PDA

View Full Version : CAN Reggie Bush Turn This Whole Team Around???


HeartofHouston
11-27-2005, 05:40 PM
With Proper Coaching, The Proper Block Scheme and the Proper play calling it's a huge possiblity..

what do you think??

thetexanator
11-27-2005, 05:41 PM
only if he can score tds on defense.

hot pickle
11-27-2005, 07:05 PM
we don't need reggie bush, we need some defense

Jerry
11-27-2005, 07:07 PM
Ditto...Unless he turns into a ball-hawking safety, a solid cover corner, a dependable ILB, or a great lineman he won't be able to turn this team around..

TexanFanInDenver
11-27-2005, 07:08 PM
Ok, Name one person on defense that will have as much value as Bush

gg no re
11-27-2005, 07:10 PM
Name one struggling NFL team without an established oline that rose to glory by drafting a RB over an OT.

HeartofHouston
11-27-2005, 07:18 PM
Ok, Name one person on defense that will have as much value as Bush

One that has as much value in the NFL now..

ED REED

One that will have it coming outta the draft this year..

Nobody..

Napa Auto Parts
11-27-2005, 07:23 PM
Name one struggling NFL team without an established oline that rose to glory by drafting a RB over an OT.


Chargers LT if im not mistaken i dont believe they have wasted any 1st round pick on their current O-line

HeartofHouston
11-27-2005, 07:26 PM
Chargers LT if im not mistaken i dont believe they have wasted any 1st round pick on their current O-line

Good Job NAPA

gg no re
11-27-2005, 07:37 PM
Not really a good job.

San Diego was projected to have another bad year, but luckily for them, their oline happened to gel just in time.

Unfortunately for us, we can't rely on luck.

Also, although LDT was a 1st round pick, he didn't make SD a threat. It took SD _three_ years to be the playoff contenders that they are.

Napa Auto Parts
11-27-2005, 07:41 PM
Not really a good job.

San Diego was projected to have another bad year, but luckily for them, their oline happened to gel just in time.

Unfortunately for us, we can't rely on luck.

Also, although LDT was a 1st round pick, he didn't make SD a threat. It took SD _three_ years to be the playoff contenders that they are.



so fdrafting and OT that ussually takes three years to develope would make us and a threat for the play for the play-offs wow wierd logic.

HeartofHouston
11-27-2005, 07:43 PM
I cant really put too much into this reply because.. I think we should trade down and pass on Bush for extra picks..

so i'm outty.. :ok:

gg no re
11-27-2005, 07:43 PM
It's been four years and _we_ don't have an established oline.

BuffSoldier
11-27-2005, 08:37 PM
It's been four years and _we_ don't have an established oline.

Never have, and if the Texans think like some people on this message board, we never will. I just dont see the point of wasteing even more talent behind a poor offensive line. David Carr, Andre Johnson, Dominick Davis, and even good role players like Gaffney and Armstrong have not been given there fair chance to make plays behind this o-line, and no matter how good a skill player is, they cant be consistent behind a horrible o-line. If we draft Bush and we still dont have an o-line, he may do some special things, big runs and returns, and catches, he may even win us an extra game or 2 witrh his ability, but it wont be consistent enough to win in the long run. Think Corey Dillon in all those horrible Cinci teams. Great talent, that was actually better with cincy, but he couldnt win with a bad team. Fix the holes, and then worry about drafting game breakers. Draft Adrien Peterson next year or something, but we need something else this year.

Jerry
11-27-2005, 09:51 PM
We need a good O-line coach too...I wish Alex Gibbs of Atlanta would come work for us...He's done wonders for a few teams on the o-line

uhcougar08
11-28-2005, 01:36 PM
OK, Bush can't turn this around, but if he's there, you don't pass on him, no one passes on Bush. He will not be Jesus, but name a team that wouldn't want him playing for them. Exactly, it's an easy answer, again, if he is there, we take him.

gg no re
11-28-2005, 05:31 PM
So your logic is that instead of drafting for a turnaround season, you draft for Sportscenter highlights.

