB just by making a few plays they normally make.
You certainly are welcome to argue that changes could make them better. But that is not what you said. It sounds like you are beginning to realize your comment was way off the mark. If so, good for you.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

If welker holds the ball, the Patriots run out the clock and win the game.
They also win by making a play on defense.
Regardless of whether it is one play or not, they proved they were capable of winning the SB just by making a few plays they normally make.
You certainly are welcome to argue that changes could make them better. But that is not what you said. It sounds like you are beginning to realize your comment was way off the mark. If so, good for you.

So now you are changing your tune from one play to " by just making a few plays they normally make" throw me a bone you are the one realizing your comments were off the mark. My stance from post #1 is that the patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since going to this current gameplay philosophy. And I'm 100% correct because that's the facts. And you sir are wrong. /thread

 

[alvinnf]

Mike Wallace would make a bigger impact, based on the fact that this is a passing team. Now put a backup qb in there and I'll take my chances with Foster. Although watching Foster run against nickel d would be fun to watch. Alright get me both.

 

[Modest]

How is this even a serious question? Foster all the way.

 

[VJCPatriot]

A month after being one routine catch (or a defensive stop with 88 yards of field behind them) away from winning a SB how can you possibly think THE ONLY WAY THE PATRIOTS EVER WIN ANOTHER SB is to change thier philosophy?
Do you think at all before you post?

Didn't the Pats win superbowl titles with Antowain Smith and Corey Dillon pounding the football? What about having a premiere RB and a credible running game changes the winning philosophy?

Foster vs Wallace. I'd say Foster is the bigger impact player. Wallace is still a really good player. But if we can get a guy like VJax from free agency, why would we cough up a draft pick for Wallace?

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

Didn't the Pats win superbowl titles with Antowain Smith and Corey Dillon pounding the football? What about having a premiere RB and a credible running game changes the winning philosophy?

Foster vs Wallace. I'd say Foster is the bigger impact player. Wallace is still a really good player. But if we can get a guy like VJax from free agency, why would we cough up a draft pick for Wallace?

Thank you. Andy Johnson likes to block out the reasons why we actually won those SB's. Of course our defense was credible. That helps!

 

[Deus Irae]

Didn't the Pats win superbowl titles with Antowain Smith and Corey Dillon pounding the football? What about having a premiere RB and a credible running game changes the winning philosophy?

Foster vs Wallace. I'd say Foster is the bigger impact player. Wallace is still a really good player. But if we can get a guy like VJax from free agency, why would we cough up a draft pick for Wallace?

Thank you. Andy Johnson likes to block out the reasons why we actually won those SB's. Of course our defense was credible. That helps!

The Patriots of the early 2000s was a team with a tremendous defense. The Patriots have not had a tremendous defense in a lot of years. The NFL has also changed, as running game + defense no longer equals SB wins. The vast majority of recent Super Bowl winners have been passing teams.

The notion that it's about the running game isn't as outdated as the 8-track, but it's still outdated.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

The Patriots of the early 2000s was a team with a tremendous defense. The Patriots have not had a tremendous defense in a lot of years. The NFL has also changed, as running game + defense no longer equals SB wins. The vast majority of recent Super Bowl winners have been passing teams.

The notion that it's about the running game isn't as outdated as the 8-track, but it's still outdated.

Great points Deus. The NFL has changed however The basic principles remain. Great defense with excellent clock control. We need to take some of the pressure off him. One of the main points people bring up is that when we won SB we were more balanced and Brady wasn't forced to put the entire game on his shoulders ( what he does now). If we had a runner like Arian Foster BB would utilize him accordingly.

 

[Deus Irae]

Great points Deus. The NFL has changed however The basic principles remain. Great defense with excellent clock control. We need to take some of the pressure off him. One of the main points people bring up is that when we won SB we were more balanced and Brady wasn't forced to put the entire game on his shoulders ( what he does now). If we had a runner like Arian Foster BB would utilize him accordingly.

Foster is not the issue. The running game, while in need of an upgrade and capable of helping the overall attack, is not the issue. The rules changes have seen to that. Lack of a middle-deep receiver, and a lousy defense, are the issues. Great runners still end up on lousy teams. How many great QBs with good receivers went sub .500?

