PDA

View Full Version : Bush advocates -- read and weep


Nighthawk
04-13-2006, 11:50 PM
"So, Bush it is. Comparisons to Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, and Gale Sayers seem to be coming from everywhere. Bush is a special talent, but those are some of the greatest players of all-time. The Texans cannot practically think that Bush offers more than those players.

As an interesting exercise, look at how those players' teams fared in their first five years after the NFL draft. Those three players were the second, third, and fourth overall selection of the draft, meaning they came to equally un-talented teams:

Faulk: 32-48
Sanders: 40-40
Sayers: 29-38-3

These numbers are somewhat shocking and should make Texans' fans keep their expectations in check. During these five-year periods, these three great backs made a combined 12 Pro Bowls, so their production was clearly not the problem. The simple truth is that a running back is only so valuable.

Those running backs were replacing Roosevelt Potts, Garry James, and Jon Arnett respectively. Bush will be replacing Domanick Davis, who has averaged over 1000 yards a season in his three years. He also is similar in size and style to Bush, making Davis, one of the Texans' better players, completely extraneous next season. Is Bush going to be better than Davis? Certainly, but even if Bush is historically good, the improvement will only be worth so much."

This important data from Fox Sports article to be found here http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5483606.

Let's hope we manage to trade down.

Bobo
04-13-2006, 11:55 PM
Let's hope we manage to trade down.

Agreed. :yahoo:

Koolbrz
04-13-2006, 11:57 PM
This important data from Fox Sports article to be found here http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5483606.

Let's hope we manage to trade down.


Dude, all you need to look at is the teams they were playing for. IMO i feel that we have a better football team than the teams those 3 guys played for. Faulk did eventually win a superbowl with St. Louis and Sanders was on a bad team his whole career. Can you imagin what he would have done if San Fran. would have some how got there hands on him. I say we stick to Bush. Our offense will be so much more explosive with this guy. Forget trading down. Offensive or defensive lineman do not score TD's.

Marcus
04-14-2006, 12:00 AM
:deadhorse
Let's hope we manage to trade down.
Stop torturing yourself, Nighthawk. They're taking Bush, no matter how much crap you dig up, so give it up.

texasguy346
04-14-2006, 12:02 AM
It's time to seriously reconsider your position on an issue when Bobo starts to agree with you.

kastofsna
04-14-2006, 12:05 AM
completely meaningless stats.

phan1
04-14-2006, 12:11 AM
Those are good stats. But I think the main point is that you still need good players around a team to win. Those thinking Bush is the be-all and end-all guy who is going to take this team to the Super Bowl will likely be mistaken. Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers didn't have people like Carr, AJ, Moulds, and DD to help them out. Reggie Bush is coming to a team which already looks like a play-off calibure offense (at least on paper). I really believe Bush's situation will be different. Also, Faulk really didn't have a great first 5 years as he was injured, and I don't believe the "greatest show on turf" comes into fruition without him.

But besides the win-loss colomn, you've got to be crazy if you were to say that you didn't want the next Barry Sanders on your team. What do you think would happen to their team's records if they WEREN'T there?

Seņor Stan
04-14-2006, 12:24 AM
Those are good stats. But I think the main point is that you still need good players around a team to win. Those thinking Bush is the be-all and end-all guy who is going to take this team to the Super Bowl will likely be mistaken. Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers didn't have people like Carr, AJ, Moulds, and DD to help them out. Reggie Bush is coming to a team which already looks like a play-off calibure offense (at least on paper). I really believe Bush's situation will be different. Also, Faulk really didn't have a great first 5 years as he was injured, and I don't believe the "greatest show on turf" comes into fruition without him.

But besides the win-loss colomn, you've got to be crazy if you were to say that you didn't want the next Barry Sanders on your team. What do you think would happen to their team's records if they WEREN'T there?


You know, I was a huge trade down proponent initially. I thought the Texans had too many holes to fill, and trading #1 was the best way to fill them. Then Koobs and company began systematically filling them.

At first I was outraged at the Sage Rosenfels and Jamaal Cook signings. Then Weaver came on board and took up the spot of run stuffing DE.
Flanagan upgraded the Center spot and Mckinney moved back to his natural position of Guard.
Cowart was signed to hold the Mike down for a while
Then came the Moulds sign/trade.
All of a sudden, I see the holes filling up and the our picks at #33,65 and 66 as having the potential to fill most of the rest. (OL/CB/LB)

Now I hesitate to pass up the best colligate running back I have ever seen play. If we get a sweetheart "Godfather" deal, then I am OK with a trade down. Other than that, I say no dice.

edited for spellign

Mike Kerns
04-14-2006, 12:26 AM
It's time to seriously reconsider your position on an issue when Bobo starts to agree with you.
LOL, well said.

DRAMA
04-14-2006, 12:26 AM
This important data from Fox Sports article to be found here http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5483606.

Let's hope we manage to trade down.


No team in the NFL would pass on Sayers, Sanders or Faulk. They would all be the consensus #1 pick right now...

1.) Sayers' career ended early - has nothing to do with Bush - they're still talking about Sayers 40 years later.

2.) Barry Sanders had no help. Name 1 single great Lions QB EVER...

3.) Marshall Faulk has a Superbowl win. According to this, we have a 33% chance of going to the Bowl with Reggie.

Guess what that means - we take him #1.

Tale Gator
04-14-2006, 12:28 AM
lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Seņor Stan
04-14-2006, 12:31 AM
3.) Marshall Faulk has a Superbowl win.


and exactly what has Kurt Warner done without a healthy Marshall Faulk?

phan1
04-14-2006, 12:47 AM
No team in the NFL would pass on Sayers, Sanders or Faulk. They would all be the consensus #1 pick right now...

Good Point. Add in the fact that FA is a great place to fill holes and pick up some help, trading the best player in the draft for some extra picks suddenly don't seem as valuable as it once was. It doesn't look like we could get anything more than an extra 2nd rounder by trading down, and it's not like that's going to get us much help either. I don't think Reggie Bush could get us any closer to a Super Bowl than an extra pick in the 2nd round could. Trading down just isn't sexy :).

Hottoddie
04-14-2006, 01:54 AM
Hehe, you Bush fans are cracking me up. What's your lame explaination for why the Texans are negotiating a contract with Mario Williams? To keep Bush's agent honest? Yeah, right. I can just see the Bush fans lining up after the draft:

:brickwall :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall

HJam72
04-14-2006, 02:06 AM
I'm beginning to think they should just tell Williams and Bush that we're taking whoever signs for the least amount.

MorKnolle
04-14-2006, 02:08 AM
"So, Bush it is. Comparisons to Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, and Gale Sayers seem to be coming from everywhere. Bush is a special talent, but those are some of the greatest players of all-time. The Texans cannot practically think that Bush offers more than those players.

