Well, not so much as they might have one, and certainly not so much as QB. In addition, when RBs control a game it's usually a big, hefty, strong, tough back, not a scat guy. I say Bush is very talented and is good for 15-20 _touches_ a game as long as he doesn't take any serious hits. In the NFL game he's going to slow down a lot and he won't be nearly as elusive--a lot of that highlight reel stuff is questional defensive play. And with the fast DBs in the NFL they'll run him down unless he's as fast as Mathis, which I don't think he is, is he? In any case, Bush is a great pick if we had a great QB and had the luxury of adding a part-time threat to the club. As it is we do not have a great QB and we do not have the luxury of adding a part-time guy. At first I scoffed at the people who were saying DD is a good partner for Bush, but as I reflect further, it seems like DD is an almost full-time guy with some good move, some elusiveness, some speed. And in that sense--that he will be there almost all of the time--he may be more useful over the long haul. We certainly have more worries at QB than at RB. I don't think many would argue against that.