Question on Reggie Bush

[hollywood_texan]

Can Reggie B pass block?

Not sure, but that is a skill that can be coached and it looks like he has the work ethic to learn it.

I think the question is, what is more valuable, Reggie pass blocking or running a route? You probably work in both.

 

[hollywood_texan]

It amuses me to see people punch holes in Reggie Bush. "Too much money for a RB", or "He doesn't run inside". Yet they want to draft VY, and tie up 2 #1 overall picks in the QB position. Or draft Ferguson and sink that kind of money in the T position.
This guy is the most electrifying player in the nation. Possibly the best prospect ever. He's only 20 - so in 7 seasons he'll still be in his prime. Give the kid a break.

My consolation is that Reggie will be a Texan. Whether or not we win a Super Bowl will not rest with Reggie - it will rest with how well they develop the rest of the team.

Oh - and guys, every other team wants Reggie - don't kid yourself. But I bet Casserly/McNair have told them that unless they back the draft truck up and start unloading, don't even bother. You don't let the 'greatest college prospect ever' go for a 1st this year and a 2nd next year.

Not sure if your posting is a response to me, but I didn't mention Vince Young's name in my post.

But you bring up a point about investing in two #1 picks into the QB position.

Look at this perspective, we are about have two #1's and #4 draft pick sunk into the QB, WR, and RB. Looking from that perspective, if this offense isn't in the top 5 soon, what is the point?

Also, your posting mentions nothing about winning a Super Bowl.

Reggie Bush may be the best back ever, but I would rather win a Super Bowl than have Reggie Bush. Reggie Bush does not guarantee a Super Bowl picture. Most #1 picks don't ever play in a Super Bowl. How many of the best backs ever have played in the Super Bowl? Not many.

 

[Texans_Chick]

Can Reggie B pass block?

It is supposed to be one of his strengths.

 

[MasterC25]

If Reggie Bush is a once in a generation back, why does it apprear that there is no interest in trading up to get him? Or maybe he is that great but he isn't worth the price tag? Think about this, every year in the draft there are running backs in the later rounds that provide decent numbers that can provide probably provide 60% of the production on offense and cost at least a third less. We are going to be paying a premium for Bush yards and mismatches.

Does Reggie Bush fit the within the protypicial model of an NFL system to win Super Bowls? I don't think a team has to have Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl and I think any team that makes it to the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl will have a good enough defense to limit his production.

I have watched Bush on several occassions, twice in person, and it seems he gets a majority of his yardage on the 2 - 3 plays a game. Therefore, I think is average is misleading. I think an interesting stat on Reggie would be his average offensive play when he is under and over 10 yards. I suspect that his average per play when held under 10 yards is around 3 yards per play or lower.

My point is, we are going to be paying max money on a rookie contract for the potential of 2 - 3 big plays per game from Bush with no proven track record of crunch time yards between the tackles.

Just some points to consider because this is not a slam dunk as a lot people make it to seem.

Further, even if Reggie Bush becomes one of the greatest backs of all time, that doesn't mean we will win a Super Bowl.

Take a look around the NFL, proven systems and coaches win Super Bowls, not players. It is the same teams and the same coaches making runs at the Super Bowl with different players.

I hope Kubiak is focusing more on the best system to win a Super Bowl, evaluating the current talent, and getting the talent that fits that system than slobbering all over Reggie Bush like a lot of other people.

A player can be shut down, not a system.

Bush will probably have an amazing career and provide a lot of marketing dollars, but don't confuse that with winning a Super Bowl.

I pay for my season tickets for the hope of winning a Super Bowl, not to watch some guy play running back or post about him petitioning to use #5 in the NFL.

Those 2 or 3 plays he will make he takes them to the house that is 14 to 21 points, your argument is so unreasonable look at any RBs stats that his runs are just under 10 yards there avg. is not oboviusly great. If your a Reggie Bush Hater than just come out and say that, I would give you more respect than trying to tell me 2 or 3 big plays is not that important.

 

[hollywood_texan]

It is supposed to be one of his strengths.

Pass blocking in the PAC-10 will be a little different than in the NFL.

 

[Porky]

If Reggie Bush is a once in a generation back, why does it apprear that there is no interest in trading up to get him? Or maybe he is that great but he isn't worth the price tag? Think about this, every year in the draft there are running backs in the later rounds that provide decent numbers that can provide probably provide 60% of the production on offense and cost at least a third less. We are going to be paying a premium for Bush yards and mismatches.

Does Reggie Bush fit the within the protypicial model of an NFL system to win Super Bowls? I don't think a team has to have Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl and I think any team that makes it to the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl will have a good enough defense to limit his production.

I have watched Bush on several occassions, twice in person, and it seems he gets a majority of his yardage on the 2 - 3 plays a game. Therefore, I think is average is misleading. I think an interesting stat on Reggie would be his average offensive play when he is under and over 10 yards. I suspect that his average per play when held under 10 yards is around 3 yards per play or lower.

My point is, we are going to be paying max money on a rookie contract for the potential of 2 - 3 big plays per game from Bush with no proven track record of crunch time yards between the tackles.

Just some points to consider because this is not a slam dunk as a lot people make it to seem.

Further, even if Reggie Bush becomes one of the greatest backs of all time, that doesn't mean we will win a Super Bowl.

Take a look around the NFL, proven systems and coaches win Super Bowls, not players. It is the same teams and the same coaches making runs at the Super Bowl with different players.

I hope Kubiak is focusing more on the best system to win a Super Bowl, evaluating the current talent, and getting the talent that fits that system than slobbering all over Reggie Bush like a lot of other people.

A player can be shut down, not a system.

Bush will probably have an amazing career and provide a lot of marketing dollars, but don't confuse that with winning a Super Bowl.

I pay for my season tickets for the hope of winning a Super Bowl, not to watch some guy play running back or post about him petitioning to use #5 in the NFL.

I'll agree with you on one point. Reggie Bush does not guarantee a SB. The rest of your post is such a mess, I don't really know where to start. So many fallacies and just flat out wrong points, and I am not into writing books, so I will just leave you with this thought.

Welcome to Houston Reggie!

 

[Runner]

Those 2 or 3 plays he will make he takes them to the house that is 14 to 21 points, your argument is so unreasonable look at any RBs stats that his runs are just under 10 yards there avg. is not oboviusly great. If your a Reggie Bush Hater than just come out and say that, I would give you more respect than trying to tell me 2 or 3 big plays is not that important.

But realistically, what good are a couple of touchdowns if you haven't had 20 carries and 20 clouds of dust up the middle?

 

[MasterC25]

Can Reggie B pass block?

He is actually a good pass blocker as said by many scouts, he just needs to work on technique which will get better with coaching. But as far a pass blocking he is one of the best in the draft because he can read defenses and is tougher than advertise.

 

[El Amigo Invisible]

Not sure, but that is a skill that can be coached and it looks like he has the work ethic to learn it.