As an interesting exercise, look at how those players' teams fared in their first five years after the NFL draft. Those three players were the second, third, and fourth overall selection of the draft, meaning they came to equally un-talented teams:

Faulk: 32-48
Sanders: 40-40
Sayers: 29-38-3

These numbers are somewhat shocking and should make Texans' fans keep their expectations in check. During these five-year periods, these three great backs made a combined 12 Pro Bowls, so their production was clearly not the problem. The simple truth is that a running back is only so valuable.

Those running backs were replacing Roosevelt Potts, Garry James, and Jon Arnett respectively. Bush will be replacing Domanick Davis, who has averaged over 1000 yards a season in his three years. He also is similar in size and style to Bush, making Davis, one of the Texans' better players, completely extraneous next season. Is Bush going to be better than Davis? Certainly, but even if Bush is historically good, the improvement will only be worth so much."
This important data from Fox Sports article to be found here http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5483606.

Let's hope we manage to trade down.

What does this prove? If you want to see how picking a QB vs. a RB with a top 5 pick impacts your team over the next 5 years (or until they leave the team, whichever comes first), here you go:

QBs taken in the top 5 picks since 1987 draft:
Alex Smith (2005, #1, SF: 4-12: 875 yards, 50.9% completions, 1 TD and 11 INTs in 9 games in 1 year with team)
Eli Manning (2004, #1, NYG: 6-10, 11-5: 2402.5 yards, 51.6% completions, 15.0 TDs and 13.0 INTs in 12.5 games in 2 years with team)
Philip Rivers (2004, #4, SD: 12-4, 9-7: 74.0 yards, 56.7% completions, 0.5 TDs and 0.5 INTs in 2.5 games in 2 years with team)
Carson Palmer (2003, #1, Cin: 8-8, 8-8, 11-5: 2244.3 yards, 64.6% completions, 16.6 TDs and 10.0 INTs in 10.0 games in 3 years with team)
David Carr (2002, #1, Hou: 4-12, 5-11, 7-9, 2-14: 2656.0 yards, 57.8% completions, 12.0 TDs and 13.3 INTs in 15.0 games in 4 years with team )
Joey Harrington (2002, #3, Det: 3-13, 5-11, 6-10, 5-11: 2560.5 yards, 54.7% completions, 15.0 TDs and 15.5 INTs in 14.8 games in 4 years with team)
Michael Vick (2001, #1, Atl: 7-9, 9-6-1, 5-11, 11-5, 8-8: 1806.2 yards, 54.1% completions, 10.2 TDs and 7.8 INTs in 11.6 games in 5 years with team)
Tim Couch (1999, #1, Cle: 2-14, 3-13, 7-9, 9-7, 5-11: 2226.2 yards, 59.8% completions, 12.8 TDs and 13.4 INTs in 12.4 games in 5 years with team)
Donovan McNabb (1999, #2, Phi: 5-11, 11-5, 11-5, 12-4, 12-4: 2610.2 yards, 57.0% comletions, 17.4 TDs and 9.8 INTs in 14.0 games in first 5 years with team)
Akili Smith (1999, #3, Cin: 2-14, 4-12, 6-10, 2-14: 553.0 yards, 46.6% completions, 1.3 TDs and 3.3 INTs in 5.3 games in 4 years with team)
Peyton Manning (1998, #1, Ind: 3-13, 13-3, 10-6, 6-10, 10-6: 4123.6 yards, 62.1% completions, 27.6 TDs and 20.0 INTs in 16.0 games in first 5 years with team)
Ryan Leaf (1998, #2, SD: 5-11, 8-8, 1-15: 1222.0 yards, 48.4% completions, 4.7 TDs and 12.0 INTs in 8.7 games in 3 years with team)
Steve McNair (1995, #3, Hou: 7-9, 8-8, 8-8, 8-8, 13-3: 1967.6 yards, 56.2% completions, 10.0 TDs, 7.2 INTs in 11.8 games in first 5 years with team)
Kerry Collins (1995, #5, Car: 7-9, 12-4, 7-9, 4-12: 2076.5 yards, 51.8% completions, 11.8 TDs and 13.5 INTs in 11.3 games in 4 years with team)
Heath Shuler (1994, #3, Was: 3-13, 6-10, 9-7: 801.0 yards, 47.7% completions, 4.3 TDs and 6.3 INTs in 6.3 games in 3 years with team)
Drew Bledsoe (1993, #1, NE: 5-11, 10-6, 6-10, 11-5, 10-6: 3669.6 yards, 56.0% completions, 21.6 TDs and 17.6 INTs in 15.2 games in first 5 years with team)
Rick Mirer (1993, #2, Sea: 6-10, 6-10, 8-8, 7-9: 2273.5 yards, 53.4% completions, 10.3 TDs and 14.0 INTs in 13.8 games in 4 years with team)
Jeff George (1990, #1, Ind: 7-9, 1-15, 9-7, 4-12: 2387.8 yards, 57.0% completions, 10.3 TDs and 11.5 INTs in 13.0 games in 4 years with team)
Troy Aikman (1989, #1, Dal: 1-15, 7-9, 11-5, 13-3, 12-4: 2725.4 yards, 62.0% completions, 13.8 TDs and 13.2 INTs in 13.6 games in first 5 years with team)
Vinny Testaverde (1987, #1, TB: 4-11, 5-11, 5-11, 6-10, 3-13: 2453.2 yards, 51.1% completions, 12.6 TDs and 19.2 INTs in 12.4 games in first 5 years with team)

