Reggie Bush's Upside: Tiki Barber and Warrick Dunn

Reggie Bush is not a NFL running back. He's a great #3 slot WR, 3rd down running back, and punt/kick returner.

Reggie Bush looks exactly like Eric Metcalf which should ease the blow if Mario turns out to be a bust as well.

Eric Metcalf's NFL numbers - http://football.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=55

 

yeah, i'd say depending on how he much he works, he can be Metcalf or Westbrook..

 

Like I said a while back, Bush is a tweener. Like Eric Metcalf. Not a franchise player worth a ton of money, but a guy that can help you win football games. He definitely won't be a bust but he definitely won't be special either. At this point, I still think Mario Williams could be special. Vince Young could end up being the best of the trio.

 

Been saying that for over a year.

DD

 

Reggie, much like Warrick Dunn works better in a system like Dunn has been in his whole career (bulk of the carries, receiver out of the backfield, powerful back gets the goalline touches)

What sets Reggie apart I believe is his quickness on the corner. I haven't seen too many RBs who can hit the corner and just flat out beat Defenders to the edge like Bush does, this is also what makes him only an average between the tackles type of RB. I don't think you'll ever see him carrying the ball 25 times a game, he is much better suited to carry 10-15 times and catch 10 passes.

Somebody else mentioned Eric Metcalf, which isn't a bad comparison. Metcalf was actually so good at catching passes and making people miss that they eventually in the later stages of his career switched him to WR. Brian Westbrook is also a good comparison.

 

What sets Dunn, Barber and Westbrook apart is their ability to rush for more than a pathetic 3.0 YPC as rookies.

 

Reggie Bush has already single-handedly won a game for his team.
Mario Williams will probably never accomplish that his whole career.


Just having Reggie on the field alone makes defenses account for him and Deuce McAllister is off to a great year.


I've seen you make some stupid, stupid arguments in your career but this is ridiculous.

You guys are complete homers if you think Reggie Bush is a misplaced WR who will never be able to take over a game, and even bigger homers if you think Mario Williams will ever wake up a single day for the rest of his life without hearing the name Reggie Bush.

 

Mario tipped what would've been the game-tying two point conversion to save the game. How is that any different from what Reggie did?

Definitely. Has nothing to do with Deuce being a terrific player in his own right or Brees being a Pro Bowl quarterback instead of Aaron Brooks.

I've seen you make some borderline insane arguments in your career but this last one takes the cake. What difference does it matter what the media or average Joe watch a couple of highlights football fan thinks of when he hears Mario Williams? What matters is what happens on the field. Remember when you called me out on the Vikings-Cardinals fiasco a few years ago and the pushout, when I said in my opinion the Vikings won the game? Remember your argument that what matters is what happens on the field, not the deluded opinion of biased fans? You need to think about that when you're making these lame arguments about Bush's hype.

 

Wow, what do you like save these things and keep them in a "use to argue with moes later" file somwhere in your basement?

Reggie Bush is simply good at football, despite the hype, what it all boils down to is he is a good football player who will win games with his game-breaking ability.

now I don't want to get into the whole Mario Williams debate, I don't have anything against him, he's probably even going to develop into a good player. But when you draft a guy like that over a guy who is going to make ESPN highlights over and over again week in, week-out you aren't going to hear the end of it. Bush has Michael Vick esque hype that will follow him around for a long time.

The Texans have a non-existent running game right now. Do you think having Reggie Bush in their lineup might actually free somebody up to make some big runs when they split him out wide? If they had a guy even worthy of a draft pick in their backfield they might have been able to control the tempo of a few of their games and not have to rely on their ****ty defense to try and stop somebody.

 

If you'd actually watch the Texans games instead of reading a box score and watching highlights you'd know how inaccurate that is. Free up room in the middle when they split Reggie out wide? Huh? Defenses are already dropping five and six guys deep. You think they'd drop seven or eight if Reggie were split out wide? Come on.

Opposing defensive lines are within our backfield within a second. Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith in their primes would struggle to average more than 3.0 YPC behind this line. At some point, there's a limit to how many players the defense will send back deep, and we're already right at that limit if you've watched. It's not helping.

I'll point out again that the main point of your argument is centered around hype and ESPN highlights. That's fine. I'm more concerned about putting the best football team on the field, regardless of how ESPN looks at us. Michael Vick got a whole lot more hype than Carson Palmer; I'd prefer Palmer on my team, though.

 

No, I don't think it would free anything up, unless we had another RB that could actually run the ball (kinda like NO has with Deuce).

Bush has contributed to the Saints success, but his main contribution has been as a decoy. So far he has shown that he is average at football (as far as his on the field production), and a very good decoy. He still has time to get better but he has struggled so far. Most of the othe rookie backs are outproducing him, and they are splitting carries as well.

