Mario's first year was tough going, especially when Bush and VY were showing flashes of brilliance. Last year, Mario was just a beast though. That Denver game on prime time really showed everyone that he is no joke,
I don't think there was a single scout, NFL team, or ranking anywhere that had VY ahead of Mario on their board. If there was, I'm not aware of it. While most scouts did have Bush in front, most acknowledged that Williams was close, and in fact seven NFL teams (that we know of) had Williams over Bush on their boards. The opinions might have correlated in the very broad sense -- but when it comes to the specifics -- most notably, that Bush was an MVP candidate every year and Mario would be a bust and that it was as stupid as Bowie/Jordan and would curse the Texans forever -- it didn't correlate at all with the casual fan. But this little tangent was in the context of VY (see where Smokey took things off-topic), and I don't remember a single scout having him ranked ahead of Mario. It was pretty much universal.
If the 2nd half of last season was any indicator of things to come, look for Mario to have a HUGE year. I have a good feeling about the pass rush ability of the Texans this upcoming season. With Mario, Roosevelt, Amobi all having the ability to get to the QB, I think we will be a very underrated disruptive defense.
I agree VY wasn't ranked over Mario, but he was ranked pretty high. It wasn't crazy for fans to want to take VY. But most scouts did have Bush ranked first. I think many teams and experts were pretty stunned that the Texans passed on him, given how highly Bush was supposedly ranked- some were saying he was the highest rated prospect ever.. In any case, it was a pretty amazing pick by Kubiak. I am happy McNair let him make that very unpopular pick, I'm not sure every owner would have given him that freedom.
Very true...It's one of those infamous decisions that we will all remember when other drafts are a foggy memory. The owner made the right decision when thousands of voices stated otherwise...
well we all know fans base their passions on scouting ratings or maybe not. look, we all know it was bush/mario ranked highest on the boards, if you're the type of fan who follows that. if you're just a fan who likes some player you saw on tv, scouting services have nothing to do with your opinion.
Just for the record, it is also too early to label Reggie Bush a bust. If you remember, he led the entire NFL in receptions and took his team to the NFC championship game in his ROOKIE SEASON. The saints had a down year last year, had some injuries, and their O-line was awful - so I'd say this year would be the year Bush can make or break his status.
so he took his team when his team had a good year to the playoffs, but it wasn't his fault when they didn't make it. you need to dig deeper into that receptions number, particularly ypc reggie does not have the lower body strength to be an every down back and he doesn't have the break away speed to be a receiver. he is what he is, a kick returner, third down back. not his fault, he was overhyped on his ability to translate into a running back in the nfl. but he is what he is.
Uh, what? Andre Johnson led the entire league in receptions, with 103. Bush was 10th with 88. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2006/leaders.htm Second, total receptions are kind of irrelevant. It's a statistic, but it means nothing. If you catch a pass in the flat for 0 yards, are you helping your team? So while Bush was 10th in the league in total receptions (where in the world you got first I have no idea), he was 45th in receiving yardage. Even if you want to sort by average (Bush's YPC was 8.4), and compare him to other running backs: Steven Jackson: 9.0 Brian Westbrook: 9.1 Maurice Jones-Drew: 9.5 Larry Johnson: 10.0 Fred Taylor: 10.5 So, given how low Bush's total yards were (45th) next to his place on the reception list (10th), you can tell he wasn't much for actually producing relative to what the reception stat would tell you. Furthermore, even in the context of running backs, he wasn't among the elite in terms of what he did after the catch. So, what do the numbers tell you? That the Saints gave him a lot of dumpoffs and screens that 90 percent of fans in the stadium could catch, and he was mediocre at best in terms of doing something with them. I agree that he's not a bust, but that's just ridiculous. By that logic, Kevin Faulk took his team to four Super Bowls. Drew Brees -- a guy who had a QB rating of 96 and threw for nearly 4,500 yards -- had a lot more to do with that team than Bush. Marques Colston -- a guy who had a 1,000 yard season as a WR with 8 touchdowns -- had a lot more to do with that team than Bush. Deuce McAllister -- a guy who carried the workload on the ground, rushing for more than 1,000 yards with 10 touchdowns -- had a lot more to do with that team than Bush. The list goes on and on. It's too early to label Bush a bust, but he certainly didn't "take" his team to the NFC title game. He was the fourth or fifth best player at the skill positions on his own offense. He also certainly didn't lead the league in receptions, and he didn't do very much with the receptions he had.