RBs taken in the top 5 picks since 1987 draft:
Ronnie Brown (2005, #2, Mia: 9-7: 1139 total yards and 5 TDs in 15 games in 1 year with team)
Cedric Benson (2005, #4, Chi: 11-5: 275 total yards and 0 TDs in 9 games in 1 year with team)
Carnell Williams (2005, #5, TB: 11-5: 1259 total yards and 6 TDs in 14 games in 1 year with team)
LaDanian Tomlinson (2001, #5, SD: 5-11, 8-8, 4-12, 12-4, 9-7: 1950.6 total yards and 16.0 TDs in 15.8 games per season in 5 years with team)
Jamal Lewis (2000, #5, Bal: 12-4, 10-6, 7-9, 10-6, 9-7: 1705.5 total yards and 8.5 TDs in 15.0 games per season in first 5 years with team)
Edgerrin James (1999, #4, Ind: 13-3, 10-6, 6-10, 10-6, 12-4: 1638.2 total yards and 10.4 TDs in 13.3 games per season in first 5 years with team)
Ricky Williams (1999, #5, NO: 3-13, 10-6, 7-9: 1407.0 total yards and 8.8 TDs in 13.5 games per season in 3 years with team)
Curtis Enis (1998, #5, Chi: 4-12, 6-10, 5-11: 641.7 total yards and 2 TDs in 11.3 games per season in 3 years with team)
Ki-Jana Carter (1995, #1, Cin: 7-9, 8-8, 7-9, 3-13: 280.5 total yards and 4.3 TDs in 8.8 games per season in 4 years with team)
Marshall Faulk (1994, #2, Ind: 8-8, 9-7, 9-7, 3-13, 3-13: 1624.8 total yards and 10.2 TDs in 15.4 games per season in 5 years with team)
Garrison Hearst (1993, #3, Pho/Ari: 7-9, 8-8, 4-12: 604.3 total yards and 1.3 TDs in 10.3 games per season in 3 years with team)
Blair Thomas (1990, #2, NYJ: 6-10, 8-8, 4-12, 8-8: 620.5 total yards and 1.8 TDs in 12.8 games per season in 4 years with team)
Barry Sanders (1989, #3, Det: 7-9, 6-10, 12-4, 5-11, 10-6: 1657.6 total yards and 13.6 TDs in 14.6 games per season in first 5 years with team)
Alonzo Highsmith (1987, #3, Hou: 9-6, 10-6, 9-7: 496.7 total yards and 3.3 TDs in 13.3 games per season in 3 years with team)
Brent Fullwood (1987, #4, GB: 5-9-1, 4-12, 10-6: 643.7 total yards and 3 TDs in 13.3 games per season in 3 years with team)

20 QBs total record (78 total seasons, 3.9 seasons per player): 542-704-1 (.435)
15 RBs total record (51 total seasons, 3.4 seasons per player): 390-421-1 (.481)

MorKnolle
04-14-2006, 02:08 AM
Hehe, you Bush fans are cracking me up. What's your lame explaination for why the Texans are negotiating a contract with Mario Williams? To keep Bush's agent honest? Yeah, right. I can just see the Bush fans lining up after the draft:

:brickwall :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall

Where are the negotiations with Vince? Most likely happening in Nashville, Manhattan, Oakland, or Phoenix.

Hottoddie
04-14-2006, 02:15 AM
Where are the negotiations with Vince? Most likely happening in Nashville, Manhattan, Oakland, or Phoenix.

It appears that they're not negotiating with him. So what? If you're implying that I'm a VY fan, you're barking up the wrong tree. For a while there, I was believing that the Texans were more interested in VY than Bush. I'm still intrigued by his potential, but it's starting to appear to me that the Texans are not interested in him.

Texans86
04-14-2006, 02:20 AM
I knew I should like you Mork, those are some interesting stats. A good writer, or a good statistitian can make anything look like anything. But, basically, the draft is a crapshoot, and currently Reggie Bush seems to have the highest potential for our seem and will likely make an imediate impact. Everyone knows that any one player will never make an impact, and in all likelyhood, many players will never make their full potential.

Can't we all just get along?

jerek
04-14-2006, 02:56 AM
I knew I should like you Mork, those are some interesting stats. A good writer, or a good statistitian can make anything look like anything. But, basically, the draft is a crapshoot, and currently Reggie Bush seems to have the highest potential for our seem and will likely make an imediate impact. Everyone knows that any one player will never make an impact, and in all likelyhood, many players will never make their full potential.

Can't we all just get along?

Just FYI, Mork was simply reinforcing that crapshoot idea, and saved me the trouble of pointing out just how thoroughly irrelevant Nighthawk's inferred comparison was.

thunderkyss
04-14-2006, 03:07 AM
Those are good stats. But I think the main point is that you still need good players around a team to win. Those thinking Bush is the be-all and end-all guy who is going to take this team to the Super Bowl will likely be mistaken. Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers didn't have people like Carr, AJ, Moulds, and DD to help them out. Reggie Bush is coming to a team which already looks like a play-off calibure offense (at least on paper). I really believe Bush's situation will be different. Also, Faulk really didn't have a great first 5 years as he was injured, and I don't believe the "greatest show on turf" comes into fruition without him.

But besides the win-loss colomn, you've got to be crazy if you were to say that you didn't want the next Barry Sanders on your team. What do you think would happen to their team's records if they WEREN'T there?


I'm not switching sides, but I have to say this is a good well thought out post. We've got a heck of an offense. If Flanagan & the coaching can keep the sack count around 40 or under, David should be pretty good(2004, 44 sacks).

But, back in the day, the worst teams got the easiest schedules........ not so today.... Even with all this firepower, our schedule is the 8th toughest..... out of 32.

Of course, just as many teams tumble fast and far from year to year, as teams shoot to the top of Divisions and such.

No team in the NFL would pass on Sayers, Sanders or Faulk. They would all be the consensus #1 pick right now...
Didn't the Colts let go of Faulk ??

I'm just saying, "no team" is probably not as accurate, as you'd like to think.

2.) Barry Sanders had no help. Name 1 single great Lions QB EVER...
Thankyou........ that was my argument for Joey Harrington....... it's not that he's bad.... Detroit has a way of messing up young QBs........

3.) Marshall Faulk has a Superbowl win. According to this, we have a 33% chance of going to the Bowl with Reggie.

Marshall Faulk averaged... a little more than 1000 yards/year, Starting all but three years his first five years. (not like DD who missed 24 games & still avg'd 1000 yards his first 3 seasons). Then he got traded from the team that drafted him, replacing him with a younger player.....

Technically, that would make Faulk a bust who turned his carreer around wouldn't it??

I mean the Edge ran for more than 1000 yards his rookie season didn't he??


Guess what that means - we take him #1.


and exactly what has Kurt Warner done without a healthy Marshall Faulk?

& exactly what has Marshall Faulk done without a shellshocked Kurt Warner??

What does this prove? If you want to see how picking a QB vs. a RB with a top 5 pick impacts your team over the next 5 years (or until they leave the team, whichever comes first), here you go:
RBs taken in the top 5 picks since 1987 draft:
Ronnie Brown (2005, #2, Mia: 9-7: 1139 total yards and 5 TDs in 15 games in 1 year with team)
Cedric Benson (2005, #4, Chi: 11-5: 275 total yards and 0 TDs in 9 games in 1 year with team)
Carnell Williams (2005, #5, TB: 11-5: 1259 total yards and 6 TDs in 14 games in 1 year with team)

Alonzo Highsmith (1987, #3, Hou: 9-6, 10-6, 9-7: 496.7 total yards and 3.3 TDs in 13.3 games per season in 3 years with team)
Brent Fullwood (1987, #4, GB: 5-9-1, 4-12, 10-6: 643.7 total yards and 3 TDs in 13.3 games per season in 3 years with team)


20 QBs total record (78 total seasons, 3.9 seasons per player): 542-704-1 (.435)
15 RBs total record (51 total seasons, 3.4 seasons per player): 390-421-1 (.481)

So what are you saying??

infantrycak
04-14-2006, 10:16 AM
Agreed. :yahoo:

Well that cinches it. The Titans fan doesn't want the Texans to take Bush. Time to hand the card in Casserly.

