PDA

View Full Version : Last gasp effort by Reggie Bush hype machine...


GP
06-13-2009, 11:16 AM
The media cannot let Reggie Bush fail.

Here is an espn.com article (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcsouth/0-12-58/Maybe-Bush-s-time-finally-has-come.html) that is very LOL.

He's being compared to Pistol Pete (NBA) as in "Poor Reggie Bush is just so special that he's maybe years ahead of where the NFL is going." The comparison was that Pete would have been better if he had played in the Magic Johnson era, and so Reggie Bush is being wrongfully judged, too.

Reggie says "I can run between the tackles..." and there's just so much poo-poo in this article. This just might be the last Bush-hype article, a last-ditch effort for the media to save some face.

The comments below the article are overwhelmingly in favor of "The Texans sure did the right thing" and one said "Brian Westbrook is the type of back that Reggie was hyped to be, and he's not." The readers who are commenting, except for a Saints fan, or pretty clear that Reggie is not what he was made to be, and that "...you have had three years to see what you have."

Lucky
06-13-2009, 01:16 PM
But has there ever been a running back who could line up at receiver and beat just about any cornerback in the league, who could return two punts (almost three in one half against Minnesota last year) and run inside and outside the tackles?Bush hasn't lined up at receiver and beaten just about any CB in the league. He's never averaged 9 yards per reception in any of his 3 seasons, and his career average is 7.5 ypr.

Bush hasn't proven he can run inside or outside the tackles. He's never averaged 4 yards per carry in any season and has a career average of 3.7 ypc.

If Bush has redefined anything, it's mediocrity. Did Bush have talent coming into the league? Yes. Has he come close to fulfilling that promise? No. Thus far, Bush is a classic example of a college star whose game receded once he was paid. He's talking a good game, but his love for the game no longer shows on the field. In that way, he reminds me a lot of Ricky Williams.

MojoMan
06-13-2009, 01:19 PM
Bush hasn't lined up at receiver and beaten just about any CB in the league. He's never averaged 9 yards per reception in any of his 3 seasons, and his career average is 7.5 ypr.

Bush hasn't proven he can run inside or outside the tackles. He's never averaged 4 yards per carry in any season and has a career average of 3.7 ypc.

If Bush has refined anything, it's mediocrity. Did Bush have talent coming into the league? Yes. Has he come close to fulfilling that promise? No. Thus far, Bush is a classic example of a college star whose game receded once he was paid. He's talking a good game, but his love for the game no longer shows on the field. In that way, he reminds me a lot of Ricky Williams.

But I would be very excited to see the Texans sign Ricky Williams if they could do it without overspending. Reggie Bush we do not need at any price.

Marcus
06-13-2009, 01:42 PM
But I would be very excited to see the Texans sign Ricky Williams if they could do it without overspending. Reggie Bush we do not need at any price.

You'd take the Ricky Williams of today over the Reggie Bush of today? I don't know if I'd go that far. Now even though I'm happier than a peach that the Texans FO had it right and the Texans Fan had it wrong, it would have been kind of interesting to see how successful Bush would have fared under Kubiak's one-cut-and-go scheme.

NitroGSXR
06-13-2009, 01:55 PM
You'd take the Ricky Williams of today over the Reggie Bush of today? I don't know if I'd go that far. Now even though I'm happier than a peach that the Texans FO had it right and the Texans Fan had it wrong, it would have been kind of interesting to see how successful Bush would have fared under Kubiak's one-cut-and-go scheme.

Absolutely. I'd be real happy to have Reggie Bush as our scatback. Seems silly not to even consider him. He has loads of talent and HAS sucessully moved the football despite his averages. He's a nice weapon to have sitting on the bench ready to come off.

I think he was utilized wrong and definitely as a result of the hype machine.

nunusguy
06-13-2009, 02:03 PM
Little Reggie is so much like Percy Harvin, the Vikings first round pick this year, it's wierd. Both about the same size, both versitle, both very fast with 4.3 something speed coming out of college. Big difference was Harvin who was taken at #22 overall which is just about where Bush should have been drafted.

TimeKiller
06-13-2009, 03:05 PM
The real reason why that article is full of doodoo?

Because they proclaim him as the "X factor" type player who can get on the field in any situation and make a play but he's not great at that either! You know who else had 2 punt returns last year? Jacoby Jones.

Jack of all trades and master of none. #2 overall. Mistake.

edo783
06-13-2009, 03:23 PM
Reggie Bush is the greatest decoy of all time. No team can comprehend what he might do and are therefor confused in all situations.

MojoMan
06-13-2009, 03:41 PM
You'd take the Ricky Williams of today over the Reggie Bush of today? I don't know if I'd go that far. Now even though I'm happier than a peach that the Texans FO had it right and the Texans Fan had it wrong, it would have been kind of interesting to see how successful Bush would have fared under Kubiak's one-cut-and-go scheme.

Yup. Ricky Williams played well last year. He is that bigger back that we are not so sure that we have right now. Ricky can play. We would do well to get Ricky if we could get him without overpaying.

Reggie would not give us anything that we really needed. I know, I know, "you cannot pass on a player with his kind of talent." Well, some people may still believe that, but I never did. I was behind the Mario Williams pick all the way, from several months before he was drafted. Reggie Bush was a second string back in college, and that is all his talent recommends him for.

On the other hand, if Ricky Williams can just leave the refers alone, he could possibly even still be a pro-bowl quality running back.

Ryan
06-13-2009, 04:34 PM
Reggie Bush is the greatest decoy of all time. No team can comprehend what he might do and are therefor confused in all situations.


if there was a spot for a decoy in the HOF, he'd probably be first ballot.

Maddict5
06-13-2009, 05:22 PM
Jack of all trades and master of none. #2 overall. Mistake.

more like 8 of spades of all trades and master of none (except his pr which is good)

bush cant run
bush can catch but cant do much with it when he does
bush cant block
he gets tds but thats mainly due to the scheme & being in a prolific offence and rarely due to his 'gamebreaking ability' :rolleyes: (bar the chicage playoff game & other rare occasions)

the texans really couldnt have been more vindicated in their decision. mario is great & the elite young guy at his position. bush has been below average in most aspects. and to top it off the texans landed a back in the 3rd rd who has already laughably outperformed bush in only his rookie season.

listen i usent watch much if any coll fb in 2006 so wasnt any way biased. i actually wanted d'brick to shore up our LT spot & he seemed like a great LT. i dont follow UT or anyone else so im not a bush hater. tbh i was a tad dissapointed when we took mario (we were already set with weaver & babin! lol) but didnt criticise. when i saw the backlash against the pick i really wanted to see why we had made such a terrible mistake in passing on reggie. i still havent seen anything that makes me think that he'll be nothing more than a backup in a couple yrs when a team wont be burdened to play him with his contract (like the saints have to do by taking the clearly superior pierre thoomas off the field to give scatback some time). honestly if i had the pick of ryan moats or reggie bush, i really would struggle not to take moats even in the limited time ive seen of him with us & the eagles.

reggies bush is a homeless mans darren sproles.

Mike Kerns
06-13-2009, 05:45 PM
I was wrong. The Texans management was right.

I leave it at that when analyzing Mr. Bush.

Everyone, aside from Saints fans (And Mel Kiper), knows Houston made the right choice.

CloakNNNdagger
06-13-2009, 06:56 PM
The media cannot let Reggie Bush fail.

He's being compared to Pistol Pete (NBA) as in "Poor Reggie Bush is just so special that he's maybe years ahead of where the NFL is going." The comparison was that Pete would have been better if he had played in the Magic Johnson era, and so Reggie Bush is being wrongfully judged, too.



************************************************** ***********

http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/edsel-ford.jpg


AT LEAST IT COULD RUN

Hervoyel
06-13-2009, 11:04 PM
Reggie Bush is brilliant. We just lack the necessary gray matter to fully comprehend that brilliance. Reggie Bush isn't a "running back" or a "football player". He's an idea wrenched from the mind of man and made real. One day all of us may understand that... IF evolution will get its butt in gear and evolve us enough to grasp what he's really capable of.

That's pretty much how it goes right?

mexican_texan
06-13-2009, 11:19 PM
That's very insulting to Pistol Pete and every one of us who can't "comprehend" the greatness that wears 25 in a black and gold jersey. Give me one GM who takes Bush over DeAngelo Williams or Matt Forte.

GP
06-13-2009, 11:33 PM
I'd like to send the sports media a video of all the commercials that Bush and Young were in, right after the draft and through the first year or two. I'd like to attach a sticky note to the outside of the DVD that says "Where Are They Now?" And maybe attach a scratch-n-stiff sticker that smells like dookie.

The Madden Commercials were especially outrageous. That was insulting then. Looking back on those commercials is even more insulting now.

Vince Young's marketability is on par with mine. And now we have media CPR being performed on the guy who was The Next Gale Sayers, The Next Everything, The No Miss Draft Choice.

Young and Bush are proving that you can be gimmicky in college and it doesn't necessarily carry over to the next level. Oops.

