Ben Tate = Bust?

[kris_kapsner]

Prior to the NFL draft Tate was at the tail end of my top 10 RBs, not top 10 overall, top 10 at his position.

He went to what is perceived as a good situation and now he's a top 5-6 overall pick.

Am I the only one who just doesn't think he's going to be that great?

I think he could have a nice first season because Slaton is recovering and there's nobody else there. But, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he was a one year wonder at best.

Thoughts?

[hosler427]

I had him ranked top 5 prior to the draft so it didn't change my outlook at all.

[kris_kapsner]

I had him ranked top 5 prior to the draft so it didn't change my outlook at all.

My pre-NFL draft RB list looked like this:

1) Spiller
2) Mathews
3) Best
4) Dwyer

5) Hardesty
6) Gerhart
7) Dixon
8) Blount
9) Tate
10) McKight

But, obviously my personal rankings were off a bit since Dwyer, Dixon and Blount fell into oblivion and Tate was taken in the 2nd round.

I see Tate as a hard nosed North and South runner who has decent speed but lacks the vision and elusiveness that I like to see in a potential starting RB.

But, because I know how others were valuing him, I too would have drafted him at #5 of #6 because someone would give me good value for him in a trade. I don't think he's the "long term" solution for Houston though.

[meineymoe]

I agree. I wasn't that excited about him prior to the draft - if you take him, you are doing it on situation primarily, like Forte in Chicago a couple years ago.

-oo-

[Steelersfan]

I agree. I wasn't that excited about him prior to the draft - if you take him, you are doing it on situation primarily, like Forte in Chicago a couple years ago.

-oo-

X2.

[Risky bidness]

Prior to the NFL draft Tate was at the tail end of my top 10 RBs, not top 10 overall, top 10 at his position.

He went to what is perceived as a good situation and now he's a top 5-6 overall pick.

Am I the only one who just doesn't think he's going to be that great?

I think he could have a nice first season because Slaton is recovering and there's nobody else there. But, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he was a one year wonder at best.

Thoughts?

Arian foster is in the mix as well. I Still think he has a shot to be a producer.

[GridIronFavre]

Pre-draft, I had Mathews/Best and then a grouping of Dwyer/Tate/Hardesty/Gerhart with situation likely dictating how those 4 fell on my board (Spiller falls somewhere between the two - but I really dont like him, reminds me too much of Reggie Bush, so I wont touch him). So, I had him at worst #7 going in. He is the kind of runner I like in the NFL, and I think he will be the solution in Houston with Slaton also getting a spattering of touches. Have never liked Foster and think he will be a non-factor. So big picture, I really like Tate, not just because of situation alone, and would consider him right after Mathews and Best - really a debate between Spiller and Tate there imo.

[princevincexoxo]

Pre-draft, I had Mathews/Best and then a grouping of Dwyer/Tate/Hardesty/Gerhart with situation likely dictating how those 4 fell on my board (Spiller falls somewhere between the two - but I really dont like him, reminds me too much of Reggie Bush, so I wont touch him). So, I had him at worst #7 going in. He is the kind of runner I like in the NFL, and I think he will be the solution in Houston with Slaton also getting a spattering of touches. Have never liked Foster and think he will be a non-factor. So big picture, I really like Tate, not just because of situation alone, and would consider him right after Mathews and Best - really a debate between Spiller and Tate there imo.

just because u dont like foster doesnt mean ur imagination is going to make him just disappear

he is going to get touches. They all will.

[MonkeyOne]

I agree with you kris, I think he's being over valued based on situation and could be the next Forte. The long term value might be trading back in the draft if someone really wants him.

[skip]

Agreed, Tate is being valued based on situation. But I would say the same is happening for most of the RBs. People dropped Spiller because he landed in Buffalo. They bumped Mathews up because he landed in San Diego. They dropped Dwyer and Gerhart because they think they went to bad situations. Etc, etc, etc. The most talented RBs will rise to the top.

Given the choices in Houston are Slaton, Foster, and Tate, I suspect Foster and Tate will be fighting out one half of the RBBC while Slaton gets the other in the "Reggie Bush" role.

[MR ROURKE]

Forte is better then Tate.

Pre-draft I had him 8th and now he's 5th only due to where he got drafted, but I'm kinda avoiding him in my drafts anyway. I still like Dwyer a lot more as a RB, but has to work a lot more to get opportunity.

The best part of Tate going to Houston is that he has ball security issues. So he's one fumble from serving gatoraide and watching some other guy carry the ball until they fumble.

