PDA

View Full Version : Bush/Sanders Comparison


Keldar
01-13-2006, 09:46 PM
Much speculation has been made over Bush's durability based on his stature and relatively light carry load at USC. I thought it might be interesting to compare some numbers with an NFL running back who had a decent career, and to whom Bush has been compared.

Bush
height 6' 0"
weight 200lb

Barry Sanders
height 5' 8"
weight 200lb

Bush Stats (this year, not including Rose Bowl)
carries 187
games 12
avg carries/game 15.6

Sanders Stats (career)
carries 3,062
games 153
avg carries/game 20

So what did this small statured running back named Barry Sanders acheive in his NFL career?

*Second-leading rusher of all time (15,269 yards).
*109 career touchdowns (99 rushing, 10 receiving).
*76 total 100-yard rushing games.
*Holds all-time NFL record for consecutive 1,000-yard seasons (10, 1989-1998).
*Tied for NFL record for total 1,000-yard rushing seasons (10).
*Holds Detroit Lions records for most yards rushing (15,269), most touchdowns (109) and most rushing touchdowns (99).
*Second all-time in career rushing yards.
*10-time Pro Bowl selection (1989-1998 seasons)
*Nine-time Pro Bowl participant (missed 1993 due to injury)
*Five-time NFC rushing leader
*Holds NFL single-season records for most 100-yard rushing games and most consecutive 100-yard games (14 in 1997).
*Played in one NFC championship game.
*1997 The Sporting News Player of the Year.
*1989 The Sporting News NFL Rookie of the Year.
*1988 Heisman Trophy winner.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm......

Trap_Star
01-13-2006, 09:54 PM
Much speculation has been made over Bush's durability based on his stature and relatively light carry load at USC. I thought it might be interesting to compare some numbers with an NFL running back who had a decent career, and to whom Bush has been compared.

Bush
height 6' 0"
weight 200lb

Barry Sanders
height 5' 8"
weight 200lb

Bush Stats (this year, not including Rose Bowl)
carries 187
games 12
avg/game 15.6

Sanders Stats (career)
carries 3,062
games 153
avg/game 20

So what did this small statured running back named Barry Sanders acheive in his NFL career?

*Second-leading rusher of all time (15,269 yards).
*109 career touchdowns (99 rushing, 10 receiving).
*76 total 100-yard rushing games.
*Holds all-time NFL record for consecutive 1,000-yard seasons (10, 1989-1998).
*Tied for NFL record for total 1,000-yard rushing seasons (10).
*Holds Detroit Lions records for most yards rushing (15,269), most touchdowns (109) and most rushing touchdowns (99).
*Second all-time in career rushing yards.
*10-time Pro Bowl selection (1989-1998 seasons)
*Nine-time Pro Bowl participant (missed 1993 due to injury)
*Five-time NFC rushing leader
*Holds NFL single-season records for most 100-yard rushing games and most consecutive 100-yard games (14 in 1997).
*Played in one NFC championship game.
*1997 The Sporting News Player of the Year.
*1989 The Sporting News NFL Rookie of the Year.
*1988 Heisman Trophy winner.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm......

wow...you did your homework. Although i will say that in todays nfl, defenses are BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER, overall much better athletes.

Dime
01-13-2006, 09:57 PM
Much speculation has been made over Bush's durability based on his stature and relatively light carry load at USC. I thought it might be interesting to compare some numbers with an NFL running back who had a decent career, and to whom Bush has been compared.

Bush
height 6' 0"
weight 200lb

Barry Sanders
height 5' 8"
weight 200lb

Bush Stats (this year, not including Rose Bowl)
carries 187
games 12
avg carries/game 15.6

Sanders Stats (career)
carries 3,062
games 153
avg carries/game 20

So what did this small statured running back named Barry Sanders acheive in his NFL career?

*Second-leading rusher of all time (15,269 yards).
*109 career touchdowns (99 rushing, 10 receiving).
*76 total 100-yard rushing games.
*Holds all-time NFL record for consecutive 1,000-yard seasons (10, 1989-1998).
*Tied for NFL record for total 1,000-yard rushing seasons (10).
*Holds Detroit Lions records for most yards rushing (15,269), most touchdowns (109) and most rushing touchdowns (99).
*Second all-time in career rushing yards.
*10-time Pro Bowl selection (1989-1998 seasons)
*Nine-time Pro Bowl participant (missed 1993 due to injury)
*Five-time NFC rushing leader
*Holds NFL single-season records for most 100-yard rushing games and most consecutive 100-yard games (14 in 1997).
*Played in one NFC championship game.
*1997 The Sporting News Player of the Year.
*1989 The Sporting News NFL Rookie of the Year.
*1988 Heisman Trophy winner.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm......