Lucky
06-13-2009, 11:47 PM
Give me one GM who takes Bush over DeAngelo Williams or Matt Forte.
Or Steve Slaton. Steve Slaton is what Reggie Bush was promised to be.

gg no re
06-14-2009, 02:42 AM
If our choices were reduced to Heisman winners, Ron Dayne troddles cicles around Reggie....

mexican_texan
06-14-2009, 03:07 AM
Bush hasn't had a performance that compared to Ron Dayne's against the Colts. In fact, I don't think he's had a run longer than Dayne.

TexansSeminole
06-14-2009, 03:43 AM
I truly believe that Reggie Bush isn't a true running back but is an effective football player. I like the way the Saints use him out of the backfield as a receiver. The only problem is that the defense does not buy him as a running threat. I think as a slot receiver he could be considered one of the best at his position, because he really is a good receiver. The scouts really didn't understand where he would make his mark, but Sean Payton did.

Reggie hasn't lived up to a #2 pick and probably never will, but as a slot receiver, or a receiver out of the backfield he is dangerous. He needs to be kept away from running up the middle because he is a fragile player, but he does have his feats. He is a good return man, and if you can get him in the open field he is dangerous. Bush is an effective football player, but people will always overrate or underrate him due to where in the draft he was selected.

For the record, my first post on this message board was a rant about how we were not going to select Reggie Bush. I have never been a big Bush supporter or believer. I see him for what he is. We all know that we got the best of that draft.

Mari-OWNED!
06-14-2009, 04:54 AM
Reggie Bush isn't even the best running back on the Saints! That title would go to Pierre Thomas IMO.

Maddict5
06-14-2009, 06:06 AM
I truly believe that Reggie Bush isn't a true running back but is an effective football player. I like the way the Saints use him out of the backfield as a receiver. The only problem is that the defense does not buy him as a running threat. I think as a slot receiver he could be considered one of the best at his position, because he really is a good receiver. The scouts really didn't understand where he would make his mark, but Sean Payton did.

Reggie hasn't lived up to a #2 pick and probably never will, but as a slot receiver, or a receiver out of the backfield he is dangerous. He needs to be kept away from running up the middle because he is a fragile player, but he does have his feats. He is a good return man, and if you can get him in the open field he is dangerous. Bush is an effective football player, but people will always overrate or underrate him due to where in the draft he was selected.

For the record, my first post on this message board was a rant about how we were not going to select Reggie Bush. I have never been a big Bush supporter or believer. I see him for what he is. We all know that we got the best of that draft.

what is he effective at though? running? no. receiving? not really. he catches alot of passes for sure but averages FB's yardage with them. he never has to do anything special to get open. just runs out in the flats and the D lets him because they're not that afraid of him. being dangerous in space? one he rarely gets in space & when he does he gets brought down by the first man pretty often for someone thats so fast & agile. hes rarely if ever beaten a nickel cb as a slot wr. so what is it hes effective at exactly. hes a good pr i have no problem admitting that. but i dont see one area where this guy excels as an offensive player

its really been kinda shocking how ineffective hes been. it wouldnt bother me if he had become an effective rb because mario has justified the selection in his own right with his play. could you imagine what the texans would look like now if we had taken him? its scary

infantrycak
06-14-2009, 08:38 AM
Domanick Davis/Williams averaged almost a yard per catch more than Bush and had more yards after catch. Slaton is an upgrade on DD and DD was better than Bush.

edo783
06-14-2009, 02:44 PM
Domanick Davis/Williams averaged almost a yard per catch more than Bush and had more yards after catch. Slaton is an upgrade on DD and DD was better than Bush.

What he said.

GuerillaBlack
06-14-2009, 03:59 PM
Domanick Davis/Williams averaged almost a yard per catch more than Bush and had more yards after catch. Slaton is an upgrade on DD and DD was better than Bush.

Therefore, Slaton is a god?

TexansSeminole
06-14-2009, 05:36 PM
I don't understand some Texan fans' approach to watching and following Reggie Bush's career. He doesn't have to be completely ineffective in order for our pick to be a good one. We made the right choice, even if Reggie Bush had turned out to be a top 5 RB. Mario Williams was exactly what we needed at the time. We are still addressing our pass rush to this day and Mario has been nothing but stellar at getting to the QB.

When people say "I have no problem admitting that" or "it wouldn't bother me if he had become an effective running back," it really shows that you just don't like the guy and you want to see him fail. Why do you even need to add this into the conversation. Why would it ever bother you to see a guy become successful? If that is truly how you felt you wouldn't need to say it. I don't get that.

Reggie Bush was taken far too high and from a value standpoint has not been good for the Saints. But if you look at him from a purely football standpoint he does add some good things to the Saints offense. It seems fairly obvious to me.

I don't understand how someone can say Bush isn't an effective receiver out of the backfield citing averages, as if the guy is supposed to have WR type of numbers. He doesn't have to be the best at it in order for him to be effective.

The reason Bush still lines up as a running back is because it is an interesting place to line a receiver up, especially when you already have 3 or 4 receivers on the field. And also he is versatile enough to still keep the defense atleast a little bit honest when it comes to the run. More so than any of their other receivers would. Atleast that's why I think they haven't moved him to a full-time receiver role, that and the fact that they really don't have alot of depth at RB.

I dunno, maybe I am in a small minority here that just says "I dont care if Reggie Bush is successful or not", and I am not bent out of shape when someone acknowledges the fact that he isn't a terrible football player.

The article was terrible by the way, but that's kind of how it goes with the media. Your either a bust or you were a great selection. There is no middle ground. A guy who was taken too high but has also done some good things isn't much of a story.

GP
06-14-2009, 07:20 PM
I don't understand some Texan fans' approach to watching and following Reggie Bush's career. He doesn't have to be completely ineffective in order for our pick to be a good one. We made the right choice, even if Reggie Bush had turned out to be a top 5 RB. Mario Williams was exactly what we needed at the time. We are still addressing our pass rush to this day and Mario has been nothing but stellar at getting to the QB.

When people say "I have no problem admitting that" or "it wouldn't bother me if he had become an effective running back," it really shows that you just don't like the guy and you want to see him fail. Why do you even need to add this into the conversation. Why would it ever bother you to see a guy become successful? If that is truly how you felt you wouldn't need to say it. I don't get that.

Reggie Bush was taken far too high and from a value standpoint has not been good for the Saints. But if you look at him from a purely football standpoint he does add some good things to the Saints offense. It seems fairly obvious to me.

I don't understand how someone can say Bush isn't an effective receiver out of the backfield citing averages, as if the guy is supposed to have WR type of numbers. He doesn't have to be the best at it in order for him to be effective.

The reason Bush still lines up as a running back is because it is an interesting place to line a receiver up, especially when you already have 3 or 4 receivers on the field. And also he is versatile enough to still keep the defense atleast a little bit honest when it comes to the run. More so than any of their other receivers would. Atleast that's why I think they haven't moved him to a full-time receiver role, that and the fact that they really don't have alot of depth at RB.

I dunno, maybe I am in a small minority here that just says "I dont care if Reggie Bush is successful or not", and I am not bent out of shape when someone acknowledges the fact that he isn't a terrible football player.

The article was terrible by the way, but that's kind of how it goes with the media. Your either a bust or you were a great selection. There is no middle ground. A guy who was taken too high but has also done some good things isn't much of a story.

I think, for me, it's the immensely HUGE slobbering love affair that Bush & his agent has had with the media. Which entity is more guilty of putting Bush out there as if he's football God? It's hard to tell. So I say that it's both their faults.

You and I don't get to choose what players get all the star treatment and the commercials, and all the exposure. So there's a backlash when "THE guy" gets put over on us as if he's the real deal...while another similarly talented player (Mario, for example) is pretty much mocked and laughed at by all the media except Michael Smith.

This crime of over-hyping has a negative impact because the ones involved in its activity can't even be honest that Bush is not the player he was made out to be. So, the crime is still being committed to this day. It's just the lack of humility, the over-indulgence that both entities had at the time, and the continuation of the arrogance that Mario Williams is a "meh" player while Reggie Bush is just hanging out in the NFL until the NFL can catch up to his level of excellence.

And it's supposed to be treated as a serious article. Supposed to fascinate us.

It draws similarities to another worshipped and exalted person in our culture right now who was all but deified, yet day-by-day is being shown to be something that was manufactured and not of real substance. The raw emotionalism of imagery-over-substance is what irritates people like me.

Hardcore Texan
06-14-2009, 08:42 PM
It's times like these I am so glad we got Mr. 3rd Rounder, all go, no quit, tough as nails Steve Slaton especially over a "Reggie Bush".

MojoMan
06-14-2009, 08:50 PM
I think, for me, it's the immensely HUGE slobbering love affair that Bush & his agent has had with the media. Which entity is more guilty of putting Bush out there as if he's football God? It's hard to tell. So I say that it's both their faults.

Who else does this remind you of? (Hint - His initials are BO)

NitroGSXR
06-14-2009, 09:20 PM
Who else does this remind you of? (Hint - His initials are BO)

Body odor is all I keep thinking of. I have no idea who BO is? Help? Another person fed by the hype machine has to be Vince Young.

