What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Adrian Peterson or Reggie Bush? (1 Viewer)

-primetime-

-primetime-

Footballguy
If you were starting a football team and had to choose between Peterson or Bush who would you take?

Reggie ranked #42 in the NFL last year in rushing yards and averaged 3.6 ypc.....that is poor. But he makes up for it by lining up at WR and being a PR/KR

Peterson has played one game but I think we all understand that he is a more dominate runner than Bush is if he can stay healthy...

they both still have alot to prove...Peterson more so than Bush

who would you take????

 
Bush-- i think the NFL is now more about mismatches and exploiting weaknesses. Bush can line-up as a WR and no LB can cover him.

if teams bring in an extra DB the saints pound the middle. then as a KR/PR he is as dangerous as anyone not named devin hester.

I like AP but i would start with Bush.

 
Bush w/ out question.......He is one of the most popular NFL players (they are marketing him like crazy). He sells more than Peterson, and Im not convinced Peterson can stay healthy.

 
I think Peterson is a much better prototypical NFL RB than Bush. I would rather build a running game around AD than around Bush.

 
I'd take Bush because what he brings to the table is a little more unique. Peterson is a great back, but it's easier to find a decent runner of his type than it is to find a guy who can line up all over the field and make plays.

 
EBF said:
I'd take Bush because what he brings to the table is a little more unique. Peterson is a great back, but it's easier to find a decent runner of his type than it is to find a guy who can line up all over the field and make plays.
Click to expand...
:hot:
 
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with video cameras?

:hot:

I'd say Bush, for reasons others have stated:

1. Marketing machine

2. Unique player who teams have to gameplan around on multiple levels

3. Peterson's injury history

 
As a GM and wanting to build the best team possible, I'd want AD. As an owner, I'd want Bush.

 
AP, bush may never be that kind of rb. Bush needs a big guy like white or deuce to be aq change of pace. This isnt college and pure athleticism probably wont be enough to make him great. But I could be wrong he is still very young!

 
peterson is so much better than bush it isn't even close...bush is eric metcalf on steroids...peterson is everything a gm could want in a running back

another analogy...peterson is john elway, bush is randall cunningham

 
kevjones22 said:
AP, bush may never be that kind of rb. Bush needs a big guy like white or deuce to be aq change of pace. This isnt college and pure athleticism probably wont be enough to make him great. But I could be wrong he is still very young!
Click to expand...
in my franchise running back, i want a guy that could run for over 1300 yards in a season...and that' something bush will never do....don't get me wrong, i'd love to have a weapon like bush on my team, but he requires good players around him to excel while a guy like peterson does not.
 
Dt said:
kevjones22 said:
AP, bush may never be that kind of rb. Bush needs a big guy like white or deuce to be aq change of pace. This isnt college and pure athleticism probably wont be enough to make him great. But I could be wrong he is still very young!
Click to expand...
in my franchise running back, i want a guy that could run for over 1300 yards in a season...and that' something bush will never do....don't get me wrong, i'd love to have a weapon like bush on my team, but he requires good players around him to excel while a guy like peterson does not.
Click to expand...
Oh come on now. At least admit that those are your 100% opinions. We have never seen:A) Bush without good players around him; or,

B) Peterson excel without good players around him for more than 1 game (and we don't even know if those Vikings are "good" or "not good")

 
Darren McFadden. He's a once-every-20-years type talent. :mellow:

Seriously, though, if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd choose Peterson. The passing game is designed to be high-risk, high-reward, while the running game is supposed to be a more consistent, less explosive way to move the chains and grind clock; therefore, give me the guy who is going to more consistently move the chains and grind clock. If I were building a team, I'd take a page from the Denver Broncos and pick my runner based on success rate rather than boom/bust potential.

I would prefer McFadden to either, though. He's a devastating runner like Peterson, except without the injury history or the worrisome college production, and he can even play a bit of QB, too. How's THAT for versatility, eh Mr. Bush?

 
SSOG said:
Darren McFadden. He's a once-every-20-years type talent. ;)

Seriously, though, if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd choose Peterson. The passing game is designed to be high-risk, high-reward, while the running game is supposed to be a more consistent, less explosive way to move the chains and grind clock; therefore, give me the guy who is going to more consistently move the chains and grind clock. If I were building a team, I'd take a page from the Denver Broncos and pick my runner based on success rate rather than boom/bust potential.