Lets not compare him to Barry because he has Never played in a NFL game. Major difference there... Bush has NO record in the NFL, so ranking him to NFL stats are quite misleading

TexansTrueFan
01-13-2006, 10:10 PM
haha lets compare bush to B. Sanders, i mean besides his height and weight i dont see much in common i mean reggie hasnt even played in a NFL game yet, so to put him among nfl legends is kinda dumb.

Goldeagle
01-13-2006, 10:11 PM
Lets compare Bush with Eric Metcalf!

tulexan
01-13-2006, 10:15 PM
How about we compare Reggie Bush to Reggie Bush.

There is no point in setting extremely lofty goals just so you can be disappointed when he doesn't meet them.

Trogdor014
01-14-2006, 02:23 AM
Um... I'd rather have someone Sanders' size at RB than Bush's size. I think an important thing to look at is weight/height ratio.

Sanders, while shorter, was also much thicker. IMO having a "thick" body is important in a player's ability to take punishment.

Bush, at 6'0, has a thinner frame than Sanders, which is why many have doubts about his durability.

tex
01-14-2006, 06:00 AM
Lets not compare him to Barry because he has Never played in a NFL game. Major difference there... Bush has NO record in the NFL, so ranking him to NFL stats are quite misleading
Kind of like everyone comparing VY to DC ones in college the other in the pros,where everything is faster,the players are bigger etc etc.

aj.
01-14-2006, 06:08 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if when they measure Bush with the NFL scale and tape, that he's not 6'0" 200. He looks just a smidge shorter for sure. He's prettty close to Tiki Barber if you're looking for a modern physical comparison.

Keldar
01-14-2006, 10:37 AM
haha lets compare bush to B. Sanders, i mean besides his height and weight i dont see much in common i mean reggie hasnt even played in a NFL game yet, so to put him among nfl legends is kinda dumb.

The whole point of the thread was Bush's stature and carry load, as compared to one of the NFL greats.

The whole rap on Bush to this point, has been his size and the fact that he hasn't carried the ball a lot per game. This thread shows Barry Sanders' size is slightly smaller, and his carry load was not much more than Bush's 15.6 per game.

Not properly understanding the point of this thread is kinda dumb.

HJam72
01-14-2006, 10:47 AM
How about we compare Reggie Bush to Reggie Bush.


When compared to Bush, Bush is really pretty average. :)

Dr. Toro
01-14-2006, 10:57 AM
5'8" 200 is very different from 6'0 200. The 5'8" guy is significantly thicker. Barry's legs were huge. I wouldn't be too concerned about Bush's size, he can put on weight. He's gotta change his style to be an effective inside runner, though.

Barry carried the ball 344 times his junior year. He proved himself to be a horse in college, Reggie got about half those carries this year (187). Until Bush proves himself to be a workhorse back, I won't see him as one. Sure, Lendale White had a lot to do with Reggie Bush not getting a ton of carries, but Reggie has his limitations. He was conspicuously absent in short yardage situations, 4th and 2 in the Rose Bowl, goal line situations.

Barry Sanders was never a great short yardage back either, but that was probably due to the fact that for a sizable chunk of his career he was in one back sets.

LikeABoss
01-14-2006, 12:39 PM
Bush, at 6'0, has a thinner frame than Sanders, which is why many have doubts about his durability.

http://www.jefflewisphotography.com/adm/photo/60_USCBush1Website.jpg

You call this having a thin frame???:confused:

The dude is ripped for his size!

Barry Sanders definately was not this big. He had big legs, but he did not have a bigger upper body than Bush.

DynoMoxie
01-14-2006, 12:49 PM
I've watched Barry Sanders play LIVE. Don't even waste your breath trying to compare the two. It's like constantly trying to find someone to compare to Michael Jordon. It's a big waste of time. Don't compare Reggie Bush to any of the greats. He's got a lot to prove before he can even be mentioned in the same breath. There is proven and there is speculation...two very different things. Don't get caught up being a speculator.

