Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
College Football All Star Challenge
- Thread starter Texans_Chick
- Start date
MorKnolle
All Pro
tsip said:
Well you asked where I was coming from, so I gave you the professional opinions that I have heard (I probably left a couple points out too) and then mine on top of that, so be careful what you ask for. That was more of just the negatives on him, but you were asking where I come from on why I don't want us to draft him, so that was most of the reasoning behind it.
beerlover
Hall of Fame
MorKnolle said:
dude all you have to do is look back two years to the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Texans had the 10th pick and choose Dunta Robinson, the Steelers where next and with the 11th pick selected Ben Rothelisberger. Maddox went down in the 2nd game and in came Ben taking a team only one pick better than that 2003 Texans team (at least record wise) and rolled out a 14 game winning streak or something like that with a 15-1 record? sure he looked shakey his first playoffs loss that first year but in year two he matured and made the most of it leading his team to win the Super Bowl. If thats not having impact and a positive effect then I don't know what is
does Ben have the NFL's respect now, which has been earned on the professional field?
MorKnolle
All Pro
beerlover said:dude all you have to do is look back two years to the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Texans had the 10th pick and choose Dunta Robinson, the Steelers where next and with the 11th pick selected Ben Rothelisberger. Maddox went down in the 2nd game and in came Ben taking a team only one pick better than that 2003 Texans team (at least record wise) and rolled out a 14 game winning streak or something like that with a 15-1 record? sure he looked shakey his first playoffs loss that first year but in year two he matured and made the most of it leading his team to win the Super Bowl. If thats not having impact and a positive effect then I don't know what is
That has very little to do with the current Vince situation. Ben was not supposed to be this astonishing leader coming out of college. He did not ink his contract and instantly make everyone on the team suddenly inspired to go out and play better. He was not instantly a leader on the team just because he displayed good leadership in college. He was supposed to sit for a while but was forced into the lineup when Maddox went down, and he proved himself on the field, played well enough to get his team wins and earned his respect and leadership. Vince has not even been drafted yet and people are already proclaiming he will instantly be one of the best and most respected leaders in this league. I was saying that players do not instantly get that respect and leader tag without stepping on the field, they have to actually earn it by their play on the NFL field, not what they did in college. Barring injury to the starting QB or being in a blowout game, Vince will not play his rookie year in the NFL regardless of what team he goes to, so he will not get that chance to appropriately prove himself on the field to become a leader in the NFL. The Titans and Texans are far from having the overall talent of the Steelers, so they won't be in a position to go 15-1, plus playing in Pittsburgh makes it pretty easy on QBs as they play a much smaller role in the overall success of their team (22 passing attempts per game over his two year career, by far the fewest in the league) and have much less stress and pressure put on them, so a rookie will have a better chance to succeed there.
I have no doubt that Vince has the capabilities of becoming a good NFL leader, but many players do coming out of college, it is a matter of whether they realize that leadership potential and are put in a position to exhibit it and take over a team. Many more players than most people realize have that potential to be a leader in the NFL, but many never get the opportunity to rise to that challenge. Ben did not do that from the bench those first couple games, he had to earn it throughout the rest of the year and this year. Vince is not going to instantly make any kind of difference from the bench, he is going to have to, at some point in time, be put in a situation in which he can become the leader of a team and then he's going to have to step up and take advantage of that situation. I don't see that happening his rookie year or probably even his 2nd year as I don't see him getting much if any playing time during that stretch, and if he does I don't think he has the capabilities of performing to those standards yet. Simply having him on the team is not going to change the rest of the team if he's not getting a chance to play and lead the team, leadership will not come from a rookie player that is not getting to play. I think at some point in his career he will be put in that situation, but I don't see that being in the next year or two and I think he has a lot of work to do himself to get the rest of his skills to where they need to be so he can take advantage of that situation when it comes, and I don't think that will happen here in Houston and I don't think that would be an ideal situation for him or our team.
It's obvious from your post that you want Young to fail because your post is not based upon current fact but on conjecture. To date, despite all his flaws according to you, Young has not only succeeded but keeps improving. Carr came to the Texans with flaws in his throwing motion and still has them, especially lacking the 'touch' of getting the ball over the head of the defender into the receivers grasp. Reading a defense? Pocket management? Young routinely throws to several players, not just locking in on one or two or dumping off the ball at the first sign of pressure. Your post is not full of examples of bad results that Young has gotten but-instead- your posts are full of what you think the future holds for Vince. And, you lose credibility when you state things about Young that are not true, while ignoring the flaws in others that are....weak arm? not accurate? can't read a defense? Were you one of those posters last year that predicted a winning season in '05 and then disappeared during the season when the team went 'south?'
Time will tell the fortune of Young/Bush/Leinart and others and it won't matter how any of us 'see the forest for the trees' but , IMO, you ought to cut yourself a little slack just in case your predictions of doom for Young are not even close...
Time will tell the fortune of Young/Bush/Leinart and others and it won't matter how any of us 'see the forest for the trees' but , IMO, you ought to cut yourself a little slack just in case your predictions of doom for Young are not even close...
jerek
Pro Hobbyist
beerlover said:dude all you have to do is look back two years to the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Texans had the 10th pick and choose Dunta Robinson, the Steelers where next and with the 11th pick selected Ben Rothelisberger. Maddox went down in the 2nd game and in came Ben taking a team only one pick better than that 2003 Texans team (at least record wise) and rolled out a 14 game winning streak or something like that with a 15-1 record? sure he looked shakey his first playoffs loss that first year but in year two he matured and made the most of it leading his team to win the Super Bowl. If thats not having impact and a positive effect then I don't know what is
Ben looked great, and he deserves much of the accolades now being ascribed to him. But he also came onto a playoff ready team with a relatively established coach and winning tradition, a team that was very much one or two pieces away from winning the big game.