I would prefer McFadden to either, though. He's a devastating runner like Peterson, except without the injury history or the worrisome college production, and he can even play a bit of QB, too. How's THAT for versatility, eh Mr. Bush?
Click to expand...
LOL there was 2x more hype for Bush!!!!!1
 
ATRAIN56 said:
SSOG said:
Darren McFadden. He's a once-every-20-years type talent. ;)

Seriously, though, if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd choose Peterson. The passing game is designed to be high-risk, high-reward, while the running game is supposed to be a more consistent, less explosive way to move the chains and grind clock; therefore, give me the guy who is going to more consistently move the chains and grind clock. If I were building a team, I'd take a page from the Denver Broncos and pick my runner based on success rate rather than boom/bust potential.

I would prefer McFadden to either, though. He's a devastating runner like Peterson, except without the injury history or the worrisome college production, and he can even play a bit of QB, too. How's THAT for versatility, eh Mr. Bush?
Click to expand...
LOL there was 2x more hype for Bush!!!!!1
Click to expand...
Are you a gimmick, or is this just how much, (or should I say "how little"?), sense you always make?
 
SSOG said:
ATRAIN56 said:
SSOG said:
Darren McFadden. He's a once-every-20-years type talent. ;)

Seriously, though, if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd choose Peterson. The passing game is designed to be high-risk, high-reward, while the running game is supposed to be a more consistent, less explosive way to move the chains and grind clock; therefore, give me the guy who is going to more consistently move the chains and grind clock. If I were building a team, I'd take a page from the Denver Broncos and pick my runner based on success rate rather than boom/bust potential.

I would prefer McFadden to either, though. He's a devastating runner like Peterson, except without the injury history or the worrisome college production, and he can even play a bit of QB, too. How's THAT for versatility, eh Mr. Bush?
Click to expand...
LOL there was 2x more hype for Bush!!!!!1
Click to expand...
Are you a gimmick, or is this just how much, (or should I say "how little"?), sense you always make?
Click to expand...
Ignore list and move on.You'll feel better.

 
SSOG said:
ATRAIN56 said:
SSOG said:
Darren McFadden. He's a once-every-20-years type talent. ;)

Seriously, though, if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd choose Peterson. The passing game is designed to be high-risk, high-reward, while the running game is supposed to be a more consistent, less explosive way to move the chains and grind clock; therefore, give me the guy who is going to more consistently move the chains and grind clock. If I were building a team, I'd take a page from the Denver Broncos and pick my runner based on success rate rather than boom/bust potential.

I would prefer McFadden to either, though. He's a devastating runner like Peterson, except without the injury history or the worrisome college production, and he can even play a bit of QB, too. How's THAT for versatility, eh Mr. Bush?
Click to expand...
LOL there was 2x more hype for Bush!!!!!1
Click to expand...
Are you a gimmick, or is this just how much, (or should I say "how little"?), sense you always make?
Click to expand...
you cant be serious? Bush>>>.Mcfadden on the hype meter!!!!!1
 
I would take Reggie. Versatility and mismatches are a much bigger threat than just a very good RB. LT is not the fantasy monster he is just because he runs the ball well (see week 1).

If I was New Orleans, I would be using Reggie Bush more. He should be on the field for every play, whether he's lining up at RB or at WR. He should return every punt and kickoff. Hell, I might even try him at QB a few times just to mix it up.

 
Wow, AP has a good first week and he's all of a sudden better than everything than Bush has accomplished up to this point.

Why are there so many people here analyzing NFL players (especially rookies) after ONE #######' week every year? Unreal.

So, if Bush has 170+ yards from scrimmage this week and AP has 50, will everyone flip-flop again seven days from now?

 
radballs said:
Wow, AP has a good first week and he's all of a sudden better than everything than Bush has accomplished up to this point.Why are there so many people here analyzing NFL players (especially rookies) after ONE #######' week every year? Unreal. So, if Bush has 170+ yards from scrimmage this week and AP has 50, will everyone flip-flop again seven days from now?
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Plenty of AP supporters would have said this months ago. Actually, probably years ago too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chunky Soup said:
radballs said:
Wow, AP has a good first week and he's all of a sudden better than everything than Bush has accomplished up to this point.Why are there so many people here analyzing NFL players (especially rookies) after ONE #######' week every year? Unreal. So, if Bush has 170+ yards from scrimmage this week and AP has 50, will everyone flip-flop again seven days from now?
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Plenty of AP supporters would have said this months ago. Actually, probably years ago too.
Click to expand...
Point taken. Just sayin' that the AP supporters think they have been vindicated after one good week. The Bush detractors think they have been vindicated after one poor week. It's all a bunch of BS. How about we start a thread about this no earlier than mid season? We need a minimum of three data points to spot a trend, no?
 
