LOL. Technically, his bet would be invalidated because he gave himself the injury out... which honestly is kind of silly, given that a lack of size and durability is one of the main reasons why it was so easy to see this coming. You can survive like that in college, but in the NFL, that's a big part of the package.
You have to take anything jgreen says with a grain of salt. Remember....the guy actually likes Creed......
You know, normally I would get tired of gloating over situations like this after a year, maybe two, of rubbing it in the haters' faces. But due to the shear volume of crap our team and our fans had to take after that draft a couple years ago (and for the entire season just after), I don't think I will EVER get tired of basking in the results of what has actually happened. Edit: I'm sure jgreen will come back in this thread eventually spouting about how had he not been injured he would have had a breakout season. I hope he doesn't turn out to be an injury prone player, because then ESPN will forever tout him as the RB "that never was" due to tragic injuries. I want Bush to stay nice and healthy another 3 years so. ESPN should have no means to excuse their ridiculous promotion of Reggie as a player.
coughcough.... cough... hackcough..... most of it was coming from our fans, though... coughcough.... cough... hackcough..... bush actually had a better year than kevin faulk - they're cherry-picking stats (though the very idea the numbers are even remotely comparable is pretty damning). bush totaled 9 TDs in 10 games; faulk had 6 in 15, and bush averaged 35+ more total yards a game - and they both wound up with roughly the same touches (178 to 151, including PRs - a difference of less than 2/game). those #s alone make bush's season infinitely better since the ultimate object of the game is to move the football and outscore your opponent. faulk beat him in YPC - not insignificant but not as vital as a standalone stat. so bush's injury was fairly significant in that regard. i'm no fan of mister bush, mind you...
Eh, I'd still disagree, on two conditions. First, I think Bush's value as a PR is greatly overstated. Sure, it helps make his overall yardage look sexier, but NFL teams can generally find decent return men on the street. Sure, Bush might save a roster spot for an extra lineman or something, but in terms of production, there's no reason to think the Saints or another team couldn't get his level of special teams play from an outside source. Second, as said earlier, the injury is a big part of why so many of us doubted Bush. This isn't some random injury that came out of nowhere. It's the same injury as a season ago, and an apparent indictment of his inability to run between the tackles and take the pounding that an NFL running back has to take. Perhaps Bush would have had a better season than Faulk if not for the injury, but Bush's inability to take the pounding is a part of why it was so easy to make the bet. Kevin Faulk had more rushing yards than Reggie Bush, more rushing touchdowns than Reggie Bush, rushed for a higher YPC than Reggie Bush, caught more passes than Reggie Bush, and had more receiving yards than Reggie Bush. If that's not having a better season, I guess you and I have different standards and we'll have to agree to disagree.
We should go so far as to compare Slaton's first year with Reggie's BEST year. I remember when Slaton was being compared to Bush while in college. So funny how things turn out.
Well, here's a few stats: Steve Slayton has rushed for 1282 yards this season. Reggie bush has rushed for a total of 1550 yards in his entire career (3 seasons) Bush has never had more than 565 yards a season rushing. Slayton has averaged 4.8 yards a carry this season Bush has NEVER averaged 4.0 or above. One more minor thing.....Bush's # of games played has decreased each season. Seems he can't take the punishment of the position.
damn you, The Cat! you’re forcing me defend reggie bush! stop it! stop it right now! 3 TDs on a mere 20 attempts is not overstating value, The Cat. and that’s not something NFL teams can generally find with ease - it’s a legitimate weapon. huh? how is his knee injury an indictment of his inability to run between the tackles? that’s a total and complete disconnect. he has bone-rubbing-on-bone because the cartilage is all gone - that’s a condition of wear and tear and completely unrelated to where a player gains his yardage. yes; yes he did: in six more games!. and while I hate to make anything resembling an excuse for reggie bush…: if, after six games, you require micro-fracture surgery… i’m gonna guess those first 6 games, and the subsequent next 4 games post-surgery, were not played at optimal health. but bush still scored 3 more TDs in six fewer games and averaged 36 more total yards per game. even if you want to pretend special teams are irrelevant, he still averaged just shy of 20 more total yards a game and scored the same number of TDs in six fewer games. all on an obviously bum knee. he was a more productive player going by the numbers. still an indictment that faulk is in the same ballpark, though… and jason lane had a better year than lance berkman in 2005 because he had more hits and HRs… oh, did berkman miss 30 games that year and still post significantly better non-counting stats (not to mention some pretty relevant counting stats)? not relevant because i’m only using hits and HRs in my evaluation and completely ignoring the discrepancy in games played, injury recovery…..
The capacity to stay on the field matters. Yes, while actually on the field, Bush was more productive. ...while on the field. That's my concern with Shaub, by the way. If he misses even one game next year, I'm going to lament even more those two second rounders.
sure it does; absolutely. but you can't use counting stats to determine a player is better than another and just ignore that said player played in 6 more games. (or that the other player apparently had a REALLY bad knee). the ONLY average The Cat listed was YPC because it was the ONLY average in which faulk "put up better numbers." again, doing so playing in six more games. that's disingenious and he knows it - i don't mean that contentiously: The Cat respects numbers. like i said, that faulk is in the same ballpark is damning enough. no need to trump up the numbers to hammer the point home.
As an aside, I hope you're not completely serious there. A lot of QB's miss 1-2 games in a season. I'll be ok if he can play at least 14 and be healthy at the end of the season.
Agree on everything except the extra TDs/yards per game argument. TDs are a byproduct of the entire offense, while yards per game has to do with getting your number called often. Being on one of the best offenses in football gets you red zone carries and TDs assuming they give the ball to you then. The biggest problem with Bush is his Yards Per Carry. The fact that he averages less than 4 ypc makes him a bad RB, regardless of how many yards he gets per game. One number that people don't use enough when it comes to judging Bush is his salary though. The guy makes PRO BOWL caliber money and signing bonus. This is absolutely critical in the NFL, where the hard cap makes good contracts vital to team success. That's a lot of cap space that NO is eating and cannot spend on quality defensive players. I know they'd never admit it, but I'd bet that if NO has a way to get rid of Bush's contract, they'd do it in an instant. Then make Thomas the feature back, draft another backup RB in the low rounds, and use the extra money plugging their horrible defense.
fair enough; i don't disagree. as stated, i have little to no interest in defending reggie bush. i just felt this particular attack was a tad disingenuous. again, i'm with you (and The Cat, and retroactively, msn) - but yards per game are not by any stretch irrelevant.
You're probably right; it was piling on a little too high and too deep. The Texans, at least historically, have so little to hang their hat on that being vindicated over a controversial draft pick from three years is still a fan's biggest thing to crow about, sadly enough. That and 19-10. Hopefully that changes in the intermediate future.
