PDA

View Full Version : Bush or Peterson


Honoring Earl 34
10-29-2005, 07:43 PM
:tv: If Reggie Bush and Adrian Peterson came out this year for the draft and were healthy ... who do you take ?

yaboycm
10-29-2005, 07:44 PM
:tv: If Reggie Bush and Adrian Peterson came out this year for the draft and were healthy ... who do you take ?
My bad, Bush

ubecool454
10-29-2005, 07:46 PM
I would take peterson hands down..bigger and stronger and besides , he is home grown.:yahoo:

Honoring Earl 34
10-29-2005, 07:55 PM
:tv: I know Petersons a soph thats why I said if .

utahmark
10-29-2005, 08:20 PM
a left tackle!!!

tulexan
10-29-2005, 09:26 PM
I think Peterson is going to be a better pro. He is big, fast, and has good moves.

beerlover
10-29-2005, 10:22 PM
I think Peterson is going to be a better pro. He is big, fast, and has good moves.

Peterson is bigger but not as fast. remember speed kills. moves are relative to their size of which both are remarkable. Who will be the better pro may depend upon who selects them and how they are used, the one with the better situation gets the edge, so its yet to be determined :)

tulexan
10-29-2005, 10:27 PM
Peterson looks like a pre-retirement Ricky Williams. He just runs through people and then out runs everyone once he gets free. His biggest challenge is going to be surviving Oklahoma without being constantly hobbled.

Honoring Earl 34
10-29-2005, 10:40 PM
:texflag: If Bush is faster its not by much .

beerlover
10-29-2005, 10:54 PM
:texflag: If Bush is faster its not by much .

Earl its not even close, but you have to remember the size difference. meaning the physics of contact are easily in Petersons corner & this is his strength. Reggie has clocked 40 times in the Michael/Marcus Vic range (4.25-.28) but his strength is to spread the defense then disable their reaction time.

Fldvldog
10-29-2005, 10:58 PM
:texflag: If Bush is faster its not by much .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bush's 40-time about .15th faster than AP's?

tulexan
10-30-2005, 12:20 AM
AP is faster than 4.5. Bush has apparently ran a 4.35 which sounds about right. I don't think I've ever seen AP caught from behind once he is at full sprint and if he ran a 4.5 he would be caught by a DB. I would say that Bush is a little bit faster than AP but the difference is negligable. I do remember some freakish stat about AP that said that he can hold a 40 pound dumbell in each hand and still register a 34 or 35 inch vertical. It might be even more weight.

stephen1
10-30-2005, 12:46 AM
we need some one who scored touchdowns. bush is our man.

TexansCanes
10-30-2005, 03:43 AM
don't know ap's 40 time but i do know that he finished third in the 100m state finals behind a guy named ivory williams who is scary fast, so adrian has some speed. i think he runs in the 10.5-10.6 range. the difference is the lateral movement which bush has him by a lot, but in a race it would be a lot closer than most people think.

rmartin65
10-30-2005, 06:38 AM
If I wanted a pure HB, then I'd choose AP. If I wanted a 2 down back, then I'd choose Bush.

Honoring Earl 34
10-30-2005, 06:48 AM
:texflag: AP is listed at 6'2 and 210 lbs with a 4.4 forty . Bush is listed at 6'0 and 200 lbs with a 4.3 forty .

beerlover
10-30-2005, 08:31 AM
Running Back | Junior | Southern Cal Reggie Bush
Height: 6-0 | Weight: 200 | 40-Time: 4.28

off the NFL Countdown site, no verification of its accuracy.

here is some info from his bio from High School-

He made the Cal-Hi Sports All-State Sophomore first team in 2000.

In his career, he ran for 4,995 yards (averaging 12.0 a carry) and scored 450 points. He also competed in track at Helix, placing third in the 2002 California state 100 meters final and posting bests of 10.42 in the 100 (the fastest prep time in California in 2002 and the fastest among the nation's 2002 senior footballers) and 21.06 in the 200 meters (third fastest prep in California in 2002). He placed second in the boys' 50-meter dash in 5.85 at the 2003 Los Angeles Invitational Indoor Meet.

simple math converts his 2003 indoor 50-meter dash time into a 4.28 40 so thats where I'm guessing they got their est. number for Reggie Bush.