Sopranos said:
TwinTurbo said:
I think Peterson is a much better prototypical NFL RB than Bush. I would rather build a running game around AD than around Bush.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
I agree. If I couldn't count on barry sanders 3rd and 1 or in lambaue for a playoff why would you pick barry sanders jr here? I'd take AP and not look back.But as GM (and not VP of marketing) I think he makes for a more sustainable offense and alos happens to have EXPLOSIVE big play and out of the backfield ability that is slightly lesss than Bush's. But between the tackles it ain't close.
 
radballs said:
Wow, AP has a good first week and he's all of a sudden better than everything than Bush has accomplished up to this point.Why are there so many people here analyzing NFL players (especially rookies) after ONE #######' week every year? Unreal. So, if Bush has 170+ yards from scrimmage this week and AP has 50, will everyone flip-flop again seven days from now?
Click to expand...
analzying on one game at the nfl level can show if aSTAR caliber player has "it" and can flow wit the speed of the game. Now tha concrn is really absent, we don't have the discount the talent we all know he has.Only an injury can stop this guy. Let's not foregt that it was a fluke spin on a td dive (after having a SICK game AND run) that he broke a bone and was hurt again. That's not bad joints, bad knees, it,s bad luck.
 
Hipple said:
radballs said:
Wow, AP has a good first week and he's all of a sudden better than everything than Bush has accomplished up to this point.Why are there so many people here analyzing NFL players (especially rookies) after ONE #######' week every year? Unreal. So, if Bush has 170+ yards from scrimmage this week and AP has 50, will everyone flip-flop again seven days from now?
Click to expand...
analzying on one game at the nfl level can show if aSTAR caliber player has "it" and can flow wit the speed of the game. Now tha concrn is really absent, we don't have the discount the talent we all know he has.Only an injury can stop this guy. Let's not foregt that it was a fluke spin on a td dive (after having a SICK game AND run) that he broke a bone and was hurt again. That's not bad joints, bad knees, it,s bad luck.
Click to expand...
I never had any doubt about AP's lack of "it". Just that his surrounding cast may have issues and there might be competition from the guy listed higher than him on the depth chart. Also, that again, people may be putting too much emphasis on ONE GAME. He's going to be a stud for years. I'm still not sure if he will be in redraft leagues this year, and I own him in a few.
 
radballs said:
Hipple said:
radballs said:
Wow, AP has a good first week and he's all of a sudden better than everything than Bush has accomplished up to this point.Why are there so many people here analyzing NFL players (especially rookies) after ONE #######' week every year? Unreal. So, if Bush has 170+ yards from scrimmage this week and AP has 50, will everyone flip-flop again seven days from now?
Click to expand...
analzying on one game at the nfl level can show if aSTAR caliber player has "it" and can flow wit the speed of the game. Now tha concrn is really absent, we don't have the discount the talent we all know he has.Only an injury can stop this guy. Let's not foregt that it was a fluke spin on a td dive (after having a SICK game AND run) that he broke a bone and was hurt again. That's not bad joints, bad knees, it,s bad luck.
Click to expand...
I never had any doubt about AP's lack of "it". Just that his surrounding cast may have issues and there might be competition from the guy listed higher than him on the depth chart. Also, that again, people may be putting too much emphasis on ONE GAME. He's going to be a stud for years. I'm still not sure if he will be in redraft leagues this year, and I own him in a few.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Come Week 4 when AP is the only thing MIN has going on offense and is facing 8 in the box, that will be his true test. Maybe he'll pass, maybe he won't.But until that day comes when teams are scheming to stop AP (something Bush was dealing with as a rookie from an unprecedented first week of his NFL career) I think you have to reserve judgment.I'm a Bush fan, but if AP can show he can produce with everyone on D focused on him and facing a constant 8 in the box, I'd choose him.
 