I think the question is, what is more valuable, Reggie pass blocking or running a route? You probably work in both.

Texans Chick says that it is one of his strengths. I hope so because Casserely did not sound like he wanted D'Brick and he also said we have adressed the O line problem. DD was not too good at it so I hope RB can be because we wont have a QB for long if he can't. ERRRR.. I mean Sage will be running the offense.

 

[chuckm]

Can Reggie B pass block?

I think that McClain stated last week that Bush is strong in that area ... but if Kubiak's keeping him in to pass block more than a play action pass or two per game, he's using him incorrectly ...

 

[Runner]

I hope so because Casserely did not sound like he wanted D'Brick and he also said we have adressed the O line problem.

I hadn't heard that - he used the past tense? The team thinks one starter and coaching has solved the problem?

That's what I've been hearing, but not from a published source.

This is either a very interesting piece of info, or I'm reading way too much into an off-the-cuff remark.

 

[hollywood_texan]

Those 2 or 3 plays he will make he takes them to the house that is 14 to 21 points, your argument is so unreasonable look at any RBs stats that his runs are just under 10 yards there avg. is not oboviusly great. If your a Reggie Bush Hater than just come out and say that, I would give you more respect than trying to tell me 2 or 3 big plays is not that important.

You are assuming those two three plays will always be touchdowns. If I remeber correctly, he only scored one touchdown in the National Championship game and had three big runs.

I think you are missing my point on the under 10 yards thing. I am sure LenDale White's yards per carry under 10 yards a pop is a lot better than Reggie's while at USC. That is why LenDale White ran on the fourth and short yardage or it was Lienart sneaking with maybe Reggie giving him a push.

I am not a Reggie Bush Hater, I just don't think he is worth max money for three plays a game. That's it.

We don't need Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl.

I do think Reggie Bush is an amazing athelete with a strong work ethic and will probably have an amazing career.

Bottom line, that doesn't mean I want him on my team. It is matter my philosophy about being successful in the NFL.

Proven coaches and systems win or even get to the Super Bowl. If you look at the last 10 years or so, you should be able to see that pattern.

The best runnings backs have a hard time making it to the Super Bowl.

 

[PokerStar]

Casserly and most scouts are not overly fond of D'Brick. He is solid, but his hype machine has worn down and they see him for what he is. Other than that though the Texans are probably pretty happy with how the O-line is. they figure they are in a draft and can get a RT and a G in the 2nd-6th and be fine. Check out the tape of our games, if you know anything about football then you will see why our pass blocking was so bad. Ask a coach about the technique they used on 5-7step drops. It is called jump blocking it sucks. When I was playing football in Arizona in high school our coach had us do that, but only on quick hitches and to set up draws and such. Wow that just made me think I need to get my fat behind in shape, why is we linemen love our steak.

 

[hollywood_texan]

I'll agree with you on one point. Reggie Bush does not guarantee a SB. The rest of your post is such a mess, I don't really know where to start. So many fallacies and just flat out wrong points, and I am not into writing books, so I will just leave you with this thought.

Welcome to Houston Reggie!

Then why post anything at all?

Give me your top 3 fallacies.

I don't think that will require a book.

 

[whiskeyrbl]

If Reggie Bush is a once in a generation back, why does it apprear that there is no interest in trading up to get him? Or maybe he is that great but he isn't worth the price tag? Think about this, every year in the draft there are running backs in the later rounds that provide decent numbers that can provide probably provide 60% of the production on offense and cost at least a third less. We are going to be paying a premium for Bush yards and mismatches.

Does Reggie Bush fit the within the protypicial model of an NFL system to win Super Bowls? I don't think a team has to have Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl and I think any team that makes it to the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl will have a good enough defense to limit his production.

I have watched Bush on several occassions, twice in person, and it seems he gets a majority of his yardage on the 2 - 3 plays a game. Therefore, I think is average is misleading. I think an interesting stat on Reggie would be his average offensive play when he is under and over 10 yards. I suspect that his average per play when held under 10 yards is around 3 yards per play or lower.

My point is, we are going to be paying max money on a rookie contract for the potential of 2 - 3 big plays per game from Bush with no proven track record of crunch time yards between the tackles.

Just some points to consider because this is not a slam dunk as a lot people make it to seem.

Further, even if Reggie Bush becomes one of the greatest backs of all time, that doesn't mean we will win a Super Bowl.

Take a look around the NFL, proven systems and coaches win Super Bowls, not players. It is the same teams and the same coaches making runs at the Super Bowl with different players.

I hope Kubiak is focusing more on the best system to win a Super Bowl, evaluating the current talent, and getting the talent that fits that system than slobbering all over Reggie Bush like a lot of other people.

A player can be shut down, not a system.

Bush will probably have an amazing career and provide a lot of marketing dollars, but don't confuse that with winning a Super Bowl.

I pay for my season tickets for the hope of winning a Super Bowl, not to watch some guy play running back or post about him petitioning to use #5 in the NFL.

After these comments, i suppose that back in the day when the Oilers took Earl Campbell,I guess that was a mistake? I would have liked to have won a SB, but no way I would have passed on Earl, just as I don't think you can pass on Bush.I know two different type runners ,but expect same excitement. There are alot of nay-sayers,can't do this can't do that, well when Earl was a rookie there was a certain LB for the Rams that said there was no way a rookie would run over him,well ....he did(literally).

 

[Vinny]

After these comments, i suppose that back in the day when the Oilers took Earl Campbell,I guess that was a mistake? I would have liked to have won a SB, but no way I would have passed on Earl, just as I don't think you can pass on Bush.I know two different type runners ,but expect same excitement. There are alot of nay-sayers,can't do this can't do that, well when Earl was a rookie there was a certain LB for the Rams that said there was no way a rookie would run over him,well ....he did(literally).

This is a good example of the fact that a RB can be shut down with a scheme. Earl was one of the greatest of all times but a legendary RB can be shut down with a dedicated scheme when you are in the playoffs facing great defenses. Even Earl couldn't carry our team to the big prize.

 

[tulexan]

You are assuming those two three plays will always be touchdowns. If I remeber correctly, he only scored one touchdown in the National Championship game and had three big runs.

I think you are missing my point on the under 10 yards thing. I am sure LenDale White's yards per carry under 10 yards a pop is a lot better than Reggie's while at USC. That is why LenDale White ran on the fourth and short yardage or it was Lienart sneaking with maybe Reggie giving him a push.

I am not a Reggie Bush Hater, I just don't think he is worth max money for three plays a game. That's it.

We don't need Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl.

I do think Reggie Bush is an amazing athelete with a strong work ethic and will probably have an amazing career.

Bottom line, that doesn't mean I want him on my team. It is matter my philosophy about being successful in the NFL.

Proven coaches and systems win or even get to the Super Bowl. If you look at the last 10 years or so, you should be able to see that pattern.

The best runnings backs have a hard time making it to the Super Bowl.