Mari-OWNED!
06-15-2009, 04:47 AM
Who else does this remind you of? (Hint - His initials are BO)

Brian Orakpo?

eriadoc
06-15-2009, 05:25 AM
I don't understand how someone can say Bush isn't an effective receiver out of the backfield citing averages, as if the guy is supposed to have WR type of numbers. He doesn't have to be the best at it in order for him to be effective.

Some RBs are considered to be good receivers out of the backfield. Bush doesn't even compare to them. Any given RB can get 7.5 yards per catch. The ones that are considered good receivers out of the backfield get a bit more. Here's a few off the top of my head, and their career yards per catch (and they all have better rushing averages by far):

Pierre Thomas 9.1 (I just put this first because it's funny)
Westbrook 9.0
MJD 9.5
APeterson 9.8
Ronnie Brown 8.4
Addai 8.4

So I don't think he needs WR averages to be considered effective, but I'd expect him to have a good carry average along with a catch average that rivals other RBs. He doesn't have either.

Thorn
06-15-2009, 07:39 AM
Riggie Bush is OK, but he ain't no Steve Slaton. We got the right running back after all.

TimeKiller
06-15-2009, 08:12 AM
Some RBs are considered to be good receivers out of the backfield. Bush doesn't even compare to them. Any given RB can get 7.5 yards per catch. The ones that are considered good receivers out of the backfield get a bit more. Here's a few off the top of my head, and their career yards per catch (and they all have better rushing averages by far):

Pierre Thomas 9.1 (I just put this first because it's funny)
Westbrook 9.0
MJD 9.5
APeterson 9.8
Ronnie Brown 8.4
Addai 8.4

So I don't think he needs WR averages to be considered effective, but I'd expect him to have a good carry average along with a catch average that rivals other RBs. He doesn't have either.

Clearly you just don't understand Bush's excellence. It can't be contained in your silly numbers and stats. You have to be around him, absorb his aura and become Reggie Bush to understand Reggie Bush. If Reggie Bush avg'ed 10 ypc that would be like 16 for Westbrook or 42 for Addai.

Mr teX
06-15-2009, 08:55 AM
You'd take the Ricky Williams of today over the Reggie Bush of today? I don't know if I'd go that far. Now even though I'm happier than a peach that the Texans FO had it right and the Texans Fan had it wrong, it would have been kind of interesting to see how successful Bush would have fared under Kubiak's one-cut-and-go scheme.

exactly. if given the chance to snag him or ricky, i'm taking bush all day. for 1, RB isn't a drug violation away from being sent packing indefinitely. & 2......

RB>>> than jacoby jones. at the very least we would've upgraded our special teams significantly.

Hervoyel
06-15-2009, 09:05 AM
Some RBs are considered to be good receivers out of the backfield. Bush doesn't even compare to them. Any given RB can get 7.5 yards per catch. The ones that are considered good receivers out of the backfield get a bit more. Here's a few off the top of my head, and their career yards per catch (and they all have better rushing averages by far):

Pierre Thomas 9.1 (I just put this first because it's funny)
Westbrook 9.0
MJD 9.5
APeterson 9.8
Ronnie Brown 8.4
Addai 8.4

So I don't think he needs WR averages to be considered effective, but I'd expect him to have a good carry average along with a catch average that rivals other RBs. He doesn't have either.


I see where you're going with all of this and yes, of course it's all true. Only a fool would argue that this isn't factual information. That doesn't mean any of it is important though. It's not about what Reggie Bush actually averages per reception out of the backfield and how it compares to other (merely) average players that matters. It's what he might average out of the backfield that we all care about. It's that theoretical average that has defensive coordinators scared to death all over the NFL in every era imaginable. Reggie could win 8-10 theoretical rings before this is over and that's not all. It gets worse!

Right now.... RIGHT NOW* there are defensive coordinators building entire game plans and scouting players as young as sperm cells just to try and stop Reggie Bush 100 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. All of this is just in case he finds a way to appear in their time and makes good on the promise of his potential.

You see that is the real "x" factor here. It isn't a question of what he can do. We all know what he can do (That would be: "Everything", Duh!). The question is now WHEN will he do it. The simple truth is that it's impossible to predict when he'll do "everything". He's that unpredictable and that's what makes him the ultimate weapon. The problem is that when you have a player who is capable of doing everything then that means (obviously) he can "anything" and that means all bets are off!

Here's just one example. The Pittsburgh Steelers are terrified that Reggie Bush might travel to the past, play in the 70's, and somehow take way one or more of their championships. IT COULD HAPPEN PEOPLE! NOBODY IS SAFE ANYWHERE OR ANYWHEN!

Remember all of those comparisons to Gayle Sayers before Reggie Bush was drafted? Now aside from the fact that they're insulting to Reggie Bush they could have a deeper meaning. What if Gayle Sayers injury history wasn't purely accidental? What if his career was attacked from the future by Reggie Bush in preperation for Reggie's arrival in the past to re-write history? We could be living in an alternate time line right now and not even know it.

This is serious guys.

CloakNNNdagger
06-15-2009, 09:11 AM
I see where you're going with all of this and yes, of course it's all true. Only a fool would argue that this isn't factual information. That doesn't mean any of it is important though. It's not about what Reggie Bush actually averages per reception out of the backfield and how it compares to other (merely) average players that matters. It's what he might average out of the backfield that we all care about. It's that theoretical average that has defensive coordinators scared to death all over the NFL in every era imaginable. Reggie could win 8-10 theoretical rings before this is over and that's not all. It gets worse!

Right now.... RIGHT NOW* there are defensive coordinators building entire game plans and scouting players as young as sperm cells just to try and stop Reggie Bush 100 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. All of this is just in case he finds a way to appear in their time and makes good on the promise of his potential.

You see that is the real "x" factor here. It isn't a question of what he can do. We all know what he can do (That would be: "Everything", Duh!). The question is now WHEN will he do it. The simple truth is that it's impossible to predict when he'll do "everything". He's that unpredictable and that's what makes him the ultimate weapon. The problem is that when you have a player who is capable of doing everything then that means (obviously) he can "anything" and that means all bets are off!

Here's just one example. The Pittsburgh Steelers are terrified that Reggie Bush might travel to the past, play in the 70's, and somehow take way one or more of their championships. IT COULD HAPPEN PEOPLE! NOBODY IS SAFE ANYWHERE OR ANYWHEN!

Remember all of those comparisons to Gayle Sayers before Reggie Bush was drafted? Now aside from the fact that they're insulting to Reggie Bush they could have a deeper meaning. What if Gayle Sayers injury history wasn't purely accidental? What if his career was attacked from the future by Reggie Bush in preperation for Reggie's arrival in the past to re-write history? We could be living in an alternate time line right now and not even know it.

This is serious guys.

Must spread the rep!

eriadoc
06-15-2009, 09:26 AM
I see where you're going with all of this and yes, of course it's all true. Only a fool would argue that this isn't factual information. That doesn't mean any of it is important though. It's not about what Reggie Bush actually averages per reception out of the backfield and how it compares to other (merely) average players that matters. It's what he might average out of the backfield that we all care about. It's that theoretical average that has defensive coordinators scared to death all over the NFL in every era imaginable. Reggie could win 8-10 theoretical rings before this is over and that's not all. It gets worse!

Right now.... RIGHT NOW* there are defensive coordinators building entire game plans and scouting players as young as sperm cells just to try and stop Reggie Bush 100 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. All of this is just in case he finds a way to appear in their time and makes good on the promise of his potential.

You see that is the real "x" factor here. It isn't a question of what he can do. We all know what he can do (That would be: "Everything", Duh!). The question is now WHEN will he do it. The simple truth is that it's impossible to predict when he'll do "everything". He's that unpredictable and that's what makes him the ultimate weapon. The problem is that when you have a player who is capable of doing everything then that means (obviously) he can "anything" and that means all bets are off!

Here's just one example. The Pittsburgh Steelers are terrified that Reggie Bush might travel to the past, play in the 70's, and somehow take way one or more of their championships. IT COULD HAPPEN PEOPLE! NOBODY IS SAFE ANYWHERE OR ANYWHEN!

Remember all of those comparisons to Gayle Sayers before Reggie Bush was drafted? Now aside from the fact that they're insulting to Reggie Bush they could have a deeper meaning. What if Gayle Sayers injury history wasn't purely accidental? What if his career was attacked from the future by Reggie Bush in preperation for Reggie's arrival in the past to re-write history? We could be living in an alternate time line right now and not even know it.

This is serious guys.

/endthread

:respect:

HOU-TEX
06-15-2009, 09:38 AM
Bush's knees will eventually force him from the game.

chicagotexan2
06-15-2009, 09:58 AM
This article made me shake my shead and laugh. He was drafted as an RB/KR. He's been pretty good as a KR and occasional WR, but has stunk as a back. Why is it so hard for them to call him a disspointment or a bust? Other guys have also been overhyped and have not live up to expectations. ESPN really needs some obectivity.

Hervoyel
06-15-2009, 10:06 AM
Bush's knees will eventually force him from the game.


Either that or receive an adamantium coating at taxpayers expense as part of the stimulus package in 2011. He'd just better understand that we're going to expect him to fight crime with that hardware too.

