PDA

View Full Version : Am I the only one....


Doom Capers
12-05-2005, 10:18 PM
...that doesn't think it is a good idea to draft Bush if we have the chance. Our defense is terrible. Our O-line is sad, and we have one good receiver. Our running game is the strongest point of our team. Davis can get the job done when we arn't playing catch up and have to pass. All Bush will do is look better at running the ball. Bush can't keep Carr off of his a**, and he can't stop the run on defense. This is just how I feel.:texflag:

thegr8fan
12-05-2005, 10:28 PM
your not the only one. But it is just too tempting to pass up to not draft Bush. I am a huge DD fan, but even I have to say that Bush is a very tempting plum to not think about plucking him from the tree/draft. DD is very capable of getting his job done, weekly. If we go after yet another skills player I would like for it to be a QB. But man, Bush sure is tempting. And alot more of a 'sure bet' than a QB seems to be lately with the #1 pick. :rolleyes:

CyberTexan
12-05-2005, 10:58 PM
How can you not draft Reggie that is the question , I dont care what we need when a player like that comes available you take him you dont pass it up the guy can play HB or WR , It would be a big mistake to pass up on a player like him , theres always trades .

profan
12-05-2005, 11:46 PM
I think it would be a great idea to draft him if we could trade davis for some help in other areas. Reggie Bush by himself will not cure all of our ailments. How about aquiring some hard hitting safeties to go along with Bush. An offensive lineman would help out along with a tight end. Let's throw in a linebacker and another reciever, or scratch the receiver, lets just use the ones on our bench. I''m thinking we need a bunch of pics in the first few rounds to get this thing straight.

MorKnolle
12-06-2005, 12:05 AM
I think it would be a great idea to draft him if we could trade davis for some help in other areas. Reggie Bush by himself will not cure all of our ailments. How about aquiring some hard hitting safeties to go along with Bush. An offensive lineman would help out along with a tight end. Let's throw in a linebacker and another reciever, or scratch the receiver, lets just use the ones on our bench. I''m thinking we need a bunch of pics in the first few rounds to get this thing straight.

Trading Davis would tie up $8 million of our cap next year. Go check out my recently posted thread on our salary cap situation.

texman8
12-06-2005, 12:22 AM
I hope we get the chance to draft Bush; we need a home run hitter. If D/D can get 150 yards behind our OL against Ravens' defense; just fantanize when 15 yard runs turn into 40 -50 yard runs.... an real TD instead of FG. We can still draft an OL in second round.Then concentrate on defense,later. The big problem is our FA acquistions or trades....Wade, Buchanan,Greenwood.Drop Coleman,Bradford,Buchanan
Sign A FA safety,LB
Get rid of Fangio
Stop trading our 2nd and 3rd rounds picks..we would be better off with players chosen by Titans and Raiders instead of Babin and Buchanan.

profan
12-06-2005, 12:23 AM
Trading Davis would tie up $8 million of our cap next year. Go check out my recently posted thread on our salary cap situation.

Yea, i read that after i posted. With this new information, we draft Bush and then trade him for some more pics due to the 8 million tied up with davis. I just can't see keeping them both or we win two of the remaining games and not worry about bush.

dc_txtech
12-06-2005, 03:11 PM
...that doesn't think it is a good idea to draft Bush if we have the chance. Our defense is terrible. Our O-line is sad, and we have one good receiver. Our running game is the strongest point of our team. Davis can get the job done when we arn't playing catch up and have to pass. All Bush will do is look better at running the ball. Bush can't keep Carr off of his a**, and he can't stop the run on defense. This is just how I feel.:texflag:

