Stolen from NFL.com

Nfl.com had a brief article on if Texans FB Vonta Leach deserved his spot in the top 100 players in the NFL. Now having not seen many Texans games last season i didn't relise how many of Fosters big runs came out of the I formation and had Leach taking out the last guy to make a large lane for him to fun in.

Now Kirwin and La Caforna suggest he should not be ahead of "emerging" QBs such as Flacco and Freeman, but to me that is not how the top 100 players should work. You should score a player, out of a base system, say out of a hundred, at how good they are at their position, and the top 100 highest scoring should be on your list.

The list, as im sure most of you know, as i guess we all read NFL.com was voted for by players, so there must of been a few LB and Safties that he played against that think he is worthy of such an accolade.

Also looking at some of fosters highlights, i couldn't help noticing how he remided me of Lorenzo Neal who made LT look even better than he was. Even LT said he would of got no where near all the yards he did without Neal.

So what is your take on him being voted 65th best player, and to help some links below.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ff2154/article/leach-might-be-best-fullback-but-positions-value-has-fallen?module=HP_spotlight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp-nk9FTGiM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY9TRNzF4wY

A isn't a top 100 NFL player. While the sentiment that they should be ranked comparitively by positional dominance is fair, in reality its not really workable

What I can't understand is why the texans are happy to let him leave!

A full back is an invaluable asset if you find a good one. They can be used in all phases of the offense and special teams and there have been plenty of famous FB's down the years. Leach is not only a wreaking ball of a lead blocker, he's also a good receiver out of the backfield.