GOOD LOGIC.

(no offense, but your logic is that bad)

I will agree that there is no team that doesn't want Bush, but I can make the point that there is many teams that don't need Bush, very much like how rappers don't need rims, but they get them anyways.

uhcougar08
11-28-2005, 05:53 PM
So your logic is that instead of drafting for a turnaround season, you draft for Sportscenter highlights.

GOOD LOGIC.

(no offense, but your logic is that bad)

I will agree that there is no team that doesn't want Bush, but I can make the point that there is many teams that don't need Bush, very much like how rappers don't need rims, but they get them anyways.

So your telling me that Domanick Davis is good, because he is not, he is a decent running back, we would be a fool not to draft Bush and he becomes the starter.

Peldon
11-28-2005, 06:11 PM
So your telling me that Domanick Davis is good, because he is not, he is a decent running back, we would be a fool not to draft Bush and he becomes the starter.

I would call Davis average to good. He is not great but he will be ok if we keep him. I think drafting a possibly great running back to replace a good one is not as smart as drafting either: a possible good-great offensive lineman to replace a horrible one or a possible good-great linebacker to replace a pathetic one. I know you don't agree but that's just my :twocents:

real
11-28-2005, 06:16 PM
Thats good logic, but it is aparent that no one player is going to fix the texans woes so with that being said why not take the best you can get...the texans arent't one year, or one player away so why not take the best talent available since we are going to have to rebuild...

uhcougar08
11-28-2005, 06:24 PM
Thats good logic, but it is aparent that no one player is going to fix the texans woes so with that being said why not take the best you can get...the texans arent't one year, or one player away so why not take the best talent available since we are going to have to rebuild...

Thats my whole point, it will take longer than one year to go from 1-15 to 12-4, so you take Reggie Bush and go from there, but if you tell me that Bush is worse than Davis, you are wrong. Davis will never be as good as James, Martin, Alexander, or even Tomlinson, but Bush has the talent to do this feat, so why not give him that chance here?

Peldon
11-28-2005, 06:50 PM
Thats my whole point, it will take longer than one year to go from 1-15 to 12-4, so you take Reggie Bush and go from there, but if you tell me that Bush is worse than Davis, you are wrong. Davis will never be as good as James, Martin, Alexander, or even Tomlinson, but Bush has the talent to do this feat, so why not give him that chance here?

I'm in no way saying you are wrong about it and although I don't agree with it, this is entirely possible. I just find it amusing that the way things usually work is that when teams are struggling and want to rebuild they seem take the opposite view.

The struggling usually take the players to rebuild their infrastructure. They work to fill as many holes as possible with the best players they can find. It's the teams that think they are one player away that seem to try to get the playmakers. It doesn't always work out like that but a lot of people say that's the way to go.

Personally I'm just curious as to what happens when we take Bush, our line and defense continue to underachieve, and another hot flashy prospect comes along next year. Do we say the same thing as this year and take the new guy or do we pick the players to fill our still gaping holes? We have had line problems since day one of this franchise and every year we sidestep that issue. This year it feels like a whole lot more holes have opened up, especially on defense. Will it take four years to address those problems too?

Again, don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a great player and will be a wonderful addition to any team he goes to. With the amount of problems this team has right now I, personally, can't just continue to look away when they aren't given enough attention.

real
11-28-2005, 06:58 PM
every draft is different, and a lot of people are suggesting that we can afford to get bush , because there are so many quality o-line and defensive prosects in the draft that if they play their cards right we can still patch up alot on the team. Dominic Davis is a C+ to B running back. He is never Amazing or unstoppable. If So many of you don't mind the mediocre Running Backs, why can't we get an amazing playmaker, and get mediocre talent for the rest of our positions.

uhcougar08
11-28-2005, 07:06 PM
I'm in no way saying you are wrong about it and although I don't agree with it, this is entirely possible. I just find it amusing that the way things usually work is that when teams are struggling and want to rebuild they seem take the opposite view.

