Foster: 246 att 1230 yds 5.0 ypc Charles: 161 att 1021 yds 6.3 ypc this is before Charles stats get updated today. I doubt Charles has 85 carries on the day.... but will probably get within 100 yards, with about 70 less attempts. 70 attempts is like 4 freakin games.
i agree. charles is very productive. when he hits the free agent market in 2011 he will get a lot of attention from teams (assuming he isn't resigned before that)
Like others have said, Foster has a lot more scores and a lot more catches. He is more well rounded. I'm just glad I have both on my fantasy team
Yup. The great ones punch it in, that is why Foster is a better back. Charles is your typical between the 20s type.
Does this also apply to Andre Johnson? He seems to be very much in the Jamaal Charles mold. Great at accumulating yardage, but rarely ever scores.
I sincerely doubt they purposefully don't look for AJ once they're in scoring range, or go to other receivers because they don't trust him to catch touchdowns, or that they have another receiver who is "better" at catching TDs. With JC vs. TJ, it's pretty obvious who is the more effective short yardage/tight-box runner... plus they probably trust a veteran to have better ball security. Hard to compare RBs to WRs in that respect.
I agree Jamaal is the better back. I am not taking blocking into consideration though, but Jamaal is one of the best backs in the NFL, and I feel he is very underrated.
Certainly true - but at the end of the day, he's been unable to score TDs very well through his whole career compared to other top-tier receivers. That's all true. But if the Texans had TJ, would it be the same? I guess the question there is whether they don't trust JC, or if they just have a really great alternative that the Texans don't have. Basically, is it that JC is not good at scoring TDs or do they simply not need him to?
it's not an issue of trust. it's an issue of %'s see Mike Alstott and Warrick Dunn. If KC didnt have Thomas Jones, they would give the ball to Charles and he'd have higher TD numbers. Foster will suffer the same when Tate comes back next year. I do agree that Arian is more well rounded, but I disagree that he is a better receiver. Charles receiving numbers are lower in total production, but higher in efficiency.
There's two sides to look at it, but if you're the best running back in the NFL, you probably shouldn't need a 32 year old 10 year veteran to punch in your touchdowns and get your 3rd and 1s for you. That was never TJ's speciality with any of his other teams, hard to believe he somehow just developed that skill to some incredible level all the sudden. If I had to guess, I'd say that JC is below average at that, while TJ is about average, if slightly above average. Like most have said, they're two different style backs that have different skills that are applied in different ways. Charles is an absolute homerun hitter and has proven himself amazingly capable and effective in a shared role situation, dude just gashes people on draw plays like no one I've ever seen. Arian is more of a well-rounded RB, good blocking skills, can catch and run very well, and is remarkably consistent, even against tough Ds while shouldering the majority of the load. Depends on what you consider more valuable as an RB, really. I'd like to see Charles play more of Fosters' role in KC before I really judge him against his peers. But he does pretty damn well at what they ask him to do, that is for sure.
There's also something to be said for having a Thomas Jones in front of you constantly pounding the defense inside and keeping you constantly fresh, making those outside runs for Charles that much easier. Also, KC's oline maybe one of the few that have been run blocking better than Houston's.
Charles is more explosive, he has sprinter speed. But Arian Foster does everything else better. Foster gets the tough yards, and redzone runs hurt your average. Arian probably has 40 carries inside the 5. But I always like to see a Longhorn do well (though i never trusted him in the redzone)
again, there is a difference between 'not tusting' and 'not needing'. I agree with the sentiment that they are different style RBs and they both work very well in their own system. I just think @ 6.3 yards per Jamaal is more efficient and productive.
He's a situational back, not a feature back. He doesn't even have the most attempts on his team. Come back when he's "the man" and gets all the carries. Jerrome Harrison is averaging 8.1 yards per carry. Maybe he's the best back in the NFL!