radballs said:
Hipple said:
radballs said:
Wow, AP has a good first week and he's all of a sudden better than everything than Bush has accomplished up to this point.Why are there so many people here analyzing NFL players (especially rookies) after ONE #######' week every year? Unreal. So, if Bush has 170+ yards from scrimmage this week and AP has 50, will everyone flip-flop again seven days from now?
Click to expand...
analzying on one game at the nfl level can show if aSTAR caliber player has "it" and can flow wit the speed of the game. Now tha concrn is really absent, we don't have the discount the talent we all know he has.Only an injury can stop this guy. Let's not foregt that it was a fluke spin on a td dive (after having a SICK game AND run) that he broke a bone and was hurt again. That's not bad joints, bad knees, it,s bad luck.
Click to expand...
I never had any doubt about AP's lack of "it". Just that his surrounding cast may have issues and there might be competition from the guy listed higher than him on the depth chart. Also, that again, people may be putting too much emphasis on ONE GAME. He's going to be a stud for years. I'm still not sure if he will be in redraft leagues this year, and I own him in a few.
Click to expand...
TJackson scares everyone, but as an AD owner in multiple leagues, I sleep well at night b/c of Mt McKinnie and SHutchinson. As long as those guys are healthy, AD's going to have lots and lots of value in any league.
 
I like Reggie Bush, but after 19 games, I have yet to see him be a consistant difference maker on the ground. He looks great in the open field, of course, but he hasn't been that effective between the tackles. Of course I haven't watched every Saints game, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he is anything more than the best 3rd down RB in the NFL. He'll still be a 80 - 100 catch player, but I don't know if I see him as a 1000 yard rusher year in and year out.

AD can be a dominant weapon to build an entire offense around, IMO. I'd take him over Bush. He is easily athletic enough to develop into a solid receiver (admittedly nowhere near Bush's class) and will be an annual threat to top 2000 yards from scrimmage. I don't know if I see that in Bush yet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's only one other RB in the NFL I'd take currently over AP and that's LT2. AP is a once in a generation RB. If his health holds up he will be a top 3 fantasy RB for a long time

 
ATRAIN56 said:
SSOG said:
ATRAIN56 said:
SSOG said:
Darren McFadden. He's a once-every-20-years type talent. :lmao:

Seriously, though, if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd choose Peterson. The passing game is designed to be high-risk, high-reward, while the running game is supposed to be a more consistent, less explosive way to move the chains and grind clock; therefore, give me the guy who is going to more consistently move the chains and grind clock. If I were building a team, I'd take a page from the Denver Broncos and pick my runner based on success rate rather than boom/bust potential.

I would prefer McFadden to either, though. He's a devastating runner like Peterson, except without the injury history or the worrisome college production, and he can even play a bit of QB, too. How's THAT for versatility, eh Mr. Bush?
Click to expand...
LOL there was 2x more hype for Bush!!!!!1
Click to expand...
Are you a gimmick, or is this just how much, (or should I say "how little"?), sense you always make?
Click to expand...
you cant be serious? Bush>>>.Mcfadden on the hype meter!!!!!1
Click to expand...
Cool, thanks for answering that question. Definitely a gimmick.
 
Tubalcane said:
There's only one other RB in the NFL I'd take currently over AP and that's LT2. AP is a once in a generation RB. If his health holds up he will be a top 3 fantasy RB for a long time
Click to expand...
Assuming "generation" means "year", because he will wind up being preceded by another "once-in-a-generation RB" (Bush) and followed by yet another (McFadden), making it three "once-in-a-generation" RBs in 3 years. Somehow the math just doesn't add up.Peterson isn't a "once-in-a-generation" RB, he's a "once-every-3-years-or-so" RB.
 
SSOG said:
Tubalcane said:
There's only one other RB in the NFL I'd take currently over AP and that's LT2. AP is a once in a generation RB. If his health holds up he will be a top 3 fantasy RB for a long time
Click to expand...
Assuming "generation" means "year", because he will wind up being preceded by another "once-in-a-generation RB" (Bush) and followed by yet another (McFadden), making it three "once-in-a-generation" RBs in 3 years. Somehow the math just doesn't add up.Peterson isn't a "once-in-a-generation" RB, he's a "once-every-3-years-or-so" RB.
Click to expand...
It's my opinion (brace yourself...my opinions are often unfounded and devoid of all logical reasoning) that AP is the next Erik Dickerson. If he performs up to that lofty comparison then his FF stats for the next few years would be out of this world. All this of course is predicated on his health.
 
well it looks like this was pretty much split right down the middle...

maybe a slight edge to Peterson...

thank you all

 
Peterson, without much question.