GP
06-15-2009, 10:37 AM
Who else does this remind you of? (Hint - His initials are BO)

Oh, you know that's who I am referring to!

It should be obvious to anybody who has paid attention to national news.

The mere idea or conception of what Reggie might achieve is already considered to be a factual certainty. Cultural alchemy is what it is.

TexansSeminole
06-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Pierre Thomas 9.1 (I just put this first because it's funny)
Westbrook 9.0
MJD 9.5
APeterson 9.8
Ronnie Brown 8.4
Addai 8.4



Averages mean nothing when you haven't looked at the number of receptions.

Pierre Thomas: 9.1 YPR with 48 receptions in 27 games. 1.77 receptions per game.

Brian Westbrook: 9.0 YPR with 401 receptions in 99 games. 4.05 receptions per game.

MJD: 9.5 YPR with 148 receptions in 47 games. 3.15 receptions per game.

Adrian Peterson: 9.8 YPR with 40 receptions in 30 games. 1.33 receptions per game.

Ronnie Brown: 8.4 YPR with 137 receptions in 51 games. 2.68 receptions per game.

Joseph Addai: 8.4 YPR with 106 receptions in 43 games. 2.465 receptions per game.

Reggie Bush: 7.5 YPR with 213 receptions in 38 games. 5.605 receptions per game.

Clearly you saw this, but did not decide to add it to your argument because it hurts your argument. It's pointless to cite averages when you don't look at the frequency of the action. Bush averages 1.555 more receptions per game than even Westbrook who is the closest guy behind him in the amount of receptions per game. The second highest as you can see is Maurice Jones Drew, but he is still averaging 2.455 receptions per game less than Bush (just a little more than half).

It's pretty obvious that the two best running backs at receiving are Brian Westbrook and Maurice Jones Drew. Adrian Peterson and Pierre Thomas shouldn't even be included in this conversation due to a lack of receptions per game. I suppose it does help your argument when you leave significant information off though.

I'm not saying that Bush is the best, or even near the best, I am just saying he is effective. As a running backs receptions per game go up you can expect their average to go down. Unless you are looking at a guy like Westbrook or Jones-Drew but they are indeed the best at it.

Look at Matt Forte. 7.6 YPR with 63 receptions in 16 games. 3.938 receptions per game.

Or how about LaDainian Tomlinson. 7.5 YPR with 510 receptions in 127 games. 4.016 receptions per game. Now you've got a guy who has the same YPR at a lower frequency of receptions per game. Is he an ineffective receiver?

How about Steve Slaton. 7.5 YPR with 50 receptions in 16 games. 3.125 receptions per game. Is he an ineffective receiver?

Leon Washington? 7.8 YPR with 108 receptions in 48 games. 2.225 receptions per game. Ineffective?


The more you look at this argument the worse it looks.

Give the guy a fair grade. Looking at his YPR without looking at the number of receptions is like saying that a girl has huge tits but failing to note that she is also 300 pounds.

eriadoc
06-15-2009, 10:51 AM
Clearly you saw this, but did not decide to add it to your argument because it hurts your argument. It's pointless to cite averages when you don't look at the frequency of the action.

Actually, no I didn't look at that, and furthermore, it only bolsters my argument. The frequency of receptions simply highlights the overall lack of production. He's catching the ball that many times, but he isn't pulling down WR numbers. He isn't running the ball at RB efficiency or overall numbers. He's not even as good as the other backs I pointed out. In fact, if you did a poll, I'm sure everyone would take every one of those backs over Bush, along with an extensive list of backs we haven't even mentioned.

It isn't that Bush is terrible. It's that he is decidedly mediocre. And you can get mediocre backs anywhere in the draft, let alone 2nd overall. But let's leave the draft position out of it. You can read news articles and hear about lots of other backs. Why should I care about Bush? He isn't good at anything - just mediocre to average. He's completely replaceable and utterly forgettable.

TexansSeminole
06-15-2009, 11:01 AM
The frequency of receptions simply highlights the overall lack of production. He's catching the ball that many times, but he isn't pulling down WR numbers.

Well the bolded part is simply illogical. What you try to use to help with that argument, in your "WR numbers" statement, doesn't make sense from a scheme standpoint. How can one average WR numbers when they line up in the backfield and a WR lines up on the edges of the field.

There has never been a running back that has averaged over 10 yards per receptions that caught the ball at a high rate. Or not that I know of, I would be interested to know if there has been one. Even Marshall Faulk is in the 9.3 range, and he was catching a little over 4 receptions per game. He is arguably the best in the modern area at catching the ball out of the backfield.

He isn't running the ball at RB efficiency or overall numbers.

I never said the guy was efficient at running the ball. I've stated that the only reason I think he lines up as a running back is that he can run the ball occasionally just to keep the defense atleast a little bit honest and it is a good place to have a receiver from a scheme standpoint.


It isn't that Bush is terrible. It's that he is decidedly mediocre. And you can get mediocre backs anywhere in the draft, let alone 2nd overall.

Like I have said, he was taken way too high. His value has been terrible for the Saints. However I would still call him an above average football player, especially if you incorporate what he brings to special teams.

I just think some people can and should recognize that he doesn't completely suck. They can still acknowledge that he has been terrible from a value standpoint, I will not argue that point.

GP
06-15-2009, 11:03 AM
Averages mean nothing when you haven't looked at the number of receptions.

Pierre Thomas: 9.1 YPR with 48 receptions in 27 games. 1.77 receptions per game.

Brian Westbrook: 9.0 YPR with 401 receptions in 99 games. 4.05 receptions per game.

MJD: 9.5 YPR with 148 receptions in 47 games. 3.15 receptions per game.

Adrian Peterson: 9.8 YPR with 40 receptions in 30 games. 1.33 receptions per game.

Ronnie Brown: 8.4 YPR with 137 receptions in 51 games. 2.68 receptions per game.

Joseph Addai: 8.4 YPR with 106 receptions in 43 games. 2.465 receptions per game.

Reggie Bush: 7.5 YPR with 213 receptions in 38 games. 5.605 receptions per game.

Clearly you saw this, but did not decide to add it to your argument because it hurts your argument. It's pointless to cite averages when you don't look at the frequency of the action. Bush averages 1.555 more receptions per game than even Westbrook who is the closest guy behind him in the amount of receptions per game. The second highest as you can see is Maurice Jones Drew, but he is still averaging 2.455 receptions per game less than Bush (just a little more than half).

It's pretty obvious that the two best running backs at receiving are Brian Westbrook and Maurice Jones Drew. Adrian Peterson and Pierre Thomas shouldn't even be included in this conversation due to a lack of receptions per game. I suppose it does help your argument when you leave significant information off though.

I'm not saying that Bush is the best, or even near the best, I am just saying he is effective. As a running backs receptions per game go up you can expect their average to go down. Unless you are looking at a guy like Westbrook or Jones-Drew but they are indeed the best at it.

Look at Matt Forte. 7.6 YPR with 63 receptions in 16 games. 3.938 receptions per game.

Or how about LaDainian Tomlinson. 7.5 YPR with 510 receptions in 127 games. 4.016 receptions per game. Now you've got a guy who has the same YPR at a lower frequency of receptions per game. Is he an ineffective receiver?

How about Steve Slaton. 7.5 YPR with 50 receptions in 16 games. 3.125 receptions per game. Is he an ineffective receiver?

Leon Washington? 7.8 YPR with 108 receptions in 48 games. 2.225 receptions per game. Ineffective?


The more you look at this argument the worse it looks.

Give the guy a fair grade. Looking at his YPR without looking at the number of receptions is like saying that a girl has huge tits but failing to note that she is also 300 pounds.

But you are isolating this argument by restricting it to "receptions and yards."

If Reggie has comparable receptions to those other backs you listed (Westbrook, MJD, Forte, LT, etc.) then how does Reggie stack up in the category of rushing yards, rushing TDs, converting crucial 3rd downs that keep drives alive, etc? It's not enough for Reggie Bush to do well in one or two areas. He was marketed as being THE next superman.

Steve Slaton's receptions & reception averages, though lower than Bush's, are (IMO) of higher quality because Slaton brings to the table an on-field threat that Bush doesn't: The ability to get the tough yards, the extra few feet, the ability to run like an NFL running back should. When a running back is on the field, he is capable of doing a lot of things on any given snap: Block, rush, catch, or run a pass route and draw a defender to him. Reggie cannot rush the ball with the same precision and frequency that all those other running backs can--He needs lots of room, a big hole to gash through or some room around the edge. I've seen Slaton pull a Houdini in the middle of a crowded line of scrimmage in his first year, more than Bush has his whole NFL career. It's not even close.

Reggie Bush was sold as the complete package, and that's getting lost within the recent posts. He was sold as the complete package, which meant any team would be stupid to pass on such a gift. Well, the Texans passed on him and the whole media made New Orleans out to be the luckiest team alive. The Texans would descend to the pit of despair where the albino would suck decades out of the life of the Texans for making such a mistake. It was described as "the worst move. ever."

We have a 3rd rounder who is out-producing Bush in terms of what an NFL running back is expected to produce. And this isn't even touching on the subject of Bush's knees and how he's going to be able to withstand a season of really and truly "running the ball like a running back should," which he has yet to do.