There were several USC games last year where LenDale wasn't getting it done and Reggie had to take over. Fresno State, Notre Dame, even UCLA in the first half are a few examples. LenDale played great in the second half of the UCLA game because USC was winning by 30 or so points and Reggie didn't even play in the second half. He probably could have broken LT's single game rushing record that game if they wanted to, but Carroll likes to spread the wealth and give everyone their fair share.

 

[hollywood_texan]

There were several USC games last year where LenDale wasn't getting it done and Reggie had to take over. Fresno State, Notre Dame, even UCLA in the first half are a few examples. LenDale played great in the second half of the UCLA game because USC was winning by 30 or so points and Reggie didn't even play in the second half. He probably could have broken LT's single game rushing record that game if they wanted to, but Carroll likes to spread the wealth and give everyone their fair share.

The UCLA game really doesn't count because USC was all over them from the beginning.

As for Fresno State, that was just a shoot out with little defense.

I didn't watch the Notre Dame game.

Reggie Bush had a spectacular career at USC and desevered the win the Heisman when it was voted on (meaning if they would have voted after the Rose Bowl it probably would have went to Vince, but that is not how it is done, and I am not suggesting they change it).

Philosophically, I am not sold on drafting a running back at #1. I would prefer to trade down and not expect someone to sell the farm for the trade. Just get out of it take what you can get and build the interior lines on either side of the ball. There is a lot of talent out there is year in the top 6 picks or so to do that. We could have won several of those games late in the season and could be sitting at 6 or 7 instead of #1.

Reggie Bush will probably have a spectacular career, and the Texans don't have to him to be successful.

I think the Patriots and Steelers are so successful because they have interchangeable parts because they select personnel to fit a system.

I hope Kubiak is working on building a Super Bowl system that can work with or without Reggie Bush. All the talk about Reggie Bush gives me the impression that building a Super Bowl system is not the focus.

I want to go to Super Bowl and relish a Texans victory.

 

[Porky]

Then why post anything at all?

Give me your top 3 fallacies.

I don't think that will require a book.

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan
If Reggie Bush is a once in a generation back, why does it apprear that there is no interest in trading up to get him? Or maybe he is that great but he isn't worth the price tag? Think about this, every year in the draft there are running backs in the later rounds that provide decent numbers that can provide probably provide 60% of the production on offense and cost at least a third less. We are going to be paying a premium for Bush yards and mismatches.

***You will pay a premium for any great player. So are you suggesting we draft a lot of average players so we don't have to pay a premium. Totally baseless and silly argument.

Does Reggie Bush fit the within the protypicial model of an NFL system to win Super Bowls? I don't think a team has to have Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl and I think any team that makes it to the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl will have a good enough defense to limit his production.

***I don't disagree that a great defense can limit a great player, but stop one? Doubtful. Still, if he isn't your only playmaker, guess what? The D concentrating all of their efforts on stopping Bush, or whomever, will simply open up other opportunities for our other playmakers. Don't you think Tenn tried to stop Marshall Faulk in the SB? Sure, but that also opened up stuff for their great WR's. It isn't about one person, something you fail to account for. One person like this can dictate what the D can do to the other 10 players.

I have watched Bush on several occassions, twice in person, and it seems he gets a majority of his yardage on the 2 - 3 plays a game. Therefore, I think is average is misleading. I think an interesting stat on Reggie would be his average offensive play when he is under and over 10 yards. I suspect that his average per play when held under 10 yards is around 3 yards per play or lower.

**You could say the exact same thing about nearly every great big play RB. Take Barry Sanders. The D would stop him for a 2 yrd loss, then he might make 3, then the next play, he rips one for 25 yards. This argument is easily your most silly. It makes zero sense. So, if Tom Brady throws 4 passes and makes 5 yards a pass, then on the 5th, throws a bomb for 50 yards, somehow we erase the 50 because he doesn't get that every time? That's the whole point. While other backs get 4, 4, 5, 2, and 3, Bush will get that then rip off 50 yards. Big plays change the entire complexion of the game...not too mention his versatility.

My point is, we are going to be paying max money on a rookie contract for the potential of 2 - 3 big plays per game from Bush with no proven track record of crunch time yards between the tackles.

**You might have a point there, but if Bush runs off a couple of big plays to put you ahead, you might not need someone to run off time on the clock. You are putting the cart before the horse. Without a stud to get us the lead, how are we supposed to protect one?


Just some points to consider because this is not a slam dunk as a lot people make it to seem.

Further, even if Reggie Bush becomes one of the greatest backs of all time, that doesn't mean we will win a Super Bowl.

**Nothing is guaranteed, but I guess could have been said of Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, John Elway, Emmit Smith, Tom Brady, Walter Peyton, et al. One player doesn't win it by himself, he needs help. But without great players, you have almost no chance. So, your solution is to draft a bunch of nobody's. Nice.

Take a look around the NFL, proven systems and coaches win Super Bowls, not players. It is the same teams and the same coaches making runs at the Super Bowl with different players.

**Now you have gone off the deep end. Payers don't win super bowls. That will be a shock to John Elway, and a bunch of other guys. Maybe we should just draft a bunch of kids off the local chess club. Ridicioulous statement.

I hope Kubiak is focusing more on the best system to win a Super Bowl, evaluating the current talent, and getting the talent that fits that system than slobbering all over Reggie Bush like a lot of other people.

**Again, major fallacy. Players win. Period. Coaches are there to get the most from the talent they have. Systems don't win jack squat, players do. Ridicoulous statement.

A player can be shut down, not a system.

**Wrong. Systems can be shut down or limited too. See Pittsburgh vs. Indy circa Jan 2006. You have to be willing to change on the fly if thats what it takes. And while great players can be limited, most can never be shut down completely, and as stated above, that just opens up the rest of the offense.

Bush will probably have an amazing career and provide a lot of marketing dollars, but don't confuse that with winning a Super Bowl.

**Who is? Not me.

I pay for my season tickets for the hope of winning a Super Bowl, not to watch some guy play running back or post about him petitioning to use #5 in the NFL.

**Stupid statement. No need to comment further.

 

[wags]

This is a good example of the fact that a RB can be shut down with a scheme.

QB's can be shut down as well. Manning consistently picks teams apart and the Steelers schemed against him fairly well.

 

[hollywood_texan]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan
If Reggie Bush is a once in a generation back, why does it apprear that there is no interest in trading up to get him? Or maybe he is that great but he isn't worth the price tag? Think about this, every year in the draft there are running backs in the later rounds that provide decent numbers that can provide probably provide 60% of the production on offense and cost at least a third less. We are going to be paying a premium for Bush yards and mismatches.

***You will pay a premium for any great player. So are you suggesting we draft a lot of average players so we don't have to pay a premium. Totally baseless and silly argument.

Does Reggie Bush fit the within the protypicial model of an NFL system to win Super Bowls? I don't think a team has to have Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl and I think any team that makes it to the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl will have a good enough defense to limit his production.