I think Tate's combine performance was better then he'll be in the NFL. I don't think he'll be dynamic or a difference maker. Tate will take what the line gets him and that's about all I really expect.

[GridIronFavre]

Pre-draft, I had Mathews/Best and then a grouping of Dwyer/Tate/Hardesty/Gerhart with situation likely dictating how those 4 fell on my board (Spiller falls somewhere between the two - but I really dont like him, reminds me too much of Reggie Bush, so I wont touch him). So, I had him at worst #7 going in. He is the kind of runner I like in the NFL, and I think he will be the solution in Houston with Slaton also getting a spattering of touches. Have never liked Foster and think he will be a non-factor. So big picture, I really like Tate, not just because of situation alone, and would consider him right after Mathews and Best - really a debate between Spiller and Tate there imo.

just because u dont like foster doesnt mean ur imagination is going to make him just disappear

he is going to get touches. They all will.

I think Foster is simply a benefactor of the fantasy football hype machine. Foster was an undrafted free agent, the Texans are in no way obligated to give him any touches, and I have not seen anything to make me believe that he should get any touches. When Slaton was struggling, Foster got a lot of pub in the fantasy world since he was the last man standing of sorts in Houston. I wouldn't be surprised to see Tate get the majority of the carries, with Slaton getting 10 touches a game, and Foster only very very sparingly (5 if lucky).

[Risky bidness]

Pre-draft, I had Mathews/Best and then a grouping of Dwyer/Tate/Hardesty/Gerhart with situation likely dictating how those 4 fell on my board (Spiller falls somewhere between the two - but I really dont like him, reminds me too much of Reggie Bush, so I wont touch him). So, I had him at worst #7 going in. He is the kind of runner I like in the NFL, and I think he will be the solution in Houston with Slaton also getting a spattering of touches. Have never liked Foster and think he will be a non-factor. So big picture, I really like Tate, not just because of situation alone, and would consider him right after Mathews and Best - really a debate between Spiller and Tate there imo.

just because u dont like foster doesnt mean ur imagination is going to make him just disappear

he is going to get touches. They all will.

I think Foster is simply a benefactor of the fantasy football hype machine. Foster was an undrafted free agent, the Texans are in no way obligated to give him any touches, and I have not seen anything to make me believe that he should get any touches. When Slaton was struggling, Foster got a lot of pub in the fantasy world since he was the last man standing of sorts in Houston. I wouldn't be surprised to see Tate get the majority of the carries, with Slaton getting 10 touches a game, and Foster only very very sparingly (5 if lucky).

How can it be hype if he already produced in Houston? Tate would be the one being hyped in fantasy circles. I think the texans like Foster, Slaton, and Tate. I think it's more that the Texans don't like moats or Brown. Your projection on touches is based on? No one knows right now so your projections are predictions that you don't have a legit basis on.

[princevincexoxo]

Pre-draft, I had Mathews/Best and then a grouping of Dwyer/Tate/Hardesty/Gerhart with situation likely dictating how those 4 fell on my board (Spiller falls somewhere between the two - but I really dont like him, reminds me too much of Reggie Bush, so I wont touch him). So, I had him at worst #7 going in. He is the kind of runner I like in the NFL, and I think he will be the solution in Houston with Slaton also getting a spattering of touches. Have never liked Foster and think he will be a non-factor. So big picture, I really like Tate, not just because of situation alone, and would consider him right after Mathews and Best - really a debate between Spiller and Tate there imo.

just because u dont like foster doesnt mean ur imagination is going to make him just disappear

he is going to get touches. They all will.

and I have not seen anything to make me believe that he should get any touches.

Oh you mean besides the 59 touches (7 receptions) for 340 yards (80 receiving) and 3 TD's in 3 games vs New England, Seattle, and Miami last season...you're right that doesnt mean ANYTHING. :rolleyes: In fact for the sake of your feelings, and opinion, lets just pretend like it never happened!

[GridIronFavre]

Arian Foster
54 carries
257 yards
4.8 YPC
3 TDs

Kahlil Bell
40 carries
220 yards
5.5 YPC
0 TDs

Both Foster and Bell were undrafted free agents for teams that were relatively thin at RB last year. Both teams brought in RBs this offseason. However, both last year and this offseason, people want to anoint Foster as a legitimate threat to carries in the Houston backfield. I just don't see it. Yes, I know that Chester and Forte will be more trusted (and should be) with more carries than Tate and Slaton, but I still don't see how Foster has significant fantasy value. No one wants to roster Bell, expect in the deepest of leagues, and the numbers barely differ except for the TD numbers, which with such a small sample size are not significant statisically.