Bush/Sanders Comparison

Discussion in 'College Football & the NFL Draft' started by Keldar, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. Keldar

    Keldar Veteran

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    9
    Much speculation has been made over Bush's durability based on his stature and relatively light carry load at USC. I thought it might be interesting to compare some numbers with an NFL running back who had a decent career, and to whom Bush has been compared.

    Bush
    height 6' 0"
    weight 200lb

    Barry Sanders
    height 5' 8"
    weight 200lb

    Bush Stats (this year, not including Rose Bowl)
    carries 187
    games 12
    avg carries/game 15.6

    Sanders Stats (career)
    carries 3,062
    games 153
    avg carries/game 20

    So what did this small statured running back named Barry Sanders acheive in his NFL career?

    *Second-leading rusher of all time (15,269 yards).
    *109 career touchdowns (99 rushing, 10 receiving).
    *76 total 100-yard rushing games.
    *Holds all-time NFL record for consecutive 1,000-yard seasons (10, 1989-1998).
    *Tied for NFL record for total 1,000-yard rushing seasons (10).
    *Holds Detroit Lions records for most yards rushing (15,269), most touchdowns (109) and most rushing touchdowns (99).
    *Second all-time in career rushing yards.
    *10-time Pro Bowl selection (1989-1998 seasons)
    *Nine-time Pro Bowl participant (missed 1993 due to injury)
    *Five-time NFC rushing leader
    *Holds NFL single-season records for most 100-yard rushing games and most consecutive 100-yard games (14 in 1997).
    *Played in one NFC championship game.
    *1997 The Sporting News Player of the Year.
    *1989 The Sporting News NFL Rookie of the Year.
    *1988 Heisman Trophy winner.

    Things that make you go Hmmmmmm......
     
  2. Trap_Star

    Trap_Star SiteContributor

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,804
    Likes Received:
    341
    Location:
    xvideo
    wow...you did your homework. Although i will say that in todays nfl, defenses are BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER, overall much better athletes.
     
  3. Dime

    Dime Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    42
    Lets not compare him to Barry because he has Never played in a NFL game. Major difference there... Bush has NO record in the NFL, so ranking him to NFL stats are quite misleading
     
  4. TexansTrueFan

    TexansTrueFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,600
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Huntsville Tx
    haha lets compare bush to B. Sanders, i mean besides his height and weight i dont see much in common i mean reggie hasnt even played in a NFL game yet, so to put him among nfl legends is kinda dumb.
     
  5. Goldeagle

    Goldeagle Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Spring
    Lets compare Bush with Eric Metcalf!
     
  6. tulexan

    tulexan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    5,080
    Likes Received:
    106
    How about we compare Reggie Bush to Reggie Bush.

    There is no point in setting extremely lofty goals just so you can be disappointed when he doesn't meet them.
     
  7. Trogdor014

    Trogdor014 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2004
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um... I'd rather have someone Sanders' size at RB than Bush's size. I think an important thing to look at is weight/height ratio.

    Sanders, while shorter, was also much thicker. IMO having a "thick" body is important in a player's ability to take punishment.

    Bush, at 6'0, has a thinner frame than Sanders, which is why many have doubts about his durability.
     
  8. tex

    tex Veteran

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    3
    Kind of like everyone comparing VY to DC ones in college the other in the pros,where everything is faster,the players are bigger etc etc.
     


  9. aj.

    aj. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,769
    Likes Received:
    347
    I wouldn't be surprised if when they measure Bush with the NFL scale and tape, that he's not 6'0" 200. He looks just a smidge shorter for sure. He's prettty close to Tiki Barber if you're looking for a modern physical comparison.
     
  10. Keldar

    Keldar Veteran

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    9
    The whole point of the thread was Bush's stature and carry load, as compared to one of the NFL greats.

    The whole rap on Bush to this point, has been his size and the fact that he hasn't carried the ball a lot per game. This thread shows Barry Sanders' size is slightly smaller, and his carry load was not much more than Bush's 15.6 per game.

    Not properly understanding the point of this thread is kinda dumb.
     
  11. HJam72

    HJam72 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    11,617
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Over here.
    When compared to Bush, Bush is really pretty average. :)
     
  12. Dr. Toro

    Dr. Toro All Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    13
    5'8" 200 is very different from 6'0 200. The 5'8" guy is significantly thicker. Barry's legs were huge. I wouldn't be too concerned about Bush's size, he can put on weight. He's gotta change his style to be an effective inside runner, though.

