PDA

View Full Version : Reggie Bush vs DeAngelo Williams Career #'s


Frank_The_Tank
04-05-2006, 02:58 PM
Reggie Bush Career Stats
Games Played 39
RUSHING ATT 433 YRDS 3312 LOSS 143 NET 3169 TD 25 AVG 7.32
PASSING ATT 3 COMP 1 YRDS 52 TD 1 INT 0
Two Point Conv 0
Receiving NO 95 YDS 1301 TD 13 AVG 13.69474
Punt Returns No 44 559 TD 3 AVG 12.70455
Kick off Returns NO 67 YDS 1522 TD 1 AVG 22.71642
CAREER TOTAL TD 43 POINTS 258

DeAngelo Williams Career Stats
Games Played 44
RUSHING ATT 969 YRDS 6280 LOSS 254 NET 6026 TD 55 AVG 6.22
PASSING ATT 2 COMP 0 YRDS 0 TD 0 INT 0
Two Point Conv 1
Receiving NO 70 YDS 723 TD 5 AVG 10.33
Punt Returns NA
Kick off Returns NO 37 YDS 824 TD 0 AVG 22.27
CAREER TOTAL TD 60 POINTS 360

Mike Kerns
04-05-2006, 03:03 PM
Did Williams split time with another back ?

KSig44
04-05-2006, 03:04 PM
Give me Bush. Williams was a 4 year starter (maybe 3 year) in a lesser than talented conference. Although, Williams did put up those numbers with a horrible line.

Frank_The_Tank
04-05-2006, 03:06 PM
I argue that their is no comparison, Reggie is a way better at scoring, but Williams is a proven between the tackles runner.

phantom17
04-05-2006, 03:41 PM
Then why isn't D. Williams rated #1 ON MOST scouts, GM's, coaches, Monday morning QB's, laymens, fans/non fans, media reporters list, etc. BUSH all the way, hype or no hype, he's proven #1, plus he has a Heisman, something Williams does'nt!

Frank_The_Tank
04-05-2006, 06:43 PM
Why was Ryan Leif ranked higher than Payton Manning?

infantrycak
04-05-2006, 06:45 PM
Why was Ryan Leif ranked higher than Payton Manning?

He wasn't, but why start letting the facts affect you now?

Frank_The_Tank
04-05-2006, 06:57 PM
Facts? Who was picked first, and do your research, he was ranked higher in many mock drafts. But Williams is not better than Bush, I was just putting some food for thought out there, not Bashing Bush in any way.

FirstTexansFan
04-05-2006, 07:14 PM
Go away...please...wait...I can do that..nevermind ;)

Seņor Stan
04-05-2006, 07:21 PM
Facts? Who was picked first, and do your research, he was ranked higher in many mock drafts. But Williams is not better than Bush, I was just putting some food for thought out there, not Bashing Bush in any way.

Manning was picked 1st.

Frank_The_Tank
04-05-2006, 07:27 PM
ohh o.k. Payton Manning was picked ahead of Ryan Leaf. Anything else we want to change about history, is the earth flat again?

Mailman04
04-05-2006, 07:29 PM
DeAngelo Williams isn't near the TB Reggie Bush is. I covered DeAngelo some in high school and am very familiar with him. I think he will be a good one, but there's more than stats to look at when comparting Reggie and DeAngelo. DeAngelo hurt himself this year when he didn't play against Tennessee and coach ripped him in paper next day. You said you weren't saying DeAngelo is better than Reggie, I hope not because I have seen both play in person more than once and there is no comparison.

STEEL BLUE TEXANS
04-05-2006, 07:31 PM
ohh o.k. Payton Manning was picked ahead of Ryan Leaf. Anything else we want to change about history, is the earth flat again?



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/events/1998/nfldraft/rounds/round.1.html

Frank_The_Tank
04-05-2006, 07:32 PM
I do argue that Williams is more proven on the bias that he played on a team where 100% of the focus of every opponents gameplay was market directly towards him due to a lack of talent on his team. Take Williams, play him at USC and this might be another story.

TreWardTxn
04-05-2006, 07:45 PM
Taking thier college careers alone, I think you can come to the conclusion that D'Angelo is a better (pure) running back, but Bush the more potent "offensive threat", if that even makes logical sense...