Runner
04-14-2006, 10:34 AM
I'm not switching sides, but I have to say this is a good well thought out post. We've got a heck of an offense. If Flanagan & the coaching can keep the sack count around 40 or under, David should be pretty good(2004, 44 sacks).


That is why I think they'll start with the 2004 line + Flanagan rather than look at much from the 2005 line.

Porky
04-14-2006, 10:44 AM
The article is rubbish. You can say the same thing about any skill position if you analyze it that closely. How many Super Bowls did Dan Marino win again? Nobody would argue against taking Dan Marino #1 in most drafts knowing how his career turned out still knowing how many SB's he won. I guess if there is a lesson here, it takes more than one guy in football. Imagine if a talent like Bush was in the backfield with Marino. Now tell me how many Marino wins. But, their overall argument is obnoxious and silly, and without merit. So what they are saying is since Barry Sanders didn't win a SB, then by extrapolation Bush won't. That's a specious argument with so many holes, it looks like swiss cheese. So, if I understand their point, most teams are better off with James Allen at RB than Barry Sanders. Good job for a 2nd grade project. :challenge

kastofsna
04-14-2006, 10:48 AM
I guess if there is a lesson here, it takes more than one guy in football.
what?? that's insane.

thunderkyss
04-14-2006, 11:07 AM
The article is rubbish. You can say the same thing about any skill position if you analyze it that closely. How many Super Bowls did Dan Marino win again? Nobody would argue against taking Dan Marino #1 in most drafts knowing how his career turned out still knowing how many SB's he won. I guess if there is a lesson here, it takes more than one guy in football. Imagine if a talent like Bush was in the backfield with Marino. Now tell me how many Marino wins. But, their overall argument is obnoxious and silly, and without merit. So what they are saying is since Barry Sanders didn't win a SB, then by extrapolation Bush won't. That's a specious argument with so many holes, it looks like swiss cheese. So, if I understand their point, most teams are better off with James Allen at RB than Barry Sanders. Good job for a 2nd grade project. :challenge

As pointed out earlier, that doesn't apply to us, as we have more than 1 guy.

also, the article had no bearing on SB wins, or the longevity of a particualr guys Career. At the most, it was saying we're not going to have the turnaround we are expecting. It doesn't take into account that we already have a RB, a WR, and a QB..... (& from FA, another #1 WR, a TE, & a pass catching FB.) so I think that article meant if any team other us drafted Reggie, they'll be in for a 5 year drought.

Hookem Horns
04-14-2006, 11:16 AM
No team in the NFL would pass on Sayers, Sanders or Faulk. They would all be the consensus #1 pick right now...

3.) Marshall Faulk has a Superbowl win. According to this, we have a 33% chance of going to the Bowl with Reggie.

Guess what that means - we take him #1.

Do you mean the team that we end up trading him to has a 33% chance of winning a Super Bowl? Faulk was drafted by the Colts.

infantrycak
04-14-2006, 11:20 AM
Do you mean the team that we end up trading him to has a 33% chance of winning a Super Bowl? Faulk was drafted by the Colts.

Yeah, and he was a critical part of their winning a SB while the Colts sniffed repeatedly and didn't win. Is that really helping your argument that a RB isn't that big a deal?

thunderkyss
04-14-2006, 11:40 AM
Yeah, and he was a critical part of their winning a SB while the Colts sniffed repeatedly and didn't win. Is that really helping your argument that a RB isn't that big a deal?
In his firts three years, his stats were on par with DD, while starting more games. He played 16 games his 4th and 5th year, only gaining 1000 yards each. The Colts got tired of him, and drafted a better player.

Marshall Faulk is a bust, not playing up to expectations of the team that drafted him, who turned his career around...... Mike Martz, Kurt Warner, Isaac Bruce, Tory Holt...... without those guys, and Orlando Pace, and Az Hakim, Marshall Faulk is not the player you guys think he is.

this has nothing to do with Reggie......... I'm not drawing the parrallel between Reggie and Marshal, & I'm hoping you guys quite..... I don't think Marshall is a good comparison for what we want Reggie to do.

tulexan
04-14-2006, 11:52 AM
In Faulk's 5th year he had 1300 yards rushing and 900 yards receiving. Hardly numbers of a bust. And in his first season he had 1200 yards, something that Davis has yet to accomplish.

kastofsna
04-14-2006, 12:02 PM
faulk a bust? what? he went over 1000 yards in 4 of his 5 seasons in indy. he also lead the team in receptions 3 out of those 5 years. his last season in indy, he lead in the league in total yards from scrimmage. the reason he was traded was because he threatened to hold out for a new contract, and seeing as how the colts had the 4th pick of the draft and could draft either edgerrin james or ricky williams, they decided just to bite the bullet and traded faulk. in NO WAY was faulk a bust ever.

hollywood_texan
04-14-2006, 12:28 PM
I think point is that Bush isn't going to be as an important as the hype would lead us to believe. So, is he worth all the money he will command?

In other words, there are factors more importnat in being successful than having just one player, and in particular, a spectacular running back prospect like Reggie Bush.

This doesn't mean they won't be successful if they draft him and they can just as successful without him.

Look around, there are a lot of other options out there to get equal or greater value.

dwilt72
04-14-2006, 12:37 PM
completely meaningless stats.

I agree. This speaks more about the teams that drafted these great backs than it does about the backs themselves. If you don't continue to build your team after drafting a great player, then you can't expect to win a championship. How great was Denver before Terrell Davis? They went to Super Bowls and got their butts handed to them. After drafting Terrell Davis (yeah I know he was a 6th rd. pick, but still a great back), they won 2 Super Bowls. They couldn't do it before TD even with a Hall of Fame QB.

Porky
04-14-2006, 12:40 PM
In his firts three years, his stats were on par with DD, while starting more games. He played 16 games his 4th and 5th year, only gaining 1000 yards each. The Colts got tired of him, and drafted a better player.

Marshall Faulk is a bust, not playing up to expectations of the team that drafted him, who turned his career around...... Mike Martz, Kurt Warner, Isaac Bruce, Tory Holt...... without those guys, and Orlando Pace, and Az Hakim, Marshall Faulk is not the player you guys think he is.

this has nothing to do with Reggie......... I'm not drawing the parrallel between Reggie and Marshal, & I'm hoping you guys quite..... I don't think Marshall is a good comparison for what we want Reggie to do.

