In Reply to: you're just stringing random sentences together posted by TheHappyBurgermeister on September 19, 2024 at 14:51:59
that I typed quickly and clumsily on my phone.
My point is that I don't believe there's any credible evidence that Foster was a good RB coach. It sounds like propaganda out of the Morgan Center, examples of which we've heard before. I know where you got that idea about Foster and Paul Perkins, even if you don't remember. It's in Foster's official bio on the UCLA website. Foster was nothing but a grad assistant when Perkins was here, and never coached Franklin, who could also stiff arm, as could Skip Hicks, Manuel White, Bo Jackson, and all kinds of other backs. Freddie Mitchell and Danny Farmer could also stiff arm. It's not that rare a skill.
My post was in response to someone saying Foster immediately improved the RB situation at TT and UCLA. That's all hype with no basis in reality. Just like the hype that EB played a big role in KC. That's the only reason I mentioned EB.
I've also never bought into this idea that "we have good X position, therefore our X position coach is good." There are so many variables that go into a successful running game: scheme and OL being the big ones. I find the idea that Foster has some kind of special RB coaching ability to be kind of laughable. RB's are pretty much born/not made anyway. I'm not even saying he was a bad RB coach, but the idea that he somehow clearly stood out as a RB coach and deserved credit (the point of the earlier poster) seems like propaganda.
If Foster had any talent as a coach in the running game, surely we should see something this season. But we won't, because he's an empty vessel. But if you want to parse the tape and claim to see something in the backs under Foster, be my guest. I think you'd have to look pretty hard.