Frank_The_Tank
04-05-2006, 08:00 PM
Exactly, great post TreWardTxn

Tejaspro
04-05-2006, 08:00 PM
I do argue that Williams is more proven on the bias that he played on a team where 100% of the focus of every opponents gameplay was market directly towards him due to a lack of talent on his team. Take Williams, play him at USC and this might be another story.

A Ferrari will still beat a Mustang. No matter the environment.

Seņor Stan
04-05-2006, 08:05 PM
ohh o.k. Payton Manning was picked ahead of Ryan Leaf. Anything else we want to change about history, is the earth flat again?

Want to crawfish on this one?

thunderkyss
04-05-2006, 08:11 PM
Taking thier college careers alone, I think you can come to the conclusion that D'Angelo is a better (pure) running back, but Bush the more potent "offensive threat", if that even makes logical sense...

D'Angelo is going to be a nice, nice pick for whoever picks him. He's being rated soooo low, in comarison. Adai is also going to be a "big" surprise.

But, if you think about the, "Lienart is more NFL ready" argument, the same is true for D'Angelo. He was played the way you play a #1 overall back, IMHO. Between the tackles, 20+ carries a game. Well, Reggie did play in an NFL type system, but he wasn't the NFL type back.

I think it is funny the way the Reggie Bush fans don't see it the same way. Even though there is no team in the NFL right now, that plays a running back the way "we" want to play Reggie. Not one. The offense is going to have to be tailored to Reggie, to fully utilize, and benefit Reggie.

IMHO, there are at least four systems that Vince can come in and be successful right away. Atlanta, New Orleans(last years system. I'm sure they were in the shotgun more than UT was), Indy, & Denver.

I can just imagine the rebuttals I'll get for this post....... there are all kinds of running backs in the NFL, and REggie has the talent to be successful in any system........ or it's easier for a running back to be successful than it is a QB.......

Yet there have been many non-conventional QBs who have come into the NFL, and been successful early in their carreers. & there have been all kinds of running backs with all kinds of talent that wasn't immediately successfull.

thunderkyss
04-05-2006, 08:15 PM
Taking thier college careers alone, I think you can come to the conclusion that D'Angelo is a better (pure) running back, but Bush the more potent "offensive threat", if that even makes logical sense...


The same can be said about a pair of QBs in this draft......... but some people say thinks that's silly.

Huge
04-05-2006, 08:31 PM
Did Williams split time with another back ?
He didn't have to.

Give me Bush. Williams was a 4 year starter (maybe 3 year) in a lesser than talented conference. Although, Williams did put up those numbers with a horrible line.
Last I checked, the PAC-10 wasn't exactly know for their power house defenses.

Who would you say had the bigger advantage:
Bush with his offensive support vs the PAC-10 defenses
Williams with his offensive support vs the C-USA defenses

Then why isn't D. Williams rated #1 ON MOST scouts, GM's, coaches, Monday morning QB's, laymens, fans/non fans, media reporters list, etc. BUSH all the way, hype or no hype, he's proven #1, plus he has a Heisman, something Williams does'nt!
Rashaan Salaamm --- Heisman Trophy Winner

He (Leaf) wasn't (ranked/picked higher than Manning), but why start letting the facts affect you now?
He picked a bad example.

Some other not-so-bad examples:
Blair Thomas ranked/drafted ahead of Emmitt Smith
Ron Dayne ranked/drafted ahead of Shaun Alexander
Kijana Carter (and a host of other RBs) ranked/drafted ahead of Curtis Martin
Lawrence Phillips...1st RB drafted in the '96 draft.
Tim Biakabatuka...2nd RB drafted in the '96 draft.
Both drafted ahead of Eddie George.

There's more but hopefully the point comes across.

But y'all are probably right. Those mock experts, GMs, scouts and coaches are nails when it comes to the draft.

ohh o.k. Payton Manning was picked ahead of Ryan Leaf. Anything else we want to change about history, is the earth flat again?
The earth was once flat?

infantrycak
04-05-2006, 09:19 PM
There's more but hopefully the point comes across.

But y'all are probably right. Those mock experts, GMs, scouts and coaches are nails when it comes to the draft.

