In many cases it's determined that Mario is a complete bust and Bush is possibly the greatest running back ever to play the game? See that's what I'm talking about. Sillyness on your part. We don't need a large sample size to indicate the talent we see on the field. For example, when Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki joined the NBA they were extremely raw players. They looked awkward often and you could tell they were not ready for prime time. They also provided occasional glimpses of their exceptional talent and potential that let us all know that one day they'd be great players. A play here and there where they did amazing things on the court. It was the same thing with Yao Ming early. Every once in a while he would make a play and you'd think wow, now I see what he can become. We don't need a whole season to see that. We don't need large sample sizes to judge that. I think a lot of us see those glimpses with Bush, not so with Mario to this point.
I think that's revisionist history. Lots of people were very concerned with Yao and didn't see these glimpses. Now that he's an amazing player, people act like they saw those things and make them into bigger deals than they were. Likewise with Nowitzki in his first season. Also, if you think you can determine entire careers to "let you know one day they'd be great" by a few glimpses, that's not good sports analysis to say the least. As for it being silliness for many to consider Mario a complete bust, I'll get back to that. I've got to get ready to go out and find a place to watch the Texans, but I'll revisit this thread when I'm back later on and post some quotes from this board over the last month. It sounds silly, but in the opinions of many, it's not far from the truth at all.