Faulk a bust. Dude, you are clueless. :brickwall

Texansfan30
04-14-2006, 12:45 PM
Look guys

Reggie Bush is not going to get us to the Super Bowl all by himself. No one has ever singlehandedly gotten a team to the SB. It takes a whole team AND a good coaching staff/system

That being said, you need players. You don't get there by passing up the best players. The list of teams that won SBs b/c of only a wonderful OL or DL is very short. The list of teams that won SBs b/c of superstars is long. Some were #1 picks, some weren't. Tom Brady won 3 SBs with New England as a 6th round pick, but it was b/c Belichick is a genius and the whole team gelled around him.

Bush is the RIGHT pick. That won't give us a SB. But it will put us on the road to a SB. Think about the problems inherent in building a winning team. First on my list would be player motivation. They have to be committed - but they also have to WANT to play here. Who wants to play on a 2-14 team? Nobody.

Draft Bush and then don't screw up the other picks. Get better this year (and I don't mean 3-13), and then next year people will see the type of organization Kubes is putting together and they will WANT to be here.

We can't afford to be the Arizona Cardinals and Detroit Lions of the Southwest. (No offense, Cards/Lions fans).

Anyone who says that they would pass on Barry Sanders b/c he 'didn't win a SB' is clueless. He was quite possibly the best RB EVER (IMO he was).

hollywood_texan
04-14-2006, 12:53 PM
I agree. This speaks more about the teams that drafted these great backs than it does about the backs themselves. If you don't continue to build your team after drafting a great player, then you can't expect to win a championship. How great was Denver before Terrell Davis? They went to Super Bowls and got their butts handed to them. After drafting Terrell Davis (yeah I know he was a 6th rd. pick, but still a great back), they won 2 Super Bowls. They couldn't do it before TD even with a Hall of Fame QB.

Where Terrell was drafted is an important point, the less investment with the same return will have a higher return than a larger investment. I don't think Denver paid 50 to 60 million over 5 years for Davis. In addition, Denver had all the other pieces in place when they drafted Davis, they were a pretty good team before then but couldn't get over the hump.

Spending around $60 million for Bush could make it difficult to complete the entire team like you say is so important. Bush's contract will be premium on the position and I think he will be making more or same money as James and Alexander who had difficult times getting their big contracts and they are proven pro bowlers.

This is really about dollars and managing the salary cap. If you can show me where we can keep Andre Johnson, have a really good quarterback (maybe that is Carr), and develop the intererior lines on the both sides of the ball and pay Reggie Bush $60 million, then let's do it. But most teams don't pay that much for that position, and it seems like the successful ones definitely don't spend that kind of money on a running back.

Not against drafting Bush, just don't understand why we need it. Trade down and get Williams or Ferguson seems like the best route. Make it happen.

dwilt72
04-14-2006, 01:28 PM
This is really about dollars and managing the salary cap. If you can show me where we can keep Andre Johnson, have a really good quarterback (maybe that is Carr), and develop the intererior lines on the both sides of the ball and pay Reggie Bush $60 million, then let's do it.

Good point, however, is there anyone in the 6th rd. that makes us that much better. With the track record of this team in drafting (hopefully it gets better now), I don't know. I'm no capologist, so someone else would have to answer the question of how to pay everyone.

What I do know is that this team has had a HARD time scoring. The additions of Moulds and Putzier help a lot. However, if we add Reggie, we are adding someone who has the capability of scoring on any given play. I like DD and I think we should keep him and utilize both backs. However, how many of DD's runs last year might have been touchdowns if Reggie had been running the rock. Hard to say, but Reggie definately has more speed, moves and big play capability than DD. I think he's the home-run hitter we have sorely lacked to this point.

Texas_Thrill
04-14-2006, 01:39 PM
:deadhorse

Stop torturing yourself, Nighthawk. They're taking Bush, no matter how much crap you dig up, so give it up.

Sadly I agree with Marcus here. Its not even a question anymore. Its just a torture for the next umpteen days.

hollywood_texan
04-14-2006, 01:49 PM
Good point, however, is there anyone in the 6th rd. that makes us that much better. With the track record of this team in drafting (hopefully it gets better now), I don't know. I'm no capologist, so someone else would have to answer the question of how to pay everyone.

What I do know is that this team has had a HARD time scoring. The additions of Moulds and Putzier help a lot. However, if we add Reggie, we are adding someone who has the capability of scoring on any given play. I like DD and I think we should keep him and utilize both backs. However, how many of DD's runs last year might have been touchdowns if Reggie had been running the rock. Hard to say, but Reggie definately has more speed, moves and big play capability than DD. I think he's the home-run hitter we have sorely lacked to this point.

Yeah, I hear what you are saying. My philosophy is to build a system with a pounding running between the tackles that let's you sit at 3 and 3 or less on regular occassions. Reggie will be that constant home run threat but not a guarantee of crunch yards so you can sit at 3 and 3 or less as described, he just isn't that type of back, at least not in college.

Further, I think it is overkill because it is overpriced with Reggie, amazing talent but it isn't required and there are tougher key positions to find talent, left tackle, middle linebacker and so on. For example, the difference between the #1 player and number #5 player at left tackle in the league seems to bigger than say running back.

bad
04-14-2006, 02:16 PM
...For example, the difference between the #1 player and number #5 player at left tackle in the league seems to bigger than say running back. The catch is that in this year's draft there isn't, according to consensus opinion a left tackle standing heads and shoulders above the rest, at least not since Winston Justice pulled a Clark Kent at his Pro Day.

There is however a running back according to consensus opinion standing head and shoulders with the greatest at his position in history.

This draft would be a lot easier for everybody if Reggie Bush would have just stayed in school.

We all know what a consensus opinion is. It's just a bunch of people's opinions coalesced into a single, compelling argument. It's an overwhelming majority opinion that could still be wrong - and it may be wrong concerning any draft pick, ever. This includes Mr. Bush.

I just get the feeling that the Texans don't want to be potentially "The idiots who passed on Reggie Bush." If Bush does bust nobody will fault the Texans for picking him, because they would've done the same given the chance. On the other hand, if they pass on Bush, acquire some decent, maybe even Pro-Bowl caliber players and Bush sets the league on fire, in our own division, breaking records and taking our lunch money twice a year - it could become the stuff of lore.

Nobody likes being a punchline. We're already the team that passed on Derrick Johnson and traded down to grab Travesty Johnson*. We go the safe route here, methinks.


* - I still haven't given up hope that one day (maybe this season?) I'll be able to call him Travis without feeling the need to add a syllable.

dwilt72
04-14-2006, 02:27 PM
My philosophy is to build a system with a pounding running between the tackles that let's you sit at 3 and 3 or less on regular occassions.