Now you know that wasn't the point of my post. But before jumping off into a discussion of whether someone should have been ranked ahead of another player, we should at least get straight what the rankings were. While there was debate, Manning was the consensus top pick--not saying pundits are right (in that particular case they were) just that most agreed on Manning.

CoastalTexan
04-05-2006, 10:19 PM
Williams also has alot of miles on him, he carried that team and im sure he paid for it.

MorKnolle
04-05-2006, 11:14 PM
I argue that their is no comparison, Reggie is a way better at scoring, but Williams is a proven between the tackles runner.

I have seen Bush run between the tackles almost as much as DeAngelo. I don't know why this is such a frequently-used argument against Bush, if everyone went back and watched his games you'd see probably 60-70% of his plays are designed to run between the tackles and he bounces outside after he gets into the LB level in order to get the corner on the LBs and DBs and get to the endzone.

tulexan
04-05-2006, 11:17 PM
People say that he is only an outside runner because most of the game film that they have seen of him have been those highlight reels which show the ends of his runs in the outside. But like you said, if you have watched USC games, you would know that a lot of his runs start inside and then are bounced outside once he gets through the line of scrimmage.

G-Man
04-05-2006, 11:27 PM
I cant believe the oilers picked kevin dyson, before randy moss!

TexansCanes
04-06-2006, 01:00 AM
ohh o.k. Payton Manning was picked ahead of Ryan Leaf. Anything else we want to change about history, is the earth flat again?

this is one of the best posts ever, classic.

you can make this comparison about a lot of players in every draft. there are always going to be players that have better career stats then others just because of the school they were at doesn't mean one is automatically going to be better. i'm sure there were 10 qbs or more picked before tom brady but no one knew what was going to happen. trust you scouting department to make the right call.

Nighthawk
04-06-2006, 01:00 AM
D'Angelo is going to be a nice, nice pick for whoever picks him. He's being rated soooo low, in comarison. Adai is also going to be a "big" surprise.

But, if you think about the, "Lienart is more NFL ready" argument, the same is true for D'Angelo. He was played the way you play a #1 overall back, IMHO. Between the tackles, 20+ carries a game. Well, Reggie did play in an NFL type system, but he wasn't the NFL type back.

I like Bush and think he'll be a good pick. But it's surprising to actually look at his stats. They are kind of, well . . . ordinary, finally. They're certainly not the kind of stats that you'd associate with the #1 pick in the draft.

Sportswriters pretty much made him the hero he is now because of a couple of games where he played against really poor defenses (Fresno State?) plus a lot of high school hype where he really did the same "man against boys" thing that Vince Young did in college.

He'll do well in the NFL as a part timer.

Nighthawk
04-06-2006, 01:03 AM
People say that he is only an outside runner because most of the game film that they have seen of him have been those highlight reels which show the ends of his runs in the outside. But like you said, if you have watched USC games, you would know that a lot of his runs start inside and then are bounced outside once he gets through the line of scrimmage.

Actually, somebody on one of the sports shows, or PFW, or somewhere did research on this and it's not "a lot" as your anecdotal experience suggests. My memory is it's on the order of 15% or something. Though, mindful of the sinful misrepresentation of the draft sequence in oughty-six, I am prepared to be corrected if anyone can find the actual article in which this stat was proffered.

Grid
04-06-2006, 02:27 AM
Reggie Bush is better in every stat... much better in some of them.

im not seeing the issue.

Grid
04-06-2006, 02:29 AM
I like Bush and think he'll be a good pick. But it's surprising to actually look at his stats. They are kind of, well . . . ordinary, finally. They're certainly not the kind of stats that you'd associate with the #1 pick in the draft.

Sportswriters pretty much made him the hero he is now because of a couple of games where he played against really poor defenses (Fresno State?) plus a lot of high school hype where he really did the same "man against boys" thing that Vince Young did in college.

He'll do well in the NFL as a part timer.


something you need to learn is that numbers can be twisted to make any argument valid. Its especially useful if you are a very bias person, which explains why you are so easily swayed against anything that isnt draped in burnt orange.

Grid
04-06-2006, 02:41 AM
Some other not-so-bad examples:
Blair Thomas ranked/drafted ahead of Emmitt Smith
Ron Dayne ranked/drafted ahead of Shaun Alexander
Kijana Carter (and a host of other RBs) ranked/drafted ahead of Curtis Martin
Lawrence Phillips...1st RB drafted in the '96 draft.
Tim Biakabatuka...2nd RB drafted in the '96 draft.
Both drafted ahead of Eddie George.