BOTH have durability issues at this point which must be proven to not be the case. So that is a wash.

Bush has a year under his belt and honestly, how many times were you WOWED by his play? What happened to the second coming of Gale Sayers? I don't even yet see the second coming of Westbrook, though that seems to be his direction.

Peterson, however, is the best pure runner to come out of college since LT2 imo. And I already have seen a little wow from him.

 
Koya said:
Peterson, without much question.BOTH have durability issues at this point which must be proven to not be the case. So that is a wash.Bush has a year under his belt and honestly, how many times were you WOWED by his play? What happened to the second coming of Gale Sayers? I don't even yet see the second coming of Westbrook, though that seems to be his direction.Peterson, however, is the best pure runner to come out of college since LT2 imo. And I already have seen a little wow from him.
Click to expand...
How does Bush have durability issues? As far as I know, he's never missed a game in his career.People have short memories around here. Peterson has a big edge in this poll because he's coming off a big week while Bush is coming off a down week. Next week it could be a different story. And I would dispute the claim that Peterson has shown us more "wow" than Bush. Peterson's big TD last week was basically a blown coverage. He caught the ball and ran in a straight line. It was a nice play, but nothing extraordinary. It was certainly no better than a number of highlights Bush had last season. Certain players have always been lightning rods for criticism on these message boards. I think Bush is one of those guys. All of the people who called him overhyped are eager to see their prediction comes true, so they're quick to rip him when he has a bad game or makes a bad play. It's the same type of stuff we saw with Vick for his first 3-4 years in the league. I like Bush a little more than Peterson because I think he gives you more options and I think he's a slightly better athlete. I also think he could do just fine as 20+ carry per week back if he was given the opportunity. I view him as a suped up version of Barber or Westbrook. Neither of those guys started his career as a workhorse, but both eventually grew into the role.
 
RAIDERNATION said:
SSOG said:
ATRAIN56 said:
SSOG said:
Darren McFadden. He's a once-every-20-years type talent. :lmao:

Seriously, though, if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd choose Peterson. The passing game is designed to be high-risk, high-reward, while the running game is supposed to be a more consistent, less explosive way to move the chains and grind clock; therefore, give me the guy who is going to more consistently move the chains and grind clock. If I were building a team, I'd take a page from the Denver Broncos and pick my runner based on success rate rather than boom/bust potential.

I would prefer McFadden to either, though. He's a devastating runner like Peterson, except without the injury history or the worrisome college production, and he can even play a bit of QB, too. How's THAT for versatility, eh Mr. Bush?
Click to expand...
LOL there was 2x more hype for Bush!!!!!1
Click to expand...
Are you a gimmick, or is this just how much, (or should I say "how little"?), sense you always make?
Click to expand...
Ignore list and move on.You'll feel better.

Click to expand...
:lmao:
 
EBF said:
Koya said:
Peterson, without much question.BOTH have durability issues at this point which must be proven to not be the case. So that is a wash.Bush has a year under his belt and honestly, how many times were you WOWED by his play? What happened to the second coming of Gale Sayers? I don't even yet see the second coming of Westbrook, though that seems to be his direction.Peterson, however, is the best pure runner to come out of college since LT2 imo. And I already have seen a little wow from him.
Click to expand...
How does Bush have durability issues? As far as I know, he's never missed a game in his career.People have short memories around here. Peterson has a big edge in this poll because he's coming off a big week while Bush is coming off a down week. Next week it could be a different story. And I would dispute the claim that Peterson has shown us more "wow" than Bush. Peterson's big TD last week was basically a blown coverage. He caught the ball and ran in a straight line. It was a nice play, but nothing extraordinary. It was certainly no better than a number of highlights Bush had last season. Certain players have always been lightning rods for criticism on these message boards. I think Bush is one of those guys. All of the people who called him overhyped are eager to see their prediction comes true, so they're quick to rip him when he has a bad game or makes a bad play. It's the same type of stuff we saw with Vick for his first 3-4 years in the league. I like Bush a little more than Peterson because I think he gives you more options and I think he's a slightly better athlete. I also think he could do just fine as 20+ carry per week back if he was given the opportunity. I view him as a suped up version of Barber or Westbrook. Neither of those guys started his career as a workhorse, but both eventually grew into the role.
Click to expand...
Bush, imo, takes some hits he shouldnt and reacts in a way that has me concerned. He has yet to come CLOSE to being a real feature back with Deuce there. How good would Bush be if he were their primary and only real weapon in the backfield? Second, I am not basing my opinion of Peterson on last week. Obviously it plays into the equation a little since it was the first time we saw him at this level in the regular season, but you cant react too much either way from one game. Bush might be the better athlete. But Peterson is by far imo the better NFL running back. And I have seen NOTHING that would suggest Bush can be a 25 carry back for a team over the course of a month when he needs to put them on his back.
 
