my goal with this draft is to not blow it. i think everyone can agree that whatever player they take, that player has to make this a better team. fair? i think we can also agree that there’s inherent risk with any player we draft. it’s the nature of the beast. bush, the brick… everyone’s a potential bust and predicting which ones will is beyond us, the team and every one else. from there, we splinter into our own evaluations of where the team is, what the team needs, etc. my take is that this is the worst team in football with two genuine playmakers on its roster. beyond that, quite sincerely, flotsam. maybe carr’s a keeper… i do like DD, but recognize he's not a gamebreaker… pitts has potential; gaffney has been adequate; armstrong and mathis are intriguing; i might be inclined to keep babin and maybe greenwood based on age; same, possibly for pbuch and the two safeties. otherwise… that’s where my head is. i do NOT prescribe to the line being our biggest problem; i think we have several equally large problems (no pass rush, poor tackling, dumb players, poor route running, coaching, player evaluation….) with a roster that barren and a team this awful, i want them to take the best player available. so if there’s one player clearly better than all other players, that's my guy. it cuts down on the likelihood of missing, it cuts down on the risk associated with moving around in the draft and it instantly meets my top criteria – it makes the team better. i would rather have the best player than the… 5th or 6th best player and the 33rd best player if i’ve determined the best player is indeed heads and tails the best player. if i grade four players equal, i’d be open to trading down as long as i stayed in the top 4 and especially if there’s a top QB in the mix (but not among my top 4) because, while i’m open to exploring a new QB, if carr is here next year, it’s not going to be cost-effective to take a QB with a top 4 pick. no, it is one of their needs; not the only one. throughout the entirety of this thread, that’s been my biggest objection – this notion that a team as bad as this one – a team that has played 540 minutes of football and held the lead for exactly 17:46 – has a single need. it has needs at every. single. position. you can’t not upgrade this talent. if you go into this draft so narrowly focused, you will get burned and this team cannot afford to get burned. someone else mentioned duncan; i liken it to the blazers passing on jordan because they needed a center and already had glyde. that's how narrow focus can kill you and that was light years before a salary cap would have made it an even bigger mistake.
According to the poll, more voters are supportive of trading down, or taking an O-lineman... than taking Bush. The poll is flawed becuase those two other options split the vote. If the vote was simply Bush vs. No Bush, the latter would be winning. Also, these cross-sport analogies have to stop... they don't make sense to begin with because they are different sports, different circumstances, and a different scope of how you evaluate players/positions all-together. This is not Van Horn, Steve Francis, Yao Ming, or any other b-ball situation... Football is entirely different because one player cannot make a difference like they can in the NBA.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of these statements aside from the fact that they are both completely false.
Once again... different SPORT! One player can make the difference in basketball... Jordan could have made the Blazers better all by himself. In football, the TEAM needs to be improved overall (as you've pointed out many times)... and Reggie Bush on this team, or even one with a marginally improved offensive-line that would have no experience together... would not neccesarily be that good. Frankly, the risk/reward of getting a stud pro-bowl LT for 10+ years, vs. taking a RB who could be good (even though there have been better backs drafted later), and would likely have a shorter career (see virtually every RB in the NFL), speaks for itself. The TEAM needs help... start with the line (the foundation), and build from there.
I do believe that the start must be even earlier than the line. So, who do you draft to run the franchise and who do you draft to run the team then who they draft makes great sense. To point: If ML then ensure a good draft replacement for DC, a 2 and a 3? More?
Reggie Bush is not a "between the tackles runner, a skillset that is required of all NFL caliber tailbacks. Granted, he has great open field moves and speed, but I think he projects as a WR/KR at the next level. He doesn't have the leg strength or drive to move the chains in short yardage situations. When I see Bush, I'm quickly reminded of Rocket Ismail, Desmond Howard, and Eric Metcalf. All those guys had serious speed and open field moves. But none of them played TB in the NFL. Meanwhile, you have a potential Jonathan Ogden/Walter Jones/Orlando Pace type of player in D'Brickshaw Ferguson. He's big, strong and athletic, and could anchor the line for many years to come. Okay, even if we don't want Ferguson, we could trade the #1 overall pick and get a huge return, just like San Diego did a couple of years ago with Eli Manning. Meanwhile we pickup an AJ Hawk or Jonathan Scott, either of whom would be solid picks.
Name them. There are more teams with good running backs that aren't top 10 drafted then there are teams with good left tackles that aren't top drafted. The only way we draft Bush or one of the QBs is to hold them hostage for a team to overcompensate us for them if we can't get the right deal before the draft. Go back and look at the history of Super Bowl teams and playoff teams and compare their blind side tackles to their running backs. There is a disporportionate amount of high first round pick blind side tackles on those teams and a plethora of lower than first round drafted running backs. It is much easier to get a quality back later in the draft then it is to get a top notch blind side tackle. For that matter, it is easier to pull out a good QB outside the first round of the draft, then it is to find a top notch tackle after the first round.