Ladainian Tomlinson ahead of Michael Bennett
Edge ahead of Ricky Williams
Marshall Faulk ahead of Greg Hill
Barry Sanders ahead of Tim Worley
Earl Campbell ahead of Terry Miller
Ottis Anderson ahead of Charles Alexander
Bo Jackson ahead of Keith Byars


Am I proving something yet?

HJam72
04-06-2006, 03:06 AM
Blair Thomas ranked/drafted ahead of Emmitt Smith
Ron Dayne ranked/drafted ahead of Shaun Alexander
Kijana Carter (and a host of other RBs) ranked/drafted ahead of Curtis Martin
Lawrence Phillips...1st RB drafted in the '96 draft.
Tim Biakabatuka...2nd RB drafted in the '96 draft.
Both drafted ahead of Eddie George.


Maybe this is why Lendale White doesn't care about his draft status. :idonno:

What teams did all those high picks go to?

thunderkyss
04-06-2006, 06:11 AM
Ladainian Tomlinson ahead of Michael Bennett
Edge ahead of Ricky Williams
Marshall Faulk ahead of Greg Hill
Barry Sanders ahead of Tim Worley
Earl Campbell ahead of Terry Miller
Ottis Anderson ahead of Charles Alexander
Bo Jackson ahead of Keith Byars


Am I proving something yet?


I don't know about most of these examples........ but it appears to be you are citing who got drafted ahead of who. Edgerin James for example wasn't rated as high as Ricky Williams. It was a shock to everyone, that Indy went against the ratings, and drafted the Edge ahead of Ricky, which led to the blockbuster Mike Ditka trade.

Huge
04-06-2006, 06:16 AM
Now you know that wasn't the point of my post. But before jumping off into a discussion of whether someone should have been ranked ahead of another player, we should at least get straight what the rankings were. While there was debate, Manning was the consensus top pick--not saying pundits are right (in that particular case they were) just that most agreed on Manning.
Yeah, the "y'all" I put in isn't very specific towards which poster I'm talking about. It was directed more towards the poster that was rattling off about the GMs, coaches, scouts, etc.

Reggie Bush is better in every stat... much better in some of them.

im not seeing the issue.
If by "every stat" you mean every stat except rushing yards, rushing TDs and total TDs...then yes, Bush is better in every stat.

But yeah, what's the issue?

something you need to learn is that numbers can be twisted to make any argument valid. Its especially useful if you are a very bias person, which explains why you are so easily swayed against anything that isnt draped in burnt orange.
Maybe I missed it...which stat is being twisted?

Ladainian Tomlinson ahead of Michael Bennett
Edge ahead of Ricky Williams
Marshall Faulk ahead of Greg Hill
Barry Sanders ahead of Tim Worley
Earl Campbell ahead of Terry Miller
Ottis Anderson ahead of Charles Alexander
Bo Jackson ahead of Keith Byars


Am I proving something yet?
That a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while?

BTW, us arm chair/Monday morning QB's could've/would've made those same picks as well. But if you've correctly projected how every player that has been drafted will turn out in the NFL then I apologize and you should continue to tell others how they're crazy for thinking one player might be better than another.

For the record, I said Williams was the best RB in the draft before Memphis played their bowl game. There's a thread on it somewhere here. What I said then I still believe: Bush is the better player, Williams is the better RB.

Grid
04-06-2006, 08:37 AM
1. When a player isnt sharing carries and gets twice as many carries..he is going to have more yards. If I started Carr for one game, and then started Vince Young for 16 games.. I couldnt say that Young was a better QB because he has more yards :P. Bush beats him in yards per carry..meaning he was a better RB when he was in the game.

2. Ohhhhhhh.....all of them. Everyone has an agenda when they post stats. What stat is being twisted? This whole post is about twisted stats. You are comparing a guy who shared carries to a guy who was a full time starter. This is college ball so we are talking about completely different levels of competition as well. This thread barely acknowledges that, instead focusing on all the pretty numbers. Bottom line is that Bush has Williams beat in every stat.. and is the top running back prospect in this draft, bar none. Now, if you dont like his size, or his running style.. thats fine.. lets debate that.. but these stats mean absolutely nothing.

