I agree we should have drafted Bush but not for the reasons he stated. I seriously doubt Bush will be an MJ. And it was Kubiak's choice, not Casserly's.
Can this post be a Sticky? Baqui99, I agree that Denver had a great O-line (including your boy Dan Neil from Cypress Creek High School ) blocking for those RB's but, much like the RB's listed above, I think a lot of that had to do with the scheme they were running. The same scheme Kubiak has brought to Houston. As you know, zone blocking doesn't require that you blow your man off the line of scrimmage. You just have to keep him busy while the RB hits the hole. The hole doesn't have to be big and it doesn't have to stay open for more than a second. If the RB does his job, he's past the line of scrimmage before the D-line even knows it. I'm not saying Kubiak can work a miracle and turn our O-line into the 92 Dallas O-line, but like Cat said, our run blocking (not pass blocking) was good BEFORE Kubiak brought in his system. It can only get better now IMO.
To his credit, Kubiak has stood up and publicly taken the credit (blame) for the Mario pick. The view nationally will continue to be like this until Mario actually does something on the field to justify his being even considered a number 1 pick much less being taken number 1. Early returns from the preseason were fair at best with Mario often being among the invisible. That being said, you may be right about Bush. I think that a major weakness in their offensive approach is their steadfast belief in the "Denver" mantra that you can plug a guy named "Herb" into the lineup and be successful. That smacks me as arrogant and arrogant thinking will always come back to haunt you (see Dallas Cowboys 2006 season - the T.O. Adventure). There is simply no way that you can justify passing on Bush because you had Davis. Davis isn't even in Bush's league as an offensive player. Bush would have made this offense nearly unstoppable and they will be forced to admit that when the offense runs into trouble this year. I expect this team to have major problems trying to run the ball this year and that will cost them games. I am still not sold on Young developing into a quality NFL QB. He plays too much like Randall Cunningham for my taste and while Randall was an extremely athletic and talented QB, he wasn't a WINNING QB. And no matter how you play the game, that is the bottom line.
Bush may well be in the same boat as Sayers: a supremely gifted running back who is trapped on an absolutely pathetic football team. To answer your question: Gayle Sayers played from 1965 to 1971 - 6 years.
You don't justify it that way. You justify it by arguing that running backs have short, unreliable careers and it's easier to get much more bang for the buck with a cheap running back than a cheap defensive end. Running backs generally aren't worth $7MM a year, no matter how good they are - not in a league with a very restrictive hard salary cap.
This man speaks the truth. How often do you think a highly drafted lineman, whether offensive, or defensive, helps his team compared to the highly drafted RB? Also, how long do you think they are around to help said team? Quality linemen are the most valueable commodity in the NFL, short of legendary QBs and elite WRs. A running back who has a career longer than 5 years is a pretty rare thing, plus RB is a very dependent position. Dependent on linemen who block, coaches and their schemes, and even QBs and their ability to complete passes to keep the safeties out of the box. Linemen have the -least- dependent position in the league. They are either good or bad, no outside determining factors. They either block their man/beat their man or they don't. Simple as that. Give me a 10 year menace on the DL over another RB gamble any day.
I can hardly wait to see Young play. I just think that he is so unique that the "rules" of what it takes and how long it takes to be a NFL qb just do not apply to him. He has an indefinable quality that is hard to single out. He just makes things happen. I doubt he will be a bust, and if he "breaks out" early, the sky is the limit. Both he and Bush are once in a lifetime type of players, and the Texans passed on them. I am still amazed.
another thing you'll notice, in the post-davis era - portis was far and away the best back. he was also the best prospect. coincidence? no. a system can certainly be effective; but it can be even more effective with better talent running it. case in point, the run-n-shoot was a system but it was far more successful with warren moon under center than cody carlson. so lundy/morency, et al, may scratch out 1,100 yards, but it's how they scratch out the yardage that's important. DD, after all, totaled 3k yards the past three years and had almost no impact on the offense because he was never a threat to do anything more than rumble 4 or 5 yards a pop. teams will let you chew up the clock and move the ball in small chunks when it knows a) your back has no breakaway speed; b) you have a QB that can't be trusted and is likely to bring the vast majority of drives to a screeching halt. so sure, maybe you can stick whoever from the 6th round back there, and maybe they can run for a 1,000 yards, but that doesn't necessarily translate to offensive success. and to whoever said bush couldn't thrive in this system... oh, boy. how, exactly, does a system designed to get a back into the open field like that! not benefit a back like bush, who absolutely thrives in the open field? that kind of thinking drives me crazy. it's why julius peppers is a panther, because too many coaches fall in love with their systems and throw irrelevant items like talent and production out the window. and, one last point - there would not have been a holdout with bush. period, end of discussion. mcnair had given the ok to draft either; he was close enough with both. and casserly did indeed play a role in the decision though it was ultimately kubiak's; but that's the way it's been from day one of that organization - casserly deferred to the coach's wants and needs.
Watching Vince in the preseason I held my breath every time he scrambled. Moreso than any other QB it seems Vince runs in this wide open, completely unprotected way. Its really scary for any UT fan I bet. I really hope he learns to keep himself covered and not expose himself so much. I get the feeling that Vince's career, at least in Tennessee, might hinge on whether or not the Titans can rebuild their lines back to the top 5 units they used to be. The more Vince has to run the slower his development will be.
A better example than even Denver is Carolina. They consistently plug in running backs from the bottom of the draft (other than Stephen Davis) and they have successful running games. I made this statement in another thread: If Houston's offensive line gets as good as Denver's or Carolina's, it won't matter who is taking the handoffs. If Houston's offensive line stays inept, it won't matter who is taking the handoffs.
Bush was the best offensive prospect in the draft. Mario was the best defensive prospect in the draft. We took the best defensive prospect in the draft. Is it really that much of a stretch when you realize how HORRIBLE our pass rush has been since.....well, EVER? Like some others have said, why can't both Bush and Mario be great? Why does it have to be one or the other? Mario hasn't torn it up during the preseason, but neither has Bush. If we had taken Bush, Mario would have been taken at #2. The lowest Mario would have been taken is #2. Our pick really wasn't that much of a stretch. We used our #1 pick on the best defensive player in the draft. Is that so outrageous?
to be good, that's true. of course, neither of these teams have won championships in some time. and denver hasn't won without a guy named John Elway taking snaps. Jake Plummer is reason 1 why this team didn't advance in the playoffs last season. i will totally agree with you...start with the line...but if you wanna finish it off, you need a QB who doesn't make too many mistakes. he doesn't HAVE to be Superman, though that would help. but he can't be so mistake prone. that's what concerns me most about Carr.
Carolina must have not got the memo because that didn't stop them from drafting a running back in the 1st round.
great point; btw, carolina's two RBs this year were both top 35 picks, including a first rounder... but i mean, still... solid. they've never had a problem running the football. the line is actually very good at run blocking and has been for sometime.
I assume the $7mm you are talking about is cap value. Is that really Reggie's cap value? And I don't think this is why the Texans passed on him. If an RB isn't worth that much per year "no matter how good they are" then they wouldn't even bother to negotiate with him. In fact, they came quite close to signing him. Also, if that was the case, why did NO draft Bush number 2 and why were 3 of the top 5 players drafted last year RBs? Also, look at NFL salaries. I don't see RBs getting paid less than DE's. I guess teams haven't figured out that RB's aren't important. Maybe you need to write a Moneyball book for the NFL! http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=1 They said they thought Mario was the better pick based on ability, not on salary cap considerations. I don't see any reason to doubt that. Edit: They also mentioned "need" as a reason for drafting Mario. But nothing about the salary cap.
