Battle of the Mikes -- Tolbert vs. Bush (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

These 2 guys have a lot in common. They are both big RBs. They have been in the AFC west for their careers. They have both been backups for the majority of their careers. They are both free agents this year and are likely to end up on new teams. They have both shown solid potential and put up some solid fantasy numbers.

All that said, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of people would prefer Michael Bush to Mike Tolbert in a dynasty format. I've actually had this discussion with a few folks and I find it interesting that, while that's the common perception, I think it's kind of flawed.

Let's look at a few things:

Michael Bush:

1) Has a career 4.2 ypc.

2) Had 3.8 ypc last year and didn't break 1000 yds despite getting over 250 carries

3) In 1 ppr leagues, M. Bush finished RB12 overall and scored 224 total points.

4) He was the main ball carrier from week 6 onward without having to share his workload with anyone

5) In 2010, he scored 150 fantasy pts and finished RB28 overall

6) He's decent in pass catching as he caught 37 balls this past year despite never hitting 20 receptions in his first 3 years

7) He'll be 28 in a couple of months

8) He's a free agent in 2012

9) He's scored 8 TDs in each of the last 2 yrs

10) He's 6'1 and 245 lbs

Mike Tolbert

1) Has a career 4.1 ypc

2) Had a 4.0 ypc last year on 121 carries and averaged 4.0 the year before on 182 carries

3) In 1 ppr leagues, M. Tolbert finished RB16 overall and scored 206 pts (18 less than Bush)

4) Tolbert was never the main ball carrier and scored as well as he did in a backup role to Mathews

5) In 2010, he scored 188 fantasy pts and finished RB21 overall

6) He's a very good pass catching RB, catching 54 balls this year and 25 the year before

7) He just turned 26

8) He's a free agent in 2012

9) He's scored 10 and 11 TDs in each of the last 2 yrs

10) He's 5'9 and 243 lbs

When you look at the 2, Tolbert is younger, scores as well, scores more TDs, catches the ball better, and has opportunity to improve if he gets more carries compared to Bush. In fact, there's really no areas that M. Bush is actually favored over M. Tolbert at this point in time. Unless Bush lands in a more favorable situation, I don't see why M. Bush should carry more dynasty value than M. Tolbert even though that's the case amongst most people it seems.

So, is there something I'm missing? Why do you think most value Bush higher than Tolbert?

ETA--

 

[MAC_32]

I don't know why most prefer Bush, I think Tolbert is much better. Bush has one trick, Tolbert has several.

 

[jeter23]

I don't know why most prefer Bush, I think Tolbert is much better. Bush has one trick, Tolbert has several.

 

[SayWhat?]

Concur regarding Bush vs Tolbert. I think Tolbert is flying under the radar a little bit this offseason, and so long as a single team believes in him enough to give him at least a half share of their carries next year he'll be a much better value than Bush currently is.

 

[steelerfan1]

was thinking if miami does indeed get manning to win now they should go after tolbert as well. great blocker and 3rd down type guy.

 

[Dawg Pound 69]

Seems like the common assumption is that Bush will be a starter with his new team, while Tolbert will be a backup for his new team. Also many project Tolbert as more of an H-back or fullback. But anyone who has seen them both play should realize there isn't much difference in their speed. Tolbert would seem to be the better value for both NFL and fantasy purposes.

Good thread, I like these reminders on guys who are flying under the radar.

 

[Steed]

The important thing is how do NFL coaches view them. For whatever reason, Tolbert is viewed as a versatile fb that can start at rb in a pinch. No one views bush as that even though it was briefly mentioned that the raiders would move him to fb because of some injuries a couple years ago but it never happened. I don't think he's a willing run blocker.

 

[gianmarco]

Not surprised by the voting so far. 3 to 1 in favor of Bush yet I still don't know why that is other than that Tolbert may be viewed more as a FB. Is there any evidence that that's really the case?

 

[Hoosier16]

Not surprised by the voting so far. 3 to 1 in favor of Bush yet I still don't know why that is other than that Tolbert may be viewed more as a FB. Is there any evidence that that's really the case?

I think Bush is still living a little off of his potential coming out of college. After breaking his leg, it seems like it was always "just wait until he gets healthy and has a chance to becomes a starter". So now it looks like he might get that chance and the hype has started up again. I think point #7 will surprise some people. It did me a little. You don't think of him being that old.

 

[bengalbuck]

I don't disagree with the premise of the thread, that Tolbert is at least as talented as Bush.

However, I've heard a lot of rumblings that the Bengals are targeting Bush in FA. They'll probably still also look at a RB in the draft if they sign him, though maybe not until the middle rounds. I think that if Bush does indeed sign in Cincy, he will be in a better situation for fantasy relevancy than any spot I can see for Tolbert, so I think he has more value in dynasty as of today. Of course that can all change in a week depending on landing spots.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't disagree with the premise of the thread, that Tolbert is at least as talented as Bush.However, I've heard a lot of rumblings that the Bengals are targeting Bush in FA. They'll probably still also look at a RB in the draft if they sign him, though maybe not until the middle rounds. I think that if Bush does indeed sign in Cincy, he will be in a better situation for fantasy relevancy than any spot I can see for Tolbert, so I think he has more value in dynasty as of today. Of course that can all change in a week depending on landing spots.