Cat. He lead the entire league in receptions for his position. This tells us how versatile he is. A running back with good hands like Brian Westbrook. We all know that, so far, he isn't nearly as good of a runner as Westbrook, but I'm saying it is still to early to say that he can't carry the load. This year, depending on injuries, should tell us. If you want, I can go back and dig up posts where you said the saints wouldn't win more than 4-5 games that year, but they went all the way to the championship game. Brees, Bush, Colston, Duece were all very good. They all opened doors for the offense to thrive. Reggie Bush allowed the offensive coordinator to open up the play book. With both him and Deuce in the backfield, you really had to change your defensive scheme to keep an eye on the tough runner in Duece and an eye on the guy they could dump it off too of Colston & company were covered. And saying that Bush doesn't have the breakaway speed of a receiver? What? He's easily one of the fastest offensive players in the NFL. I'd put money on that.
Saying he took his team to the NFC championship game is like the VY fans saying "Vince just wins." Yes, this is a make or break year for him.
That doesn't tell you anything! Here's an example of a back who actually caught 101 and 99 passes in a season, including one with a significantly higher YPC (9.5) than Bush has ever had! http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=121 Do you think defensive coordinators were losing sleep over Larry Centers? After all, Larry Centers led the entire league in receptions for his position too!!!!!! Or maybe, just maybe, is the ability to catch a wide open pass in the flat not all that important in the context of winning games? What are you talking about? The debate isn't whether the Saints were a good team in 2006. They were, and they proved a lot of people wrong -- including myself, as well as most people including their own fans. The debate is in what role Reggie Bush played in that success. The problem is that you're debating in incredibly abstract terms that are impossible to quantify. What makes Reggie Bush more valuable than Kevin Faulk? Or hell, even Larry Centers in his prime? When the Patriots put Maroney and Faulk in the backfield at the same time, you have to keep an eye on the runner in Maroney as well as an eye on the guy they could dump it off to (Faulk) if Moss & company are covered. If Bush were any more successful at his role (catching dump offs) than the typical back, it would be reflected in his yards per catch. It's not. When in the world did I say Bush didn't have the breakaway speed of a receiver, or talk about his speed at all, for that matter?
You make a valid point. Bironas kicks a 62 yard field goal and "Vince just wins" is annoying. I'm backing off my stance a bit here and I'm saying that Bush played a major role and played big minutes on a team that made it to the NFC championship game when most "experts" said they didn't have a prayer. Even more impressive is that he did this as a rookie and had some big big plays in the playoffs.
No. I don't think they were losing sleep over Larry Centers because 1. Larry Centers doesn't have the breakaway speed Bush has and while he may have had more YPC, he still wasn't as much of a threat to take it all the way like Bush was. One defensive mistake and Bush is taking it to the house. 2. Larry Centers didn't have a runner like Deuce and a QB like Brees either, so defensive coordinators could focus more on him coming out of the backfield and not really worry about the other guys as much. No, it may not directly relate to winning games, but it does relate to his versatility. Which is what I said above. As long as you are willing to admit you were wrong about something. I personally believe Bush played just as much of a role as Deuce & Colston. Brees had an MVP year, so I won't say Bush was as important and him on the offensive side of the ball. Let's also not forget the role Bush played in the Special Teams / Return game. Once again, Versatility Are you calling Kevin Faulk a bust? Nobody, in this thread, said that he sucked or that he wasn't important to his team's success. Just like Wes Welker was just as important to the team as Randy Moss. The DEBATE here is whether or not Reggie Bush is a bust, this is what I said in my original post BEFORE you attacked. Are you saying he's a bust? And come on, nobody in the NFL would take Kevin Fault over Reggie Bush. They play a similar role for their team, but Bush has far more upside, speed, and explosiveness than Faulk or someone like Larry Centers. Pgabs said that a couple of posts above you. Not sure where he got that from. Let's continue this debate after the upcoming season. Like I said in my original post - a make or break year for Bush.