Bit of a different situation?
beerlover
Hall of Fame
jerek said:
To repeat: the fact is one pick seperated the Texans from the Steelers in the 2004 draft. Alot of people including myself thought that Al Davis Raiders would take Big Ben with the 2nd overall pick, there was hype just terrible GM's who could'nt see the talent, size and leadership Rothelisberger showed yes even @ Miami of Ohio, he was as freaky good as Randy Moss was @ Marshall, just a man amongst boyz. If Carr had progressed the Texans would have won a few more games in 2004, the GB game sticks in my mind, then something happened, quietly without notice the Texans began their prolific nose dive culmenating with the horrid season closer agaisnt the Browns. the leadership, the promise the future suddenly seemed in doubt. this last year proved those doubts to be true, these franchises became seperated by years but in fact it was only one year, one pick and yes it can make a difference
cadahnic
Rookie
The fact that people dont understand that Big Ben and David Carr are the same types of leaders is amazing. They are not the raw raw get your *** in gear type of guys. They are calm, collected, and willing to take all blame on themselves. Ben makes plays on a great SB team, whereas Carr makes plays on a terrible team. Is the difference that Carr does not make enough plays, or is it that his team is just that much worse. I am not defending Carr and there really is no reason to, we all know Carr's shortcomings and strengths, but to imply we made a mistake on Ben is crazy.
Ben has shown that when asked to carry the team he has not matured enough in his position to really be able to do that. I understand were Mork, Tsip, and Beer are coming from I just think that some are taking Vince based on factors that are non-football. Every scout I have talked to including ones in the Titans Organization have said the same things Mork has posted. Most people feel like Vince has Randall Cunningham potential. That is a big time QB, not one that will win it all by himself, but he will win you games. Either way Carr and Young are good QBs one will be good in a year or two and one is already good. Just a note on Carr he was on the worst team in the NFL stayed in the top 20 of QBs, completed more than 60% of his passes, and passed for more touchdowns than ints. Ask a scout how they feel about Carr and you will get comparisons to some stout Qbs and the most common would be the Archie Manning of our time.
This draft is the perfect opportunity to change that.
Ben has shown that when asked to carry the team he has not matured enough in his position to really be able to do that. I understand were Mork, Tsip, and Beer are coming from I just think that some are taking Vince based on factors that are non-football. Every scout I have talked to including ones in the Titans Organization have said the same things Mork has posted. Most people feel like Vince has Randall Cunningham potential. That is a big time QB, not one that will win it all by himself, but he will win you games. Either way Carr and Young are good QBs one will be good in a year or two and one is already good. Just a note on Carr he was on the worst team in the NFL stayed in the top 20 of QBs, completed more than 60% of his passes, and passed for more touchdowns than ints. Ask a scout how they feel about Carr and you will get comparisons to some stout Qbs and the most common would be the Archie Manning of our time.
This draft is the perfect opportunity to change that.
I wouldn't put too much stock in the College Football All Star Challenge since it's nothing more than a Super Bowl made for TV entertainment event. I went to the one in Houston two years ago during SB week and unless they changed the format, the whole thing is a very laid back production. As I watched the players during the lengthy down time between filmed events, it was pretty obvious that it was more like a token appearance/ semi goof off event for them than a real meaningful competition.
cadahnic said:
Good point about the leadership thing. I'll give you that argument(well, you won it really, but that doesn't help my argument). I don't see how anyone can think Carr has a better chance of getting to the Big Dance, before Vince. Good points about Carr and what he did do right this year(but top 20 out of 32?? is he at least in the top half(16) that would be a better argument, or are you counting all the backups and starters who didn't play more than 5 games??)
Good post, best David Carr argument I've heard(read) yet.
Helps me to believe, all is not lost if we stay with Carr, but I'm not convinced that passing on Vince is the right thing to do.
Kudos
cadahnic
Rookie
Thunder I am not trying to defend or promote Carr. I was one of the guys that felt up and until last year that we made a mistake in getting him. He showed me last year that he had heart, tenacity, and a willingness to die for this team. He also showed that when he is not getting sacked he is a big time QB(just look at last year's numbers). Vince and Carr would likely need the same luck and big time team to get to the big dance since neither is playing for a team that is close yet. Unless Vince goes to a team that is built to win now like say the Ravens then he will not be able to win many games as a rookie or even second year guy. Also on Carr's stats I just went on the numbers from this year. He was not in the top half and I would not expect a person who played on the worst team to be, but he was the best QB our of the teams that stunk this year, hence the Archie Manning reference. If the organization feels that Vince is best in the long run ok, but I have yet to see anyone post anything about VY that is not filled with emotion or conjecture. Mork and a couple of other people only post about what scouts say about him so that is my take on VY.
MorKnolle
All Pro
tsip said:
From your post, I'd say you either didn't read my last couple posts or you're just looking at it thru badly burnt orange glasses.
In my last post I attempted to break down the development of leadership in the NFL, it is not something that a rookie will bring to a team until he steps on the FNL field and proves his skills there and starts leading the team, that doesn't happen while he's sitting on the bench. Many people, both Vince supporters and especially guys that don't want Vince, don't think he is going to play much his rookie season and that he should sit and learn the NFL game and improve his own personal skills, but some of Vince's supporters still feel that he is somehow going to magically improve everyone on the team while sitting on the bench, and that his mere presence is going to inspire them to greatness, and I was trying to explain that is not the way it works. That is just the way it is, I never said in there that I want or even expect Vince to fail. I said that he will at some point, like many other players who have leadership potential coming out of college, be put in a position to play and showcase his physical talents and try to step up into that leadership position, and at that point he will need to step up to that challenge. In order to do that, he is going to have to improve some of his individual quarterbacking skills in order to take advantage of that opportunity, he has all the physical gifts to do it but he needs to improve areas of his game. As I said before, many players have leadership potential, some get the opportunity to use that while some are never given the opportunity to fulfill that potential and become a leader. We don't know if Vince ever will and no one can say for certain how he will respond to that when it happens. I am quite sure at some point he will get that chance and I think he will likely make good use of it, but I don't know when or how that will happen and I don't see him being ready to do that for a year or two. I never once said I expect or hope Vince fails, my point with that was that some people expect him to be this awesome leader that will instantly change our organization around, he will not instantly make that difference just by being here if he is not playing and is on the bench, I don't think he has the quarterbacking skill capabilities to do lead the team this coming year, and on our team I don't see him getting that appropriate opportunity to lead this team for a while either. That last part about the team is not a knock on Vince, I think that with our current team he is not going to have the opportunity to become the leader that some people think he is destined to be for several years, but some people are going to refuse to see that, so fine.