I'll concede that Bush is a good receiver. At this point, the best option might be to throw him in at the slot and convert him to a WR. But he won't allow that because he thinks he can run. Which he can, but only in space with lots of room to perform his moves. I won't deny he can do things with the football, but it's fairly situational IMO.

TexansSeminole
06-15-2009, 11:06 AM
But you are isolating this argument by restricting it to "receptions and yards."

If Reggie has comparable receptions to those other backs you listed (Westbrook, MJD, Forte, LT, etc.) then how does Reggie stack up in the category of rushing yards, rushing TDs, converting crucial 3rd downs that keep drives alive, etc?

I completely agree with you. The only reason I was using YPR is that it was cited earlier as a way of diminishing Reggie Bush. I was showing that the way it was being presented was not very representative.

I would be interested if you would compile all those numbers. I'm not going to do it, but it'd be cool to look at.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 11:18 AM
Averages mean nothing when you haven't looked at the number of receptions.

Pierre Thomas: 9.1 YPR with 48 receptions in 27 games. 1.77 receptions per game.

Brian Westbrook: 9.0 YPR with 401 receptions in 99 games. 4.05 receptions per game.

MJD: 9.5 YPR with 148 receptions in 47 games. 3.15 receptions per game.

Adrian Peterson: 9.8 YPR with 40 receptions in 30 games. 1.33 receptions per game.

Ronnie Brown: 8.4 YPR with 137 receptions in 51 games. 2.68 receptions per game.

Joseph Addai: 8.4 YPR with 106 receptions in 43 games. 2.465 receptions per game.

Reggie Bush: 7.5 YPR with 213 receptions in 38 games. 5.605 receptions per game.

Clearly you saw this, but did not decide to add it to your argument because it hurts your argument. It's pointless to cite averages when you don't look at the frequency of the action. Bush averages 1.555 more receptions per game than even Westbrook who is the closest guy behind him in the amount of receptions per game. The second highest as you can see is Maurice Jones Drew, but he is still averaging 2.455 receptions per game less than Bush (just a little more than half).

It's pretty obvious that the two best running backs at receiving are Brian Westbrook and Maurice Jones Drew. Adrian Peterson and Pierre Thomas shouldn't even be included in this conversation due to a lack of receptions per game. I suppose it does help your argument when you leave significant information off though.

I'm not saying that Bush is the best, or even near the best, I am just saying he is effective. As a running backs receptions per game go up you can expect their average to go down. Unless you are looking at a guy like Westbrook or Jones-Drew but they are indeed the best at it.

Look at Matt Forte. 7.6 YPR with 63 receptions in 16 games. 3.938 receptions per game.

Or how about LaDainian Tomlinson. 7.5 YPR with 510 receptions in 127 games. 4.016 receptions per game. Now you've got a guy who has the same YPR at a lower frequency of receptions per game. Is he an ineffective receiver?

How about Steve Slaton. 7.5 YPR with 50 receptions in 16 games. 3.125 receptions per game. Is he an ineffective receiver?

Leon Washington? 7.8 YPR with 108 receptions in 48 games. 2.225 receptions per game. Ineffective?


The more you look at this argument the worse it looks.

Give the guy a fair grade. Looking at his YPR without looking at the number of receptions is like saying that a girl has huge tits but failing to note that she is also 300 pounds.

This is just another clear cut Bash on Reggie Bush/VY Thread.

In this forum, Bush and VY will always be targets at least once a month for fans to look to bash on simply because they can't get over the fact that the Texans caught so much flack for not drafting either one. It's like 3 or 4 years later now, and you'd think it would die at some point, but many fans in here need to do this to feel better about the Texans. It's obvious that Mario was easily the better pick out of the 3 so I've got no idea why people can't get off of it or why Slaton is even compared to Bush at all considering how Slaton was drafted 3 years later and has no ties to Bush in and sort of way. Lol!

Bush is a very good player. He was a freaking stud last season at all purpose yards and TD's before he got hurt for a lot of games. He was doing great in returning kicks. Anyone saying that he isn't effective on the field for the Saints after what he was doing last season before injury was either not watching any Saints games, or just hates the guy.

I really don't care. He's far from a bust. He had way to much hype coming into the league and that's the biggest issue really. He had way to much hype that he would never reach. Many analysts actually said that he would never reach the ultimate hype before he came into the league, but people like to forget that. I imagine if he's healthy this season he'll continue to score some TD's and stack up some nice all purpose yards for his team.

GP
06-15-2009, 11:18 AM
I completely agree with you. The only reason I was using YPR is that it was cited earlier as a way of diminishing Reggie Bush. I was showing that the way it was being presented was not very representative.

I would be interested if you would compile all those numbers. I'm not going to do it, but it'd be cool to look at.

Man, I am not a number cruncher either! I agree that we can sometimes marginalize certain stats when it's unnecessary to do so.

I would bet that Reggie Bush has less of an impact on the Saints' chances of winning games than he had been made out to be capable of.

And I think it's because he's so situational, so to speak. It's why he does a good job as a KR: He has space when he fields the punt/kick. It's why he does a good job at ypr: He has space when he catches a ball in the flat.

But running backs, used as a running back on the field, have to be able to do all of it. They're not going to rule every category...but they have to be able to be a rushing threat first and foremost. Otherwise, he's just an extra WR.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 11:22 AM
Man, I am not a number cruncher either! I agree that we can sometimes marginalize certain stats when it's unnecessary to do so.

I would bet that Reggie Bush has less of an impact on the Saints' chances of winning games than he had been made out to be capable of.

And I think it's because he's so situational, so to speak. It's why he does a good job as a KR: He has space when he fields the punt/kick. It's why he does a good job at ypr: He has space when he catches a ball in the flat.

But running backs, used as a running back on the field, have to be able to do all of it. They're not going to rule every category...but they have to be able to be a rushing threat first and foremost. Otherwise, he's just an extra WR.

He's what you would call a utility back sort of like how Faulk is used in NE. He's a lot more effective in the passing game at small hitch passes and slants then he'll ever be in the running game. Some teams like to run the ball by those types of short passes and tosses though, utilizing a player's quickness to get to a spot way before anyone else can and he's good in that role. I think it's quite obvious that he'll never be a every down back that goes in between the tackles, but he'll help his team move the chains in a lot of other ways and he'll get reverse plays a lot as well.

GP
06-15-2009, 11:30 AM
He's what you would call a utility back sort of like how Faulk is used in NE. He's a lot more effective in the passing game at small hitch passes and slants then he'll ever be in the running game. Some teams like to run the ball by those types of short passes and tosses though, utilizing a player's quickness to get to a spot way before anyone else can and he's good in that role. I think it's quite obvious that he'll never be a every down back that goes in between the tackles, but he'll help his team move the chains in a lot of other ways and he'll get reverse plays a lot as well.

Right.

Which is why it was (and still is) insulting to have him propped up by the media as being this player who can dominate games and lift his team upon his shoulders and carry them over the finish line...on a game-to-game basis.

The college game is deceiving because a lot of them get exposed once they reach the NFL. The leap in on-field talent is off the charts--It's basically the best of the best, whereas in college it's a pretty watered-down climate; there's more mediocre players that appear NFL-ready than what actually exists. And some NFL stars don't even shine in college (Tom Brady, for example).

It's why the draft analysts between December and April need to be a little more responsible with how they project and "hype" players. And I wonder if the Reggie Bush-Vince Young-Mario Williams debacle will make them tone their rhetoric down a little bit. There seemed to be a bit more conservative tone by the analysts in this past draft season (to me, at least).

TimeKiller
06-15-2009, 11:41 AM
Hey Tex, if they keep writing the over-hyped Reggie Bush articles we'll keep bringing them down to earth. Acting like the reason Reggie Bush isn't everything we were told because he's "ahead of his time" is like taking a shit and calling it roses.

In a role with (glaring) limits, he can be a weapon but the circumstances it takes for him to shine are pretty much ri****ingdiculous AND he doesn't really shine that brightly.

HOU-TEX
06-15-2009, 11:44 AM
Bush is awesome

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 11:56 AM
Right.

Which is why it was (and still is) insulting to have him propped up by the media as being this player who can dominate games and lift his team upon his shoulders and carry them over the finish line...on a game-to-game basis.

Well I wouldn't count the guy out as a big time weapon for his team. He was a big time weapon last season all around the field until he got hurt. He also was at the end of his rookie season. Bush was starting to dominate games, and he also had some amazing plays in the post season that year. But then he came back and had a terrible 2nd season, and got hurt at the end as well.. Last season though, he was doing a lot before getting hurt.

The college game is deceiving because a lot of them get exposed once they reach the NFL. The leap in on-field talent is off the charts--It's basically the best of the best, whereas in college it's a pretty watered-down climate; there's more mediocre players that appear NFL-ready than what actually exists. And some NFL stars don't even shine in college (Tom Brady, for example).