The struggling usually take the players to rebuild their infrastructure. They work to fill as many holes as possible with the best players they can find. It's the teams that think they are one player away that seem to try to get the playmakers. It doesn't always work out like that but a lot of people say that's the way to go.

Personally I'm just curious as to what happens when we take Bush, our line and defense continue to underachieve, and another hot flashy prospect comes along next year. Do we say the same thing as this year and take the new guy or do we pick the players to fill our still gaping holes? We have had line problems since day one of this franchise and every year we sidestep that issue. This year it feels like a whole lot more holes have opened up, especially on defense. Will it take four years to address those problems too?

Again, don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a great player and will be a wonderful addition to any team he goes to. With the amount of problems this team has right now I, personally, can't just continue to look away when they aren't given enough attention.

Im glad you asked. If you want to know my thought process, read my post under the "Reggie Bush?" topic. I just responded to a statement like yours. tell me what you think after reading that.

nunusguy
11-30-2005, 01:31 PM
When is the last time a RB had the kind of impact on an NFL team that everyone is saying Bush will have, whoever drafts him ? Peyton Manning,
and other QBs yea, but a RB ? Completely changing the fortunes of an NFL
team ? Just playing a little devil's advocate here.

Hervoyel
11-30-2005, 02:15 PM
With Proper Coaching, The Proper Block Scheme and the Proper play calling it's a huge possiblity..

what do you think??

Before you even decide to take Reggie Bush in the coming draft you have to have a plan that addresses other needs. By himself Reggie Bush can't turn the Houston Texans around. Even if you're taking him with the first pick in the draft you have other needs and other picks.

We really shouldn't look at the draft like it's taking place in a vacume because before we get there we've got 5 more weeks of football left, a new coach and possibly a new GM to hire, and another free agent signing period. After the kind of year we just had we might find out that there are more holes on this team than we thought. Some guys we are all counting on to be here next season probably will not be.

Right now it looks as simple as BPA vs Trade down for need (read LT) but it may be a very difference landscape come draft time.

Trap_Star
11-30-2005, 02:19 PM
I just have 1 question....would you draft a Brian Westbrook w/ a #1 pick, or an Orlando Pace?:confused: I see Bush as a westbrook type rb in the nfl, and i dont think thats worth a #1 pick....

MorKnolle
11-30-2005, 04:36 PM
Before you even decide to take Reggie Bush in the coming draft you have to have a plan that addresses other needs. By himself Reggie Bush can't turn the Houston Texans around. Even if you're taking him with the first pick in the draft you have other needs and other picks.

We really shouldn't look at the draft like it's taking place in a vacume because before we get there we've got 5 more weeks of football left, a new coach and possibly a new GM to hire, and another free agent signing period. After the kind of year we just had we might find out that there are more holes on this team than we thought. Some guys we are all counting on to be here next season probably will not be.

Right now it looks as simple as BPA vs Trade down for need (read LT) but it may be a very difference landscape come draft time.

I have been saying this for weeks now, nice to see at least one other person has enough sense to wait for the rest of the season to unfold before going to all this trouble.

MorKnolle
11-30-2005, 04:37 PM
I just have 1 question....would you draft a Brian Westbrook w/ a #1 pick, or an Orlando Pace?:confused: I see Bush as a westbrook type rb in the nfl, and i dont think thats worth a #1 pick....

I'm not sure who started this Brian Westbrook comparison but I don't particularly agree with it. Bush is faster and probably more of a pure RB, not sure how the hands compare between the two. Anyways, Bush should be a fine RB in the league but I'm not sold on drafting him, especially with a top 2 pick.

real
11-30-2005, 05:17 PM
reggie bush is on a different end of the spectrum than westbrook and since orlando pace is already in the NFL and there aren't any players of his caliber coming out then i'd have to say bush.

