PDA

View Full Version : for those that say Reggie is too small


Wolf
04-16-2006, 02:50 PM
I am not an advocate of drafting Bush.. I say if the offer isn't right we take Bush, if we get a knockout offer, then we trade down.. that is all

but for the Argument of Bush is too small..

check out the sizes of all the RB's coming out.. I mean there isn't much difference between them
White is 6'2 235 but other than that all the backs IMO are about the same size


http://www.draftboardinsider.com/position/RB.html

If Bush is too "small" then basically most of them are too... does 5 lbs really make a difference?

jacquescas
04-16-2006, 02:53 PM
yes 5 pounds makes more difference than all the tea in china.

kastofsna
04-16-2006, 03:08 PM
well it's not the weight so much. it's more that he's pretty lean all over. kinda like how cadillac williams is. and cadillac had some injury concerns...

tiger06
04-16-2006, 03:12 PM
well it's not the weight so much. it's more that he's pretty lean all over. kinda like how cadillac williams is. and cadillac had some injury concerns...

He was run into the ground the first few weeks. He had something like 37 carries one game, didn't he?

gtexan02
04-16-2006, 03:31 PM
On average (ignoring DD white) Reggie is 8 pounds smaller than the rest of the top 10 RBs. Is this an issue? nope, not in my mind. Why? Because he isn't going to be used like a between teh tackles ball control back. He'll get the ball 15 times a game and hopefully have 3-5 receptions per game. With his elusiveness and outside running, he probably won't be tackled nearly that many times, and therefore the extra few pounds aren't as big of a deal

kastofsna
04-16-2006, 03:45 PM
He was run into the ground the first few weeks. He had something like 37 carries one game, didn't he?
yeah, big mistake by gruden. needless to say, i don't forsee that happening with bush.

threetoedpete
04-16-2006, 08:30 PM
I am not an advocate of drafting Bush.. I say if the offer isn't right we take Bush, if we get a knockout offer, then we trade down.. that is all

but for the Argument of Bush is too small..

check out the sizes of all the RB's coming out.. I mean there isn't much difference between them
White is 6'2 235 but other than that all the backs IMO are about the same size


http://www.draftboardinsider.com/position/RB.html

If Bush is too "small" then basically most of them are too... does 5 lbs really make a difference?
Yeah well and don't mean to cross swords, but those guys won't be getting a fifty million dollar contract with xxxx millions up front....in a postion which has a shelf life of about five years. I KNEW Ladainian could avoid hits and take care of himself. I don't KNOW that about reggie. I know he is a rare tallent. But again, and I'll stand by this till I'm proved wrong, 201 is still 201. I hear he can pass block. I hear he can ram it up the middle. We'll see.

tulexan
04-16-2006, 08:47 PM
I think Cadillac had 87 or 88 carries the first three weeks, which averages to about 29 carries per game. No one in the NFL can sustain carrying the ball 29 or 30 times per game over a long period of the season.

tiger06
04-16-2006, 10:19 PM
yeah, I don't think we'd have to worry about Bush getting anything more than 18-20 carries a game.

Hookem Horns
04-16-2006, 10:27 PM
yeah, I don't think we'd have to worry about Bush getting anything more than 18-20 carries a game.

Bush isn't an every down player so tiger is right.

tulexan
04-16-2006, 10:33 PM
Bush isn't probably going to be an every down running back, but he will be an every down player. There is a big difference and that is what makes him so valuable.

LoneStarState
04-16-2006, 10:43 PM
Bush isn't an every down player so tiger is right.
Bush doesn't have to be an every down "running back." He'll have his fair share of receptions too. So in all - he may touch the ball 20-25 times a game. He's versatile - that's what makes him so valuable...

tulexan
04-16-2006, 10:55 PM
Bush isn't an every down player so tiger is right.

I guess former MVP and 2 time offensive player of the year, Marshall Faulk, wasn't an every down player either.

texplayer2
04-16-2006, 11:07 PM
13 more Days:rolleyes:

Double Barrel
04-16-2006, 11:28 PM
There's a thread around here with size stats on all the great RBs, and Bush is bigger than a lot of them. A smaller, quick and agile player has so many advantages at the line of scrimmage. Add in Bush's potential and the instinct he's shown so far, and I'd love to have a dynamic player like that winning games for our team. We haven't had a dominating football player like that in Houston since #34. I think we're due.