Yes, that is true. That's why it's always hard to tell. That's also why I paid A LOT of attention to Mcfadden last season in pre season before my fantasy draft. I watched the way he ran because he is real thin like Bush is. Mcfadden is similar to me because he is easy to tackle like Bush. That's the biggest problem with Bush to me is that he's easy to tackle and you can arm tackle him. Mcfadden doesn't dance around like Bush, but he's easy to tackle. Mcfadden runs North and South real well, but that's about all he can do.

The RB's I look for now days are the ones that have that shake and bake along with pure speed. Guys that can take a first contact and keep running and can't be arm tackled easily.

It's why the draft analysts between December and April need to be a little more responsible with how they project and "hype" players. And I wonder if the Reggie Bush-Vince Young-Mario Williams debacle will make them tone their rhetoric down a little bit. There seemed to be a bit more conservative tone by the analysts in this past draft season (to me, at least).

I don't think that will ever change. People forget how many DE's seem to end up as busts every year that get hyped up just as much as the Reggie Bush types and the QB's as well. There are busts at every position really man.

I think that what they learned is that thin backs like Bush won't make it in the NFL the same way they did in college as the same type of every down back and QB's like VY who have a terrible release and are mainly runners won't make it in the NFL and VY will be the last prospect to ever have that kind of hype again as QB. Vick ended up being a pretty poor QB after a few years in the league. He was really good at first, but once teams figured him out Vick couldn't do a whole lot because he wasn't a passer.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 12:04 PM
Hey Tex, if they keep writing the over-hyped Reggie Bush articles we'll keep bringing them down to earth. Acting like the reason Reggie Bush isn't everything we were told because he's "ahead of his time" is like taking a shit and calling it roses.

Are you suggesting that he wasn't having a very good season last year for any kind of player before getting hurt?

In a role with (glaring) limits, he can be a weapon but the circumstances it takes for him to shine are pretty much ri****ingdiculous AND he doesn't really shine that brightly.

He was shining pretty brightly last season before he got hurt. Who cares if he runs in between the tackles or how he's making plays. He's a utility back and won't have crazy numbers as a runner. That was established after his 2nd season. But he is a good player and moves the chains in a lot of ways. He's just not your average RB. He's a utility back that can be moved all over the field and be used differently and there aren't a lot of backs that can be effective in many ways that he can. He might not be good in between the tackles, but he's good in other ways where other backs aren't as well.

eriadoc
06-15-2009, 12:18 PM
Bush is a very good player. He was a freaking stud last season at all purpose yards...

All purpose yardage is the biggest BS snow job that the media ever pulled on y'all. In Bush's rookie year, for instance, he had 1523 all purpose yards (565 rushing, 742 rec, and 216 PR). Sounds good, right? Well, the year before, Jerome Mathis had 1675 all purpose yards. So that stat is garbage. Actually, more worthless than garbage. It's a made-up stat to make guys like Reggie Bush seem more valuable than they are. Total yards from scrimmage is a valuable stat - all purpose yardage is not.

eriadoc
06-15-2009, 12:19 PM
He's what you would call a utility back sort of like how Faulk is used in NE.

I can't tell you the last time I had Kevin Faulk news crammed down my throat.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 12:26 PM
All purpose yardage is the biggest BS snow job that the media ever pulled on y'all. In Bush's rookie year, for instance, he had 1523 all purpose yards (565 rushing, 742 rec, and 216 PR). Sounds good, right? Well, the year before, Jerome Mathis had 1675 all purpose yards. So that stat is garbage. Actually, more worthless than garbage. It's a made-up stat to make guys like Reggie Bush seem more valuable than they are. Total yards from scrimmage is a valuable stat - all purpose yardage is not.

All purpose yards is crap? What planet are you living on?

You can call it crap if you want to refer to KR yards, but not when it comes to receiving and rushing. That is the biggest piece to look at to see who is moving the ball around the field. A guy that can move the ball effectively in many ways is a very valuable player. RB's aren't being asked to just run the ball up the middle or a sweep anymore. They're being asked to do a lot more and be effective in the passing game as well and the guys that are multi purpose backs are proving to be more valuable commodities more and more now days. You will always have your bruising backs as well like the Lendale White types but there will always be games where teams O lines can't open up big holes at the line of scrimmage and they'll have to depend on getting their RB's the ball with short pass plays and screens and the RB's that know how to run easy short routes and can get the ball that way as well as running the ball from a hand off have a much higher % of getting the ball in space where they can be more effective. That is how you get all purpose yards and to call that stat garbage you're basically suggesting that receiving yards aren't important and that rushing yards aren't that important, so then you don't even have an offense at all if you're going to suggest that rushing and receiving aren't important.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 12:31 PM
I can't tell you the last time I had Kevin Faulk news crammed down my throat.

You see, then you clearly don't understand different intangibles about football and moving the chains then from a RB's stand point laugh at a guy like Faulk. Ask any NE fan about Faulk and they'll all tell you how much they love the guy. He's been an ultimate weapon for NE. He just doesn't have huge crazy stats or anything like that, but he's about as dependable of a player as it gets and every year he gets better in the passing game. He's been a very critical part of their offense especially in some of their post season runs at catching short 8 to 15 yard pass plays on 3rd downs and at crucial times where they needed a play and he's always been a consistent guy to do it. RB's now days are being asked more and more to catch passes and get yards after the catch. Faulk isn't a HR hitter or anything, but he's a reliable guy that gets the job done.

eriadoc
06-15-2009, 12:31 PM
All purpose yards is crap? What planet are living on?

You can call it crap if you want to refer to KR yards, but not when it comes to receiving and rushing. That is the biggest piece to look at to see who is moving the ball around the field. A guy that can move the ball effectively in many ways is a very valuable player.

That's precisely the difference between "yards from scrimmage" and "all purpose yards". Yards from scrimmage has been used for a long time to show combined rushing and receiving. All purpose yards was a term used to lump in kick return and punt return yards, to try and make certain players look better than they really are.

eriadoc
06-15-2009, 12:33 PM
You see, then you clearly don't understand different intangibles about football and moving the chains then from a RB's stand point laugh at a guy like Faulk. Ask any NE fan about Faulk and they'll all tell you how much they love the guy. He's been an ultimate weapon for NE. He just doesn't have huge crazy stats or anything like that, but he's about as dependable of a player as it gets and every year he gets better in the passing game. He's been a very critical part of their offense especially in some of their post season runs at catching short 8 to 15 yard pass plays on 3rd downs and at crucial times where they needed a play and he's always been a consistent guy to do it. RB's now days are being asked more and more to catch passes and get yards after the catch. Faulk isn't a HR hitter or anything, but he's a reliable guy that gets the job done.

I clearly understand it, and respect Faulk's game. I was just noting that I don't have Kevin Faulk news crammed down my throat all the time like I do for Reggie Bush. If you want to lump Reggie Bush in with Kevin Faulk, I'm OK with that. Convince BSPN to start covering him accordingly, please.

Mr teX
06-15-2009, 12:38 PM
This is just another clear cut Bash on Reggie Bush/VY Thread.

In this forum, Bush and VY will always be targets at least once a month for fans to look to bash on simply because they can't get over the fact that the Texans caught so much flack for not drafting either one. It's like 3 or 4 years later now, and you'd think it would die at some point, but many fans in here need to do this to feel better about the Texans. It's obvious that Mario was easily the better pick out of the 3 so I've got no idea why people can't get off of it or why Slaton is even compared to Bush at all considering how Slaton was drafted 3 years later and has no ties to Bush in and sort of way. Lol!

Bush is a very good player. He was a freaking stud last season at all purpose yards and TD's before he got hurt for a lot of games. He was doing great in returning kicks. Anyone saying that he isn't effective on the field for the Saints after what he was doing last season before injury was either not watching any Saints games, or just hates the guy.

I really don't care. He's far from a bust. He had way to much hype coming into the league and that's the biggest issue really. He had way to much hype that he would never reach. Many analysts actually said that he would never reach the ultimate hype before he came into the league, but people like to forget that. I imagine if he's healthy this season he'll continue to score some TD's and stack up some nice all purpose yards for his team.

exactly.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 12:41 PM
I clearly understand it, and respect Faulk's game. I was just noting that I don't have Kevin Faulk news crammed down my throat all the time like I do for Reggie Bush. If you want to lump Reggie Bush in with Kevin Faulk, I'm OK with that. Convince BSPN to start covering him accordingly, please.

Faulk will never be covered like that because he isn't a HR threat and never has been. But make no mistake about how important he's been to the success of the NE Patriots, because he's been MR. Reliable for them. Go back to two seasons ago in the post season where the Patriots lost that SB but had some tough match ups in the playoffs, they weren't running the ball well at all and Moss wasn't doing jack in the post season. NE was getting up and down the field though through one short pass after another and Faulk was getting a ton of them. He knows how to get open from the back field, he can line up in the slot and can block for the QB very well. He's an extremely under rated player.

Bush can do a lot of what Faulk can do in that regard, but can't block worth a crap so he'll have to improve there. Bush can hit the big HR play though and because of that the media will continue to talk about the guy some. I don't think Bush is over rated at all anymore though. The media doesn't talk about him nearly like they used to. He isn't even talked about that much at all actually. I've hardly even heard about Bush in this entire off season. Most analysts and writers know now that he's just a glorified Utility Back, but that doesn't mean that he's not a good player.