***I don't disagree that a great defense can limit a great player, but stop one? Doubtful. Still, if he isn't your only playmaker, guess what? The D concentrating all of their efforts on stopping Bush, or whomever, will simply open up other opportunities for our other playmakers. Don't you think Tenn tried to stop Marshall Faulk in the SB? Sure, but that also opened up stuff for their great WR's. It isn't about one person, something you fail to account for. One person like this can dictate what the D can do to the other 10 players.

I have watched Bush on several occassions, twice in person, and it seems he gets a majority of his yardage on the 2 - 3 plays a game. Therefore, I think is average is misleading. I think an interesting stat on Reggie would be his average offensive play when he is under and over 10 yards. I suspect that his average per play when held under 10 yards is around 3 yards per play or lower.

**You could say the exact same thing about nearly every great big play RB. Take Barry Sanders. The D would stop him for a 2 yrd loss, then he might make 3, then the next play, he rips one for 25 yards. This argument is easily your most silly. It makes zero sense. So, if Tom Brady throws 4 passes and makes 5 yards a pass, then on the 5th, throws a bomb for 50 yards, somehow we erase the 50 because he doesn't get that every time? That's the whole point. While other backs get 4, 4, 5, 2, and 3, Bush will get that then rip off 50 yards. Big plays change the entire complexion of the game...not too mention his versatility.

My point is, we are going to be paying max money on a rookie contract for the potential of 2 - 3 big plays per game from Bush with no proven track record of crunch time yards between the tackles.

**You might have a point there, but if Bush runs off a couple of big plays to put you ahead, you might not need someone to run off time on the clock. You are putting the cart before the horse. Without a stud to get us the lead, how are we supposed to protect one?


Just some points to consider because this is not a slam dunk as a lot people make it to seem.

Further, even if Reggie Bush becomes one of the greatest backs of all time, that doesn't mean we will win a Super Bowl.

**Nothing is guaranteed, but I guess could have been said of Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, John Elway, Emmit Smith, Tom Brady, Walter Peyton, et al. One player doesn't win it by himself, he needs help. But without great players, you have almost no chance. So, your solution is to draft a bunch of nobody's. Nice.

Take a look around the NFL, proven systems and coaches win Super Bowls, not players. It is the same teams and the same coaches making runs at the Super Bowl with different players.

**Now you have gone off the deep end. Payers don't win super bowls. That will be a shock to John Elway, and a bunch of other guys. Maybe we should just draft a bunch of kids off the local chess club. Ridicioulous statement.

I hope Kubiak is focusing more on the best system to win a Super Bowl, evaluating the current talent, and getting the talent that fits that system than slobbering all over Reggie Bush like a lot of other people.

**Again, major fallacy. Players win. Period. Coaches are there to get the most from the talent they have. Systems don't win jack squat, players do. Ridicoulous statement.

A player can be shut down, not a system.

**Wrong. Systems can be shut down or limited too. See Pittsburgh vs. Indy circa Jan 2006. You have to be willing to change on the fly if thats what it takes. And while great players can be limited, most can never be shut down completely, and as stated above, that just opens up the rest of the offense.

Bush will probably have an amazing career and provide a lot of marketing dollars, but don't confuse that with winning a Super Bowl.

**Who is? Not me.

I pay for my season tickets for the hope of winning a Super Bowl, not to watch some guy play running back or post about him petitioning to use #5 in the NFL.

**Stupid statement. No need to comment further.

Well, I got what I asked for.

I am not sure how my statement about paying season tickets for a Super Bowl winner is stupid? Maybe your point is that everyone expects that, so why state it? If that is it, point taken, but with some of the stuff I read I feel like we lose the forest from the trees on this board.

Pittsburgh has a better system than Indy. That is the point. The Pittsburgh defense figured out Payton Manning and he didn't adjust. Payton calls all the plays and Pittsburgh gave him certain packages so Manning would call certain plays. The Pittsburgh coaching staff and system beat the explosive Indy offense that relies on mismatches and individual talent. That game was lost by Indy in the week of preparation and not adjusting during the game.

Players do have to win the games. But if systems and coaches are not more important, then why isn't the same teams/coaches winning year and year out and competing for the Super Bowl? Then why did we fire Capers if the players are more important, maybe with your rationale we should have fired the players?

My point about Bush is he is too expensive in my opinion to draft at #1 for the Houston Texans. We already have Davis. Yes, I think Bush is better than Davis in that he has more explosive ability and has more total upside, but I think it is overkill. You don't need it at that price. That is really my point, this is overkill with all the other talent out there. There are tougher positions to field because of talent level, left tackle and middle linebacker as examples.

You mention Marshall Faulk and the Rams and their explosive offense. They barely beat the Titans but was great victory nonetheless. But, a great coach with a great system/gameplan shut them down in their next Super Bowl. My point, explosive offenses that feed off of mismatches have a hard time winning the Super Bowl. It happens from time to time, but those teams struggle in the playoffs but do great in the regular season, which makes it a little misleading.

You alway mention John Elway. He didn't win a Super Bowl until a coach came in put in a pounding running game that Terrell Davis just exploded on. I believe Terrell Davis was selected in the 5th or 6th round. So, I would attribute John Elway's Super Bowl rings to a coach and winning system. As great as Elway was, he needed help.

I think you have to pay a premium from time to time, and you have to find value as well. The trick is paying for it at the right time and the right price.

We probably both agree that Reggie Bush had an amazing career at USC and will probably have a great career in the NFL. I think where we part is how much is he worth.

Also, I think our philosophies on the NFL are little different. I would prefer to go the route of the Patriots, Steelers, and Broncos, build a system and select players that fit that system and don't get distracted if some player is great but doesn't fit the plan if he is too expensive.

Lastly, you metion my most silly arguement is the average under/over 10 yards. My point is moving the chains on a consistent basis. For example, it is late in the fourth quarter and your offense needs to make one more first down to seal the game. How is that silly? If you can consistently run the football at 3 yards plus, then you theoritically, you will be sitting at around 3 and 3 almost every time. That's my point as well as crunch time yardage.

From you reponse I don't have any fallacies, and neither do you.

We just differ on philosophical styles.

 

[infantrycak]

I hadn't heard that - he used the past tense? The team thinks one starter and coaching has solved the problem?

That's what I've been hearing, but not from a published source.

This is either a very interesting piece of info, or I'm reading way too much into an off-the-cuff remark.

IMO that is being overreported. I took Casserly's comment as they were not considering Ferguson at #1 and the new staff felt the players currently on the roster could play significantly better with the new schemes being put in place. IMO he was not making an exclusionary statement that they would not be drafting any OLmen in the draft--just eliminating Ferguson at #1.

 

[Porky]

Well, I got what I asked for.

I am not sure how my statement about paying season tickets for a Super Bowl winner is stupid? Maybe your point is that everyone expects that, so why state it? If that is it, point taken, but with some of the stuff I read I feel like we lose the forest from the trees on this board.

