He has carried the ball 80 fewer times than Foster. If the Texans had a veteran RB like Jones, I'm sure they would utilize him but the Texans rely soley on Foster. No other running back comes close on the Texans roster, in fact Foster leads the NFL in touches. Jones has carried the ball 176 times compared to Ward's 38. See Warrick Dunn and Mike Alstott.
Give me Foster any day of the week over Charles. Better blocker, receiver, and he scores touchdowns. KC has had the easiest schedule in the league. Foster did it versus the Jets which have the best rush defense in the league.
a situational back. lol Ottomaton once again proves he knows nothing except how to google links and interject his own dumbassness. I doubt you have watched a single Chiefs game this year.
A back who doesn't have the most attempts isn't a feature back. A back who doesn't get the ball in goal line situations isn't a feature back. A back who is only put in the game in certain situations (like not in the red zone) is a situational back. QED. And for someone who started a thread with a trollface, you are being pretty b****y. Your: has quickly become:
Jamaal Charles in the open field is not even a debate. Just because the ball has been thrown to Foster more than it has to Charles doesn't make him a better receiver. Charles is the more productive receiving RB. Yes, I think Foster is a more rounded feature back. I have said before if you look at the way he runs, he is very similar to Larry Johnson circa 2005-06 and Marcus Allen. Where Jamaal Charles is more like Ladainan Tomlinson, without the TD's (again, because of Thomas Jones). Charles is more efficient.
Foster just gets more short yardage carries than JC which is going to bring his average down. He leads the league in 3rd and less than 3 conversions. http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?year=&type=Rushing&range=NFL&rank=016 As a lot have stated already, Foster gets more carries than JC inside the opponent's 3 yd line. http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?year=&type=Rushing&range=NFL&rank=017
It's easier to be more efficient when you have to carry a smaller part of the team's workload. And he has not been nearly as efficient as Foster in scoring TDs.
I think calling Charles more efficient isn't the right word given their differing roles. I'd say he's certainly more explosive, but that doesn't make him the better back. Foster is an every down back with a nose for the goalline, and generally hits the hole hard and gains positive yardage.
youre using KC's system as a fault against Charles. and Charles isn't used only 'in certain situations'. This is the problem with your 'google info and assess' approach to everything. Watch a freaking Chiefs game and tell me he isn't a feature back. Charles is A feature back. Not THE feature back, but again, he is putting up similar numbers and better in some categories, without as many touches. Foster's numbers will go down next year when Tate returns and becomes apart of the system.
Derrick Ward is pretty good in his own right, probably better than Tate, and he's not stealing a lot of touches. His numbers might go down, but not a whole lot.
It is KC's 'system' of not passing the ball which puts Charles into the conversation. If they had a league-average pass/run ratio and he was splitting time are RB he wouldn't be anywhere near the leader board. If he was in Chicago, he'd be lost to oblivion like Matt Forte. I watched him when he played the Texans. He isn't a back that you put on the field in every situation. I'd rather have AP and Chris Johnson than either (maybe even McFadden if he is healthy and plays like this year), but I'd rather have Foster than Charles because you don't need another back, except for a general-purpose back for a breather every once in a while. I wouldn't run Charles on 4th and one on the goal line in a million years. If he's the only healthy back you have and you are in that situation you kick the field goal and hope for a turnover. By no means do I think Foster is the best back in the NFL. He doesn't have that 'one great' attribute, like Chris Johnson's blazing speed, AP's quickness and change of direction, or even Brandon Jacobs' sheer Christian Okoye-like pile moving mass. Rather, to me he seems very good but not excelent in a whole bunch of categories. What has impressed me most is his durability, which is pretty rare given the number of attempts. I don't think a smaller guy like Charles could handle that kind of pounding, especially mixing in all the '3rd and 2' or '4th and inches' situations over the long haul. If you wanted to compare Ward/Foster or Jones/Charles for the rest of the season, I'd take the Jones/Charles combo.
I love the guy, but I want to see him take the pounding of 25 carries a game over 10+ games (and still produce at the levels you're talking about) before I call him a definite feature back. Also, the fact that he's not in the game converting short yardage means he's: a) not facing some of the tougher hits against stacked D's b) not picking up the 2 and 3 yard carries that are necessary, but would also bring his average down If he was a feature back like Arian, he would have more 1-3 yard carries (you don't look for the homerun outside on a 3rd and 1, and you certainly don't help your YPC with carries inside the 3 yard line). So your analysis of his YPC being so much higher is flawed, in that the carries he's missing (the ones that have him so far behind Arian in # carries) are precisely the ones that would drag his average downwards...and quickly.
He's in the top 15 or so in the NFL in carries, and is about 5 carries behind Thomas Jones. He also has more carries than feature backs like Matt Forte and LeSean McCoy. I don't think JC would be able to handle 20+ carries a game, so in that regard, he's not the back that Arian Foster is. Having TJ on the team lets them keep Charles healthy and prevent him from taking a pounding. But if he's getting nearly as many yards despite 70% of the carries, I'm not sure it's fair to hold that against him - and he's certainly not a situational back unless the situation is "half the carries".
Situational is a pretty self defining term. Are there some situations where the team won't put him in the game? If the answer is that there are a whole lot of situations where they specifically remove him from the game to put a different back in (and this, in fact, the case), by the definition of the word situational, he is a situational back - he only plays in certain situations that are a fractional whole of the total carries. Reggie Bush at USC was a situational back. That was the number one complaint against him - in any short/tough yardage situation, the team pulled Bush and put in LenDale White. If Heisman Trophy winning Reggie Bush at USC could be called a situational college back by scouts, it is certainly not too degrading a term for Jamaal Charles in the NFL. Again, function of the team. Nevertheless, they remove him from the game and play Thomas Jones in certain specific situations. Matt Forte will be on the field almost the entire game.
this is a ridiculous comparison, bush has never proven to be a real nfl back. charles was a real college back who had no white and a real nfl back who has consecutive thousand yard seasons. bush wasn't a situational back, he was never a running back. charles runs north/south, because he's small people don't realize that.
Again, because I guess it isn't clear, I'm comparing the roll that Charles is playing in the pros with the role that Bush played in college. Reggie Bush had 1700+ rushing yards from scrimmage his last year at USC, so apparently he was somewhat of a running back. Go back and read again and it might be clear. I can seperate the two, just like I can say VY is a great college quarterback, and Joe Montana is a great NFL quarterback without having to bring VY's NFL performance into the discussion.