Goldensilence
06-15-2009, 12:46 PM
Right.

Which is why it was (and still is) insulting to have him propped up by the media as being this player who can dominate games and lift his team upon his shoulders and carry them over the finish line...on a game-to-game basis.

The college game is deceiving because a lot of them get exposed once they reach the NFL. The leap in on-field talent is off the charts--It's basically the best of the best, whereas in college it's a pretty watered-down climate; there's more mediocre players that appear NFL-ready than what actually exists. And some NFL stars don't even shine in college (Tom Brady, for example).

It's why the draft analysts between December and April need to be a little more responsible with how they project and "hype" players. And I wonder if the Reggie Bush-Vince Young-Mario Williams debacle will make them tone their rhetoric down a little bit. There seemed to be a bit more conservative tone by the analysts in this past draft season (to me, at least).

Good first part of the post and I think the second part is partially true. I don't think there was a guy this draft who you could really hype up aside from Mark Sanchez, who I'm still not sold on. IMO the hype and a weak QB class got him into the fifth spot. I think USC gets large hype on offensive side with not enough credit for the consistent talent they have on defense and how is translates well to the NFL. It was also a year that saw teams in the top 10 for the most part make trench decisions. Guy who impressed me the most is Jason Smith.

I think Crabtree could've been hyped a lot more but the broken ankle and the fact he played in a football outpost like tech (no offense tech fans) didn't help. Had he acheived what he did in a more media friendly place I think we'd all be cringing come draft day.

I fully expect the hype machine to beback next year with a good QB class(Bradford and McCoy) but the guy that'll get the real hype will be Tebow.

Far as Bush goes, I think he does well, not great, but well in the role that Payton has made for him. Definitely not worth the money and spot he was taken. This article was laughable.

TimeKiller
06-15-2009, 01:08 PM
Are you suggesting that he wasn't having a very good season last year for any kind of player before getting hurt?
No, I'm suggesting we let him finish his career before we vote him into the Hall of Fame. Or maybe let him do something truly special before anyone dares call him "ahead of the league".

He was shining pretty brightly last season before he got hurt. Who cares if he runs in between the tackles or how he's making plays. He's a utility back and won't have crazy numbers as a runner. That was established after his 2nd season. But he is a good player and moves the chains in a lot of ways. He's just not your average RB. He's a utility back that can be moved all over the field and be used differently and there aren't a lot of backs that can be effective in many ways that he can. He might not be good in between the tackles, but he's good in other ways where other backs aren't as well.

Yes, he can do a lot of things but unfortunately does none of them well. That's the point.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 01:39 PM
No, I'm suggesting we let him finish his career before we vote him into the Hall of Fame. Or maybe let him do something truly special before anyone dares call him "ahead of the league".

That hype machine a few of you are referring to hasn't existed for a long time. All I hear most analysts saying is that he was over hyped from the very beginning and it was unfair to expect any player to reach that sort of hype because it was way to much for any player. I don't hear any analysts running around talking about him anywhere close to how they did before that draft.


Yes, he can do a lot of things but unfortunately does none of them well. That's the point.

You're saying that he doesn't catch short passes well and get good yards after the catch? Well that's a bunch of hogwash and you know it. He had 742 yards receiving from the RB position as a rookie. What other rookie RB has piled up that many yards receiving ever?

Before getting injured last season

Game 1 51 yards rushing 116 receiving 1TD
Game 2 28 yards rushing 63 receiving
game 3 73 yards rushing 1 TD 75 yards receiving 1 TD
Game 4 31 yards rushing 7 yards receiving
Game 5 29 yards rushing 64 yards receiving
Game 6 27 yards rushing 1TD 21 yards receiving 1 TD
Game 7 55 yards rushing 5 yards receiving (And got hurt in that game)

So basically this shows that he's a situational runner and as a RB he's very good in the passing game. He had 5 TD's in rushing and receiving in his first 7 games which isn't even in half of a season. I'd say that is pretty good. And he had 3 PR's for TD's before getting hurt as well, so that is 8 TD's altogether in the first 7 games of the season. As far as TD's that is damn good. He was very effective as a RB catching passes, but you can't compare him to WR's when he plays RB. You have to compare his receiving numbers to other RB's. As a RB, well he really isn't one. He's a situational runner at this point. But over all he was having a very good season for any player before getting hurt.

Goldensilence
06-15-2009, 02:10 PM
That hype machine a few of you are referring to hasn't existed for a long time. All I hear most analysts saying is that he was over hyped from the very beginning and it was unfair to expect any player to reach that sort of hype because it was way to much for any player. I don't hear any analysts running around talking about him anywhere close to how they did before that draft.




You're saying that he doesn't catch short passes well and get good yards after the catch? Well that's a bunch of hogwash and you know it. He had 742 yards receiving from the RB position as a rookie. What other rookie RB has piled up that many yards receiving ever?

Before getting injured last season

Game 1 51 yards rushing 116 receiving 1TD
Game 2 28 yards rushing 63 receiving
game 3 73 yards rushing 1 TD 75 yards receiving 1 TD
Game 4 31 yards rushing 7 yards receiving
Game 5 29 yards rushing 64 yards receiving
Game 6 27 yards rushing 1TD 21 yards receiving 1 TD
Game 7 55 yards rushing 5 yards receiving (And got hurt in that game)

So basically this shows that he's a situational runner and as a RB he's very good in the passing game. He had 5 TD's in rushing and receiving in his first 7 games which isn't even in half of a season. I'd say that is pretty good. And he had 3 PR's for TD's before getting hurt as well, so that is 8 TD's altogether in the first 7 games of the season. As far as TD's that is damn good. He was very effective as a RB catching passes, but you can't compare him to WR's when he plays RB. You have to compare his receiving numbers to other RB's. As a RB, well he really isn't one. He's a situational runner at this point. But over all he was having a very good season for any player before getting hurt.


I think he's pretty much Dave Meggett 2.0. Not that that's terrible at all but a far cry from the calls of this generations Gale Sayers (no offense to Gale Sayers). I think he also benefits from a very good QB who makes good decisions with the football. Not sure many other QBs could make the WR corps there look as good as Brees does. I also give a lot of credit to Payton for figuring out real quickly the guy isn't a true RB and hasn't pressed him into the role and has found ways to creatively get him the ball. I also have to give him credit for trying to step up this year when Deuce went down, his body just couldn't handle going full time. I hear he's really dedicating himself this off-season to being the guy. I hope he does b/c N.O. is going to need it in that division this year. Bungling Tampa aside now, Falcons and Panthers look tough.

Far as some people feeling sorry that the guy could never match the hype. Can't feel sorry for him a bit. From day one he's fed himself into the hype including his contract holdout and still not fully answering questions about some questionable actions at USC. Alabma just got put on probation for MUCH less.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 02:22 PM
I think he's pretty much Dave Meggett 2.0. Not that that's terrible at all but a far cry from the calls of this generations Gale Sayers (no offense to Gale Sayers).

You want to talk about over rated? Gale Sayers was extremely over rated if you look at him from a numbers stand point. He had like two good seasons.

I think he also benefits from a very good QB who makes good decisions with the football. Not sure many other QBs could make the WR corps there look as good as Brees does. I also give a lot of credit to Payton for figuring out real quickly the guy isn't a true RB and hasn't pressed him into the role and has found ways to creatively get him the ball. I also have to give him credit for trying to step up this year when Deuce went down, his body just couldn't handle going full time. I hear he's really dedicating himself this off-season to being the guy. I hope he does b/c N.O. is going to need it in that division this year. Bungling Tampa aside now, Falcons and Panthers look tough.

Agree with all of this. A lot of people don't count for how many plays Peyton uses him effectively as a decoy on reverse plays and other play action plays.

Far as some people feeling sorry that the guy could never match the hype. Can't feel sorry for him a bit. From day one he's fed himself into the hype including his contract holdout and still not fully answering questions about some questionable actions at USC. Alabma just got put on probation for MUCH less.

Anyone feeling sorry for him in any way would be ridiculous. He got a ton of money for where he was drafted, and Bush and his parents are all dishonest people who have caused USC a lot of problems as well. Not that I would ever feel sorry for USC either, but this whole scandal with him could have easily been avoided had they just held up their end of the bargain with those dirty agents. Bush and his parents are all liars obviously and no one should feel sorry for them in any sort of way.

Texan_Bill
06-15-2009, 02:49 PM
Before getting injured last season



Well that seems to be problematic too. His career reads this way:
2006 G-16; GS-8
2007 G-12; GS-10
2008 G-10; GS-9

Out of 48 possible games, he's been available for 38 and only started 27.



You want to talk about over rated? Gale Sayers was extremely over rated if you look at him from a numbers stand point. He had like two good seasons.


Huh?? Two good seasons or did you mean 5? Just because Running backs didn't reach 1,000 yards doesn't mean they weren't effective, especially with 2 less games than the regular season has now. One or two of those seasons that he didn't reach 1,000, Brian Piccolo took some rushes away.

Texecutioner
06-15-2009, 02:57 PM
Well that seems to be problematic too. His career reads this way:
2006 G-16; GS-8
2007 G-12; GS-10
2008 G-10; GS-9

Out of 48 possible games, he's been available for 38 and only started 27.

