If you focus on the negatives, you can make any player look unworthy of the top draft pick. For example, I found these negatives about Reggie Bush: "I'm not sure if he's a running back. He's never shown he can take any sort of physical punishment, by the design of the offense, and hasn't shown he can make plays, tackle to tackle, that every NFL running back needs to be able to make. There's a legitimate question whether or not his body could withstand 300 touches a year, as a primary running back." Does that sound worthy of the top pick to you? MYTH - Reggie Bush is a sure thing. TRUTH - Neither Reggie Bush or Mario Williams are sure things. They both have negatives, much like every player in draft history. We've just been conditioned to overlook Bush's negatives by the Bush mania that his fans on message boards have started these last few months.
From scouting reports, the only real question with Bush was his ability to carry the load, but most seem to think he could. The questions with Mario have to do with his effort, consistency, technique and natural football instincts. Reading about Mario's lack of effort at times, I hope there isn't an issue of work ethic with Mario.
Where did you get that above quote from? A legitimate source? I doubt most scouts agree with that assessment. Of course no one is a sure thing. The question is which one is more of a sure thing, and that undoubtedly to most scouts was Bush. Of course, if the Texans believe Mario is the more sure hting, they should take him. We'll see if it's a mistake.
A draft profile I searched for. It sounds very similar to everything I've heard the last few months. Great home run hitter, electric, but can he carry the load? Can he run between the tackles? These are questions that numerous scouts and analysts have raised. Hometown fans, however, are notoriously homers, and a lot of Texan fans have overlooked those questions and focused on the positives since they've been conditioned to believe that Bush would be the pick. A majority of scouts did rank Bush first, but almost all of them had Williams second and many scouts in fact had Williams first. These are two excellent prospects, and although one might be ranked slightly ahead by some scouts, there's a case for both and both are likely to be terrific players. At that point, go with what Kubiak and his staff believes.
Do you have a link? Not a bad post except for the stuff about "notorious homers" and how they have "been conditioned" to want Bush. That's another myth, after all many ignored VY's flaws and wanted him to be number 1. Yes, they both have flaws. Yes, more scouts put Bush ahead but some liked Mario better. And yes, if the Texans liked Mario, they SHOULD take him. Let's hope they are right. I guess it's hard to trust Kubiak vs. the majority of scouts. But it will be nice to have an actual pass rush. If he is Juluis Peppers it will be a worthy pick.
Damn, I had a longer post typed up and my internet had an error and shutdown. So, I'll just post the links to the one I cited and many others similar to it and you can make your judgment. Pay close attention to the negatives. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/02/23/usc/index.html http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/profile_display.cfm?Prospect_ID=236 http://football.about.com/od/playerprofiles/p/reggiebush.htm http://www.draftboardinsider.com/position/RB/bush-r.html http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/Profiles/reggiebushprofile.htm He's not a sure thing. Also, a vast majority of Houston fans wanted Bush over Vince. That's a perfect example of homerism and conditioning. It's not exclusive to Houston fans; every city has those fans. But those fans influence perception and lead to us overlooking Bush's negatives and underrating the positives of the alternatives.
So those wanting Vince was not an example of homerism and conditioning. Only those that wanted Bush. I get it.
Cat, I would love to play you in poker, with your attitude you would be dead money........an easy mark. DD
Not directly, because I'm not sure which is going to be the better player. All I'm saying is that both are outstanding prospects and either one is a tremendous pick. I'd only start a thread on the condition one was labeled Sam Bowie and/or a bust, because it's completely absurd. I don't have some loyalty to Mario Williams or Reggie Bush... I just know that both are outstanding players and to label a team that gets one of them as a laughing stock is ridiculous.
Good post, Cat. However, it may be wise for those of us that actually support the pick to leave it alone until we start winning some games. There's absolutely no convincing them... It's like breaking it off with Jessica Alba to date with someone who actually fits your personality. Nobody gets it but you. I will say one other thing about Mario's motivational questions...we drafted another guy a couple of years ago with the same questions by the name of Andre Johnson. He's worked out pretty well compared to the guy many thought was the clear cut best receiver that year, Charles Rogers. I'm not comparing the drafts...just saying I think the Texans feel that he's got the work ethic to get it done.
The consensus is that Bush is the surer thing, and has the most potential to be one of the greats. The Lakers are probably the most watched team in the NBA, why? Kobe Bryant, and only Kobe. The fact that they are winning(right now) makes them have more TV appearances than the Pistons, the single best team in the league. I'm not saying that I'd rather have more TV appearances than wins, but, though I don't like kobe, he does help you win, a lot. Reggie Bush I feel gives the texans the best chance to win, for now, and the future. Their offense would have the potential to become the best in the league in a couple of years.
You sure weren't saying that to the Bush supporters who have claimed "facts" all over the place the last few weeks. Selective application makes it hard to take seriously.