 

[jeffbiologist]

Foster, and it isnt really close. He touches the ball 20+ times a game to Wallace's 4. Foster has great hands(anyone else see that 1 hander this year?) and could keep the defense honest enough to let Ocho look like Wallace downfield. I dont compare him to Dillon, I compare him to Davis coming in and helping Elway finally WIN a SB! Houston has to franchise Williams and likely cant match Foster with the right contract. If we have room it could be a smart play. For those waiting for Vereen...I'm pretty sure he can replace Faulk this year. Foster's threat catching the ball lessens the 3rd down backs role too! Win-win! But I can see a team like Denver going much higher in the bidding war. Its nice to dream though...

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Arian Foster is the best back in football therefore the Patriots would have no interest in him. Mike Wallace is not even a top 5 WR. However Wallace would be a new toy for Tommy and this super magical regular season Colt offense so go with Wallace.

 

[Banjo]

just throwing this out there:

Foster got 143 total yards against the Jets in 2010.

Wallace got 102 yards against the Jets in one game... and then six yards in the AFC Championship.

 

[TheComeback]

Foster is not the issue. The running game, while in need of an upgrade and capable of helping the overall attack, is not the issue. The rules changes have seen to that. Lack of a middle-deep receiver, and a lousy defense, are the issues. Great runners still end up on lousy teams. How many great QBs with good receivers went sub .500?

I don't doubt that the team needs a deep threat, but a back like Arian Foster is a mentality changer. That's a guy who can change an entire team--taking pressure off your QB, receivers, and your defense all at the same time. Not to mention he's going to touch the ball at least ten more times per game than Wallace, on average.

Corey Dillon was a huge part of those Super Bowl teams. Yes, the defense was a bigger reason for the SB wins, but it's pretty hard to deny Dillon's impact on the team. He was huge.

Having said all that, the debate isn't about defense vs. offense. it's about Mike Wallace or Arian Foster. If you're going strictly by "need," then yeah, go for Mike Wallace. If you're going by overall value to the team, it's Arian Foster, and it's not even close.

Just FYI, the last four years have also been the most prolific in NFL history in regard to rushing yards per carry. The idea that it's all about the pass is a little oversimplified.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't doubt that the team needs a deep threat, but a back like Arian Foster is a mentality changer. That's a guy who can change an entire team--taking pressure off your QB, receivers, and your defense all at the same time. Not to mention he's going to touch the ball at least ten more times per game than Wallace, on average.

Corey Dillon was a huge part of those Super Bowl teams. Yes, the defense was a bigger reason for the SB wins, but it's pretty hard to deny Dillon's impact on the team. He was huge.

Having said all that, the debate isn't about defense vs. offense. it's about Mike Wallace or Arian Foster. If you're going strictly by "need," then yeah, go for Mike Wallace. If you're going by overall value to the team, it's Arian Foster, and it's not even close.

Just FYI, the last four years have also been the most prolific in NFL history in regard to rushing yards per carry. The idea that it's all about the pass is a little oversimplified.

Dillon had nothing to do with 2 of the 3 Super Bowl wins. The team won two Super Bowls with Antowain Smith as the running back. As for Foster being a mentality changer or a better value, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[stcjones]

Trying to stay realistic here.
I don't see Brady getting back to another SB (never mind winning one) here in NE. Took 4 years since last one...just think it will take at least that long to get back there again. We have alot of holes to fill and will go thru usual rebuild phase as result.

The only way we win another Super Bowl is if we take the pressure off Brady. Giving a stud RB like Foster more carries than we have with our pass happy offense would lead to nothing but good things. Remember our offense when we won our 3 superbowls? Exactly. Can't argue against that.

 

[stcjones]

Wait a minute...
Did you really say "enough to make Ocho look like Wallace" here? Really? The only way Ocho looks like Wallace is if he dresses up like him on Halloween!

Foster, and it isnt really close. He touches the ball 20+ times a game to Wallace's 4. Foster has great hands(anyone else see that 1 hander this year?) and could keep the defense honest enough to let Ocho look like Wallace downfield. I dont compare him to Dillon, I compare him to Davis coming in and helping Elway finally WIN a SB! Houston has to franchise Williams and likely cant match Foster with the right contract. If we have room it could be a smart play. For those waiting for Vereen...I'm pretty sure he can replace Faulk this year. Foster's threat catching the ball lessens the 3rd down backs role too! Win-win! But I can see a team like Denver going much higher in the bidding war. Its nice to dream though...