My previous post on his flaws with his game, you specifically asked me why I don't see him being the best pick for this team, so I typed my opinion on his game and the flaws that pro scouts that I personally know and have talked to on the subject said about his game. That is not some unsubstantiated projection onto the future, that is looking at his game right now. I/they never said David Carr was perfect or didn't have some of those flaws either, but David is less of a raw talent than Vince currently is, and given that Carr should be a fully-capable QB and that Vince does currently have those flaws and is not an instant upgrade over Carr, I/they do not feel that Vince would be the optimal pick for the Texans at the #1 overall position in this draft, especially when the team has so many other needs on defense and offense that need to be looked at, and that either QB is going to need a great deal of added talent to be able to lead this team to where it needs to go. My statement that I don't think Vince is going to be anything as a QB that David Carr cannot end up being is a projection into the future of their careers and their talent/potential. I am not saying Vince won't be good or David won't be good, I'm saying that I think David has the potential and capabilities to accomplish anything at QB that Vince can accomplish, but that is my opinion that I am entitled to, and you and everyone else are obviously entitled to your opinions as well.
I am not trying to bash Vince, I am trying to counter some of these "Vince is the best thing since [fill-in-the-blank]" posts that have been everywhere on here since the Rose Bowl. I am presenting my opinions on the matter as the Vince supporters are doing. I am trying to present a little more practical and objective side than the often-emotional and UT-fan based view that is frequently submitted on here. There is nothing wrong with being a fan of a guy or his college team, but that will obviously skew your opinion in his favor. I am not a fan of UT, I'm not saying my view is necessarily right or more realistic than most others (a few opinions on here have clearly been off the wall for him, but ok), but it is just from the opposing side of what many views on him are, so to those people it will seem like I'm overly critical of him and his skills.
I've tried to share some insight from some NFL scouts that I have personally talked with on their thoughts on Vince since they are more qualified than the vast majority of us to assess his skills. In the end, our opinions on him do not really matter on this subject. The management of the team will do what they feel is in the best interest of the team, and then it is up to us to do what we want with the given situation, whether that be to continue to support the team, follow Vince's career thru the NFL and support whatever team he goes to, or a little of both. None of these are wrong, it is what you want to do. As a fan you have the luxury of choosing who you want to support and for whatever reasons you want to support them, that is your right and you can do as you wish. I myself grew up as a basketball player and fan, and with the NBA nowadays I generally follow specific players rather than specific teams, and I mainly just want to watch good basketball and the players I like as opposed to really caring which teams succeed. As for the NFL, I also like to watch good football games and certain players, but I have chosen to support the Texans however well they do and whatever direction they go, that is my choice and I'll stick with it, so that is my stance on this team and league. You can do whatever you want as that is your choice, all I ask is that people try to take somewhat of an open mind and approach things realistically, do not get bent out of shape when someone with an opposing view speaks their mind (especially when you ask their opinion), and that you stick with your decisions and claims on a team and don't claim to be a fan of the team above all else and then turn your back on them when they don't pick a certain player (I'm not at all saying that you are doing this, but that has been known to happen on here with a few people and those people are a little irritating, but again I'm not overly concerned with what they choose to do for themselves).
There, that is all I care to type on the subject for now, and I commend you if you can actually read thru that whole thing because I got going and ended up writing a lot.
Personally, I haven't seen this.... I think alot of VY opponents read this, and all that superman stuff into some posts..... these guys are the same ones that use the "one game" argument.MorKnolle said:
I don't know, but I'd like to compare Vince's scouting Report to Ben Rothlisbergers, McNabb's, Dante Culpeppers..... Byron Leftwich's for that matter also. I wonder if they were as NFL ready as Peyton Manning or Matt Leinart... I'll do a search, and see what I can find. I'd like to see how accurate these "scouts" are.
This is something else I don't get..... the kids got flaws.... who don't?? one of the things we like about Kubiak, is the work he does with QBs. We all agree, that we David Carr after 4 years in the league, needs work, needs coaching. I would assume, that even though we may be optomistic, that we know there is a possiblity, that it won't be succesful. I think Vince sitting with Kubiak on the sideline, watching David, as David learns would be the perfect situation. If David doesn't work out, we've got a viable Plan B, that will get us to where we want to be, without having to start over 2 years from now. If David Carr is better than we projected, then fine, we'll deal Vince... I know it's expensive to do such(but it ain't my moneyMorKnolle said:
) but don't think of it as throwing money away, think of it as insurance.MorKnolle said:
No, sometimes I think you are overly critical.... Alot of QBs have come into the league with a sidearm throwing motion.... It's not that big of a deal. Many have learned to throw it the right way, many have become succesful even though they didn't. If someone(Kubiak) can convince Vince that it is worth working on, I don't think it will be a problem. If you are as high on Kubiak as you suggest, I don't see it as a problem.
Not only that, what really gets me, about you.. is that you sound like you know what you are talking about. Yet you can't find one good thing to say about Vince.......... or maybe I missed it.
Trade Down, or draft Vince. That's the way I see it. & from someone as knowledgable as you, I'd expect the same, but you keep saying Reggie is a better fit. REggie may be more ready to play in 2006, but I don't see how he fits our team, when RB is not even a question.
You also agree that N.O. needs a QB more than they need a RB, even though our RB situation is better, and their QB has had the same problems ours has had.
You also think Tenessee needs a QB over a RB, when they don't even have a RB, and their QBs number will probably be retired.
So I do think you are more critical of Vince Than honest objectivity would allow.
Coach C.
Veteran
thunder, Mork has repeatedly stated objectively about Vince. NO is in far worst shape than us. They have established players that were not getting it done even though they had a line and playmakers around him. NO has Deuce and he is a better RB than DD right now. Many a RB has come back from a knee injury and been solid. I am not sure what your point is pulling out these small tidbits. I mean you post with alot of emotion, but you do not try and sway opinion or post about things you dont know, not sure why you would not see Mork's points. Disturbing to say the least...
Coach C. said:
I really don't think N.O. is in Far worse shape than we are. They had to deal with something we didn't, and came out with a better W-L. I posted on another thread, that over the last three years, Aaron Brooks (including 2005) was sacked 1 time less than David Carr(131 vs 132) yet he's passed for 3000 yards every season, except this one, where he missed it by 200 yards. His completion percentage is lower than Carr's, but hie QB rating is higher, despite being in the League 2 years longer. I think QB wise, it's a draw between N.O. and Houston.
Duece has the same problem as DD has.... can't stay healthy. the only difference, is we have a capable back up, as well as a young'n who may prove to be a true value pick at the RB position.
I don't know why I'm Nit Picking Mork...... other than I know he knows what he is talking about with players, and talent. But he says Reggie is a better fit..... I don't think it matters as much to me, when others say it, but it does when he says it........ maybe I'm missing somethng, maybe I'm upset at myself, for not seeing what he sees, and if you see the same thing he does, I don't think I can take it.
three months is a longggggggggggg way to go.