Not trying to :deadhorse , but I actually prefer the same type of attack you're talking about. Look at the Steelers offense, that's what I wish we looked like (even though the offense didn't play well in the SB). However, to have that kind of attack, you have to have disciplined, veteran players. We don't have that. The last 4 years we have TRIED to be that kind of team, however too many times we make dumb mistakes that push us back beyond a 3rd and 3 to a 3rd and 8 or longer. Then, we can't make the first and have to punt the ball. I think we are starting to put together the makings of a potentially explosive offense (if we can keep everyone healthy). I just think Reggie just makes us more explosive and might keep some of the double teams away from AJ.

Koolbrz
04-14-2006, 07:24 PM
Hehe, you Bush fans are cracking me up. What's your lame explaination for why the Texans are negotiating a contract with Mario Williams? To keep Bush's agent honest? Yeah, right. I can just see the Bush fans lining up after the draft:

:brickwall :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall


Do you honestly think they will take Mario with the number one pick...I don't think so!!!! And neither does he!!! Texans can negotiate with Mario, Bush, and VY at the same time if they want. Doesn't mean a thing until he actually signs and if that happens it will be a huge mistake IMO. We will have to face either VY or Bush twice a yr and i will hate to see what Bush will do to us. Mario will not be able to keep up with Bush in the slot or if the run him the opposite side of the field. Could be a thorn in our side for yrs. to come. Indy might just pull off a trade to move up and pick him to replace Edgerrin or the Titans just might pick him up since there RB's are always hurting. Don't like the look of this.

Hottoddie
04-14-2006, 10:06 PM
Do you honestly think they will take Mario with the number one pick...I don't think so!!!! And neither does he!!! Texans can negotiate with Mario, Bush, and VY at the same time if they want. Doesn't mean a thing until he actually signs and if that happens it will be a huge mistake IMO. We will have to face either VY or Bush twice a yr and i will hate to see what Bush will do to us. Mario will not be able to keep up with Bush in the slot or if the run him the opposite side of the field. Could be a thorn in our side for yrs. to come. Indy might just pull off a trade to move up and pick him to replace Edgerrin or the Titans just might pick him up since there RB's are always hurting. Don't like the look of this.

I don't know who the Texans are going to take, but it sure does look like they're not all that interested in taking Bush. :stirpot:

thunderkyss
04-14-2006, 11:37 PM
In Faulk's 5th year he had 1300 yards rushing and 900 yards receiving. Hardly numbers of a bust. And in his first season he had 1200 yards, something that Davis has yet to accomplish.


faulk a bust? what? he went over 1000 yards in 4 of his 5 seasons in indy. he also lead the team in receptions 3 out of those 5 years. his last season in indy, he lead in the league in total yards from scrimmage. the reason he was traded was because he threatened to hold out for a new contract, and seeing as how the colts had the 4th pick of the draft and could draft either edgerrin james or ricky williams, they decided just to bite the bullet and traded faulk. in NO WAY was faulk a bust ever.


Faulk a bust. Dude, you are clueless. :brickwall

IF you had Marshall Faulk back then, looking at what he'd done, would you, or would not have traded him??

TexansLucky13
04-14-2006, 11:53 PM
It's time to seriously reconsider your position on an issue when Bobo starts to agree with you.

Hahaha! Exactly.

Whether or not he will live up to his extraordinary college performance in the NFL is irrelevant when looking at the draft. He is the BPA and will be taken.

el toro
04-14-2006, 11:56 PM
People are still doubting the pick? Oh well, fans will be fans. A year from now there won't be a soul who will admit they were opposed to picking Bush.

kastofsna
04-15-2006, 12:42 AM
IF you had Marshall Faulk back then, looking at what he'd done, would you, or would not have traded him??
nope. but he was traded for his contract disputes, not his playing.

tulexan
04-15-2006, 12:52 AM
The Texans aren't negotiating with Mario. They have had discussions with his agent, but there have been no contract discussion at all according to Pasquerelli.

And no I would not have traded Marshall Faulk back then. He was a potential 1000 rushing 1000 receiving yard threat back and wasn't even in his prime yet. Funny how he won offensive player of the year 2 out of the next three years en route to winning the Super Bowl once and going a second time.

I'm sure the Colts are really happy about getting rid of him now.

kbourda
04-15-2006, 01:42 AM
I have to jump in on this one. Thunder, come on man. I really like your takes on football. But Faulk was not a bust. How can you call one of the two men in NFL history (Roger Craig being the other) to rush and recieve for 1,000 yards? I love Faulk.

kbourda
04-15-2006, 01:47 AM
People are still doubting the pick? Oh well, fans will be fans. A year from now there won't be a soul who will admit they were opposed to picking Bush.

Pencil me in now. I'm opposed to it now and always will be. I really don't feel Bush is going to be as great as people are trying to make him out to be. Don't get me wrong, I feel he will produce. But he and every other draft prospect has to show and prove in the NFL.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 02:59 AM
nope. but he was traded for his contract disputes, not his playing.




And no I would not have traded Marshall Faulk back then. He was a potential 1000 rushing 1000 receiving yard threat back and wasn't even in his prime yet. Funny how he won offensive player of the year 2 out of the next three years en route to winning the Super Bowl once and going a second time.

I'm sure the Colts are really happy about getting rid of him now.

seems like somepeople are too caught up in the hype machine to see what they are looking at.

tulexan, I couldn't have said it better myself.



the main reason I don't like the argument that Reggie is the next Faulk, is for all we know, we already have the next Faulk...... only bigger, and stronger, in DD. Look at the stats of the first three years of their carreers. Sure, DD is slower, & he can't take it to the house from 80 yards out........ at least he hasn't done it yet.

three years, total yards…….. Marshall 4372
Three years, total yards…….. Domanick 4471

Rushing yards
Marshall 1282yds/yr1 1079yds/yr2 587yds/yr3
Domanick 1031yds/yr1 1188yds/yr2 976yds/yr3

Avg YPC:
Marshall 4.1 yr1 3.7 yr2 3 yr3
Domanick 4.3 yr1 3.9 yr2 4.2 yr3

Longest run:
Marshall: 52 yrds 40 yrds 43 yrds
Domanick: 51yrds 44yrds 44yrds

TDs:
Marshall: 11 11 7 total 29
Domanick: 8 13 2 total 23


20+ yrd runs...
in his first 3 years, Marshall had 19 runs over 20 yrds, Domanick had 13

Recieving you say??
three years...
Marshall: 1425 yards, with only two reception going for more than 40 yards.
Domanick: 1276 yards with no receptions going for more than 40yards.

Before this season, I've heard people compare Domonick Davis to Emmitt Smith, and Marshall Faulk. The only real knock on him, is that he's missed a few games.


games played:
Marshall 16 yr1 16 yr2 13 yr3 45 total
Domanick 14 yr1 15 yr2 11 yr3 40 total

Domanick only missed 5 more games than Marshall did his first three years. He has more rushing yards, 150 yards less recieving.