Texas_Thrill
12-01-2005, 04:24 PM
THIS IS FOOTBALL. No one player can turn a team around. Can they add some excitement yes. J. Mathis has done that but can he make the D tackle someone NO can he make the -line have an O at the beginning of it. NO.

Bush and any other player can make us better but no one player will turn us around. :texflag:

Porky
12-01-2005, 05:45 PM
THIS IS FOOTBALL. No one player can turn a team around. Can they add some excitement yes. J. Mathis has done that but can he make the D tackle someone NO can he make the -line have an O at the beginning of it. NO.

Bush and any other player can make us better but no one player will turn us around. :texflag:

Ever heard of Earl Campbell?

jacquescas
12-01-2005, 06:18 PM
point is adding reggie bush to this team will give the offense a weapon in the backfield that we have never had. Daivs has been soild but never feared like AJ. together they could be a deadly combo like the steelers. i just wonder if he is better than what he would fetch in trade value. i also think this draft might be rich enough to get a top level offensive tackle in the 2nd

Huge
12-01-2005, 06:29 PM
Ever heard of Earl Campbell?
The Oilers were 8-6 the year before Earl came on board. 10-6 the year after. The Oilers had as many losing seasons as they did winning seasons when Earl was their leading rusher.

Not exactly what I'd call turning the team around.

No. Reggie Bush is not enough to turn this team around. He'd be a big part of a turnaround but he's not enough.
point is adding reggie bush to this team will give the offense a weapon in the backfield that we have never had. Daivs has been soild but never feared like AJ. together they could be a deadly combo like the steelers. i just wonder if he is better than what he would fetch in trade value. i also think this draft might be rich enough to get a top level offensive tackle in the 2nd
Adding a top OT would give the team something they've never had as well. And no team has feared Andre Johnson yet.

Trap_Star
12-01-2005, 07:37 PM
I think i have a solution to this bush v.s. O-line dilemma.......i say we draft bush and have him play LT:ok: 2 FOR 1 baby!!!

texplayer2
12-01-2005, 08:08 PM
No. Reggie Bush is not enough to turn this team around. He'd be a big part of a turnaround but he's not enough.

Adding a top OT would give the team something they've never had as well. And no team has feared Andre Johnson yet.

You are right. No, one person can turn this team around. It will need to be a team effort, and it will envolve draft picks, free agency, most likely a new coach, and at the very least a change in philosophy. That will take many people and change of attitude. If we get the #1 pick overall though it would be in the best interest of the team to take the best player available. If we win a couple more games along the way and fall to 3 or 4, then we should go with our biggest need or see who the first two pick up and weight the picks value at that point. If we have the first pick next year you go with the best player, until you can't afford to have the #1 pick overall:bomb:3 or four years later. The Draft will not be one guy, unless we pull a Ditka. I don't think one player is worth a whole draft. Picking good solid players is the trick.

Texas_Thrill
12-02-2005, 08:27 AM
Thank you HUGE for answering that Earl Campbell question b/c I was going to ask Porky had they actually heard of Earl Campbell. Who never received much help himself while he was in luv ya blue. (Oh the memories.)

I think with the #1 pick we can draft WHOEVER and it will be a benefit to this team.

Whether that be Ferguson, Bush, Hawk, Williams. Whomever are among the conscenus to be the number one pick outside of a qb would only make this team better.

What our issue has been in year's past is what we do AFTER the first round. Or trading away after 1st round picks for the likes of Babin and Buc.

uhcougar08
12-02-2005, 08:33 AM
Most everyone here acts like if we get the number one pick, that there are no more picks left for the Texans in the draft. Remember, we will have seven more after the round one pick. At least a total of 4 on the first day.

HeartofHouston
12-02-2005, 09:33 AM
yeah have a total of 4 picks in day 1 is a good thing.. but how about have 6 first day picks for a team with holes all over the team.. we could pick up an pass rusher and a good corner with those extra picks..