Koya said:
EBF said:
Koya said:
Peterson, without much question.BOTH have durability issues at this point which must be proven to not be the case. So that is a wash.Bush has a year under his belt and honestly, how many times were you WOWED by his play? What happened to the second coming of Gale Sayers? I don't even yet see the second coming of Westbrook, though that seems to be his direction.Peterson, however, is the best pure runner to come out of college since LT2 imo. And I already have seen a little wow from him.
Click to expand...
How does Bush have durability issues? As far as I know, he's never missed a game in his career.People have short memories around here. Peterson has a big edge in this poll because he's coming off a big week while Bush is coming off a down week. Next week it could be a different story. And I would dispute the claim that Peterson has shown us more "wow" than Bush. Peterson's big TD last week was basically a blown coverage. He caught the ball and ran in a straight line. It was a nice play, but nothing extraordinary. It was certainly no better than a number of highlights Bush had last season. Certain players have always been lightning rods for criticism on these message boards. I think Bush is one of those guys. All of the people who called him overhyped are eager to see their prediction comes true, so they're quick to rip him when he has a bad game or makes a bad play. It's the same type of stuff we saw with Vick for his first 3-4 years in the league. I like Bush a little more than Peterson because I think he gives you more options and I think he's a slightly better athlete. I also think he could do just fine as 20+ carry per week back if he was given the opportunity. I view him as a suped up version of Barber or Westbrook. Neither of those guys started his career as a workhorse, but both eventually grew into the role.
Click to expand...
Bush, imo, takes some hits he shouldnt and reacts in a way that has me concerned. He has yet to come CLOSE to being a real feature back with Deuce there. How good would Bush be if he were their primary and only real weapon in the backfield? Second, I am not basing my opinion of Peterson on last week. Obviously it plays into the equation a little since it was the first time we saw him at this level in the regular season, but you cant react too much either way from one game. Bush might be the better athlete. But Peterson is by far imo the better NFL running back. And I have seen NOTHING that would suggest Bush can be a 25 carry back for a team over the course of a month when he needs to put them on his back.
Click to expand...
You can't fault a guy for opportunities he's never had. The whole "Bush has never carried the load" thing is not a compelling argument. LenDale White was a record-setting RB at USC. He broke the school rushing TD record and averaged over 6.0 YPC. Regardless of how his pro career will turn out, there's simply no disputing that he was a phenomenal college RB. I don't think you can fault Bush for splitting carries with him. It's the same story in the NFL with Deuce. Deuce is one of the top 10 RBs in the league. Losing touches to him is nothing to be ashamed of. A large percentage of the best RBs in the NFL started their careers as backups or RBBC guys (Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Rudi Johnson, Larry Johnson, Steven Jackson, Duece McAllister Tiki Barber, Brian Westbrook, Frank Gore). The funny thing is, when most of those guys were riding the pine, there wasn't anyone saying they couldn't carry the load like people are saying about Bush right now. I'll grant you that Reggie hasn't carried the load at any point in his college or NFL career. However, it's important to recognize that just because a player hasn't done something doesn't mean he can't. We didn't know Tiki Barber could carry the load. He was a RBBC for his first five years in the league. Then what happened? He averaged 300+ carries for the next five years with minimal injury issues.So while it might be faulty to assume that Reggie can be a workhorse someday, it's equally faulty to assume that he can't. There is literally zero evidence that suggests he is incapable of handling a heavy workload. That's why I get so tired of reading all this crap about him being a 3rd down back or change of pace guy. He's played a handful of NFL games. We don't yet know what he's capable of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EBF
2023 Rookie Thoughts
2 3
Replies
102
Views
6K
Da Franchise
D
T
Travdogg's 3 round mock draft
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
travdogg
T
Ministry of Pain
Atlanta Falcons Offense '24- WR/RB/TE/QB and the OL
Replies
3
Views
187
zamboni
zamboni

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top