Honoring Earl 34
10-30-2005, 08:38 AM
:texflag: Their both really good prospects . I'd go with Bush because he's all ready being used like he would as a pro . AP is a fine back but at 6'2 and 210lbs . he better adopt Eric Dickerson's style .

tulexan
10-30-2005, 08:41 AM
You can't just take a 50 time and turn it into a 40 time. 4.28 is much lower than every time I've heard about him. I've heard he is around 4.35. But regardless it is all about what kind of back you want. If you want a Brian Westbrook type all around back then you should take Reggie. If you want a Ricky Williams type run you over running back then you should take Adrian. Personally, I would take Adrian because I think he will be a better pro. He is like a better Ronnie Brown. But that is just me.

Fldvldog
10-30-2005, 08:47 AM
He is like a better Ronnie Brown. But that is just me.

Don't get me wrong, AP is a fine prospect, but Ronnie is faster (4.38 40 time in combine) and more physical than AP. Now in the longrun, who knows?

beerlover
10-30-2005, 01:53 PM
I seriously doubt that Ronnie Brown, Ricky Williams or Adrian Peterson will change the NFL like Reggie Bush, thats my opinion. If you want to believe otherwise thats fine its your opinion, but I base my opinion on watching College Football for over 35 years and only OJ Simpson in 69 and Barry Sanders in 89 even come close to Reggie's capablilites, of course they are all different type of backs. I would also include Jim Brown in 57 and Gale Sayers in 65 but that was before my time:)

tulexan
10-30-2005, 02:29 PM
When Reggie Bush puts up the numbers that Barry Sanders and OJ Simpson did, then you can include him in the same conversation. You are talking about putting him up there with two of the greatest of all time, when he isn't even leading college football in yards or touchdowns.

Bubbajwp
10-30-2005, 02:32 PM
AP is much more of a true RB than Reggie Bush. Bush is a RB/WR to me he is more of a WR in the NFL. If the Texans dont change their offensive scheme then AP is the much better choice.

tulexan
10-30-2005, 02:36 PM
I was actually just thinking that today. A Peterson/Davis one-two punch would be pretty good because you would have your shifty running back and your bruiser. If you are going to have a two headed monster at RB, you should have a mix of styles of runners, not two multi-purpose running backs.

Texas
10-30-2005, 10:08 PM
I'd probably go with reggie bush but we will have to see how AP fills out

texplayer2
10-30-2005, 10:54 PM
When Reggie Bush puts up the numbers that Barry Sanders and OJ Simpson did, then you can include him in the same conversation. You are talking about putting him up there with two of the greatest of all time, when he isn't even leading college football in yards or touchdowns.

Thats because he has to stand in line to score TD's on that offense. What makes USC so good is they have at least four or five guys who can win a game by themselves. Put them together and the only one who will stop them will be themselves. He will never be able to put up gaudy numbers, because he is part of a great TEAM. Peterson will be a good back in the NFL, but he still is a year or so from completion.

Texas_Thrill
12-30-2005, 11:50 AM
After watching PETERSON last night for those that did....better to wait on him or go for bush now?

stevo3883
12-30-2005, 12:03 PM
:texflag: Their both really good prospects . I'd go with Bush because he's all ready being used like he would as a pro . AP is a fine back but at 6'2 and 210lbs . he better adopt Eric Dickerson's style .


Peterson may weigh around 215, but he is built like a linebacker.


my take is this; if you have a good team get AD, he can carry the rock and is a horse. A manchild that you can just ride.

If your team isnt so good, Bush is your man. Hes a gamebreaker that can score from anywhere on the field.


Bush is a much better fit for us, but for an established team Peterson would be a 1500+ rusher his rookie season.

There isnt a RB in the NFL that is as built as Peterson @ 19 years old.

Coach C.
12-30-2005, 01:06 PM
Peterson if I want a RB that can carry my team for years. Peterson is the best fit for us. He would use our zone blocking scheme and put up Larry Johnson like numbers. He reminds me alot of Johnson, just a man-child who will soon be a man. Hopefully he learns to deflect some of those shots so he does not get dinged up and injured. Bush is a good playmaker, but I want a RB that kills and controls the clock Bush is not that guy.

MorKnolle
12-30-2005, 01:59 PM
My personal preference between the two would be Adrian Peterson because I like his type of running better and he is more of a pure runner rather than an athlete, but both of them should be good NFL RBs, either way I don't see either of them coming here unless Davis suffers a major injury next year and they decide to bring in a new workhorse RB.

rmartin65
12-30-2005, 04:00 PM
I want AP. Build the line in this year's draft then Peterson next year will be a monster.