The reason I said it's stupid is because you seem to state that the two (having Bush, winning a SB) are somehow mutually exclusive. As if having a great player like Bush somehow makes it less likely we win a SB. I have never heard of anything quite so outlandish before. So, in theory we are more likely to win a SB with Johnathen Wells and 3 yards and a clould of dust because he can get 3 yards when it counts? Jjust because Bush is explosive doesn't mean he can't get the tough yards. And as I say, you actually have to get a lead in order to protect it late. A player like Bush transends a system. You are out of your ever lovin mind if you don't think Bill Billichek wouldn't give his left nad to have a player of Bush's calibur.

 

[hollywood_texan]

The reason I said it's stupid is because you seem to state that the two (having Bush, winning a SB) are somehow mutually exclusive. As if having a great player like Bush somehow makes it less likely we win a SB. I have never heard of anything quite so outlandish before. So, in theory we are more likely to win a SB with Johnathen Wells and 3 yards and a clould of dust because he can get 3 yards when it counts? Jjust because Bush is explosive doesn't mean he can't get the tough yards. And as I say, you actually have to get a lead in order to protect it late. A player like Bush transends a system. You are out of your ever lovin mind if you don't think Bill Billichek wouldn't give his left nad to have a player of Bush's calibur.

I re-read my posts and I didn't say anything to effect of getting Bush means not winning the Super Bowl. Your are right, that is crazy. It seems to me from my perspective you are tyring to read certain things into my comments and are totally set on drafting Bush. I have a certain philosophy on the best chances of winning a Super Bowl, no sense in retyping it.

Your characterization of my theory isn't accurate. I never mentioned Johnathen Wells as an example, my point is to follow a proven system not some player. I used the Denver Broncos and the Pittsburgh Steelers to follow for establishing a running game. Take it between the tackles. I believe that is where games are won and lost, especially in the beginning of the game because sets the tempo.

You use the word "transcend" to describe Bush and his position in a system or his superior talents that he is better than any system he is in. That concerns me, the NFL is a team sport where the talent level is not too far apart from team to team (even with or without Reggie Bush), which is where coaching and the system come in and why it so important.

What do you mean by Bellichek would give his left nad for Bush? Give me your opinion of what he would trade to get into the #1 spot. Because I would like to know what your thinking so I can see if I am "out of" my "ever lovin mind." If everyone wants Bush so much, why don't we hear about it?

 

[MasterC25]

You are assuming those two three plays will always be touchdowns. If I remeber correctly, he only scored one touchdown in the National Championship game and had three big runs.

I think you are missing my point on the under 10 yards thing. I am sure LenDale White's yards per carry under 10 yards a pop is a lot better than Reggie's while at USC. That is why LenDale White ran on the fourth and short yardage or it was Lienart sneaking with maybe Reggie giving him a push.

I am not a Reggie Bush Hater, I just don't think he is worth max money for three plays a game. That's it.

We don't need Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl.

I do think Reggie Bush is an amazing athelete with a strong work ethic and will probably have an amazing career.

Bottom line, that doesn't mean I want him on my team. It is matter my philosophy about being successful in the NFL.

Proven coaches and systems win or even get to the Super Bowl. If you look at the last 10 years or so, you should be able to see that pattern.

The best runnings backs have a hard time making it to the Super Bowl.

Yeah Emmitt, Walter, Franco and Marcus Allen really had trouble getting to the Super Bowl. Barry brought the Lions single-handling into the playoffs and we know had bad of a team they had.

 

[hollywood_texan]

IMO that is being overreported. I took Casserly's comment as they were not considering Ferguson at #1 and the new staff felt the players currently on the roster could play significantly better with the new schemes being put in place. IMO he was not making an exclusionary statement that they would not be drafting any OLmen in the draft--just eliminating Ferguson at #1.

What does IMO mean?

I think there is another one IMFO or something.

Does it mean "It is my opinion..." That seems to work when applying to the statement above.

Please let me know on this thread. I know this isn't the place but just curious.

 

[hollywood_texan]

Yeah Emmitt, Walter, Franco and Marcus Allen really had trouble getting to the Super Bowl. Barry brought the Lions single-handling into the playoffs and we know had bad of a team they had.

I think Emmitt, Walter, and Franco were in great systems. Not really sure about Allen and that Raider team.

But Emmitt, Walter, and Franco had great offensive lines and stiffling defenses on the other side of the ball that helped them out a lot. We don't have those two things right now. Also had some great coaching.

 

[infantrycak]

What does IMO mean?

IMO--in my opinion
JMO--just my opinion

 

[Texansfan30]

Well, I got what I asked for.

I am not sure how my statement about paying season tickets for a Super Bowl winner is stupid? Maybe your point is that everyone expects that, so why state it? If that is it, point taken, but with some of the stuff I read I feel like we lose the forest from the trees on this board.

Pittsburgh has a better system than Indy. That is the point. The Pittsburgh defense figured out Payton Manning and he didn't adjust. Payton calls all the plays and Pittsburgh gave him certain packages so Manning would call certain plays. The Pittsburgh coaching staff and system beat the explosive Indy offense that relies on mismatches and individual talent. That game was lost by Indy in the week of preparation and not adjusting during the game.

Players do have to win the games. But if systems and coaches are not more important, then why isn't the same teams/coaches winning year and year out and competing for the Super Bowl? Then why did we fire Capers if the players are more important, maybe with your rationale we should have fired the players?

My point about Bush is he is too expensive in my opinion to draft at #1 for the Houston Texans. We already have Davis. Yes, I think Bush is better than Davis in that he has more explosive ability and has more total upside, but I think it is overkill. You don't need it at that price. That is really my point, this is overkill with all the other talent out there. There are tougher positions to field because of talent level, left tackle and middle linebacker as examples.

You mention Marshall Faulk and the Rams and their explosive offense. They barely beat the Titans but was great victory nonetheless. But, a great coach with a great system/gameplan shut them down in their next Super Bowl. My point, explosive offenses that feed off of mismatches have a hard time winning the Super Bowl. It happens from time to time, but those teams struggle in the playoffs but do great in the regular season, which makes it a little misleading.

You alway mention John Elway. He didn't win a Super Bowl until a coach came in put in a pounding running game that Terrell Davis just exploded on. I believe Terrell Davis was selected in the 5th or 6th round. So, I would attribute John Elway's Super Bowl rings to a coach and winning system. As great as Elway was, he needed help.

I think you have to pay a premium from time to time, and you have to find value as well. The trick is paying for it at the right time and the right price.

We probably both agree that Reggie Bush had an amazing career at USC and will probably have a great career in the NFL. I think where we part is how much is he worth.

Also, I think our philosophies on the NFL are little different. I would prefer to go the route of the Patriots, Steelers, and Broncos, build a system and select players that fit that system and don't get distracted if some player is great but doesn't fit the plan if he is too expensive.