MorKnolle
All Pro
thunderkyss said:This is something else I don't get..... the kids got flaws.... who don't?? one of the things we like about Kubiak, is the work he does with QBs. We all agree, that we David Carr after 4 years in the league, needs work, needs coaching. I would assume, that even though we may be optomistic, that we know there is a possiblity, that it won't be succesful. I think Vince sitting with Kubiak on the sideline, watching David, as David learns would be the perfect situation. If David doesn't work out, we've got a viable Plan B, that will get us to where we want to be, without having to start over 2 years from now. If David Carr is better than we projected, then fine, we'll deal Vince... I know it's expensive to do such(but it ain't my money
He asked me why I didn't think Vince should be our #1 pick, so I gave him my reasoning on it. He brought the subject up, he wanted to know what weaknesses I saw in his game and why I didn't think he was the best option for our team.
thunderkyss said:
I don't doubt Kubiak could help Vince out, my point, as I stated numerous times, was that I think anything Kubiak can do for Vince, I think he can do for Carr, and Carr is much more ready to play in this league right now than Vince is, so Kubiak can come in and work with him and have him playing and reaping the benefits of his tutelage right away as opposed to waiting for 1-2 years to get an idea of what can come out of him.
thunderkyss said:
I think I do know what I'm talking about, 99% of the posters on here sound like they think they know what they are talking about. I can find good things to say about Vince and I have posted them on occasion, but when so much of that is already going on and being exaggerated, my stance is on the other side of the argument so that's what I'm going to present. Any Vince supporters ought to be able to find good things about Carr but those are rarely voiced by those people, that's just the way two differing sides of an argument work.
thunderkyss said:
I am and always have been in the trade down camp, go back a couple months when Reggie was the hot topic of the boards and you'll find many posts by me trying to counter that. My point with this situation is I don't think Vince adds much, if anything, to the QB position over David Carr, and drafting Vince does not add anything else to the team, it would be done with the intention of replacing Carr, maybe not this year but in the near future, so we are using the #1 pick to just replace a guy. Drafting Bush adds a definite playmaker to what we already have, I like Domanick and think he can be a very good RB (and already is a good one), but we have mismanaged him in the past and adding Bush gives us another RB and a different type of RB to split some time, plus we can use him at WR the rest of the time. Drafting Bush would be adding another playmaker to what we have already built on offense and he can work in with Domanick, Andre, and the other guys rather than only replacing someone. I hope we are never in the #1 draft spot again, so if we're going to use that on one of these two playmakers I'd prefer to get the guy that adds something to our offense rather than using it on a guy that replaces a piece of our offense, and a piece that I think doesn't need replacing.
thunderkyss said:
Yes I do, Aaron Brooks is not the same as David Carr, plus they have said many times that they are not happy with Aaron Brooks and are looking to replace him, so they've lost interest in him, whereas the Texans have said repeated times that they are going to resign Carr and that he is their guy at QB, and that they will not draft a 1st round QB with Carr here. The Texans are ready to move forward with David Carr as their man while the Saints are not wanting to move forward with Brooks. Deuce McAllister is a better RB than our guys so I wouldn't say our RB situation is better other than we have a little better depth.
thunderkyss said:
I have never said that the Titans need a QB, and when we post our team needs list and other stuff later this week you will see that the Titans do not have QB or RB as a primary need. However, McNair is definitely near retirement, and the Titans have expressed interest in getting Vince Young and shopping Volek, I don't think they need to do that and I'm not sure that would be the best move for them, but they've said they are interested in doing that and I (along with the majority of the nation-wide sports people) think they will draft Vince at #3. I don't think that is a need of theres, but it is as much or more of a need of theirs than it is of ours, and they get to get him at #3 rather than #1.
thunderkyss said:
I do come across as being pretty critical of him, but as I said earlier in this post it's because I'm currently on the side of the argument against him, so of course I'm going to present more of the negative side of getting him, while the Vince supporters are also more critical of David Carr than honest objectivity would be.
thunderkyss said:
I do try to be objective the vast majority of the time, but at times I do get carried away with pointing out his negatives since his positives are posted so much more and often exaggerated a lot on here, so my inclination is to balance that out somewhat. As for being the better fit, it's just a matter of opinion on how you see the team. As I've said, I think Vince is a 2 year project at QB (myself and the scouts I know say this), and I don't see him adding anything to the QB position that David can't do, and with the #1 pick I'd rather get a guy like Bush that comes in and adds to the offense rather than either sitting the bench or replacing someone we already have. A lot of the key difference is also probably that I think Carr is a good QB and can be a great one, so I don't think he needs to be replaced, while you and others probably don't think that highly of him, or in the case of some people they are under the impression that Vince will just be so great that we can't pass up on him even if Carr is here and is a solid QB. I don't share that view of Vince. In the same sense, many people (moreso before the Rose Bowl) thought the same of Bush, either Davis was sub-par or even if Davis was a good back Bush was so special that we can't pass him up. I also don't share that view of Bush. I can see Bush making more of an immediate impact and definitely adding something to this offense, while Vince would have to sit and then replace someone rather than adding to our core of young stars.
That said, I still think trading down is the best option. I don't think Carr, Vince, or Bush can be used to their full potential without a drastic overhaul of the OLine. The coaching and system aspect of that is already in the works, but I think we need some personnel changes as well. We are also transitioning to a 4-3 defense so we'll need to add some better DEs and we still definitely have weaknesses on defense anyways. I would much prefer to see us trade down and address these problematic areas with our higher picks, and add more picks in the process. Building the overall team is the only way we are going to succeed, and in my mind trading is the best way to improve the overall team.
hehe,
I just like to hear(read) you talk football.
I just like to hear(read) you talk football.
Mork's opinions are highly valued and has been generally objective, but stating he couldn't see "how Vince can throw a ball 55-60" yards and then saying he "can throw a ball 55-60 yards without college coaching" is pushing the limits of objectivity. VY is 6'5" 235, strong, and throws a football for a living... the "objective" thing is to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
And what is objectivity? Mortensen says he has "marginal" arm strength and pumps Bush, other scouts say "decent", a DC said he has "a big arm", I've heard "great arm". Merril Hoge says he sucks, Shula says he's great, who is objective about Vince Young? He seems to be a flashpoint for controversy. If Vick led his team to the playoffs for the third time in four years, would Young be viewed more favorably by all? If Joey Harrington were our QB would anybody say no to Young? If he was from LA and Bush was from Texas, would there still be people wanting Young? Let's just concern ourselves less with objectivity and try to field opinions founded on decent reasoning.