Porky
12-02-2005, 09:36 AM
The Oilers were 8-6 the year before Earl came on board. 10-6 the year after. The Oilers had as many losing seasons as they did winning seasons when Earl was their leading rusher.

Not exactly what I'd call turning the team around.

No. Reggie Bush is not enough to turn this team around. He'd be a big part of a turnaround but he's not enough.

Adding a top OT would give the team something they've never had as well. And no team has feared Andre Johnson yet.

Let's see. In the previous 3 years, the Oilers failed to make the playoffs once. After they drafted Earl, they made the playoffs 3 straight years, twice making it to the AFC Championship game in his first 2 seasons, and finishing with 10,11, and 10 wins. And that was after trading up to get Earl, meaning they gave up additional players. Nah, he didn't have a thing to do with it. :brickwall

Huge
12-02-2005, 10:00 AM
Let's see. In the previous 3 years, the Oilers failed to make the playoffs once. After they drafted Earl, they made the playoffs 3 straight years, twice making it to the AFC Championship game in his first 2 seasons, and finishing with 10,11, and 10 wins. And that was after trading up to get Earl, meaning they gave up additional players. Nah, he didn't have a thing to do with it. :brickwall
He did have something to do with it. But the question you asked centered around somebody stating no one player can turn a team around.

The Oilers ranked 18th in total offense the year before Earl arrived. 18th in total offense his first season and 23rd in total offense his second season.

The Oilers ranked 5th in scoring offense the year before Earl arrived. 14th in scoring offense his first season and 8th in scoring offense his second season.

Was that the significant improvement that allowed the Oilers to advance in the playoffs?

Porky
12-02-2005, 10:25 AM
He did have something to do with it. But the question you asked centered around somebody stating no one player can turn a team around.

The Oilers ranked 18th in total offense the year before Earl arrived. 18th in total offense his first season and 23rd in total offense his second season.

The Oilers ranked 5th in scoring offense the year before Earl arrived. 14th in scoring offense his first season and 8th in scoring offense his second season.

Was that the significant improvement that allowed the Oilers to advance in the playoffs?

Figures lie, and liars figure. How many times did they go to the AFC Championship before Earl arrived on the scene? Earl changed the team in ways that statistics don't show. That's why I am not a big stats person. Stats are for baseball. I want to know whether a guy can affect winning or not. This really isn't debatable. The proof is in the pudding.

TheOgre
12-02-2005, 10:40 AM
Figures lie, and liars figure. How many times did they go to the AFC Championship before Earl arrived on the scene? Earl changed the team in ways that statistics don't show. That's why I am not a big stats person. Stats are for baseball. I want to know whether a guy can affect winning or not. This really isn't debatable. The proof is in the pudding.

I bet if you look at time of possession, that would be a stat that would show Earl's impact. I could be wrong, but that would be a change I would expect with him in the lineup.

I like what Jason Whitlock said:

1. I like LaDainian Tomlinson as much as anybody, but Marty Schottenheimer went too far proclaiming that L.T. is the best running back he's ever seen.


It takes more than five seasons to surpass Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Eric Dickerson and O.J. Simpson, and I don't care how many qualifiers Schottenheimer added.


Even if the standard is "give me one back for one season at his physical best," Earl Campbell wins that debate every day of the week during any era. And it doesn't matter that Campbell wasn't much of a pass-catching threat. Earl Campbell's 1980 season stands the test of time.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/051201

Kaiser Toro
12-02-2005, 10:54 AM
I bet if you look at time of possession, that would be a stat that would show Earl's impact. I could be wrong, but that would be a change I would expect with him in the lineup.

I like what Jason Whitlock said:

1. I like LaDainian Tomlinson as much as anybody, but Marty Schottenheimer went too far proclaiming that L.T. is the best running back he's ever seen.


It takes more than five seasons to surpass Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Eric Dickerson and O.J. Simpson, and I don't care how many qualifiers Schottenheimer added.