In Vince We Trust
01-14-2006, 12:51 PM
as far as their bodies are concerned, they weigh the same but barry was about 4 inches shorter - center of gravity is lower and he is thicker.

as far as their abilities are concerned, barry had more moves. moreover, barry accomplished all that he did at okie state playing on a crap team with no talent other than himself. bush played on a team stocked with nfl talent on his o-line, a first round pick at the other rb position, a first round pick for a wr, etc.,

bush is more similar to desmond howard or rocket ismail - electrifying college players who were/are undersized for traditional positions. you want to waste a no. 1 overall pick on a desmond howard or rocket ismail?!:ok:

LikeABoss
01-14-2006, 01:53 PM
as far as their bodies are concerned, they weigh the same but barry was about 4 inches shorter - center of gravity is lower and he is thicker.

http://www.freewebs.com/eff_tsb_records/barry%20sanders2.jpg http://www.taipeitimes.com/images/2004/10/18/20041017211600.jpeg

Barry is definately not thicker than Reggie.


bush played on a team stocked with nfl talent on his o-line, a first round pick at the other rb position, a first round pick for a wr, etc.,

First off, Bush never played with a first round pick of a WR. He benefitted playing with a great college QB and complimentary RB to back him up. But i'm pretty sure those same exact players would say their success had alot to do with playing on a team with the talent of a Reggie Bush. Plus there's other successful running backs in the league that played in a similar situation in college. Cadillac Williamsidonno:

bush is more similar to desmond howard or rocket ismail - electrifying college players who were/are undersized for traditional positions. you want to waste a no. 1 overall pick on a desmond howard or rocket ismail?!

This is a matter of your opinion. You are not speaking any truth to this matter at all.

Dhanis
01-14-2006, 02:22 PM
I think Reggie has the size to be used in a role such as Tiki Barber, Marshall Faulk. Take a look at what Warrick Dunn does with his small stature. Reggie's what...20 years old? He has plenty of time to put on extra weight and bulk up for the NFL game as well.

LikeABoss
01-14-2006, 02:32 PM
He has plenty of time to put on extra weight and bulk up for the NFL game as well.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/images/2004/10/18/20041017211600.jpeg http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20040828/reggie_85226.jpg

Do people not consider this bulk???

IMO, the guy has perfect size to be a RB in this league, the only thing needing change is for him to show the critics that he can be just as successful running between the tackles and being an every down back.

Dr. Toro
01-14-2006, 03:03 PM
I think it's really funny how people try saying being 4 inches shorter and weighing the same doesn't make you thicker. The pictures are funny too, lets take a picture of Barry where he looks tiny and Reggie where he's flexing.

I don't care how jacked his arms are. If you want the most ripped arms in the league then trade for Michael Pittman. Weight matters and strong legs matter, upper body strength isn't the biggest deal. Although I did hear Reggie Bush benched like 450. He's a strong kid.

Barry carried it 30 times a game at OSU, thats a far cry from 16 per game behind the nation's best OL. All the flexing in the world isn't going to change that.

BeerFan
01-14-2006, 03:38 PM
Its not like Reggie was asked to carry the ball 30 times and couldnt do it. They had LenDale White too, and he needed some carries as well.

Bush carried the ball 23 and 24 times against Fresno and UCLA and ended up with 294 yards and 260 yards. i know those arent good teams and im not expecting those numbers to translate to the NFL, but Reggie Bush is the real deal.

LenDale never carried the ball more than 24 times in a game either.

LikeABoss
01-14-2006, 03:48 PM
I think it's really funny how people try saying being 4 inches shorter and weighing the same doesn't make you thicker. The pictures are funny too, lets take a picture of Barry where he looks tiny and Reggie where he's flexing.

The funny thing is you saying that Barry Sanders is thicker than Reggie because he is 4 inches shorter when it is blatanly obvious that he is not.

And I could also find a picture with Barry flexing in a similar way and the results would still be the same. Barry is not thicker than Reggie

If you want the most ripped arms in the league then trade for Michael Pittman. Weight matters and strong legs matter, upper body strength isn't the biggest deal.

How about field vision? That plays a vital success into rather a RB is successful or not. Pittman doesn't have it, but Bush does for sure. And we all know that Barry had it.

Barry carried it 30 times a game at OSU, thats a far cry from 16 per game behind the nation's best OL.

Bush had to split carries with Lendale White and still managed to have more carries than White for the season (that's not including the Rose Bowl game).

Dr. Toro
01-14-2006, 03:51 PM
I'm not saying Bush can't do it. I'm saying I won't believe it 'til I see it. The comparison to Sanders is premature until he proves he can handle a Barry Sanders workload. Bottom line, it was a lot easier to be Bush in 2005 than Sanders in 1988. The workload was light, and as much as teams wanted to key on him, the OL, Leinart, White, and Jarrett made that pretty much impossible.

Likeaboss, how can you weigh the same and be four inches shorter and not be thicker? How is it possible?

LikeABoss
01-14-2006, 03:59 PM
Likeaboss, how can you weigh the same and be four inches shorter and not be thicker? How is it possible?