I agree completely, Bush is a great player but we have too many holes to fill

rmartin65
12-06-2005, 03:19 PM
Bush is not needed. After seeing the D blow 2 leads, a defensive player is a MUST! If that is passed on, then an olineman is needed.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 03:26 PM
Why can't we fill up the holes we have through FA and the rest of the draft? I don't buy that argument that we can't draft him because we have too many needs. Getting a playmaker is a major need of ours. If we have to keep Davis for one more year then so be it, having good running backs is never a problem for a team. Look at the Packers, the past few years they have had Ahman Green, Najeh Davenport, and Tony Fisher. All are quality running backs. The Bengals have both Rudi Johnson and Chris Perry. The Falcons have Warrick Dunn and TJ Duckett. You don't have to have just one good back and a bunch of decent backups. In fact the trend of the NFL is the exact opposite. The two back tandem is becoming extremely popular because it extends the careers of both players. You could have two back formations with Bush and Davis. You could have Bush lined up in the slot with Davis in the back field. You could do the opposite as well. You could do a play action with one of them and have the other one release for a pass. There are so many different things you could do with them and have defenses really commit to one of them. You are right, he isn't going to be able to block for Carr and develop a pocket, but if they try to blitz us, a little dump off to Reggie Bush could really make them pay.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 03:37 PM
Look at the Packers, the past few years they have had Ahman Green, Najeh Davenport, and Tony Fisher. All are quality running backs. The Bengals have both Rudi Johnson and Chris Perry. The Falcons have Warrick Dunn and TJ Duckett. You don't have to have just one good back and a bunch of decent backups. In fact the trend of the NFL is the exact opposite. The two back tandem is becoming extremely popular because it extends the careers of both players. You could have two back formations with Bush and Davis.

None of your examples includes a RB who would be the highest paid RB in the league by far (Bush if taken #1) and a mid priced RB together. Green is decently paid and about to be let go. Johnson is mid paid and Perry is low 1st draft pick, i.e. not an expensive combo. Dunn and Duckett together don't add up to half of Bush at #1. RBBC isn't a bad idea, but only one of guys can be a premium guy or the cap is in trouble.

dc_txtech
12-06-2005, 03:42 PM
davenport was a third round pick green bays only hundred yard rusher this year is Samkon Gado who went undrafted out of liberty college. Johnson was a fourth round pick and perry was the 26th overall pick. Dunn was aquired via free agency, and Ducket was 18th overall. Another good example would be denver who starts Mike Anderson a 6th round pick Tatum Bell a 2nd, and Ron Dayne a FA.

Nobody is going to argue that it is bad to have two RBs but to spend the first pick on one that we dont absolutely need I dont know it seems kinda crazy

MorKnolle
12-06-2005, 03:44 PM
None of your examples includes a RB who would be the highest paid RB in the league by far (Bush if taken #1) and a mid priced RB together. Green is decently paid and about to be let go. Johnson is mid paid and Perry is low 1st draft pick, i.e. not an expensive combo. Dunn and Duckett together don't add up to half of Bush at #1. RBBC isn't a bad idea, but only one of guys can be a premium guy or the cap is in trouble.

Very true. Remember a couple years ago when Cincy had Dillon and Johnson, or last year when the Jets had Martin and Lamont Jordan? Those combos didn't work out too well and in both cases one RB moved on and became a #1 RB elsewhere. If we drafted Bush at #1, he would come in as the second highest paid (I don't think he'd get a contract higher than Portis', at least hopefully not) and we would have $65-70 million tied up in our two RBs, way more money than I'd want for a runningback by committee.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 03:53 PM
If we drafted Bush at #1, he would come in as the second highest paid (I don't think he'd get a contract higher than Portis', at least hopefully not) and we would have $65-70 million tied up in our two RBs, way more money than I'd want for a runningback by committee.

Portis got a $50 mil 8 year deal--$6.25 per year. LT got a $60 mil 8 year deal--$7.5 mil per year. Alex Smith signed a $54 mil 6 year deal--$9 mil per year. If Bush taken #1 he will get a deal that pays over $9 mil per year on average or he won't be in training camp or at the beginning of the season. Contracts are now done by draft position not player position.