Lastly, you metion my most silly arguement is the average under/over 10 yards. My point is moving the chains on a consistent basis. For example, it is late in the fourth quarter and your offense needs to make one more first down to seal the game. How is that silly? If you can consistently run the football at 3 yards plus, then you theoritically, you will be sitting at around 3 and 3 almost every time. That's my point as well as crunch time yardage.

From you reponse I don't have any fallacies, and neither do you.

We just differ on philosophical styles.

I have to jump in here and offer an opinion. Your attitude seems to be 'don't draft explosive players, because they can be stifled by the right game plan'.

Indy was beaten by Pittsburgh, IMO, because Pittsburgh played an incredible game, gameplanned them perfectly, and went on to the Super Bowl. Yet you conveniently forget the fact that they BARELY beat them, and if that CB makes one more cut, Indy goes on and Pitt goes home. What's more, if that CB hadn't been stabbed by his girlfriend, maybe he scores anyway. And if the Indy kicker didn't choke, maybe Indy wins.

In the end, players and coaches win the championships, and gameplanning, adjustments, etc - are very, very important. Belichick has proven that he can win with Brady and good players because of his system. Other coaches maybe need more talent than Belichick does. However, that doesn't mean that you shy away from talent. You need talent AND coaching.

All of the 'Trade Down' crowd seems to take it for granted that someone will back the truck up and start unloading draft picks/players to us for Reggie Bush. I think that's unrealistic. As badly as those other teams want him, they aren't going to pony up a Minnesota Vikings or New Orleans Saints deal. You're not going to get a deal that gives a #1 this year, #1 next year, #2 this year, #3 next year kind of trade. The only teams that would do that are far enough down the draft order so that their #1's aren't worth that much.

Everybody sit down and take off the Rose colored glasses and take a deep breath. Personally, I wouldn't touch a RB other than Reggie Bush in this draft. If he had stayed in school, I wouldn't hesitate to take Mario Williams. We don't need VY, and we don't 'need' a RB. We are taking Reggie Bush because he is SPECIAL.

I would love to see the quotes of the anti-Bush people if we win a SB with him. (And by anti-Bush I mean those who don't want to draft him - not implying you 'hate' him or anything)

 

[Bayern]

If everyone wants Bush so much, why don't we hear about it?

Jesus man, do you really think any of us would KNOW about it if other teams wanted him?

Thats kind of showing your cards prematurely don't you think?

I don't think there is a team in the NFL that isn't high on Bush to a certain extent. Of course whether they'd be willing to offer us due compensation for the pick is the million dollar question. I guarantee you come the 29th, there will be several offers to move up for him.

 

[Porky]

I re-read my posts and I didn't say anything to effect of getting Bush means not winning the Super Bowl.

Hollywood Texan then:

We don't need Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl.

The best runnings backs have a hard time making it to the Super Bowl.

Hollywood Texan now:

I didn't say anything to effect of getting Bush means not winning the Super Bowl.

You make the call.

 

[hollywood_texan]

I have to jump in here and offer an opinion. Your attitude seems to be 'don't draft explosive players, because they can be stifled by the right game plan'.

Indy was beaten by Pittsburgh, IMO, because Pittsburgh played an incredible game, gameplanned them perfectly, and went on to the Super Bowl. Yet you conveniently forget the fact that they BARELY beat them, and if that CB makes one more cut, Indy goes on and Pitt goes home. What's more, if that CB hadn't been stabbed by his girlfriend, maybe he scores anyway. And if the Indy kicker didn't choke, maybe Indy wins.

In the end, players and coaches win the championships, and gameplanning, adjustments, etc - are very, very important. Belichick has proven that he can win with Brady and good players because of his system. Other coaches maybe need more talent than Belichick does. However, that doesn't mean that you shy away from talent. You need talent AND coaching.

All of the 'Trade Down' crowd seems to take it for granted that someone will back the truck up and start unloading draft picks/players to us for Reggie Bush. I think that's unrealistic. As badly as those other teams want him, they aren't going to pony up a Minnesota Vikings or New Orleans Saints deal. You're not going to get a deal that gives a #1 this year, #1 next year, #2 this year, #3 next year kind of trade. The only teams that would do that are far enough down the draft order so that their #1's aren't worth that much.

Everybody sit down and take off the Rose colored glasses and take a deep breath. Personally, I wouldn't touch a RB other than Reggie Bush in this draft. If he had stayed in school, I wouldn't hesitate to take Mario Williams. We don't need VY, and we don't 'need' a RB. We are taking Reggie Bush because he is SPECIAL.

I would love to see the quotes of the anti-Bush people if we win a SB with him. (And by anti-Bush I mean those who don't want to draft him - not implying you 'hate' him or anything)

Pittsburgh almost lost that game because the person who called that running play should have just had Big Ben just take a knee. As good as their defense was playing, why take that chance? When they set up to not take a knee I started to laugh because I had a feeling something was going to happen. If you ever wonder why Buddy Ryan took that shot at Gilbride (I think that was the offensive coordinator) for running the Chuck in Duck inside Houston's 30 with less than 30 seconds to half during the last game of the season, now you know why. If Buddy would have been the defensive coordinator for the Steelers that day, he would have been laying mushroom clouds all of over the RCA Dome.

Pittsburgh almost lost that game because they forgot who put them in control, their defense.

I agree with you on these blockbuster trades, they are just not going to happen.

I believe we can win a Super Bowl with Reggie Bush, but I think Reggie Bush is too expensive and doesn't fit the best type of system that gives you the best chance to win the Super Bowl.

My main point though is that he will be too expensive for the value in return compared to other players on the roster and what can be drafted in later rounds, more bang for your buck if you will.

I would like him a #5 or #6 in terms of dollars. Think of it as return on investment. The same return in dollars compared to a larger investment will a yield higher return.

 

[hollywood_texan]

Hollywood Texan then:

We don't need Reggie Bush to win a Super Bowl.

The best runnings backs have a hard time making it to the Super Bowl.Hollywood Texan now:

I didn't say anything to effect of getting Bush means not winning the Super Bowl.

You make the call.

"We don't need Reggis Bush to win a Super Bowl." That means we can win a Super Bowl with or without him. IMO, it will be easier with out him if we pick him at #1 in the draft because of salary cap issues that will proceed next year with Andre Johnson that will ripple through the entire roster.

The best best running backs have a hard time making it to the Super Bowl. That means less likely for it too happen, or the best running backs don't have any advantage over any other player in making the Super Bowl.

Neither of those statements with explanations say it will not happen.

Maybe I am not writing clearly enough or just don't comprehend the statements.

 

[Texans86]

"We don't need Reggis Bush to win a Super Bowl." That means we can win a Super Bowl with or without him. IMO, it will be easier with out him if we pick him at #1 in the draft because of salary cap issues that will proceed next year with Andre Johnson that will ripple through the entire roster.

The best best running backs have a hard time making it to the Super Bowl. That means less likely for it too happen, or the best running backs don't have any advantage over any other player in making the Super Bowl.

Neither of those statements with explanations say it will not happen.

Maybe I am not writing clearly enough or just don't comprehend the statements.