Even if the standard is "give me one back for one season at his physical best," Earl Campbell wins that debate every day of the week during any era. And it doesn't matter that Campbell wasn't much of a pass-catching threat. Earl Campbell's 1980 season stands the test of time.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/051201


I ususally do not agree with Whitlock, but I agree. Thanks for the dig Ogre.

Huge
12-02-2005, 12:37 PM
Figures lie, and liars figure. How many times did they go to the AFC Championship before Earl arrived on the scene? Earl changed the team in ways that statistics don't show. That's why I am not a big stats person. Stats are for baseball. I want to know whether a guy can affect winning or not. This really isn't debatable. The proof is in the pudding.
How many times did they go to the playoffs after Earl's third season? If he was able to turn the team around, why did it only last for his first 3 seasons in the league?

Scooter
12-02-2005, 12:44 PM
Chargers LT if im not mistaken i dont believe they have wasted any 1st round pick on their current O-line

i'm suprised i have to keep repeating this. instead of using a first pick on a LT (gallery), they got a veteran superbowl starter in Roman Oben. grabbing a starting veteran with a ring is even less likely than finding a top tier first round starter, but i think they would've been better off with gallery. chargers without that new offensive line and tomlinson having his best season went 4-12. with the SB veteran tackle and filling the middle of the line with 3rd rounders made them 12-4.

TheOgre
12-02-2005, 12:51 PM
How many times did they go to the playoffs after Earl's third season? If he was able to turn the team around, why did it only last for his first 3 seasons in the league?

Bum Phillips was fired and Kenny Stabler and the defense got old. The Oilers were 2nd in the NFL in defense in 1980 and fell into the bottom half of the league the following year. Campbell took a pounding behind that line. By the time he went to the Saints, he was a shell of his former self.

Porky
12-02-2005, 01:06 PM
Bum Phillips was fired and Kenny Stabler and the defense got old. The Oilers were 2nd in the NFL in defense in 1980 and fell into the bottom half of the league the following year. Campbell took a pounding behind that line. By the time he went to the Saints, he was a shell of his former self.

That's basically it. Vinny and I discussed this earlier. He said in 1978, would you trade Earl Cambell for Greg Bingham, Ronnie Coleman, and I forgot the third name. The point is that one Earl Cambell or Barry Sanders means more to a team winning than several good lunch pail players.

uhcougar08
12-02-2005, 01:22 PM
yeah have a total of 4 picks in day 1 is a good thing.. but how about have 6 first day picks for a team with holes all over the team.. we could pick up an pass rusher and a good corner with those extra picks..
I dont mind that either, but I couldnt understand passing up on Bush.

Huge
12-02-2005, 02:21 PM
Bum Phillips was fired and Kenny Stabler and the defense got old. The Oilers were 2nd in the NFL in defense in 1980 and fell into the bottom half of the league the following year. Campbell took a pounding behind that line. By the time he went to the Saints, he was a shell of his former self.
That's basically it. Vinny and I discussed this earlier. He said in 1978, would you trade Earl Cambell for Greg Bingham, Ronnie Coleman, and I forgot the third name. The point is that one Earl Cambell or Barry Sanders means more to a team winning than several good lunch pail players.
If they still had Earl Campbell (the one reason the Oilers were able to turn it around...right?), what does it matter that all that other stuff happened? They still had Campbell but never returned to the playoffs after his third season.

If he couldn't produce "behind that line", then you're saying the OL is just as important as the RB (or that a great RB is useless behind a bad OL). If the defense fell into the bottom half of the league, then obviously it's important that they carry their weight as well.

Bottom line, I don't care how great one player is (I put Earl up there with Jim Brown as the greatest RB ever), by himself he's not enough to carry a team. Funny that you mentioned Barry Sanders along with Earl. He never won a championship either.

And back on topic, good luck convincing me Bush is anything close to Earl Campbell.