    Barry carried the ball 344 times his junior year. He proved himself to be a horse in college, Reggie got about half those carries this year (187). Until Bush proves himself to be a workhorse back, I won't see him as one. Sure, Lendale White had a lot to do with Reggie Bush not getting a ton of carries, but Reggie has his limitations. He was conspicuously absent in short yardage situations, 4th and 2 in the Rose Bowl, goal line situations.

    Barry Sanders was never a great short yardage back either, but that was probably due to the fact that for a sizable chunk of his career he was in one back sets.
     
  13. LikeABoss

    LikeABoss All Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    The MidWest, Ohio to be exact...
    [​IMG]

    You call this having a thin frame???:confused:

    The dude is ripped for his size!

    Barry Sanders definately was not this big. He had big legs, but he did not have a bigger upper body than Bush.
     
  14. DynoMoxie

    DynoMoxie Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've watched Barry Sanders play LIVE. Don't even waste your breath trying to compare the two. It's like constantly trying to find someone to compare to Michael Jordon. It's a big waste of time. Don't compare Reggie Bush to any of the greats. He's got a lot to prove before he can even be mentioned in the same breath. There is proven and there is speculation...two very different things. Don't get caught up being a speculator.
     
  15. In Vince We Trust

    In Vince We Trust Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    as far as their bodies are concerned, they weigh the same but barry was about 4 inches shorter - center of gravity is lower and he is thicker.

    as far as their abilities are concerned, barry had more moves. moreover, barry accomplished all that he did at okie state playing on a crap team with no talent other than himself. bush played on a team stocked with nfl talent on his o-line, a first round pick at the other rb position, a first round pick for a wr, etc.,

    bush is more similar to desmond howard or rocket ismail - electrifying college players who were/are undersized for traditional positions. you want to waste a no. 1 overall pick on a desmond howard or rocket ismail?!:ok:
     
  16. LikeABoss

    LikeABoss All Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    The MidWest, Ohio to be exact...
    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Barry is definately not thicker than Reggie.


    First off, Bush never played with a first round pick of a WR. He benefitted playing with a great college QB and complimentary RB to back him up. But i'm pretty sure those same exact players would say their success had alot to do with playing on a team with the talent of a Reggie Bush. Plus there's other successful running backs in the league that played in a similar situation in college. Cadillac Williamsidonno:

    This is a matter of your opinion. You are not speaking any truth to this matter at all.
     
  17. Dhanis

    Dhanis Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Reggie has the size to be used in a role such as Tiki Barber, Marshall Faulk. Take a look at what Warrick Dunn does with his small stature. Reggie's what...20 years old? He has plenty of time to put on extra weight and bulk up for the NFL game as well.
     
  18. LikeABoss

    LikeABoss All Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    The MidWest, Ohio to be exact...
    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Do people not consider this bulk???

    IMO, the guy has perfect size to be a RB in this league, the only thing needing change is for him to show the critics that he can be just as successful running between the tackles and being an every down back.
     
  19. Dr. Toro

    Dr. Toro All Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    13
    I think it's really funny how people try saying being 4 inches shorter and weighing the same doesn't make you thicker. The pictures are funny too, lets take a picture of Barry where he looks tiny and Reggie where he's flexing.

    I don't care how jacked his arms are. If you want the most ripped arms in the league then trade for Michael Pittman. Weight matters and strong legs matter, upper body strength isn't the biggest deal. Although I did hear Reggie Bush benched like 450. He's a strong kid.

    Barry carried it 30 times a game at OSU, thats a far cry from 16 per game behind the nation's best OL. All the flexing in the world isn't going to change that.
     
  20. BeerFan

    BeerFan Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    12
    Its not like Reggie was asked to carry the ball 30 times and couldnt do it. They had LenDale White too, and he needed some carries as well.

    Bush carried the ball 23 and 24 times against Fresno and UCLA and ended up with 294 yards and 260 yards. i know those arent good teams and im not expecting those numbers to translate to the NFL, but Reggie Bush is the real deal.

    LenDale never carried the ball more than 24 times in a game either.
     

Share This Page