Of all the choices available, drafting Bush is the favorite, therefore that statement is not false. If you used this logic, you could say that no poll with more than 2 options is never accurate because you could compile the results of the other options up against the winning option and negate it. The definition of an analogy is similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. So the poster comparing not drafting Tim Duncan because you already have a decent center is applicable to not drafting Reggie Bush because you already have a decent running back. It is a great analogy according to the definition of an analogy, therefore this is not false either. Why do you try to turn everything into D&D? Oh yeah thats right you got kicked out of there, so the only thing that is false is your ability to get into the D&D area so you try to turn all other threads an comments into your own D&D regardless of which forum they may be in.
Based on the poll, more people would prefer to not draft Bush, unless we have people on here who believe that we could still trade down and take Bush. It's not a great analogy when you're comparing two different things. It's like comparing, oh, I don't know, apples and oranges. Not to mention, Tim Duncan isn't a center only. Um, am I the only one debating here? Did I start the thread? Off the top of my head, I can name you, ric, Major, swilkins, Nick, gunn, MadMax, jopatmc, Baqui99, and Jared Novak participating in this debate. Are you saying the only reason they're debating is because I started it? Wow, I did not know I had that kind of influence here. Go to a Laker board or get your panties out of a wad.
Running backs run the ball or catch the ball. Offensive Tackles protect the entire offense. They are the ones that allow the QB the time to throw the ball, the RB the space to run the ball, and the receivers time to run their routes and catch the ball. Not only that but with a good OL, they give the defense time to rest so that they can effectively balance the field and put pressure on the opposing offense. Without a good OL, you have the 2005 Houston Texans. It's really pretty simple. If we had Tom Brady and Ladanian Tomlinson on this team, we'd still have about 1 win because they wouldn't have the time or space to throw, catch, and run. On the other hand, if we had Orlando Pace and Jon Runyan on this team, we would be staring the playoffs in the face. It's as plain as the nose on your face. The OL is top priority this off season.
If we had a poll that said who would you want the rockets to trade and 40 people said mike james and 15 people said Wesley, 15 people said Sura, and then 15 said trade nobody, then would you say that the consensus was to trade James or would you say that the consensus was to not trade Mike James? Your deceptive argument could be used in any poll of this sort. Ok i'd use Shaq as my comparison, not Duncan. I think Bush is the type of player who can have the same type of impact on a football field as Shaq can on a basketball court. (my opinion, it will be proven right or wrong in time). The other posters you mentioned simply give their opinions, you however takes quotes and try to dissect them to make the user look bad. And i'm not a Laker fan, but I do know a superstar player when I see one and its a joy for me to watch Kobe Bryant play basketball, i'm glad I get to see it live in my lifetime. Since i'm a fan of the game of basketball, and grew up playing it my whole life, I can appreciate good players and I follow them and their teams, are you a fan of the NBA or are you a Rockets only type fan? If you choose the latter then don't knock me for liking Kobe Bryant because you'd never understand.
None of them played TB in the NFL, because they wern't running backs. Maybe you could credit Metcalf with some time in the backfield, but he was primarily a receiver. Bush is also bigger than those three.
You can make up any hypothetical poll you want. We all know what the three options other than draft Bush mean. They mean don't draft Bush. We're talking about a majority and a consensus of people on this board saying they don't want to draft Bush. In your hypothetical poll, the majority of the people did not want to trade James and the consensus would be to trade someone other than James. Shaq would be a better comparison, but it's still not the same. In the NBA, one player can make a huge difference. You won't find many people, if any, who would agree that one person could make the difference on this Texan team. I can't help if my dissections make posters look bad. And re-read over this and other threads. What you're accusing me of doing, many others have done as well. Hell, you're doing it now. I'm a basketball fan. I think Kobe's a cocky, selfish *******. As an NBA fan, you should be pissed that he couldn't get along with someone that made his team a lot better than it is without him and pretty much forced the Lakers to ship him out.
How can you be so sure? USC also has a top notch OL and the highest rated QB in the draft. Bush is a great player because USC has assembled the right pieces around him to make him successful. I wouldn't go so far as to compare Bush to Shaq.
I think when Shaq was coming out of college it was pretty close to a sure thing, the same way with Lebron, they said he'd be the #1 overall pick if he had come out of high school as a junior. I feel the same way about Reggie Bush, its really as close as i've seen to a sure thing in football. I do agree that it is easier to dominate a game in basketball, so the comparisons aren't perfect, but you get the idea.......