Someone tell Alexander he's not one of the best runningbacks. Pass that on to Jerome Bettis, Terrell Davis, Corey Dillon, and Marshall Faulk while you're at it. Only two starting running backs make the Super Bowl each year. Only one wins it. That means there are at least 31 running backs who don't win a Super Bowl. There are also 31 quarterbacks who don't win. The Denver offense that won the Super Bowl revolved around Terrell Davis and John Elway. Both were necessary and helped each other. Running the ball gave Elway time, and passing helped create some running lanes.

Almost every great offense has a great quarterback and a great running back. We have a chance to land a running back with huge potential that could make an impact this year. We also have a quarterback who only two years ago put up around 3500 yards with a mediocre offense. DD is a solid back, no one doubts that. But how much better can we be with AJ, Moulds, Putzier (and maybe even that other TE Joppru), DD, and Bush. That is leaps and bounds ahead of AJ, Bradford, Bruener/Miller, and DD/Wells. Also, that 3500 came with a defensive minded coach and not much of an O-Line. We have tremendous potential on our offense.

Great Running Backs do help lead teams to the Super Bowl, if only in the fact that they give their quarterback more time to throw. Again I refer to the fact that last season's rushing leader, and new season TD record holder lead the Seahawks to the Super Bowl only three months ago.

 

[hollywood_texan]

Someone tell Alexander he's not one of the best runningbacks. Pass that on to Jerome Bettis, Terrell Davis, Corey Dillon, and Marshall Faulk while you're at it. Only two starting running backs make the Super Bowl each year. Only one wins it. That means there are at least 31 running backs who don't win a Super Bowl. There are also 31 quarterbacks who don't win. The Denver offense that won the Super Bowl revolved around Terrell Davis and John Elway. Both were necessary and helped each other. Running the ball gave Elway time, and passing helped create some running lanes.

Almost every great offense has a great quarterback and a great running back. We have a chance to land a running back with huge potential that could make an impact this year. We also have a quarterback who only two years ago put up around 3500 yards with a mediocre offense. DD is a solid back, no one doubts that. But how much better can we be with AJ, Moulds, Putzier (and maybe even that other TE Joppru), DD, and Bush. That is leaps and bounds ahead of AJ, Bradford, Bruener/Miller, and DD/Wells. Also, that 3500 came with a defensive minded coach and not much of an O-Line. We have tremendous potential on our offense.

Great Running Backs do help lead teams to the Super Bowl, if only in the fact that they give their quarterback more time to throw. Again I refer to the fact that last season's rushing leader, and new season TD record holder lead the Seahawks to the Super Bowl only three months ago.

None of those running backs were taken #1 in the draft.

4 of those 5 running backs had their coach take a team previously to the Super Bowl.

My point is, coaching and the system are more important than drafting Reggie Bush at #1. We can do this with him or without him.

IMO we can do it easier without him because of extra draft picks if we trade down and we can develop a system that has interchangeable parts that doesn't rely on a once in a lifetime talent.

Also, IMO Reggie Bush is too expensive at the #1 pick. His contract is going to be huge!

 

[infantrycak]

My point is, coaching and the system are more important than drafting Reggie Bush at #1. We can do this with him or without him.

IMO we can do it easier without him because of extra draft picks if we trade down and we can develop a system that has interchangeable parts that doesn't rely on a once in a lifetime talent.

Also, IMO Reggie Bush is too expensive at the #1 pick. His contract is going to be huge!

OK, the same can be said of every single position on the team. Let's reduce this to fundamentals--are you saying trading down is so much more important the Texans should do it no matter how low the offer they receive? If not, they need to have a plan for staying in place. That plan should be to take bpa or in this year's draft--Reggie Bush, Vince Young or maybe Mario Williams.

 

[Nighthawk]

First off, it's pretty obvious the Texans aren't going to draft VY. So, that brings us to Bush whom most think we will take. Some of those NFL scouts that have been ranting and raving about him also say that his main drawback is not being able to run between the tackles due to lack of size and durability. Is this a pretty common assesment?

I think Bush will be a bust in the NFL. I just don't see his skill set transferring to the majors. Everything that's good about him relies on the other players being slower and less agile and I don't think that's the NFL.

Mind you, even as a bust he'll be a decent player, but he will not be head and shoulders above D. Davis, for example.

 

[hollywood_texan]

OK, the same can be said of every single position on the team. Let's reduce this to fundamentals--are you saying trading down is so much more important the Texans should do it no matter how low the offer they receive? If not, they need to have a plan for staying in place. That plan should be to take bpa or in this year's draft--Reggie Bush, Vince Young or maybe Mario Williams.

I don't think we should give the pick away, likewise I don't think we should expect to have someone give up the house. So to answer question, I don't think we should trade down at any cost. Get value somewhere in the middle.

I think the most important thing is what they are say they are doing. Keep all the options open and seeing what is best for the team.

Understand what all the options cost and evaluate them accordingly. There are a lot of good players available in the top 6 or 7 that could provide an immediate impact for the team, which seems to make this draft unusual and an opportunity for us.

For example, trade down, get some extra value, pay less money for the first pick and still get an impact starter. I don't know the exact value amounts, but I think you have to look at the options, compare that to what Kubiak has in his plans and provides the most value and/or bang for the buck (also meaning salary cap implications).

And I will admit it, I am skeptical taking a running back as the #1 pick, I don't care who it is. I am between the tackles guy.

Also, what if picking the best player for the team is not the best player available in the draft? Just something to think about. I really don't subscribe to the best player in the draft theory because of that thought.

I am not against Bush or that I think he will be a bust (actually I think he will have great career), I just think there is probably a better option if you get creative with this thing. It's like this thing is tunnel vision for the past six months and there seem to be some great opportunities out there.

But I will say this, if I was in the organization and I was in the decision process and someone laid out all the options, taking Reggie Bush or trading down and getting another impact player with additional value, and they showed how Reggie Bush #1 fits the system the best than the other option, I would say go for Reggie.

You have to compare all your options, which seems like some people on this board aren't willing to talk about.

I tried to bring the topic up and I was told am silly or whatever.

 

[RickDenver]

The worst argument on this thread is that Bush is to expensive for the #1 Pick. No matter who you take Young, D'Brick, or Williams as the #1 Pick they will want last years #1 plus money. That is the way the NFL works.

Secondly the whole between the tackles runner is code for slow heavy runners like Bettis, Lendale White, Allstott, or any FB.

Terrell Davis made his yards on the toss sweep then cutting it up the field around the hashes. He weighed around 215-220. There is no reason that Bush can not weight the same in a couple of years. Just like Tiki Barber, Warrick Dunn, Reggie Bush will be perfectly fine running up the Middle. Also little known fact is that Kubiak is the one that told Shanahan to draft Davis. So he has an eye for RB talent.

I do believe that Coaches Systems are important as long as there are players that fit the system. So lets just let Kubiak get his system in place and see what players he decides to use.

