Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Last gasp effort by Reggie Bush hype machine...

GP

GP

Go Texans!
The media cannot let Reggie Bush fail.

Here is an espn.com article 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."
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Lucky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MojoMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Marcus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Reggie Bush is the greatest decoy of all time. No team can comprehend what he might do and are therefor confused in all situations.
 
Marcus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TimeKiller said:
Jack of all trades and master of none. #2 overall. Mistake.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

edsel-ford.jpg



AT LEAST IT COULD RUN
 
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GP
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
TexansSeminole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
TexansSeminole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who else does this remind you of? (Hint - His initials are BO)
 
TexansSeminole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Riggie Bush is OK, but he ain't no Steve Slaton. We got the right running back after all.
 
eriadoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Marcus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eriadoc said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Hervoyel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Must spread the rep!
 
Hervoyel said:
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.
Click to expand...

/endthread

:respect:
 
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.
 
HOU-TEX said:
Bush's knees will eventually force him from the game.
Click to expand...


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.
 
MojoMan said:
Who else does this remind you of? (Hint - His initials are BO)
Click to expand...

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.
 
eriadoc said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
TexansSeminole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eriadoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

eriadoc said:
He isn't running the ball at RB efficiency or overall numbers.
Click to expand...

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.


eriadoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
TexansSeminole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
GP said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TexansSeminole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TexansSeminole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top