I'm not objective about Vince Young, I'm a big fan of his, I'll support whatever team he goes to. They are the "Houston Texans" not the Texans of Houston at Reliant Park, so I think Houston roots matter. It's my opinion. It's not all rational, and neither is professional football. Some people are interested in the success of the team only (think Portland TrailBlazers post-Drexler/Oakland Raiders), some people want success and character guys (think San Antonio Spurs), some people want success, hometown guys, and character guys (think Astros). Everybody has their preferences. No one is objective. Not owners, not fans, not scouts, not coaches, not players.
Edit: Mork, nice post. There's nothing wrong with balancing out ridiculous hype for Young, I try to do the same for Bush, and dispell excessive criticism of Young.
And what is objectivity? Mortensen says he has "marginal" arm strength and pumps Bush, other scouts say "decent", a DC said he has "a big arm", I've heard "great arm". Merril Hoge says he sucks, Shula says he's great, who is objective about Vince Young? He seems to be a flashpoint for controversy. If Vick led his team to the playoffs for the third time in four years, would Young be viewed more favorably by all? If Joey Harrington were our QB would anybody say no to Young? If he was from LA and Bush was from Texas, would there still be people wanting Young? Let's just concern ourselves less with objectivity and try to field opinions founded on decent reasoning.
I'm not objective about Vince Young, I'm a big fan of his, I'll support whatever team he goes to. They are the "Houston Texans" not the Texans of Houston at Reliant Park, so I think Houston roots matter. It's my opinion. It's not all rational, and neither is professional football. Some people are interested in the success of the team only (think Portland TrailBlazers post-Drexler/Oakland Raiders), some people want success and character guys (think San Antonio Spurs), some people want success, hometown guys, and character guys (think Astros). Everybody has their preferences. No one is objective. Not owners, not fans, not scouts, not coaches, not players.
Edit: Mork, nice post. There's nothing wrong with balancing out ridiculous hype for Young, I try to do the same for Bush, and dispell excessive criticism of Young.
Texans_Chick
Utopian Dreamer
Lucky said:
Yes, you are the second person to get this correct. An example of something that is kinda counterintuitive --at least counterintuitive based on hype and reputation.
Anyhow, BotNSs was on Trio recently, including this episode, and here is a recap I found on the internet for everyone's afternoon dose of humor written by some guy:
Link:Summary of the Most Infamous of the Battle of the Network Stars
"This week the inexplicable cable channel Trio, which is apparently programmed by monkeys, aired some vintage installments of the Battle of the Network Stars, something I never expected to see again. I happened across the 1976 edition of the Battle and got a tape into the VCR about 20 minutes into it. Here are the highlights:
6:20 pm: Telly Savalas in a speedo.
6:24 pm: Host Howard Cosell says the following, and I am not making this **** up: "What a glorious view. The rugged California mountaintops. The awesome Pacific Ocean in the background. One looks upon it and feels as Balboa and his men must have when, in the words of Keats, they gazed at each other with a wild surmise, silent upon a peak at Darien. [cut to Farrah Fawcett jogging in white shorty-shorts] But these girls aren't gazing. They're getting ready. Getting ready for the running relay!"
6:26 Team members are introduced. The ABC squad is particularly impressive, featuring not only dueling Kotter 'fros of Gabe Kaplan and Robert Hegyes, but future esteemed directors Penny Marshall and the man the New York Times recently called "the best middlebrow popcorn movie-maker of his generation," Ron Howard.
6:30 Unofficial results: NBC wins running relay.
6:31 Telly Savalas lodges an official complaint. The last runner for NBC picked up the baton too early. ABC wins. Robert Conrad of NBC is not happy.
6:36 Conrad still upset. Threatening to pull NBC out of competition.
6:38 Conrad challenges ABC captain Gabe Kaplan to a 100 yard dash to determine the winner.
6:42 Kaplan kicks Conrad's *** in the 100 yard dash.
6:47 Golf? Are you *****ing me? Fast-forward.
7:01 Dunk tank. A real disappoint, as no one manages to sink Robert Conrad. As Cosell observes, "Conrad voices his truculence." They really have to bring this show back. Can you imagine the thrill of seeing, say, Bernie Mac sinking some pompous jack*** like Kelsey Grammer?
7:17 Penny Marshall bests Mackenzie Phillips in the obstacle course, thus proving she had access to a higher grade of cocaine in 1976.
7:19 Adrienne Barbeau running. She has my undivided attention.
7:30 For some reason, Howard Cosell is interviewing Dr. Joyce Brothers. She explains that the audience enjoys seeing the celebrities' human frailties. Isn't that what I just said with my dunk tank comment? Keep up, Joyce.
7:36 Volleyball. This is a real mess. Telly Savalas falls into the crowd, nearly crushing a small child with his gold chains.
7:49 The finals: ABC vs. CBS in the tug-of-war. Hal Linden is confident. Gabe Kaplan does a terrible Muhammed Ali impression. Lynda Carter is showing lots of ***cheek. Juan Epstein nearly has an anuerism. It's a real nail-biter, but in the end, ABC pulls it off."
Classic commentary. A key moment in American culture. LOL.
MorKnolle
All Pro
Dr. Toro said:
I agree that it is indeed hard to find an objective opinion in sports, you have to take both sides of it and form an opinion on your own. I don't know where that bit about Vince not being able to throw it 55 yards came from, I don't think I said that. I merely pointed out that he threw the ball 63 yards with no one around, which is not really that special (that's where the part about me being able to throw one 55 yards without any training came in) as some people said it was super special that he was throwing it 63 yards with no defense or anything go one and without having to throw it to a guy running a route and get the ball to him or anything like that.
I have been on both sides of trying to dispell both Vince and Bush hype over the last 5 months ever since it became apparent that we'd be at the top of the draft and the floodgates of hype opened up. I've tried to present a relatively objective view while having to over-emphasize some negatives at times to balance the exaggerated positiives, but that's the way arguments and debates go, so hopefully people are getting something out of these message boards, I know I've been enjoying it even with some of the nonsense that goes on.
MorKnolle said:
http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=17246&page=2
He threw a 65-70 yard strike in the Army-All America game, video is available and I provided the news link for it as well. He's got ample arm strength for the deep ball, if what he has isn't enough, we can bring in Michael Bishop/Jeff George/Jim Harbaugh to throw the Hail Mary.