MorKnolle
12-02-2005, 02:24 PM
If they still had Earl Campbell (the one reason the Oilers were able to turn it around...right?), what does it matter that all that other stuff happened? They still had Campbell but never returned to the playoffs after his third season.

If he couldn't produce "behind that line", then you're saying the OL is just as important as the RB (or that a great RB is useless behind a bad OL). If the defense fell into the bottom half of the league, then obviously it's important that they carry their weight as well.

Bottom line, I don't care how great one player is (I put Earl up there with Jim Brown as the greatest RB ever), by himself he's not enough to carry a team. Funny that you mentioned Barry Sanders along with Earl. He never won a championship either.

And back on topic, good luck convincing me Bush is anything close to Earl Campbell.
1) I wasn't an Oilers fan so I don't know, but if Campbell couldn't ever get the Oilers back into the playoffs after his third year then why is it people are expecting Bush to turn the Texans around like Campbell did for the Oilers?
2) I definitely consider Barry Sanders and Walter Payton the best RBs ever, Brown and Campbell can fall in close behind, but the "best ever" status stays with Sanders and Payton in my books. You are entitled to your opinion though.

Porky
12-02-2005, 05:48 PM
If they still had Earl Campbell (the one reason the Oilers were able to turn it around...right?), what does it matter that all that other stuff happened? They still had Campbell but never returned to the playoffs after his third season.

If he couldn't produce "behind that line", then you're saying the OL is just as important as the RB (or that a great RB is useless behind a bad OL). If the defense fell into the bottom half of the league, then obviously it's important that they carry their weight as well.

Bottom line, I don't care how great one player is (I put Earl up there with Jim Brown as the greatest RB ever), by himself he's not enough to carry a team. Funny that you mentioned Barry Sanders along with Earl. He never won a championship either.

And back on topic, good luck convincing me Bush is anything close to Earl Campbell.


To answer your questions - Because after three years, Earl had the wear and tear of a 10-12 yr vet. The fact of the matter is he was a HUGE part of the team going to the AFC Championship game twice in a row, and if they hadn't run into a brickwall Steel Curtain team, they may have gotten two Superbowl rings. If you think this is pure coincedence, then we will just agree to disagree. Do you honestly think if you put the 1980 version of Dominick Davis on that team, that they would have made it to the AFC Championship? Sure, the defense played a part in those glory years as well, and that fell on hard times too, just about the time that Earl fell apart. My wife has had the pleasure of meeting Earl at a few charity events. According to her, he has the body of an old man. He took an increbible pounding in a very short amount of time. This is all well documented. OTOH, some RB's have very good longetivity - Walter Payton and Emmitt Smith come to mind, among others. Can Bush, or any one single player win by himself? Of course not. Look at Barry Sanders. But put a "Barry Sanders" on a team, and build properly around him, and the team would be unstoppable. Detroit has had nothing but futility for 50 some odd years. Other than the recent success of NE, most teams that have gone deep into the playoffs have had very successful running games, and/or top notch skill position people. The lunch pail types are critical to being successful over the long term (see NE) but without the superstars, it's hard to go all the way. There is also something to be said for the sheer joy in watching an electrifying player do his thing.

Huge
12-02-2005, 09:01 PM
I guess that explains Earl's 1,300 yard, 14 TD season in '83 then. That'd make him about a 15 year vet by then.

And I never said he wasn't an enormous part of the Oilers' success. Most of which can be attributed to Earl. But that's not what was said.
THIS IS FOOTBALL. No one player can turn a team around. Can they add some excitement yes. J. Mathis has done that but can he make the D tackle someone NO can he make the -line have an O at the beginning of it. NO.

Bush and any other player can make us better but no one player will turn us around.
Ever heard of Earl Campbell?
See the difference?

I don't think there's any question that Reggie Bush could be a part of a turn-around in Houston (but still not contribute to one as much as Earl did). But no one player is going to do it by himself without a strong supporting cast.