I don't care if Bush runs a 4.1 40 -- what matters are results. I can guarantee you that NFL teams are the same way. Nobody cares about "breakaway speed" or hypotheticals or what "could" happen -- it's about what does. The "one defensive mistake and Bush is taking it to the house" is absolutely hilarious, given that Bush has now played two full seasons with a combined 14 touchdowns, including only 4 on the ground at a 3.7 YPC clip. So, for his career we're talking about a touchdown less than every two games, a yards per carry of 3.7 and a yards per catch of 7.2... I bet those defensive coordinators are terrified!!! One mistake and... he might get four yards instead of three! Right, but versatility in itself means little to a player's value. Kevin Faulk is one of the most versatile players in the game, and his team has been to four Super Bowls and had a perfect (regular) season in his time there. He's a nice role player on a good team, sure -- just like Bush was in 2006. What he's not is a good choice at the top of a draft. Ah, special teams/return game... another place where Bush was among the worst in the game. Here's Bush when he "led" New Orleans to the title game -- 25th among 31 qualifiers in punt return average. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=return&sort=pavg&league=nfl&season=2&year=2006 In fact, Bush was so bad at special teams that New Orleans had Lance Moore return punts for most of last season. I'd call Kevin Faulk a bust if he were considered for the top overall draft choice, absolutely. I agree that most teams would take Bush, but it's for what you said -- upside. It's not about production. For a running back entering his third season, that's a problem. It's not like a QB, where there's a good chance you'll have an answer for 10-15 years. The shelf life of a running back is very short, especially for one that relies on speed as much as Bush. Now, the flip side of that is that it's much easier for a RB to come in and dominate immediately (Adrian Peterson) than at any other position on the field. The fact that Bush hasn't is concerning on two levels. One, there usually isn't a steep learning curve, it's often a what you see is what you get position. Two, even though it's certainly possible that Bush can come on later in his career, he's already spent two seasons of his very short shelf life playing at a level that's FAR below what you'd hope for out of a No. 2 pick overall. That's not to say that means he's a bust, yet -- he's not. He could easily have a very good season this year, especially given that offense. But there sure are a lot of bad signs.
Ya'll two keep going...this has the potential to be one of the funnier Clutchfans throwdowns in some time!
Bush hasn't been given the opportunity to prove himself the way Adrian Petersen has. The saints use Duece in that roll and the saints are a passing team, and most importantly the saints don't have near the O-line talent that the Vikings have. The Vikings can't throw to save their lives, so they must run. (For the record, I don't think Bush is anywhere near the talent AD is, and I think it is an absolute disgrace that AD wasn't selected number 1 overall). This is the only thing I wanted you to admit. Pwned. And for the record, I love Mario Williams and wouldn't trade him for anyone. Texans made the correct choice IMO.
Ah, but that's where YPC comes into play. They might not have the same carries, but they each have opportunities. Peterson has made the most of his chances. Bush has not. Also, it's bizarre that you use OL talent as an excuse for Bush, yet you don't realize that being a passing team opens up running lanes like crazy -- see any RB with the Colts in the Manning era, for example. Likewise, the fact that the Vikings can't throw means Peterson is constantly facing 9-man fronts, the likes of which Bush never sees. Pwned about what? Bush's performance has been worse than I ever hoped it would be in my wildest dreams two years ago... what exactly among his 3.7 YPC is "pwning" me, or anyone other than his supporters? Also, you act like this is some stunning revelation. In the first post I made after yours -- the very FIRST one -- I said the following: That's not to say I think he's played well. He's played terribly, relative to expectations and a No. 2 overall pick. But I'm not going to judge a player's entire career after two years.