 

LOL it is sad that you actually believe those of us who think Bush is a good football player is because of ESPN highlights. I will not debate/argue with you ever again if you really believe that crap.

OMG are you guys watching this monday night game? The Cards are falling apart. Bears up by 1 now.

 

Numbers wise, Bush has struggled as a RB. He still needs to learn to hit the holes instead of dancing or going wide. He may need to bulk up a bit, (although he is significantally bigger than Dunn) he goes down on the first hit most of the time. Dunn has learned to hit the holes and GO, I think Bush will too, he is only a rookie. But don't discount the fact that he is leading the NFL in receptions and I promise you the Saints wouldn't trade him for any other rookie running back you say is outproducing him.

At this point, the Bush haters (cough "The Cat") are saying Bush isn't a true RB. I say who cares, if he is a better receiver than a running back, so be it. He is still a very productive football player and his team is 5-1. VY can have awful awful numbers but still win the game and "The Cat" will say VY is a winner and he has "it". But if Bush has average or below average numbers and his team wins, "The Cat" will call him a bust.

index:
"The Cat" = Bush Haters a.k.a UT Homers (SamFisher, The Cat, VexcesySux, Chance, Rocketman95, Rich Lord, etc...)

 

Glad to see you actually posting in the right forum for a change. Keep up the good work, slick.

Rather than call you a moron, I'll just refer you to my earlier post:

So, you label me a "hater" because I'm actually... gasp... objective? I've done nothing but post statistics, which, last time I checked, are FACTS. You use hyperbole and opinion. But I guess I shouldn't expect any less from an ESPN sheep with blind worship issues.

And, BTW, Reggie Bush no longer leads the NFL in receptions. That distinction now belongs to Houston's own Andre Johnson. Check your facts every once in a while.

 

Colston is by FAR the best rookie on that team and probably ROY right now. He is outperforming the 60 mil WR at his own game.

 

This is the kind of garbage I don't like to respond to. I like Reggie Bush along with millions of others and it has nothing to do with ESPN. The entire city of New Orleans loves him too by the way, and they see him in person, not on ESPN. I HATE the ESPN hype stance.

Vescey, if you aren't a Bush hater, I apoligize for grouping you in a category with "The Cat". He showed his true colors in the MNF thread while pulling for Leinart to lose. And you are right, after Sunday AJ has 39 receptions and Bush has 38.

 

Also for those who didn't know, Gayle Sayers also returned kicks and punts and didn't have gaudy rushing numbers, only was over 1000 yards twice in his career. He won rookie of the year in 1965 with 867 rushing yards and 898 punt/kickoff return yards, and 507 receiving yards.

Gayle Sayers was kind of an all around player and not a true running back his rookie year as some would say about Bush right now. Why is it such a stretch to compare Bush's potential to him?

 

Gale Sayers scored a rookie record 22 touchdowns (including 6 in one game) his rookie season - in a 14 game season (and averaged 5 ypc) in a much more low-offense era. His 867 yards rushing was second in the NFL behind none other than Jim Brown - Barring some sort of miracle, Reggie Bush has no chance of matching this and you know it, which is why you intentionally omitted it from your post because it's pretty much impossible to research Gale Sayers rookie season and miss his TD record, - it's the first thing that pops up on google even.

 

My point is, that people bash Bush for being Eric Metcalf because he returns punts. So, was Gayle Sayers a glorified Punt/kick returner? And are you saying that if Bush ups his yard per carry average to 5 yards per carry you will finally give him credit? All it will take is 1 or 2 long runs to up that average because he doesn't get THAT many carries to begin with. Bush is an all around player as was Gayle Sayers, THAT is why people compare the two. Nobody ever compared him to Barry Sanders that I am aware of because Barry was a Running Back only. I think Gayle Sayers is a good comparison.

Spoiler

Gale Sayers burst upon the pro football scene in 1965 with the kind of an impact that the sport had not felt in many years. It is difficult to imagine a more dynamic debut than the one he enjoyed as a rookie. In his first heavy pre-season action, he raced 77 yards on a punt return, 93 yards on a kickoff return, and then startled everyone with a 25-yard scoring pass against the Los Angeles Rams.

In regular season, he scored four touchdowns, including a 96-yard game breaking kickoff return, against the Minnesota Vikings. And, in the next-to-last game, playing on a muddy field that would have stalled most runners, Gale scored a record-tying six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers. Included in his sensational spree were an 80-yard pass-run play, a 50-yard rush and a 65-yard punt return. For the entire season, Gale scored 22 touchdowns and 132 points, both then-rookie records.
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=188

 

Gayle Sayers was second in the league in rushing his first year and lead the league his second year. Why is this a good comparison to a guy who ranks 37th? Do you really need me to explain to you why this makes him a better pure running back than Bush is?