Yeah, he's been somewhat injury prone for sure. No argument there.





Huh?? Two good seasons or did you mean 5? Just because Running backs didn't reach 1,000 yards doesn't mean they weren't effective, especially with 2 less games than the regular season has now. One or two of those seasons that he didn't reach 1,000, Brian Piccolo took some rushes away.

He was very over rated from a stat perspective.

He only went over 1,000 yards twice and one time he barely got over it.

He only had over 10 TD's rushing once. He went over 400 yards receiving twice which isn't saying much.

Now he was pretty good in KR's as well, but nothing that special.

Now I know that some players were great in their own way that sometimes numbers can't exactly tell it all, but the 14 games a year argument doesn't hold even a candle here, because there were plenty of other HOF RB's that were putting up way better numbers than that in that same era with the same amount of games.

I wasn't alive then or anywhere close to being alive, but from a numbers stand point, I can't see why he's ever been in the HOF at all when looking at his production.

Texan_Bill
06-15-2009, 03:44 PM
Yeah, he's been somewhat injury prone for sure. No argument there.







He was very over rated from a stat perspective.

He only went over 1,000 yards twice and one time he barely got over it.

He only had over 10 TD's rushing once. He went over 400 yards receiving twice which isn't saying much.

Now he was pretty good in KR's as well, but nothing that special.

Now I know that some players were great in their own way that sometimes numbers can't exactly tell it all, but the 14 games a year argument doesn't hold even a candle here, because there were plenty of other HOF RB's that were putting up way better numbers than that in that same era with the same amount of games.

I wasn't alive then or anywhere close to being alive, but from a numbers stand point, I can't see why he's ever been in the HOF at all when looking at his production.

:hmmm: Same era.

1971 Floyd Little (29) 1,133 DEN
1970 Larry Brown (23) 1,125 WAS
1969 Gale Sayers+ (26) 1,032 CHI
1968 Leroy Kelly+ (26) 1,239 CLE
1967 Leroy Kelly+ (25) 1,205 CLE
1966 Gale Sayers+ (23) 1,231 CHI


BTW
1,000 / 16 games = 62.5 YPG
1,000 / 14 games = 71.4 YPG
That adds up. Would it be more impessive if you took 144 yards and added to Sayers' "barely 1,000 yards"(1032)? That would've given him 1176.

As far as receptions that's like comparing apples to oranges. The Bears of that era didn't throw the ball. They went through 5 QB's during that time and sucked pretty bad. THe only winning season they had was Sayers rookie seaosn when they went 9-5. These are the biggest reasons numbers don't tell the whole story.

TimeKiller
06-16-2009, 07:46 AM
That hype machine a few of you are referring to hasn't existed for a long time. All I hear most analysts saying is that he was over hyped from the very beginning and it was unfair to expect any player to reach that sort of hype because it was way to much for any player. I don't hear any analysts running around talking about him anywhere close to how they did before that draft.
What do you think this article is man? Maybe a few analysts have let it go but clearly not everyone is ready to let the legend of Reggie Bush actually play itself out on the field.

You're saying that he doesn't catch short passes well and get good yards after the catch? Well that's a bunch of hogwash and you know it. He had 742 yards receiving from the RB position as a rookie. What other rookie RB has piled up that many yards receiving ever? I don't know, most rookie RBs go for rushing yards and such.

So basically this shows that he's a situational runner and as a RB he's very good in the passing game. He had 5 TD's in rushing and receiving in his first 7 games which isn't even in half of a season. I'd say that is pretty good. And he had 3 PR's for TD's before getting hurt as well, so that is 8 TD's altogether in the first 7 games of the season. As far as TD's that is damn good. He was very effective as a RB catching passes, but you can't compare him to WR's when he plays RB. You have to compare his receiving numbers to other RB's. As a RB, well he really isn't one. He's a situational runner at this point. But over all he was having a very good season for any player before getting hurt.
First off, health is part of the game. Another area he is sorely lacking in. And as a RB, which is what he is supposed to be, he's 3 yards and a cloud of hype. Why can't we compare him to WR if he's such a dynamic pass catcher? Because all he does is let Drew Brees and Colston take all the attention downfield and when there is 7 yards for him to eat up he'll be right there getting credit for 11. You certainly can't compare him to RBs and say he's carving out a niche doing something that RBs really aren't on the field to do. That's taking a shit and calling it roses. Call it what you want to, for #2 overall that's failure. Maybe his "all-purpose" yards will keep him from busting but he's a hell of a long way from being a legitimate "playmaker".

Texecutioner
06-16-2009, 10:07 AM
What do you think this article is man? Maybe a few analysts have let it go but clearly not everyone is ready to let the legend of Reggie Bush actually play itself out on the field.

So what. There is always one guy out there that will write some article about this or that. That doesn't mean that there is still all of this hype everywhere that he's this wonder back. That hype died after his 2nd season.


Why can't we compare him to WR if he's such a dynamic pass catcher? Because all he does is let Drew Brees and Colston take all the attention downfield and when there is 7 yards for him to eat up he'll be right there getting credit for 11.

Sorry, but this statement doesn't fly. You obviously forgot that Colston only played like one and a half of the first two games last season and was hurt for like 8 straight games after that, so Reggie Bush was playing without Colston all of that time out of the lineup before he got hurt himself.

And even if so, isn't that what every RB does who is catching short passes on his team? The WR's are running their routes and trying to draw the defenders deep to make room for the RB to get in space. HOw do you bash Bush for this, but every other RB in the league doesn't get criticized for it? That is a huge reach.

You certainly can't compare him to RBs and say he's carving out a niche doing something that RBs really aren't on the field to do.

He isn't carving a niche because there have been plenty of RB's doing similar things on the field in the passing game for years. LT has been doing it, Westbrook has been doing it, Leon Washington is currently playing a very similar role that Bush is playing right now, Kevin Faulk plays practically the same role, so this bashing that you're giving Bush is pretty ridiculous considering that there are other RB's that have similar roles on their team, but you're not bashing their play for it.


Maybe his "all-purpose" yards will keep him from busting but he's a hell of a long way from being a legitimate "playmaker".

Just because he doesn't fit your typical mold of a RB doesn't mean he isn't a play maker for his team. Saying that Bush isn't a play maker is a freaking joke. The guy had 8 TD's in the first 7 games of the season last year which combined from receiving TD's, rushing TD's, and a few PR's. He was quite versatile.

I wish fans would just get over the fact that the Texans didn't draft Bush, and let it go and stop trying to prove to themselves Mario was the right pick. It's obvious that he was, relentlessly bashing Reggie Bush once a month and acting like he sucks isn't going to change anything. Mario was the right pick, but that doesn't mean that Bush has been a bad player by any means. He just wasn't worth the #2 draft pick, that's all.

TimeKiller
06-16-2009, 01:18 PM
Sorry, but this statement doesn't fly. You obviously forgot that Colston only played like one and a half of the first two games last season and was hurt for like 8 straight games after that, so Reggie Bush was playing without Colston all of that time out of the lineup before he got hurt himself.
I sure did. Brees + anything = somebody else is open so...it's all the same.

And even if so, isn't that what every RB does who is catching short passes on his team? The WR's are running their routes and trying to draw the defenders deep to make room for the RB to get in space. HOw do you bash Bush for this, but every other RB in the league doesn't get criticized for it? That is a huge reach.
How do I bash Bush but no one else? Let's see, because no one else is being heralded as "before his time". There is your huge reach.

Why is it that Bush is a hell of a 5th option but gets the glory of the go-to guy?

He isn't carving a niche because there have been plenty of RB's doing similar things on the field in the passing game for years. LT has been doing it, Westbrook has been doing it, Leon Washington is currently playing a very similar role that Bush is playing right now, Kevin Faulk plays practically the same role, so this bashing that you're giving Bush is pretty ridiculous considering that there are other RB's that have similar roles on their team, but you're not bashing their play for it.
LT is a monster RB, a real one and so is Westbrook on top of their catching ability. There are your "before their time" players. Your legitimate "playmakers". Faulk is a hell of a 5th option too but no one is putting him in the HOF just yet...

Just because he doesn't fit your typical mold of a RB doesn't mean he isn't a play maker for his team. Saying that Bush isn't a play maker is a freaking joke. The guy had 8 TD's in the first 7 games of the season last year which combined from receiving TD's, rushing TD's, and a few PR's. He was quite versatile.
Sure. He had 8 TDs and he'll get credit for about 20. Kevin Walter had 8 TDs but I see no articles on how he's "before his time". At this point Bush is sort of a playmaker as long as many circumstances are met, legitimate threat no.

I wish fans would just get over the fact that the Texans didn't draft Bush, and let it go and stop trying to prove to themselves Mario was the right pick. It's obvious that he was, relentlessly bashing Reggie Bush once a month and acting like he sucks isn't going to change anything. Mario was the right pick, but that doesn't mean that Bush has been a bad player by any means. He just wasn't worth the #2 draft pick, that's all.


Who said anything about Mario? This has nothing to do with Mario.

And Bush still wasn't worth the #2 pick.