Texans_Chick
Utopian Dreamer
MorKnolle said:
I don't know. Don't much care for the exaggerations by either side.....
In academic debate or how the legal system attempts to work, there are advocates that throw whatever stuff out there, being an advocate no matter what the truth is, exaggerating and spinning, and at the end of the day, theoretically you come up with the right result. And it might be the right result, but it is certainly not the truth.
Personally, I try to just see both (all?) sides of things, really looking for the kernels of truth in what people are saying.
It is hard to know what the truth is and what is real. If you were to write down what you did today, it would not be the truth, it would be what you edited and remembered to be the truth.
With media and hype and TV angles and memory, truth gets a lot more fuzzy.
Anyhow, at the end of the day, I just wish that people (not just on the MB but in all walks of life) would do less advocacy/spinning and more fact finding and truth searching. As it relates to the MB, it is hard to have to sift through the BS to find things that are not exaggerations. And finding thoughtful analysis that isn't based on unsturdy foundations. And I certainly appreciate it when I find it.
But then again, if this sort of thing were easy, then the NFL teams would always pick the draft order exactly the right way, which is never done.
Htown34s
Waterboy
MorKnolle said:
Good post MorKnolle. For whatever reason, this post seemed more objective than some of your other postings.
I'd say that it seems to me that there aren't that many pro-VY people on this board, that most of the anti-VY people think he shouldn't even be a QB nor have they seen any other games beyond the Rose Bowl.
The real debate about Vince should be if we replace Carr with VY. That is a very hard decision and a very important one, probably more so because we do have the first pick in the draft.
"I attempted to break down the development of leadership in the NFL"
"He's such a great athlete, and he's an accurate passer," Staubach said. "I think he is an NFL quarterback. He's smart, confident and such a leader."
Please, give us a few sources or names of a couple of your scout friends.I have not read your disertation yet, but will, and I'll give some more quotes.
"He's such a great athlete, and he's an accurate passer," Staubach said. "I think he is an NFL quarterback. He's smart, confident and such a leader."
Please, give us a few sources or names of a couple of your scout friends.I have not read your disertation yet, but will, and I'll give some more quotes.
MorKnolle
All Pro
Htown34s said:
Yes, that is more of the debate, not whether Vince should/will be a good NFL QB (I'd debate if he's going to be a hall of famer like some people are already claiming), but should we replace Carr with Vince. Is Vince worth dumping Carr? The choices on that situation are (I'm not including a trade down in this):
1) Keep Carr, Draft Bush: Yields David Carr and Reggie Bush, costs $16 million a year but you have two guys on the field for it.
2) Release Carr, Draft Vince: Yields Vince Young at $9 million a year and either going thru same growing pains on a bad team as Carr did or else sitting behind someone else for a year or two and using up that money hoping it becomes a worthwhile investment in the future, and we get nothing for Carr.
3) Trade Carr, Draft Vince: Yields Vince Young and probably a mid-2nd round pick, plus $8 million cap hit. Again you would have to either sit Vince and hope that he is worth it later or put him in the line of fire his rookie season with our bad team.
4) Keep Carr, Draft Vince and sit him for 2 years: Yields $17 million a year between two QBs, only one of which is on the field at any point in time, then a potential QB controversy down the road where we either trade one and take a cap hit or let Carr's contract run out and once again get nothing for him.
With the Vince Young contract too, he's going to get a 6 year deal worth close to $55 million as the #1 pick. Assuming you want to protect him for at least a full season to get his skills up and learn the NFL game rather than throwing him to the wolves behind our OLine, then you're effectively paying him $55 million to play for 4.5 seasons, which is going to start amounting to a whole lot of money, more than most if not all QBs are really worth, especially an unproven rookie.
Reggie Bush would be in a similar situation, although his contract at #1 would be more like 6 years, $48-50 million, which is still a whole lot for a RB, but at least he's on the field for 95% of the plays from the start of his rookie season. I don't want to pay him that much money either.
Contracts for the #1 draft pick have exploded over the last few years, which is one big reason why I'd rather trade down to acquire more players and at positions of need and spread the same amount of money we'd pay either of them over 3-4 guys.
By staying at #1, we have 4 of the top 66 picks in the draft, hopefully all will be starting-quality players, but presumably at #1 we take either Vince or Reggie, so we either get a QB that will sit for a year or two but has worlds of potential that he hopefully grows into, or we get a RB that has some durability questions and will split time between RB and WR (will be on the field the whole game, but is maybe not a pure RB, but he also has worlds of potential that he could fulfill. We should get three starters among those other three picks, but there is a big question mark on the #1, as both guys are at positions that are not really a weakness for the team (at least in my opinion, views on this will vary), the QB will sit for a while and we don't exactly know what we're getting, and the RB is may not be the franchise workhorse RB and worthy of that money, and we similarly don't know exactly what we're getting.
If we trade down, we should get 5 picks in the top 66 and still be at #4 or #5, where we can take the best DE prospect since Julius Peppers or the best LT prospect in a while, both of which are uneniably at positions of great need for this team. We will also have an additional pick in that top range to get another guy, so we should be able to come away with 5 starting quality players while still getting an "elite" prospect in the 1st, rather than coming away with 3 starters and 1 potential franchise QB/RB, and you would also likely gain a future 1st round pick in a trade down to get another star in next year's draft.
Obviously anyone you draft is somewhat of an uncertainty (I classify Bush and Vince as more of an uncertainty than guys like Mario since the usual uncertainties about health and all that are present plus you're not sure how well Bush translates to a franchise RB and you're not real sure on Vince's quarterbacking skills and such), but by trading down you can add at least one additional high-end pick this year that should be a starter, you address a position of great need for this team with our top pick rather than waiting to a later round to address those needs, you pay all 5 of these incoming starters a lot less money than you'd pay the 3 starters and 1 potential star, and you have that extra future 1st rounder, plus you can probably add another draft pick or veteran player in there as well. To me, this is the best option if we use it wisely, and I think Kubiak will make better draft decisions than Capers
crew.
Coach C. said:
Whatever happened to people expecting a person to back up their post? Last year, the
"s would not let a 'chicken little' make one thought w/o a verifiable source that was stamped by a Notary---now, we get disertations of personal opinions filled with inaccurate info. Mork, and others, would get more respect if--for example--they would back up their post with more than 'a scout told me the other day.'"He's such a great athlete, and he's an accurate passer," Staubach said. "I think he is an NFL quarterback. He's smart, confident and such a leader."
Coach C.
