Isn't it better for Eric Foster to play DE

[Andy]

Don't you think it's better for Eric "leaping man" Foster to play DE. He's very undersized for DT, and he just came off his best year as a DE, having 2 sacks playing behind Robert Mathis. What do you guys think?

[Hal]

Last year he was 265 but for whatever reason wikipedia has him listed as 285 right now. Foster's got a great motor and he was actually impeccably strong for his size. If he's actually at 285, I could see him playing DT pretty well as long as he's not asked to play NT

[21isSuperman]

I could see him as a decent end, but we already have 2 All-Pros at those positions. He is very fast off the snap and I think he is fine as a DT on passing downs.

[Norm]

I actually just hung out with Foster a few months ago, and unless he added 20 plus lbs in muscle or fat in a matter of two months I doubt he is 285. (Not trying to brag about meeting him, as it was just happen stance.)

[Smitto]

From what i can remember most if not all of his sacks came from the DT position so its better if he stays there.

[Greg]

He wont get much playing time at DE, so why not use him like we do as a utility defensive lineman.

[Flaming Spaz]

I'm looking forward to drake Nevis this year

[HGRekks]

If I recall, Foster stated that he was in the 280s a few years ago. It was the same year Sorgi said he put on weight to get up to 220, which also has never been reflected on any official roster update.

I can't find either of these pages anymore, though. I'm rather positive that's what was said, but I no longer have proof. Oh well. I'm convinced teams rarely change listed weights anyway.

[John Waylon]

He's our new Raheem Brock. We can put him in any spot on the D line and he'll do well in it.

[coltsfan9710]

Yeah, Eric is definitely a well rounded player... I think he works best at DT, though, but as John Waylon stated previously, he would pretty much work anywhere on the line...

[indy_nick]

Man, I am loving the versatility of our D line. We have Foster that can play UT or DE. Anderson can play DT or DE. I think there will be a lot of experimentation on the D line in the preseason. I'm excited to see where everyone will play in what scenarios. However, I think you also might have answered your own question. He might be undersized at the DT position, but his leaping ability can allow him to tip passes, even if he does not collapse the pocket with his initial step. That would be very useful against the like of Drew Brees where we could have Mathis and Freeney on the outside and tall boy Anderson and jumping man Foster on the inside trying to get their hands up and not let Brees see over the line.

[Rich Cannon]

He is a situational player. He came into the NFL as a DE, and colts have him listed as a DT. But hes a true DE, that plays all over the line aka the new Raheem Brock like mentioned earlier

[Scott Pennock]

He is a situational player. He came into the NFL as a DE, and colts have him listed as a DT. But hes a true DE, that plays all over the line aka the new Raheem Brock like mentioned earlier

He played DT at Rutgers my man, thats why he plays better on the interior of the line because he is accustomed to banging with the bigger bodies and fighting thru traffic on the inside.

[chad72]

He played DT at Rutgers my man, thats why he plays better on the interior of the line because he is accustomed to banging with the bigger bodies and fighting thru traffic on the inside.

Having played next to Dawson in the rotation in 2008 (due to Big Ed and Pitcock not working out), plus being used next to Dawson on passing downs did reduce what he could bring to the table, IMO. Put him next to a good UT like Nevis or Harris more often, I bet Foster produces more out of the DT position than before on passing downs due to his motor. of course, this assumes Freeney and Mathis are their usual selves :-). When it is all said and done, Nevis and Foster may have the best motors among our UTs, we will see how it plays out on the field.

[Andy]

He played DT at Rutgers my man, thats why he plays better on the interior of the line because he is accustomed to banging with the bigger bodies and fighting thru traffic on the inside.

started college at DE, but as a sophomore, junior and senior he played DT and was an All-American.

[Rich Cannon]

He played DT at Rutgers my man, thats why he plays better on the interior of the line because he is accustomed to banging with the bigger bodies and fighting thru traffic on the inside.

im not disputing he played DT at rutgers, im saying coming into the NFL since he was 277 lbs his position was DE my man as you can see above his profile, now he is around 265

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2011/profiles/eric-foster?id=4247

If you read the rest of his profile it explains him being an undersized DT etc in college. Now he plays both because of his versatility

[Superman]

Playing tackle in the Big East is different from playing tackle in the NFL, especially against the run.

[Coltswarriors]

He's our new Raheem Brock. We can put him in any spot on the D line and he'll do well in it.

Agreed, he can be successful either way.

I just hope to see more of this from him. (Last play in the vid) http://www.nfl.com/videos/indianapolis-colts/09000d5d80c58876/WK-10-Can-t-Miss-Play-No-Moore