That's not a good evaluation at all. Just because a player played behind a ZBS, means a large part of the production is not because of talent? They get a lower score for running ability because they play/played behind one? Run DMC has shown that he sucks more behind a ZBS than a power game. Donald Brown was suppose to be good behind a ZBS and he sucked. Yes, the Houston offensive line is very good, but even Ben Tate has nothing on Foster. Tate sucks in the red-zone while Foster is great, is a worse pass catcher and a worse pass blocker. So can you explain why Tate isn't as good as Foster when the offensive line for both is a ZBS?I wasn't evaluating college players during Foster's, Holmes', and Parker's time. So I can't say what I thought about them.Foster is overrated as a pure runner. I've stated as such in other threads. He is a great receiver though. He doesn't have any special physical attributes, but what makes him great is his mental attributes.Holmes played behind one of the best O-lines of all time. Guess what? It was a ZBS just like the Texans.I don't know much about Parker's Steelers line, so I won't comment.I pick Arian Foster, Priest Holmes, or Willie Parker, please.I fully acknowledge that the chances of him being one of the above are maybe 100 times less likely than him never starting a game in the NFL. But that's what dynasty leagues are about: capitalizing on every potential for value. If Bolden is ever even a handcuff, he has value to capitalize on. If he is ever BJGE, he is an absolute homerun. There is no value in talking in such absolutes; no value in writing him off. There are plenty of reasons to be excited about Bolden - the writing is on the wall. Sure, it could never amount to anything, but again, it does no value to ignore the positive signs.'Xue said:Ladell Betts, Keiland Williams, etc. Take your pick. Might be a nice handcuff for Ridley/Vereen owners, that's about it.