 

[hollywood_texan]

The worst argument on this thread is that Bush is to expensive for the #1 Pick. No matter who you take Young, D'Brick, or Williams as the #1 Pick they will want last years #1 plus money. That is the way the NFL works.

Secondly the whole between the tackles runner is code for slow heavy runners like Bettis, Lendale White, Allstott, or any FB.

Terrell Davis made his yards on the toss sweep then cutting it up the field around the hashes. He weighed around 215-220. There is no reason that Bush can not weight the same in a couple of years. Just like Tiki Barber, Warrick Dunn, Reggie Bush will be perfectly fine running up the Middle. Also little known fact is that Kubiak is the one that told Shanahan to draft Davis. So he has an eye for RB talent.

I do believe that Coaches Systems are important as long as there are players that fit the system. So lets just let Kubiak get his system in place and see what players he decides to use.

How much we pay is important because it sets market price for other players on the team, think about Andre Johnson and he needs a new contract, which then impacts the salary cap.

Let's say we like Bush, Ferguson, and Williams on our draft board for the first round at #4. Trade with the Jets, they take Leinart, Young, or Cutler. You see, we will still get a player that provides great value for the team immediately, we pay less money, and we get compensated to trade down. Maybe Bush is still available. That would be a great a move and with the other guys on our draft board that will be available, maybe it is worth the risk.

You are right, there seems to be an increase from the previous year, but that doesn't mean can't make it work better if we get creative like the above senario.

Paying north of $55 million for 5 years seems excessive.

 

[infantrycak]

You have to compare all your options, which seems like some people on this board aren't willing to talk about.

If you look at my posts, you will find me firmly in the consider all options camp. I have no problem with trading down if the value is reasonable even if it is under the chart. I have problems with passing on talent at #1 and with trading down no matter the value. We were looking a lot better for this discussion before New Orleans signed Brees, not because Bush isn't worth a #1 but because the teams just under us (i.e. able to pay a reasonable price) need QB's, DE's and LT's much more than they need RB's.

 

[Tejaspro]

I think Bush will be a bust in the NFL. I just don't see his skill set transferring to the majors. Everything that's good about him relies on the other players being slower and less agile and I don't think that's the NFL.

Mind you, even as a bust he'll be a decent player, but he will not be head and shoulders above D. Davis, for example.

Don't think so much. It's painful to watch. (Just joking, don't get upset)

Very few people would agree with you. In fact, I don't know of anyone that believes that Bush will be a bust. If that were true, all of the prognastocators predicting the draft would not have him listed as the #1 player in the draft. As far as "everything that's good about him relies on the other players being slower and less agile"... with that yardstick, you could substitute any player's name into the same sentence and come up with the same statement.... i.e., Vince Young?, yep, that still holds true.... let's see... Mario Williams?... yep,.... D'Brickshaw Ferguson?... yep. In fact, can you name someone where it doesn't work?

 

[Tex-fan0604]

I just dont get it?If Bush is so good and one of the best coming out in a long time why arent other teams fighting to try to get him.Every one talks about him being the total package but nobody is even talking about trading to get him.I know yall think some teams arent in need of a rb but if he's that good as everyone makes him out to be why arent they getting him.Besides we dont need a rb either but we are going to be dumb enough to get him and pass up on our real needs.

 

[kastofsna]

you must be from the front office. welcome.

 

[hollywood_texan]

If you look at my posts, you will find me firmly in the consider all options camp. I have no problem with trading down if the value is reasonable even if it is under the chart. I have problems with passing on talent at #1 and with trading down no matter the value. We were looking a lot better for this discussion before New Orleans signed Brees, not because Bush isn't worth a #1 but because the teams just under us (i.e. able to pay a reasonable price) need QB's, DE's and LT's much more than they need RB's.

Fair enough. But do we really a RB too? And for over $50 million for 5 years?

All indications point to that Bush will be the highest player on the team if he is drafted #1 by us. IMO that will cause contract/cap problems when we need to renegotiate Andre Johnson's contract. The problem will get worse if Carr lives up to all the high expectations because your quarterback usually is the highest paid player and then it works its way down.

First, I don't want to pay Bush around $55 million for 5 years, but I can understand why some people think it is worth it considering his talent and work ethic. However, the contract/cap problems that will result throughout the roster will be too burdensome for this organization at the current stage of development, which is my biggest concern.

 

[infantrycak]

Fair enough. But do we really a RB too? And for over $50 million for 5 years?

Really need?--no but that is the hand we got dealt. If our team was the same and we were dealt this hand in past drafts we might be talking about Ronnie Brown, Robert Gallery, Rogers/AJ, Peppers, etc. as options because they were at the top of the talent pool. This year happens to be a RB. Whoever we draft at #1 will be the highest paid player on the team--the key is getting the most talent for that dollar.

 

[Runner]

Really need?--no but that is the hand we got dealt. If our team was the same and we were dealt this hand in past drafts we might be talking about Ronnie Brown, Robert Gallery, Rogers/AJ, Peppers, etc. as options because they were at the top of the talent pool. This year happens to be a RB. Whoever we draft at #1 will be the highest paid player on the team--the key is getting the most talent for that dollar.

Which is why the NFL needs a rookie salary structure - was that even discussed in the recent negotiations?

 

[Porky]

I just dont get it?If Bush is so good and one of the best coming out in a long time why arent other teams fighting to try to get him.Every one talks about him being the total package but nobody is even talking about trading to get him.I know yall think some teams arent in need of a rb but if he's that good as everyone makes him out to be why arent they getting him.Besides we dont need a rb either but we are going to be dumb enough to get him and pass up on our real needs.

All bold is annoying. But, two points.

First off, believe this or not...and yes I know this is really hard to believe, but consider for just a moment that a slight possibility exists that other gm's might call Casserly and yet not call you first. I know, I know. Settle down. I hope you were sitting down for that, and it must come as a shock to the system, but in rare instances, people talk on the phone and they don't call you first. An insult? Yes, and it should be investigated. I just hope that you find solace in the fact that CC has promised he will call you before completing any trade.

2nd point - Have you considered that since Bush IS such a special player that the Texans asking price is extremely high, and other teams don't want to give up their entire draft for one player? Just be glad we are in spot #1 and actually have a chance to take him instead of griping that other teams aren't interested when you have ZERO clue about that. :brickwall

 

[Porky]

I think Bush will be a bust in the NFL. I just don't see his skill set transferring to the majors. Everything that's good about him relies on the other players being slower and less agile and I don't think that's the NFL.

Mind you, even as a bust he'll be a decent player, but he will not be head and shoulders above D. Davis, for example.

Your funny dude! Let's see how long you hang onto that bust label. Hilarious.

 

[El Amigo Invisible]

Your funny dude! Let's see how long you hang onto that bust label. Hilarious.

He will be fine until he is required to carry the whole load(like Curtis Martin ). He is not capable .We will see. All I know is CC is gone no matter who he drafts.