3. The point was that you posted a list of RBs that were drafted AFTER someone else who was rated higher than them, but didnt turn out to be as good of an NFL player. I was just pointing out that just as often, the ratings are correct. It was another example of twisting facts/stats to suit your needs. You cant just pick the stats that suit your argument and ignore the rest. It was entirely pointless to point out that quality players were drafted after busts, because quality players have been drafted BEFORE busts as well.

Does the fact that in some cases the superstar was ranked well ahead of the bust matter? It shouldnt. If they were ranked high enough in the draft by the "experts" to go early in the first round... then obviously the experts do have the ability to make sound judgements about the abilities of a RB prospect.

Huge
04-06-2006, 08:57 AM
1. When a player isnt sharing carries and gets twice as many carries..he is going to have more yards. If I started Carr for one game, and then started Vince Young for 16 games.. I couldnt say that Young was a better QB because he has more yards :P. Bush beats him in yards per carry..meaning he was a better RB when he was in the game.
If you want to toss stones about twisting stats and only focusing on the numbers, then don't tell me about Bush's superior YPC average w/o mentioning his far superior supporting offensive cast.

If YPC determines the better RB, does that make Tiki Barber (5.2 YPC) a much better RB than Ladainian Tomlinson (4.3 YPC)? In their league, you can't make the argument about different levels of competition. So does that make it valid?

2. Ohhhhhhh.....all of them. Everyone has an agenda when they post stats. What stat is being twisted? This whole post is about twisted stats. You are comparing a guy who shared carries to a guy who was a full time starter. This is college ball so we are talking about completely different levels of competition as well. This thread barely acknowledges that, instead focusing on all the pretty numbers. Bottom line is that Bush has Williams beat in every stat.. and is the top running back prospect in this draft, bar none. Now, if you dont like his size, or his running style.. thats fine.. lets debate that.. but these stats mean absolutely nothing.
You stated Bush has Williams beat in every stat. That has nothing to do with twisting stats. It's just an incorrect statement. What makes it incorrect (Bush having fewer carries, etc.) is irrelevant.

3. The point was that you posted a list of RBs that were drafted AFTER someone else who was rated higher than them, but didnt turn out to be as good of an NFL player. I was just pointing out that just as often, the ratings are correct. It was another example of twisting facts/stats to suit your needs. You cant just pick the stats that suit your argument and ignore the rest. It was entirely pointless to point out that quality players were drafted after busts, because quality players have been drafted BEFORE busts as well.
I would go a step further and say that ratings are correct a large majority of the time.

However, because they are not correct 100% of the time, that leaves a window open for somebody to question whether or not Bush is a better RB than Williams. And if somebody has material to support their argument, like Williams' superior stats, carrying his team, etc., then they certainly have justification for stating their argument.

Errant Hothy
04-06-2006, 09:09 AM
ohh o.k. Payton Manning was picked ahead of Ryan Leaf. Anything else we want to change about history, is the earth flat again?

Man he's been awfully quite since this.:stirpot:

Huge
04-06-2006, 09:17 AM
Man he's been awfully quite since this.:stirpot:
Except for telling me I looked foolish for saying Rocket Ismail didn't win the Heisman.

Grid
04-06-2006, 11:17 AM
If you want to toss stones about twisting stats and only focusing on the numbers, then don't tell me about Bush's superior YPC average w/o mentioning his far superior supporting offensive cast.

If YPC determines the better RB, does that make Tiki Barber (5.2 YPC) a much better RB than Ladainian Tomlinson (4.3 YPC)? In their league, you can't make the argument about different levels of competition. So does that make it valid?

Its much different when you are talking about proven NFL talent. We are using stats as a way to "predict" the value of a prospect once they get to the NFL. Barber may very well have been a better RB than Tomlinson LAST SEASON..id have to really look at it.. but no one will say that Tiki Barber is a better RB than Tomlinson overall, because LT has proven himself time and again at the NFL level.

And yes, Bush did have a superior supporting cast, and went up against superior competition, so im more inclined to call it a "wash"..except that USC was one of the best teams in college football, so Bush DID have a somewhat better supporting cast. However, he was the best player on the team, so you gotta factor that in as well.