Coach C.
12-06-2005, 03:58 PM
Infantry player posistion still has a good deal to do with money given to rookies. A RB selected second will get less than a QB selected second. They still employ these rules based on skill posistions eventhough not weighted as much anymore. You will find the majority of the weight on skill posisitions in the up front money received from the team.

humbleone
12-06-2005, 04:17 PM
...that doesn't think it is a good idea to draft Bush if we have the chance. Our defense is terrible. Our O-line is sad, and we have one good receiver. Our running game is the strongest point of our team. Davis can get the job done when we arn't playing catch up and have to pass. All Bush will do is look better at running the ball. Bush can't keep Carr off of his a**, and he can't stop the run on defense. This is just how I feel.:texflag:

No you are not the only one but the "let's get Bush bandwagon" is really taking off. IMO we won't matter because the Texans will provide us with the only remaining way to screw up the season by winning another game letting the Jets walk off with either Bush or several extra picks from trading the pick.

Capers and company think it is a good idea to:

Play vs rest Carr, DD and AJ even though they are far from 100% physically and
Rest vs test Ragone, Hollings (although he is a bust probably), Armstrong and Morency.:texflag:

tulexan
12-06-2005, 04:38 PM
I don't think that Bush will get a contract that is bigger than Alex Smith's or Eli Manning's. Quarterbacks on average make more money than running backs because they are a more important position. He will get a big contract, but he won't be the highest paid running back in the league after not playing a single play in professional football.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 05:15 PM
Infantry player posistion still has a good deal to do with money given to rookies. A RB selected second will get less than a QB selected second. They still employ these rules based on skill posistions eventhough not weighted as much anymore. You will find the majority of the weight on skill posisitions in the up front money received from the team.

I don't think that Bush will get a contract that is bigger than Alex Smith's or Eli Manning's. Quarterbacks on average make more money than running backs because they are a more important position. He will get a big contract, but he won't be the highest paid running back in the league after not playing a single play in professional football.

Find me example(s) of this in the last 3 drafts and I will believe you. Every single report I have seen over the past few drafts has the contract compared purely to the draft position not to the player position and it has been huge, gigantic news if a player wanted to get paid out of draft position--and the only example of that I know is Philip Rivers and that was not a result of player position, but his argument that in effect they used the #1 draft pick on him. All you have to do to see draft position is what controls is look at the contracts over the last few years--#1 gets more than #2 who gets more than #3 who gets more than #4 and so on. If what you were saying was true, that wouldn't be the case. Braylon Edwards should be getting more than Ronnie Brown (WR''s get paid more than RB's), Pacman Jones should be getting paid more than Cadillac Williams, etc. That isn't what happens on rookie contracts anymore.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 05:24 PM
Well the last three drafts have all been quarterbacks so that really doesn't prove anything about the contract not being about the postition.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 05:28 PM
Well the last three drafts have all been quarterbacks so that really doesn't prove anything about the contract not being about the postition.

Try thinking a little more broadly than the #1 pick. For example Roy Williams (WR, higher paid than RB's or TE's in the league generally) did not get a bigger contract than Kellen Winslow TE.

nunusguy
12-06-2005, 05:43 PM
Well the last three drafts have all been quarterbacks so that really doesn't prove anything about the contract not being about the postition.
Actually the last "eight" drafts have been QBs if you're talking the # 1 pick,
and there has only been one RB go #1 in over 20 years. The QB position has
grown so in importance, I don't think Bush is #1 this year no matter how much hype may follow him when there's another powerhouse QB coming out this year, and maybe 2 depending on what VY does.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 05:47 PM
ok. I will try to explain this.

1) Kellen Winslow's agents are the Poston brothers who are like the Scott Boras of the NFL.
2) You are right, in a draft the salaries are based on their order. But what I am trying to say is that it is kind of hard to compare the last few drafts because the top picks were all quarterbacks. The salaries do have a kind of step ladder effect where 1 gets x amount of money, 2 gets a little less, 3 gets a little less than 2, and so on. But what I am trying to say is that once we have a player who is not a quarterback, the initial salary will be less than that of the quarterbacks the year before.

Now I'm not saying that you should expect Reggie Bush to sign a contract that is 6 years for $20 million because it isn't going to happen, but I do not think that he is going to sign a 6 years $60 million contract. And if he does expect to, then we will probably be able to get him if we are the #2 pick because there is no way in hell that the Niners can afford that kind of salary.