If Reggie Bush is so great, because he is going to be the next Marshall Faulk, why do we need two Marshall Faulks??

You kid yourselves, if you think we can/will keep Reggie and DD. It won't happen. There is another thread, here, about Denver's RBBC......... & the fact, that Denver has only recently used what appears to be RBBC. I say appears, because with the release of Mike Anderson, it looks like they were testing Bell & Dayne, more than they were easing the load on MA, or using a Change of pace approach. Next year, you'll see it's going to be one of those two guys, and the other will be a back up. I'm betting on Dayne being their guy, the bigger back with speed and quickness, but will pop you in the mouth, like a real football player, when he runs it between the tackles.

Drafting Reggie is booting DD out the door, just as much as Drafting Vince signals Carr's exodus.

JAXwithanX
04-15-2006, 03:17 AM
Dead On. Like i've been saying....everyone has just quit on DD when last year he was considered a possible top 5 back. We already know when he is healthy he is a top 10 back. That whole RBBC thing is crap and event he coaches who are using it would rather not be. It basically means, hey we don't have a guy thats good enough at what he does (powering through or cutting through) to take the majority of the carries. Notice the RBBC aren't exactly what you called high paid RB's, and never swarmed after when they hit FA. Teams don't want to platoon this spot, sometimes its just necessary.

bdiddy
04-15-2006, 08:29 AM
This important data from Fox Sports article to be found here http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5483606.

Let's hope we manage to trade down.

The main differrence is that the Texans under-played there ability last year. The Texans talent was bad, but it was not the worst in the league. Realistically, the team should have won 4-6 games last year. If you combine this with the fact that the team has done well to fill holes in free agency, has three more picks besides Bush on the first day, and has an exciting new coaching staff - you have to think this team is heading in a much more positive direction than Faulk in Indy or Barry Sanders in the perenially crappy Detroit.

You just keep cheering for the exciting plays, I want to win and Reggie Bush will help that goal.

Maddict5
04-15-2006, 09:55 AM
Dead On. Like i've been saying....everyone has just quit on DD when last year he was considered a possible top 5 back. We already know when he is healthy he is a top 10 back. That whole RBBC thing is crap and event he coaches who are using it would rather not be. It basically means, hey we don't have a guy thats good enough at what he does (powering through or cutting through) to take the majority of the carries. Notice the RBBC aren't exactly what you called high paid RB's, and never swarmed after when they hit FA. Teams don't want to platoon this spot, sometimes its just necessary.

i dont agree- its good to have 2 good rb's who can come in refreshed and tire out the defence. also there aren't many rb's who can do it all- pound the ball but have lightning speed and receiving skills. Regarding DD- i dont think drafting RB spells the end for him, we're not drafting a lendale white, reggie isn't a carry the load runner and will be a receiver also, so you need a ggod substitute for him because of this- something which DD is

Goatcheese
04-15-2006, 11:51 AM
i dont agree- its good to have 2 good rb's who can come in refreshed and tire out the defence. also there aren't many rb's who can do it all- pound the ball but have lightning speed and receiving skills. Regarding DD- i dont think drafting RB spells the end for him, we're not drafting a lendale white, reggie isn't a carry the load runner and will be a receiver also, so you need a ggod substitute for him because of this- something which DD is

How is going 3 and out because you can't protect the QB going to tire out a defense? :brickwall

And do you really think any team in the NFL could pay DD $5 million per year and Bush $8 mil+? If they draft Bush, DD will be traded as soon as cap ramifications make it possible. They won't spend 1/8th of the cap on the running back position.

The catch is that in this year's draft there isn't, according to consensus opinion a left tackle standing heads and shoulders above the rest, at least not since Winston Justice pulled a Clark Kent at his Pro Day.

So why is D'Brick #2-3 on almost every board, but Justice is a questionable top 10? D'brick IS the consesus best tackle in the draft and is compared to Orlando Pace and Walter Jones. Justice has several question marks surrounding him, including character issues and having an impressive pro day doesn't make him a better tackle. Mayby we should trade the #1 pick for Alex Barron, he ran a 4.8, he must be amazing! Foot speed does not = foot work and technique.

People are still doubting the pick? Oh well, fans will be fans. A year from now there won't be a soul who will admit they were opposed to picking Bush.

When Carr gets sacked 50+ times this year and Bush doesn't win the starting job, alot of people will scream about the pick.

kastofsna
04-15-2006, 12:06 PM
seems like somepeople are too caught up in the hype machine to see what they are looking at.
i have no clue what you're talking about.

bad
04-15-2006, 12:27 PM
When Carr gets sacked 50+ times this year and Bush doesn't win the starting job, alot of people will scream about the pick. Replacing the word "When" with the word "If" would have given the rest of your post a lot more credence. All this Boboesque doomsaying makes me wonder if last year's 2-14 hasn't left a lot of Texans fans shell-shocked.

Personally, I think last year was an aberration, and one best left behind along with the 3-4 defense and the old coaching staff. We have 4 first-day picks, including the #1 overall. A new defensive scheme. A new offensive blocking scheme.

The odds are very good that we draft Reggie Bush and the odds are that he will make an instant impact.

Resistance is futile.

Gary Klein, Los Angeles Times:
"Keith Gilbertson half-jokingly labeled the situation unfair. Bill Doba called the potential problems monstrous. Mike Riley found only one word to describe it-horrible. That's what these Pac-10 coaches said when asked to assess difficulties created for defenses when Reggie Bush lines up as a receiver."

Honoring Earl 34
04-15-2006, 12:45 PM
The two prospects that came out of the offseason with the fewest question marks are Reggie Bush and Mario Williams . Both had great workouts and have set themseleves up to be in the top three picks .

The workouts are to help the NFL project who will succeed at the next level . RB and Mario ... seem to have what it takes on paper . The same can't be said for Vince , he maybe a great NFL QB but right now his Wunderlich and 40 times are suspect .

The problem with the Texans is that best prospects are not real need positions . The really don't need a RB or a DE and they certainly don't need another high priced QB .

Goatcheese
04-15-2006, 12:52 PM
Replacing the word "When" with the word "If" would have given the rest of your post a lot more credence. All this Boboesque doomsaying makes me wonder if last year's 2-14 hasn't left a lot of Texans fans shell-shocked.

I don't believe it's a question of "If". If they don't improve the line Carr is still going to get sacked alot. As for me being a doomsayer, I'm very opstimistic about this season based on the talent we have now. We could win 7-9 games with our roster, before the draft. We won 7 games in '04 despite carr being sacked 44 times. All I said was that "When" Carr gets sacked 50+ times people will question passing on an opportunity to improve the line in favor of a flashy running back. Who, btw, I don't believe can win the starting job until he learns to run North and South.