If you mean thicker by shorter and chubbier then it is what it is.

All I know is Reggie Bush is 6 ft and a solid 200lb all muscle.

MorKnolle
01-14-2006, 04:10 PM
Barry Sanders was 5-8, 205 lbs., Bush is listed at 6-0, 200lbs., so obviously if Barry is shorter and weighs more then he has to be thicker somewhere, alot of that was in his legs because he had some huge legs (BTW, is it more important for a RB to have jacked arms and be able to bench press a little more or to have huge, powerful legs?)

LikeABoss
01-14-2006, 04:13 PM
^^What gives you the impression that Reggie does not have powerful legs?

You know what never mind.

Forget it.

BeerFan
01-14-2006, 04:16 PM
hey now, he never said Reggie doesn't have strong legs. He just said Barry had very big legs. dont get all defensive

MorKnolle
01-14-2006, 04:30 PM
hey now, he never said Reggie doesn't have strong legs. He just said Barry had very big legs. dont get all defensive

I'm glad someone gets it, my point was Barry Sanders was 4 inches shorter and 5 lbs. heavier than Reggie Bush currently is (yes Bush can gain some weight, but right now he's lighter than Sanders), so obviously Barry has to be more stoutly built, and even if Reggie Bush does have thicker arms and can bench press more than Sanders, I'd prefer to have a RB whose extra strength and bulk is in his legs as opposed to one that has bigger arms.

kingh99
01-15-2006, 10:21 AM
Good analysis. Further investigation yields

Marshall Faulk, Garrison Hearst and Reggie Bush all weight and stand the same height, 6-0 200. Emmitt Smitth was shorter but heavier at 5-9 212. Barry Sanders was smaller yet at 5-8 200. Warrick Dunn is in the smallest class of RB at 5-8 180.

Reggie Bush seems like he carries a lot of that power in his shoulders ala OJ. Emmitt was all legs. Emmitt was small and could rush 20 times a game. Sanders was the perfect combination of shoulders and legs.

Huge
01-15-2006, 02:31 PM
Bush Stats (this year, not including Rose Bowl)
carries 187
games 12
avg carries/game 15.6

Sanders Stats (career)
carries 3,062
games 153
avg carries/game 20
Is that 15.6 in the NCAA compared to 20 in the NFL? That's a pretty big difference.

Anybody that thinks they're comparable is either too young to remember Barry or too caught in the hype about Bush. Their running styles aren't even close to being similar.

Bush is the better open field runner where most of his cuts are made.

Barry made his living off making cuts right at the LOS. Because Bush isn't known for running between the tackles, he's yet to prove he can do this. Not to say he can't, but until you prove it, it's an unknown.

And for the record, I'm not one that feels Bush will have any durability issues.

TXurias
01-15-2006, 03:37 PM
Its not like Reggie was asked to carry the ball 30 times and couldnt do it. They had LenDale White too, and he needed some carries as well.

Bush carried the ball 23 and 24 times against Fresno and UCLA and ended up with 294 yards and 260 yards. i know those arent good teams and im not expecting those numbers to translate to the NFL, but Reggie Bush is the real deal.

LenDale never carried the ball more than 24 times in a game either.
Good point about Lendale never carrying the ball for than 24 times. I don't understand why people like to rip on Bush. Sounds like he will be the first pick so let's get behind him and the Texans and hope for the best. Does anyone know how fast Bush's 40 time is?

kbourda
01-15-2006, 03:51 PM
I believe his 40 time is between 4.2-4.3 speed.

kbourda
01-15-2006, 03:54 PM
Don't get me wrong, if selected #1, Bush would be a worthy selection. But don't compare him to Barry. His durability will come under fire soon enough. I'm anxious to see how well he and Young will do in the NFL.

HJam72
01-15-2006, 08:36 PM
Those pictures of Bush show that he is very well cut, but being cut and being thick are 2 different things. Besides that, Sanders is standing straight up in an unmasculine pose, certainly not flexing anything, and standing next to a very large individual, not to mention the fact that Sanders' picture itself is just smaller (focused from further out). The fact is that 200 6'0 is always thinner than 200 5'8" and therefore must mean less muscle, unless you're going to say that Sanders had slabs of fat on him. :)

CenTexNative
01-15-2006, 09:00 PM
Excuse me but how can anyone make any kind of comparason between the great Barry Sanders, other than college stats, and a kid that hasn't even been drafted. Talk about putting someone on a pedistool. Give the kid a few years in th NFL before comparing him with ANY established runner in the NFL.

HOOK'EM
01-18-2006, 04:54 AM
BUSH=SANDERS:redtowel: