The Myth Surrounding "Impact" Offensive Players (e.g. Guys Named Reggie Bush)

[jerek]

A lot of people are feeling scorched right about now that we passed on Reggie Bush. Others are excited about the Mario Williams pick, but how about a little perspective?

Let's talk winning teams. Last year's notables ...

Pittsburgh Steelers. Offense consists of Roethlisberger (decent to pretty good QB), Jerome Bettis (homerun threat - haha.), Willie Parker (decent to pretty good RB) Antwan Randel El (fast as hell, but nothing much in terms of complete WR) and Hines Ward (solid, consistent, possession WR.)

Denver Broncos. Jake Plummer (Cardinal reject and oft maligned), Tatum Bell (fast but unheralded), Rod Smith (possession guy, simply solid), Ashley Lelie (decent but hasn't lived up to expectations).

Carolina Panthers. Jake Delhomme (average arm, zero mobility, just makes right decisions), Steve Smith (a gamer, and a true "impact" player), Stephen Davis and DeShaun Foster: two reliable but extremely unremarkable backs.

Seattle Seahawks. Shaun Alexander is a gamer, without doubt. Past that, you have Hasselback (as unflashy as a quarterback gets) and a bunch of decent WRs. Also benefitted from weak SOS and probably the weakest division in pro football.

Indianapolis Colts. No arguing the "impact offensive player" here. Manning, Harrison, and previously, Edgerrin James. Didn't stop the Colts from getting bounced out of the playoffs in their first game, for the third straight year.

New England Patriots. The ultimate in "team." A bunch of pretty-good character guys who consistently put foot to ***. Three championships in the last five years earned by the ultimate gameplanning coaches. Not a single Reggie Bush on this entire roster.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Cadillac Williams does a decent Reggie Bush impression.

Chicago Bears. Solid (8th ranked) but very unspectacular run game, 31st ranked pass offense in the league in 2005.

It would seem that, contrary to popular belief, "the next Gayle Sayers" isn't some kind of requisite to winning. The Seahawks dominated a weak NFC with superlative offense, and the Colts amassed a 14-2 record with a heavy dose of offensive impact players, but neither won the Super Bowl. The Steelers and Patriots -- who have won 4 out of the last 5 Super Bowls -- did it with defense. Same for the Ravens and the Bucs. Even the Rams could field a competitive defense: something the Texans haven't been able to really do since Day 1.

Just food for thought. Mario Williams was the right pick around my table.

 

[Double Barrel]

Good thread, and I agree with you.

Neither Bush nor Williams is a "sure thing". So why not go after one of our most pressing needs instead of appeasing the fans? Because at the end of the day, it's all about winning games.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Nice work. I agree with you on almost all those points. You can have incredible offenses win SBs but they are almost always accompanied by a strong D. I would love to have had Bush but then I'd complain when the other team is going up and down the field like a flag football game. You have to smack someone in the mouth and the Texans still aren't considered that type of team.

 

[arenateam]

i agree, but also all the really high top picks go to sucky teams, meaning that they have no chance to shine.

 

[Texas]

Thank you...This is what needed to be said...Good point!

 

[dwilt72]

Forget the Super Bowl. This team isn't even ready for the playoffs. The offense and the defense were both at the bottom of the league. However, with some of the additions that were made on the offense, it has the best chance of getting better sooner. Why not add a weapon that the other team fears? If you add a Reggie Bush, the defense has to know where he is at all times. So instead we go defense. So MAYBE the pass rush is better next year, but even with the additions of Williams and Ryan I don't think the defense will be that much better. We still didn't address the defensive backfield, so the pass rush had BETTER be dominant! I just think that adding Reggie makes a bigger impact on his side of the ball than adding Mario to the defense. As it is if we get any injuries on offense, we're screwed. Reggie would have given us one more weapon.

 

[TheOgre]

I'm feeling scorched by the pathetic marketing of the pick, not the choice itself. Everyone bought Bush then were handed Mario.

It would be like thinking all day about eating a Ribeye from Morton's and instead getting a Pasta dish you also liked from Tony's. Sure it is good (and maybe even better), but it isn't what you were anticipating.

 

[thunderkyss]

Forget the Super Bowl. This team isn't even ready for the playoffs. The offense and the defense were both at the bottom of the league. However, with some of the additions that were made on the offense, it has the best chance of getting better sooner. Why not add a weapon that the other team fears? If you add a Reggie Bush, the defense has to know where he is at all times. So instead we go defense. So MAYBE the pass rush is better next year, but even with the additions of Williams and Ryan I don't think the defense will be that much better. We still didn't address the defensive backfield, so the pass rush had BETTER be dominant! I just think that adding Reggie makes a bigger impact on his side of the ball than adding Mario to the defense. As it is if we get any injuries on offense, we're screwed. Reggie would have given us one more weapon.

What's Marshall Faulk been doing for the last 3 years??

Backing up a conventional runningback, that's what.

But hey, why don't we go with your advice, and sign nothing but offensive weapons..... who needs a Defense. We'll play 5 recievers, 2 tightends, 1 QB, and 3 runningbacks......

yeah, that's the ticket......

I'm feeling scorched by the pathetic marketing of the pick, not the choice itself. Everyone bought Bush then were handed Mario.

uh.... I don't think Everyone bought Bush........ I didn't.

 

[jerek]

I'm feeling scorched by the pathetic marketing of the pick, not the choice itself. Everyone bought Bush then were handed Mario.

It would be like thinking all day about eating a Ribeye from Morton's and instead getting a Pasta dish you also liked from Tony's. Sure it is good (and maybe even better), but it isn't what you were anticipating.

That IMO is the true key to this. In two weeks when the reality sets in -- we got a stellar DE, who is in a class all his own just as much as Reggie Bush is at RB -- when the collective shock has worn off, and you see the way our defense runs amok next year ... then, and probably only then, will this pick generate widespread acceptance.

Until then, the few of us that saw the writing on the wall weeks ago have to be content to say "I told you so."

 

[run-david-run]

Forget the Super Bowl. This team isn't even ready for the playoffs. The offense and the defense were both at the bottom of the league. However, with some of the additions that were made on the offense, it has the best chance of getting better sooner. Why not add a weapon that the other team fears? If you add a Reggie Bush, the defense has to know where he is at all times. So instead we go defense. So MAYBE the pass rush is better next year, but even with the additions of Williams and Ryan I don't think the defense will be that much better. We still didn't address the defensive backfield, so the pass rush had BETTER be dominant! I just think that adding Reggie makes a bigger impact on his side of the ball than adding Mario to the defense. As it is if we get any injuries on offense, we're screwed. Reggie would have given us one more weapon.

How many Pro-Bowlers were in the Pittsburgh defensive backfield? How about New England? Each have their great front seven and the one great player in the secodary (Polumalu, Law), we have Drob, who has the potential to be that kind of player (shut down corner, cut the field in half...etc...). The pass rush, should it be as good as expected will take care of most everything else.