TreWardTxn
04-17-2006, 12:18 AM
He's light, runs upright, and isn't built like a running back at his base. I'm sure Bush will be good, but there is no way Bush can be a successful running back without taking contact and absorbing substantial blows. To believe anything otherwise means you expect him to go yard everytime he touches the ball, or that he'll run out of bounds every play (hopefully 20 yards downfield) instead of fighting for the extra yards. If he can do that, then he'll be the greatest ever, no question...

awtysst
04-17-2006, 07:09 AM
yeah, big mistake by gruden. needless to say, i don't forsee that happening with bush.

Maybe a mistake by Gruden, but it helped my fantasy team!

Coach C.
04-17-2006, 08:00 AM
Bush will be fine for what he will be used for in the NFL. He is definately more slight than Portis was as a rookie, and he is built pretty lean. Reggie is muscular though for his size. He will gain 5-10lbs just like every player does pretty much as they mature, but he will never be a big guy. As long as we dont overwork him like we did DD last year then we should be fine.

thunderkyss
04-17-2006, 08:46 AM
well it's not the weight so much. it's more that he's pretty lean all over. kinda like how cadillac williams is. and cadillac had some injury concerns...

No one would be calling Reggie Bush too small, if he wieghed 215 @ 6'0". Carnell Williams is listed @ 5'11" 217lbs........

It is weight, with respect to height. on the original list of Running backs in the draft, provided by the OP, the only back that is close to Reggie in size, is Brian Calhoun, 5'9" 195lbs.......... there are very few Running backs in the NFL under 200lbs...... Warrick Dunn is the only guy that comes to my mind.

Running backs, and all you Reggie Fans should know this, should weigh 200lbs, @ 5'10". The taller they get, the more they need to weigh. The tallest Running back you'll probably see, will be 6'3", he should weigh right at 230lbs.

Reggie Bush is taller than 5'10"(if he's actually 5'10" @ 200lbs, then he isn't too light) by 2", so he should be at least 10lbs over 200lbs...... 210lbs. if that was his natural weight, then I'd be happy with that. But knowing he has to work to get that high, I'd rather see him @ 215lbs.

Shaun Alexander is 5'11" by my numbers, he should weigh 205 or so. But he weighs 225, so he looks huge. even though he is only 5'11"
Mike Anderson, should weigh 210lbs, as he is 6'0", but he looks huge, @ 230lbs
Tiki Barber is listed at 5'10", @ 200lbs........ he is the right size. not to big, not too small.

Tatum Bell, 5"11" 218lbs, perfect
Michael Bennett, 5'9", 209lbs............ good weight, but being under 5'10", he is still questionable size.
Jerome Bettis, 5'11" 255lbs........... freaking Huge
Ronnie Brown, 6'0" 232.......... he's on the big size........ not quite huge, but big
Steven Davis, 6'0" 230lbs.......... same as Ronnie Brown.
Ron Dayne, 5-10 245lbs........ he didn't look that big in 2005, that is huge.
Corey Dillon, 6'1" 225lbs...... perfect....... IMHO, this is the prototypical RB
Reuban Droughns, 5'11" 215lbs........ perfect
Warrick Dunn,5'9" 180lbs..... this guy still shops in the young men's section.
Marshall Faulk, 5'10" 211lbs...... good size

Now, I'm not one of the guys saying Reggie Bush is too small. His height changes from week to week, and it's hard to nail down. But if he is 6'0", he should weigh 210-215lbs...... There are small guys that are successful in the NFL, but it's not the norm. Saying that a small running back will be succesful, is like saying a qurterback with a funny throwing motion will be succesful. Sure there are examples, but they are far & few between.

Saying that a back who hasn't carried the ball 20+ times in college, and who hasn't ran the ball between the tackles, will be successful, is like saying a QB, who has played primarily in the shotgun, will be successful. There are examples, but far & few between.

I've never seen, or heard of a franchise back, being taken with the #1 over all, and that guy didn't carry the ball 20+ times, or run between the tackles. But hey, maybe we're in a new era......

If we are going to rate these RunningBacks, 1 being most like an NFL running back, then D'Angelo Williams would be the top rated RunningBack. Reggie would be behind Addai somwhere.

Same thing with QBs. If you're going to rate them, 1 being most NFL like, then that is Matt Leinart.

If you're going to rate the RB, 1 being the most explosive, the most flashy, the biggest threat to college defenses........... then that would be Reggie Bush. No question, D'Angelo isn't even close.

If you're going to rate the QB, 1 being the most explosive, the most flashy, the biggest threat to college defenses......... then that guy is Vince Young, no question. Matt Leinart doesn't come close.

Now, I will say this. Regardles of Reggie Bush's size, his bench work proved he's a big guy, and I believe that helped his stock, much better than his 40 times....... every knew he was fast..... his size/strength was in question.