You stated Bush has Williams beat in every stat. That has nothing to do with twisting stats. It's just an incorrect statement. What makes it incorrect (Bush having fewer carries, etc.) is irrelevant.

Hmm.. I guess it depends on how you look at it. I mean, yah... the number under "yards" is bigger for Williams, but he didnt average more yards per carry.. and I think that is a much more important stat. I mean, in the NFL, you can have an RB with 350 attempts and 1800 rushing yards for a 5.1 YPC average.. or an RB with 250 attempts for 1700 yards for a 6.8 YPC average. Who is better? Its a no brainer. That is how I am looking at the stats.




I would go a step further and say that ratings are correct a large majority of the time.

However, because they are not correct 100% of the time, that leaves a window open for somebody to question whether or not Bush is a better RB than Williams. And if somebody has material to support their argument, like Williams' superior stats, carrying his team, etc., then they certainly have justification for stating their argument.


Yes it leaves a window to discuss whether or not he is worth the pick, and ill even agree that posting stats on Williams was done in a perfectly valid way.. but the stats are misleading, and people arent seeing that. They are taking it as proof that Williams is the better prospect without even considering why he has more yards and TDs. That is where the "stat twisting" is coming from.

BTW, Bush wasnt just "one piece" of USC either.. he was their best offensive weapon, and while he may not have single handedly carried the team, he did carry it.

tulexan
04-06-2006, 12:41 PM
He has also been the team MVP (voted by players) for the past two years.

Huge
04-06-2006, 01:06 PM
Its much different when you are talking about proven NFL talent. We are using stats as a way to "predict" the value of a prospect once they get to the NFL. Barber may very well have been a better RB than Tomlinson LAST SEASON..id have to really look at it.. but no one will say that Tiki Barber is a better RB than Tomlinson overall, because LT has proven himself time and again at the NFL level.

And yes, Bush did have a superior supporting cast, and went up against superior competition, so im more inclined to call it a "wash"..except that USC was one of the best teams in college football, so Bush DID have a somewhat better supporting cast. However, he was the best player on the team, so you gotta factor that in as well.
Agreed that this particular thread has been using stats as a means of projecting their NFL potential. I personally haven't limited my belief that Williams is the better RB based on stats, but yeah, that's about the gist of the argument on this thread.

But as far as the "superior competition", again, check out the rankings of the PAC-10 defenses and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the defenses of C-USA ranked right up there with them.

Hmm.. I guess it depends on how you look at it. I mean, yah... the number under "yards" is bigger for Williams, but he didnt average more yards per carry.. and I think that is a much more important stat. I mean, in the NFL, you can have an RB with 350 attempts and 1800 rushing yards for a 5.1 YPC average.. or an RB with 250 attempts for 1700 yards for a 6.8 YPC average. Who is better? Its a no brainer. That is how I am looking at the stats.
They way I was looking at it, you stated Bush was better in "every stat". There's no question that Bush had an enormous edge in YPC. And if that makes him the better RB, in your opinion, then that's fine. But YPC is certainly not "every stat".

Yes it leaves a window to discuss whether or not he is worth the pick, and ill even agree that posting stats on Williams was done in a perfectly valid way.. but the stats are misleading, and people arent seeing that. They are taking it as proof that Williams is the better prospect without even considering why he has more yards and TDs. That is where the "stat twisting" is coming from.

BTW, Bush wasnt just "one piece" of USC either.. he was their best offensive weapon, and while he may not have single handedly carried the team, he did carry it.
Motor City Bowl:
Williams - 31 carries, 241 yards, 3 TDs
Next closest Memphis rusher - Joseph Doss - 9 carries, 52 yards

Rose Bowl:
Bush - 13 carries, 82 yards, 1 TD
Next closest Trojan rusher - Lendale White - 20 carries, 124 yards, 3 TDs

Williams had twice as many rushing TDs as the Tigers had passing TDs.

Good luck convincing me that Bush did as good a job carrying his team as Williams did his.

Fico
04-06-2006, 01:09 PM
YPC is a misleading stat. You cannot say that one guy is better than the other soley based on this stat due to the fact that Reggie probably never saw an 8 man front all year much less a 9 man front..... this is due to USC's recieving core which is/was outstanding. Williams on the other hand had to deal with that everygame, week in and week out.