Personally, I think last year was an aberration, and one best left behind along with the 3-4 defense and the old coaching staff. We have 4 first-day picks, including the #1 overall. A new defensive scheme. A new offensive blocking scheme.

The odds are very good that we draft Reggie Bush and the odds are that he will make an instant impact.

Resistance is futile.

I agree the Bush pick is all but inevitable. I just don't think it's the best move for the Texans.

bad
04-15-2006, 01:18 PM
I don't believe it's a question of "If". If they don't improve the line Carr is still going to get sacked alot. As for me being a doomsayer, I'm very opstimistic about this season based on the talent we have now. We could win 7-9 games with our roster, before the draft. We won 7 games in '04 despite carr being sacked 44 times. All I said was that "When" Carr gets sacked 50+ times people will question passing on an opportunity to improve the line in favor of a flashy running back. Who, btw, I don't believe can win the starting job until he learns to run North and South.



I agree the Bush pick is all but inevitable. I just don't think it's the best move for the Texans. Fair enough. :)

It seems us Texans fans will just have to agree to disagree - for two more weeks - then after the lucky guessers get all the "I told you so's" out of their system (and give Hottoddie his new moniker), maybe we can all come together in support of our new players.

:pigfly:

Hottoddie
04-15-2006, 03:23 PM
Fair enough. :)

(and give Hottoddie his new moniker)


Why don't you step up & put your vote in now? That way I can start thinking about your new moniker between now & the draft. I want to come up with something real special for you. :stirpot: :D

Here's the link, so that you don't have to search for it.

http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=20744

bad
04-15-2006, 03:32 PM
Why don't you step up & put your vote in now? That way I can start thinking about your new moniker between now & the draft. I want to come up with something real special for you. :stirpot: :D

Here's the link, so that you don't have to search for it.

http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=20744 I think you have enough takers. Plus it's a win-win for you. Your moniker can be replaced by just about any warm liquid.

Mine's just plain bad and it's a legacy. Thanks for the link though. Great comedy.

Hottoddie
04-15-2006, 03:44 PM
I think you have enough takers. Plus it's a win-win for you. Your moniker can be replaced by just about any warm liquid.

Mine's just plain bad and it's a legacy. Thanks for the link though. Great comedy.

Chicken. :)

kastofsna
04-15-2006, 03:48 PM
hotto, you DO realize that the texans are 100% drafting bush, right? nice attempt at getting attention, though.

bad
04-15-2006, 03:50 PM
Chicken. :) That's probably the moniker you would've given me. At least I'd have a cool avatar...

http://caosblog.com/images/superchicken.jpg

Hottoddie
04-15-2006, 04:05 PM
That's probably the moniker you would've given me. At least I'd have a cool avatar...

http://caosblog.com/images/superchicken.jpg

Just sign up & I can make it happen. :D

Hottoddie
04-15-2006, 04:12 PM
hotto, you DO realize that the texans are 100% drafting bush, right? nice attempt at getting attention, though.

Sniff sniff, is that fish I smell? You guys looking for a RB that isn't going to do squat? I'll trade him to you for Ronnie Brown, Matt Roth, & your #1 pick (#16). How about it, you biting? :D :stirpot: :D

Mike Kerns
04-15-2006, 04:15 PM
hotto, you DO realize that the texans are 100% drafting bush, right? nice attempt at getting attention, though.
Wish I had your confidence...

kastofsna
04-15-2006, 05:00 PM
Sniff sniff, is that fish I smell? You guys looking for a RB that isn't going to do squat? I'll trade him to you for Ronnie Brown, Matt Roth, & your #1 pick (#16). How about it, you biting? :D :stirpot: :D
no thanks, brown is better than bush.

Headlights of a Carr
04-15-2006, 06:13 PM
no thanks, brown is better than bush.

We will see about that!:stirpot:
actually it goes like this....

No thanks, Bush will be better than Brown. :)

Hottoddie
04-15-2006, 06:16 PM
We will see about that!:stirpot:
actually it goes like this....

No thanks, Bush will be better than Brown. :)

All right, now we're starting to get somewhere. Let's start dragging fans in from other boards & find out if they think their RB's are better than Bush. If so, then Bush can't be all that special. :stirpot: :stirpot:

kastofsna
04-15-2006, 06:19 PM
or maybe brown is that special. as bill belichick called him, "the best runningback to enter the draft since ladanian tomlinson."

thunderkyss
04-17-2006, 12:33 AM
or maybe brown is that special. as bill belichick called him, "the best runningback to enter the draft since ladanian tomlinson."


Reggie Bush is the best in decades..........

kastofsna
04-17-2006, 12:41 AM
Reggie Bush is the best in decades..........
which explains why you've been pretty adamant about not drafting him.

swtbound07
04-17-2006, 12:44 AM
Reggie isnt better than caddilac, ronnie brown, or cedric benson

Kaiser Toro
04-17-2006, 01:05 AM
Reggie isnt better than caddilac, ronnie brown, or cedric benson

How could anyone possibly know that?

swtbound07
04-17-2006, 01:37 AM
How could anyone possibly know that?


Im just saying that from a sheer statistical standpoint.....Reggie Bush has as many touchdowns and carries in the nfl as I do.

disaacks3
04-17-2006, 01:54 AM
Reggie isnt better than caddilac, ronnie brown, or cedric benson.

Im just saying that from a sheer statistical standpoint.....Reggie Bush has as many touchdowns and carries in the nfl as I do.

So does VY, so does D'Brick, so does Mario.....how much more idiotic are you planning on making the comparisons? By that brilliant logic, there's plenty of Defensive lineman who are better RBs than Bush & QBs than Vince, simply because they have a TD in the NFL.:brickwall

Hey, if you want to say that ALL draftees are a crapshoot, then I'll buy it. On the flip side, please stop comparing players that were never rated as highly before their drafts, (and haven't done that well in the NFL either) to a PROJECTED, CONSENSUS #1 overall.

swtbound07
04-17-2006, 02:28 AM
So does VY, so does D'Brick, so does Mario.....how much more idiotic are you planning on making the comparisons? By that brilliant logic, there's plenty of Defensive lineman who are better RBs than Bush & QBs than Vince, simply because they have a TD in the NFL.:brickwall

Hey, if you want to say that ALL draftees are a crapshoot, then I'll buy it. On the flip side, please stop comparing players that were never rated as highly before their drafts, (and haven't done that well in the NFL either) to a PROJECTED, CONSENSUS #1 overall.


Didnt they ALL go in the top 5 in last years draft? Didnt cadillac win OROY? Yes...the draft is a crapshoot. Besides, the word Consensus implies everybody right? Well im not agreeing with everybody....so the consensus talk can go away.

*Full disclosure....im rapidly getting drunker*