Veteran
tsip would you rather those of us that post things about what actual NFL people say not post these things. I may be wrong but usually a good percentage(above 60) of our post are insightful, objective, and without much emotion. I get it Staubach said Vince was a leader, Moon said Vince was not anything special, Pete Prisco said that Vince is a glorified Randall Cunningham with less accuracy. You let me know if you would rather us stop posting.
Carr, Bush, Davis= 20 million
Young, Davis=13 million
Young, Davis, Free agent(s)= 20 million
Carr is a one year cap hit, maybe you get lucky with talent in return in a trade (Baltimore, Oakland, Miami). Second rounder seems likely, but this is a deep draft. A line with Bentley and #33 pick starts looking pretty good, and while D'Brickashaw is a cut above, there are some fantastic linemen available later in this draft. The team would improve drastically under the trade down scenario, but you might be able to get similar value through a Carr trade/solid 2nd round picks. Essentially, the question is whether or not you think VY is a rare talent? Otherwise it's tough to justify drafting him. Given the money/effectiveness of Davis/Wells and zone scheme, I think it makes even less sense to draft Bush than Young? But if you think he's the next LT he's still worth taking.
Young, Davis=13 million
Young, Davis, Free agent(s)= 20 million
Carr is a one year cap hit, maybe you get lucky with talent in return in a trade (Baltimore, Oakland, Miami). Second rounder seems likely, but this is a deep draft. A line with Bentley and #33 pick starts looking pretty good, and while D'Brickashaw is a cut above, there are some fantastic linemen available later in this draft. The team would improve drastically under the trade down scenario, but you might be able to get similar value through a Carr trade/solid 2nd round picks. Essentially, the question is whether or not you think VY is a rare talent? Otherwise it's tough to justify drafting him. Given the money/effectiveness of Davis/Wells and zone scheme, I think it makes even less sense to draft Bush than Young? But if you think he's the next LT he's still worth taking.
Texans_Chick said:
So you prefer flexible people over tendentious ones. Good luck with that!
On of my pet peeves are people who build a logical case for something, and since they can show the logic is correct they think they are therefore correct. They don't want to admit that while their logic might be flawless, the premises upon which their logic rests might be assumptions rather than facts. It is tedious to try to discuss something with someone who knows something is true because they believe it - especially when that something is a future event.
Htown34s
Waterboy
MorKnolle said:
I think you leave out one important part here, which is DD. We'd really have around $20 million, with either $4 million or $8 million on the sidelines at any one time. I just don't want $12 mill to $14 mill tied up in two RB's. We could get Shawn Alexander or Edge James for half that (with some miles on them but you see my point).
To me, Bush just isn't an option because of the reasons above. So it all boils down to Carr or VY. The main knock I have on Carr is his ability to read defenses and make good decisions. I just think he doesn't have these abilities. I think he could have learned them despite the line problems, but has not. Remember that a good portion of the sacks Carr takes are his fault, this has been admitted by the coaches.
Of course VY has not played in the NFL, but I believe he is better than Carr. He has a side arm release, but so does Carr. He has a quicker release, has more touch on his passes, is quicker and stronger, has shown outstanding leadership qualities, is better at reading defenses (NCAA), etc.
Until VY plays in the NFL these aren't proven abilities, but if we are to look at VY's strengths and weaknesses then lets be sure to look at what Carr's strenghts and weaknesses are too.
Coach C. said:
IMO, it 'cheapens' the credibility of a persons posts when they insert thoughts attributable to some 'expert' without either naming that person or providing a link to that person's statement. This board IMO would be a mess if every member tried to enrich their opinion by claiming 'so and so, an expert, said...' If it's your opinion, great--however, if it's someone elses, I think the members deserve to have verification...
"Moon said Vince was not anything special."
Here's Moon's actual statement--
"I could never think that far ahead," Moon said. "Vince Young should start thinking, 'I want to be an outstanding NFL quarterback.' That should be his first goal."
"His style is very conducive to the game today. He's versatile, and quarterbacks who are versatile are more successful."
Moon, however, advises Houston not to draft Young.
"If you're the Texans and want to start all over again, you take him," he said. "I don't think they're that far away. If they can get their offensive line together, and they have a pretty productive running back in Dominick Davis, I think you stay with what you have and come forward."
This is why I believe a poster should provide a quote or a link.
Here's Moon's actual statement--
"I could never think that far ahead," Moon said. "Vince Young should start thinking, 'I want to be an outstanding NFL quarterback.' That should be his first goal."
"His style is very conducive to the game today. He's versatile, and quarterbacks who are versatile are more successful."
Moon, however, advises Houston not to draft Young.
"If you're the Texans and want to start all over again, you take him," he said. "I don't think they're that far away. If they can get their offensive line together, and they have a pretty productive running back in Dominick Davis, I think you stay with what you have and come forward."
This is why I believe a poster should provide a quote or a link.
BlueThunder
Waterboy
Did you see Vince scramble thru that obstacle corse stop on the hash and hit Jerome Mathis 60 yards down field holding that net backet...
AustinJB
Rookie
Runner said:
If you're asking what I think you're asking....then yes.
I'll put it like this....I have questions about Bush's durability and whether or not he'll be successful against NFL defenses since they all have speed...and the only teams (or TEAM) that he faced w/ speed showed him to be less than spectacular. Those are my concerns w/ him (not to mention that the Texans don't need another RB, but that is irrelevant for this explanation.) So yes, in response to your question...I have a pre-determined opinion of Bush that can not be changed until Bush proves me wrong against an NFL defense. He can't do anything at the combine to make me change my mind.
VY, however, has people questioning his accuracy and arm strength. Those are all things that can be answered at the combine when he does his passing drills. At least to my knowledge, no one is questioning his durability, poise, leadership, etc (i.e. things that could only be proven in a game.) My original post was in reference to this. Even if VY is lights out at the combine and "proves" he has accuracy and a strong arm, some will try to find another reason why he can't be successful and why we shouldn't take him.
I think there are distinct differences between the two. Basically, Bush can't prove me wrong or right until we draft him and he is either lights out or a bust. VY could show others that his perceived weaknesses either are or are not justified at the combine....BEFORE we potentially take him w/ the #1.
MorKnolle
All Pro
AustinJB said:
I see where you're coming from on your concerns, but at the same time I don't think Vince will necessarily prove all the questions about him at the combine. He can show that he has some accuracy, but at the same time accuracy while standing or moving in a drill is different than accuracy when defeneses are on the field and in the heat of a game, and that as well can't be proven until he's on the field in a game. He also has more questions than just his accuracy and arm strength, at least according to some, but I don't want continue the "Vince bashing" by pointing out other questions on him, so I'll leave it at that.
