Yes, he did. But it's hard to say *why* he got the best out of Fitz. Fitz had the lowest usage rate of his career - players should naturally be more efficient when they aren't asked to do as much. Foster was the focus of the offense and thus the focus of the defenses. It may be that BoB actually made him a better player. Or it may have simply been that he made his job easier by asking less of him. Lebron James will shoot a higher % if Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love are on the court and he can be more selective in his shots. But is he really any better a player, or does he just have better teammates and get to do less? If Hoyer puts up better efficiency numbers but throws for fewer yards and generally does less on the field, is he any better a player than what he was in Cleveland? And is that any different than what Fitz did for the team last year (which few people thought was good enough to win anything)?
In 13 games last season Arian Foster rushed for what would be Eddie Lacy's career high and you're agnostic on the question? Wow.
If he's very good, then Foster should be at least very good. I think they are factoring age and durability.
Lacy had more receiving yards. Those grades aren't based on stats though, which is what makes them something worth acknowledging. Lacy over Foster doesn't seem at all controversial to me.
Lacy averaged 1.5 more receiving yards than Foster last year per game while averaging 24.6 fewer rushing yards....on no planet is Lacy anywhere near as good a RB as Foster. In any way, rushing or receiving. Lacy over Foster is just pants on head r****ded.
Lacy also played more games and had a better QB. The only reasons to rank him higher than Foster are age and durability.
Again, y'all are looking at stats, PFF looks at every play, including missed blocks, what the o-line does, if the RB gets open on receiving routes, etc... This isn't fantasy football. Lacy and Foster are similar caliber RB's. Get over the homerism already. Here's a recent top 10 list that Foster doesn't even make http://www.espn.co.uk/american-foot...terson-leads-ranking-top-10-running-backs-nfl. I get it, you love the Texans, sweet. Get over it. You are the same people that probably wanted to keep Tate 2 years ago. Lulz.
Good reasons, Texans run blocking is also better. Note I absolutely love Foster. But I don't think pffs ratings need to go in the garbage because he was rated as good and lacy as very good. Any other Texans ratings anyone disagree with?