If I had to pick one I would pick Williams.... not saying we should..... just if Iw as given the choice.

I am still a part of the trade down club but will support whatever decision we make.

Grid
04-06-2006, 01:59 PM
Williams had twice as many rushing TDs as the Tigers had passing TDs.

Good luck convincing me that Bush did as good a job carrying his team as Williams did his.
Reply With Quote

Well the difference is in the offense their teams ran. I havent watched any memphis games, so i cant say for sure, but I imagine that they ran a very run oriented offense. The Trojans on the other hand ran a very balanced offense, so obviously Bush isnt gonna make up as much of their offensive stats as Williams does for his team.

You cannot say that one guy is better than the other soley based on this stat due to the fact that Reggie probably never saw an 8 man front all year much less a 9 man front

Id be a hypocrite if I didnt agree with that. Any stat is misleading.. im just saying look at the whole picture. In this case, the superior stats belong to Bush. I guess that is debatable as well if you feel that Williams greater number of carries means that he was a better player than Bush (because they gave him the ball more).. but you have to consider the type of talent that USC had on their roster as well. Bush wasnt their only weapon, just their best one.

Also.. im pretty sure that every team that USC played knew about Bush and his big play potential, and im sure they took measures on defense to stop him. I dont think it is fair to say that Bush had it easier than Williams.

Frank_The_Tank
04-06-2006, 02:37 PM
Someone made a quote about numbers being twisted, dude this is not a insurance policy, or a credit card contract, we are talking about statistics taken from a career. Every number retrieved came from the NCAA web site, when you see numbers that show a running back with twice as many rushing yeards thats what you get. People like you tried to make the same argument when LT came out of TCU. Now look at the guy, he is the best. The media likes to hide the numbers and present the guy's the have bias towards.

TexanFan881
04-06-2006, 02:44 PM
Until the USC Pro Day I thought that DeAngello Williams was a safer bet to do better in the NFL than Reggie Bush.

mike230765
04-06-2006, 02:44 PM
i think whatever running back is out there will do fine since we have good recievers and a good passcatching TE to keep the defense honest. but i do like the posibilities that reggie brings to the table.

Grid
04-06-2006, 03:26 PM
Someone made a quote about numbers being twisted, dude this is not a insurance policy, or a credit card contract, we are talking about statistics taken from a career. Every number retrieved came from the NCAA web site, when you see numbers that show a running back with twice as many rushing yeards thats what you get. People like you tried to make the same argument when LT came out of TCU. Now look at the guy, he is the best. The media likes to hide the numbers and present the guy's the have bias towards.
:dontknowa

Huge
04-06-2006, 05:14 PM
Well the difference is in the offense their teams ran. I havent watched any memphis games, so i cant say for sure, but I imagine that they ran a very run oriented offense. The Trojans on the other hand ran a very balanced offense, so obviously Bush isnt gonna make up as much of their offensive stats as Williams does for his team.
Which I agree with and that's fine. I fully understand that Bush played on a more balaned offense and that took away from his contributions to the team.

In other words, he wasn't relied on to carry his team like Williams was...which was my point all along.

Id be a hypocrite if I didnt agree with that. Any stat is misleading.. im just saying look at the whole picture. In this case, the superior stats belong to Bush. I guess that is debatable as well if you feel that Williams greater number of carries means that he was a better player than Bush (because they gave him the ball more).. but you have to consider the type of talent that USC had on their roster as well. Bush wasnt their only weapon, just their best one.

Also.. im pretty sure that every team that USC played knew about Bush and his big play potential, and im sure they took measures on defense to stop him. I dont think it is fair to say that Bush had it easier than Williams.
If you have a Heisman trophy winning QB, an NFL bound TE, an NFL bound RB, two NFL bound WRs, don't you think there's going to be a little less attention paid towards Bush than what Williams had to deal with?

Do you know what happens when defenses concentrated on stopping Bush? Here's an example:
@ Washington: Bush - 8 carries, 57 yards, 1 TD
Same game: Matt Leinart - 20 of 26, 201 yards, 4 TDs

Game over by halftime.

Do you think Williams had that luxury?

Sure he faced inferior defenses...supposedly. But he also faced those defenses with inferior supporting talent. You don't think those balance each other out?