AustinJB said:
AustinJB said:
Thanks for the thoughtful response, however what I meant to ask was do the pro-Young people also already have a pre-determined opinion of him (Young) that can not/will not be changed?
I surmise by your honest answer to the other question that you would admit that the answer is yes.
Personally I'm a trade down guy, although I waiver about taking Bush. I really don't think Young is what we need. This is not to say I'm anti-Young - he is a special talent and may make me regret my choice once he's in the pros.
It is just my opinion. This isn't directed at you, but thoughtful people can disagree without being pro/anti somebody. Reasonable discourse is fun; proselytizing frequently does more harm to a cause than good.
What about Bush alarms you regarding his durability? I'd understand if Bush had a history of injuries (even the nagging types that DD has encountered). However, Reggie Bush never missed a game in his college career. Not one. Anytime a player steps on the football field, there's a chance of injury. Ced Benson was a very durable runner at UT, but was injured for much of his rookie season. Sometimes a player just has bad luck, and so could Reggie. But there's nothing in his history that would give concern for durability.AustinJB said:
I'm with you on the speed issue. Straight line 40 times are one of the most overrated measurables of a football player (somewhere behind Wunderlich tests). But speed isn't Reggie Bush's greatest asset. It's his ability to make defenders miss and his vision that makes Bush a breakaway threat. That he's fast is one thing. That he can cut and manuver at full speed is what sets Reggie apart. Oh...and his versitility.
I can understand that you would prefer Young because of his upside and that he plays the QB position. NFL history would agree with you, as 7 of the last 8 top selections have been QBs. I can those who would prefer to trade down and take a player at a more pressing need, such as offensive tackle or defensive end. I think we could all concur that the Texans are more than one player away from becoming a contending team. But what I can't understand is dinging Reggie Bush as a football player over phantom concerns like durability and (too much?) speed. That I'll never understand.
Texans_Chick
Utopian Dreamer
Runner said:So you prefer flexible people over tendentious ones. Good luck with that!
On of my pet peeves are people who build a logical case for something, and since they can show the logic is correct they think they are therefore correct. They don't want to admit that while their logic might be flawless, the premises upon which their logic rests might be assumptions rather than facts. It is tedious to try to discuss something with someone who knows something is true because they believe it - especially when that something is a future event.
Exactly.
Many people come up with their point of view and opinion about something, BEFORE they actually try to think through the logic that supports that point of view. Which often leads to silly arguments because they don't realize that is what they are doing. They may have a sense of why they have that point of view, but not really the reasons figured out of why they feel that way. So everything becomes a justification for what their opinion is.
Personally, one of my pet peeves is generalizations in arguments. Even among the pro-Bush, pro-VY, and pro-trade down folks, you can see the nuances of people's beliefs are different. Just as examples....All pro-Bush people aren't blind anti-VY Carr homers, but some are crazily so. All pro-VY people aren't brokeback burnt orange kool-aid drinkers, but some are crazily so.
Making such generalizations is what some people do to troll. That it is more satisfying to some to ad hominem and paint "the other side" with a broad brush because it is what they do to get a reaction. It is what our society has become--rational, reasonable thought that tries to look at different sides of issues gets outshouted by people who make ridiculous generalizations and outrageous statements to get attention. That we even know Skip Bayless' name is a testiment to that. Or see any number of threads where thoughtful posts get lost in a quagmire of silly exaggerated tangential non-fact based arguments about race, religion, college affiliation, and assorted name calling.
AustinJB
Rookie
Runner said:
Okay...understood. I DO have an opinion on VY....but I feel like it has been formed while watching him play in every single game that he has played. However, if he sucks it up...I can admit it and face up to it.
I just wonder if people on the other side (those who think VY doesn't have accuracy or a strong arm) will do the same.
AustinJB said:I just wonder if people on the other side (those who think VY doesn't have accuracy or a strong arm) will do the same.
Very few people have to admit anything on these boards - most of the expertise comes with hindsight and hedging.
Personally I admit that I don't watch enough college football to know what to do with the first 3 rounds of the draft. I don't think I'm qualified to rank the top 100 prospects. That's probably why I'm not too concerned about who we pick - we are pretty sure to get someone who will help this team. I think that the experts on staff know more than I do.
Finally, I'm on record as saying the coaching change will do more to help us than the first pick anyway.
AustinJB
Rookie
Lucky said:
Okay...let me clarify.
I'm not "dinging" Bush for having too much speed. I do question whether or not someone whose main asset is speed and making people miss will be successful. That alone does not make a player successful in the NFL. When I think of people like this, I think of Peter Warrick, etc.
The durability concerns are obviously not based upon past injuries. The concern is that he hardly ever got hit in college. In the NFL, he will not be able to make EVERYONE miss and/or outrun them....therefore he WILL get hit. Can he take these hits? Who knows? He has never really had to in the past. Maybe he can; maybe he can't. I see that as an unknown and risky w/ the #1 pick.
Other backs like Barry Sanders, and more recently Cadillac Williams, were not only fast and elusive w/ smaller bodies (similar to Bush)....they also showed in college that they could run between the tackles, take a pounding, drag tacklers w/ them, and remain healthy. While Bush has stayed healthy throughout his career, I've never seen this from him. Have you? Maybe I'm missing something...admitedly, I didn't watch every USC game.
While posting this, I also feel the need to clarify that I'm not trying to bash Bush just b/c I want VY instead. Before the Rose Bowl when everyone seemed to be clamoring for Bush, I was firmly in the trade-down camp....meaning that I've always had these concerns and was not overly impressed w/ Bush (at least not to the extent that ESPN was.)
Sure, Bush made a lot of tacklers miss. He did find the end zone 41 times in 3 seasons. But, Bush also had over 600 touches over those 3 years. So, more often than not, Reggie was tackled. And got up to play another down every time.AustinJB said:
Maybe he can do the same in the NFL, maybe he can't. But you can say that about any rookie coming into the NFL. So by your definition, all college players enter the NFL with "durability concerns." Including Vince.
Yes, I think you are missing a legit reason for questioning Bush's durability. And if a player's ability to run fast, make defenders miss, and not get hit is a bad thing...then Young's running ability must be discounted, as well. Does that make sense to you? Because I'm not seeing it.AustinJB said: