TexanAddict said:
I have two words...Barry Sanders.
Sanders is one of the greatest RBs in NFL history, drafted as the third pick in the 1989 draft. He led the NFC in touchdowns scored 3 times and the entire NFL twice. He led the NFC in rushing 5 times, including his rookie season. He was an unbelievable talent that electrified the game of football.
My point is, however, where did this ultimately get the woeful Lions? The answer is one playoff victory in his 10 seasons as a Lion. Sure, the Lions went to the playoffs several times during that span, but were inevitably beaten each time in the first round.
The moral of this story is that one player cannot save a bad team by himself, and I'm afraid at this point the Texans may be a bad team in need of more than just one player. While I will not pitch a fit if Bush is selected by the Texans, I'm just not sure the move might be in their best interest. End Rant.
Your point is a flawed one I'm afraid. There are good arguments for not drafting Reggie Bush and for trading down to get more picks. This simply is not one of them.
The reason is simple. The Lions lack of progress when they had Barry Sanders does not in any way reflect on the use of a draft pick to select Barry Sanders. Barry Sanders was a brilliant selection and would be so if you had not one single other player signed to your roster at the time you chose him.
The Lions lack of progress during the Sanders years is an indictment of the teams inability to assemble the necessary talent around Barry Sanders to get the job done. You can't blame Barry because the Lions consistently made poor choices in the draft and hired a parade of boobs to coach their team. Barry Sanders did what he was drafted to do. He gave the Detroit Lions a HOF quality running game for the period of time he played for them. As so many posters point out when arguing against drafting Reggie Bush, football is a team sport and no one player can win a Super Bowl. Earl Campbell couldn't do it, Barry Sanders couldn't do it, and Reggie Bush won't do it even if he does turn out to be the next ______________ (insert famous running back name here).
He won't do it unless the organization assembles the kind of talent around him that it takes to win a Super Bowl and THEN provides that talent with the kind of coaching it takes to win a Super Bowl.
If the argument is about one player getting you to the big game then the argument is over. It's not going to happen.
Following that sentiment why do you draft David Carr in 2002? One player can't get you to the Super Bowl so why select David Carr in our first year when our needs were far greater than they are today? The Texans took him because they believed that he was capable of leading this
team to the Super Bowl and because you build your team one great player at a time.
You draft the best players you can get and you do it year after year after year. One draft isn't enough even with extra picks . We had extra picks in 2002 and 2003. Who wants to go back over where that got us? Anybody?
You don't pass on a great player when you see one standing right in front of you. To me that is one simple argument that trumps all others when it comes to drafting Reggie Bush (assuming we hold the #1 overall selection). It's a combination of the following.
1. When are you going to be holding this high a draft pick again? Hopefully not anytime soon right?
2. Do you see a player that's worthy of being selected #1 overall?
3. Do you already have someone at that position who is better than the guy you want to pick?
Most teams don't want to come back here to the top of the losers pool and trading into this spot is expensive. When you hold the #1 pick you've got hold of something very unusual. One team per year gets to pick before everyone else. Nobody is off the board. You can do anything (yes, even walk away for the right price).
I think right now that Bush is a player who's worth this pick. I think so. I want to see the Rose Bowl of course and I'm thinking that if he does to Texas what he's done to everyone else then he's very much worth the first selection overall. Whether or not Bush is worth the #1 is an arguable point.
I don't think there's any doubt that IF you believe Bush is worth the first overall pick on the draft then Domanick Davis is not better than Bush. At that point it's a forgone conclusion that Bush is an upgrade.
Barring a trade down that gets us greater value than Bush I take Bush. The trade down is a strong possibility but you have to make something of those picks. Trade Bush away for more selections and then pick some guys who fail to perform and you'll be kicking yourself for the rest of his career (and possibly longer).
Tough choice. I'll be glad when next week's game is over and we know whether it's going to have to be made.
Barry Sanders gave the Lions a name . The Lions sold tickets because people would pay to see Barry . If Barry ran behind the Cowboys OL he 'd probably have all the rushing records . The DC had to plan to stop Sanders.
I'm not comparing Bush to Marshall, because again it isn't fair. All I'm saying is people are starting to just make excuses why we should't take him and are really just starting to act scared.