Vince's 40 couldn't hurt him.......... nobody thought he was particularly fast.

bklatch
04-17-2006, 08:56 AM
I guess former MVP and 2 time offensive player of the year, Marshall Faulk, wasn't an every down player either.

That is the difference. Marshall Faulk was an eeverydown back in college and the pros. RB was not in college and won't be in the pros. He is a 3rd down back at best.

thunderkyss
04-17-2006, 08:57 AM
There's a thread around here with size stats on all the great RBs, and Bush is bigger than a lot of them. A smaller, quick and agile player has so many advantages at the line of scrimmage. Add in Bush's potential and the instinct he's shown so far, and I'd love to have a dynamic player like that winning games for our team. We haven't had a dominating football player like that in Houston since #34. I think we're due.

Completely false, and misleading. Bush is taller than most of them, but lighter in th pants than all of them.

As height goes down, weight must go up. Running backs aren't selected on their height........ nobody says, I've got a 6'7" running back.

They aren't selected on their weight Either...... there is only one 255 tail back in this league, and next year, there will be none.

It is weight, with consideration to height. 200lbs-235lbs/5'10"-6'3". That's the range. Any taller or lighter, then the guy needs to think about playing WR. If he's tall and heavier, he's a tight end. Short and heavier, he's a fullback. short & lighter, he's a cornerback.

The only guy on the list of all time greats that was close to Reggie, was Walter Payton............ I think exactly the same size. But I'm sure we can find many, many busts that same size. & that's the point. There aren't many succesful guys in the nfl that play @ 6'0" 200lbs.

TreWardTxn
04-17-2006, 09:58 AM
Ideal running back size is not about height, it's about being compact enough to absorb/deal punishment. Brian Calhoun at 5'9 (probably stretched) 195, is much more compact and closer to NFL size. Bush measured out at 5'11' three-quarters and 202 lbs (I believe).

bad
04-19-2006, 09:18 AM
That is the difference. Marshall Faulk was an eeverydown back in college and the pros. RB was not in college and won't be in the pros. He is a 3rd down back at best.Brian Billick sees it a bit differently:
"Is Reggie Bush a 350-carry guy? Probably not," Baltimore's Brian Billick said. "Even if he was, I don't know if you want to do it. You need the balance. From what I've seen him (do) with the 20 to 25 carries, you don't need him for the other 10. You got a 20-point lead and put the other guy in." http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060419/SPT0201/604190352/1067/SPT

TreWardTxn
04-19-2006, 10:07 AM
Brian Billick sees it a bit differently:

"Is Reggie Bush a 350-carry guy? Probably not," Baltimore's Brian Billick said. "Even if he was, I don't know if you want to do it. You need the balance. From what I've seen him (do) with the 20 to 25 carries, you don't need him for the other 10. You got a 20-point lead and put the other guy in."
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060419/SPT0201/604190352/1067/SPT

This is when you actually have to consider what a coach is saying, and decide that he is servin' up somethin foul. Apparently, you just give Bush 25 carries in the first half and let ur defense, which hasn't been scored on, lock up the win with Bush on the sidelines. I'm sure Billick is exaggerating, but talking to some people about Bush and the Texans offense, they honestly feel this way.

It would be great to have a Texan who everytime he turned the corner, or broke into the secondary, you knew he was going all the way. No coach draws up a gameplan and says, 'this guy can only touch the ball about 20 times.' If anything, they plan to give the guy at least 20 touches, and if the scheme is working, then the player can plan on getting more, maybe 30 touches on Sunday. You use the guy most effectively and worry about any consequences later. No one wants to spend the first pick drafting a guy who the coaches think will have to be spared plays...

tulexan
04-19-2006, 10:13 AM
I think Billick is saying that all you need to give him is 10-15 carries (350 carries averages to about 21 carries/game)

TreWardTxn
04-19-2006, 10:21 AM
And I'm saying there is no way a guy can be peak productive with that few touches. If he is, then he should be twice as productive if he gets 30 touches. Schottenheimer is constantly criticized for under-utilizing LT. I don't think Kubiak should be worried about taking heat, because he wants his star player to touch it 25 times a game

texasguy346
04-19-2006, 10:24 AM
And I'm saying there is no way a guy can be peak productive with that few touches. If he is, then he should be twice as productive if he gets 30 touches. Schottenheimer is constantly criticized for under-utilizing LT. I don't think Kubiak should be worried about taking heat, because he wants his star player to touch it 25 times a game

Even with 15 to 20 carries Bush could easiy see 25+ touches a game when you include his receptions a 15 to 20 carry game could easily be a 25 to 30 touch game.