Situation can definitely impact their values. But this thought of Bush >> Tolbert has been present before the rumors of landing spots (Bush in Cincy and Tolbert in TB).

 

[BoltBacker]

They are both free agents this year and are likely to end up on new teams.

I'm not sure if that's true or not. Personally, I hope SD brings Tolbert back. I can't picture any team giving Tolbert the entire work load so the salary he gets wherever he lands likely won't be too outrageous imo. If SD doesn't spend the money on Tolbert they'll have to spend some money or a decent draft pick to replace him.

 

[Sebowski]

I don't know why most prefer Bush, I think Tolbert is much better. Bush has one trick, Tolbert has several.

 

[Kenny Powers]

While this has made me think about who is more talented, I just dont think Tolbert is as good as Bush. I think Bush may likely be overrated going into this year, but there is also more reasoning behind it.

That said, this made me realize Tolbert should be a great value almost regardless of destination.

 

[cvnpoka]

tolbert's success is attributed to the chargers offense and scheme. norv's a joke of a coach in most ways, but he is one of the best at using his offensive players properly.

 

[Donnybrook]

They are both free agents this year and are likely to end up on new teams.

I'm not sure if that's true or not. Personally, I hope SD brings Tolbert back. I can't picture any team giving Tolbert the entire work load so the salary he gets wherever he lands likely won't be too outrageous imo. If SD doesn't spend the money on Tolbert they'll have to spend some money or a decent draft pick to replace him.

He probably needs to go out into free agency and not get the lucrative offers he is expecting. He will find out how good he has got it in San Diego. I won't be surprised if goes backs to San Diego and signs for a more reasonable price.

 

[gianmarco]

They are both free agents this year and are likely to end up on new teams.

I'm not sure if that's true or not. Personally, I hope SD brings Tolbert back. I can't picture any team giving Tolbert the entire work load so the salary he gets wherever he lands likely won't be too outrageous imo. If SD doesn't spend the money on Tolbert they'll have to spend some money or a decent draft pick to replace him.

So far all reports are that he is likely leaving because SD isn't interested in resigning him. Could he stay? Sure. But at this point, based on all reports, I'd say it's greater than 50/50 that he leaves. Even if he stays, he's already shown he's a consistent 200 pt/year guy even as a backup in SD.

The Union-Tribune San Diego considers free agent Mike Tolbert "likely" to leave the Chargers in free agency. Beat writer Kevin Acee suggests free agent DB Corey Graham could be targeted to replace Tolbert on special teams. San Diego's 2011 Special Teams Player of the Year, Tolbert is also a bowling-ball short-yardage runner and one of the league's top pass-protecting backs. He'll attract plenty of interest. Tolbert's departure would also be good news for Ryan Mathews' 2012 fantasy value.

Acee is one of the better beat writers out there in terms of predicting personnel movement.

 

[Hoosier16]

I don't disagree with the premise of the thread, that Tolbert is at least as talented as Bush.However, I've heard a lot of rumblings that the Bengals are targeting Bush in FA. They'll probably still also look at a RB in the draft if they sign him, though maybe not until the middle rounds. I think that if Bush does indeed sign in Cincy, he will be in a better situation for fantasy relevancy than any spot I can see for Tolbert, so I think he has more value in dynasty as of today. Of course that can all change in a week depending on landing spots.

I don't see why the Bengals would sign him. They can have Benson and/or someone from rounds 2-4 who can produce like Bush at a significantly cheaper price.

 

[Warpig]

WOW! Before I voted I figured it would be a landslide favoring Tolbert! Especially in dynasty leagues. Tolbert is 26 (turns 27 in NOV.) and I believe Bush is 27 (turns 28 in June).

Tolbert is so deceptive. Guy can block, catch, and run.

I own Bush in one league and would gladly trade him for Tolbert. I've been targeting Tolbert as a sneaky, cheap RB2/3. He's usually good for double digit goalline plunges and 30-40 or more receptions.

 

[Kiddnets]

I like Tolbert quite a bit...as a Jet fan I would love to see them sign him to team up with S Greene as a ground and pound 1-2 punch...I actually think he could be the man if he falls into the right situation. It all depends on where he goes - if its RBBC like everyone thinks then he will likely produce similar stats that he has been doing....but if he lands in a place where he can get the #1 job he could pay huge dividends.

Young, relatively low mileage, Goal line back and can catch....I'll buy!

 

[az_prof]

The OP could be right. But I prefer Bush. He has carried the ball more and therefore shown more that he can be a featured back. Tolbert has 1410 yards on 341 carries compared to 2642 on 632 carries. And Bush has a better career rushing ypc despite playing for a less complete offense; most of those years Oakland was a one dimensional team--a running team. Bush is a good receiver too--no advantage to Tolbert there. Both are good blockers.

Bush appears to have better ball security; 4 fumbles on 723 touches; Tolbert has 8 fumbles on 450 Touches.

Let's assume they are equal as runners, despite the fact that Bush has performed slightly better over 50% more carries, the ball security difference alone would set him apart. You may not care about it, but NFL teams do. Tolbert fumbles once ever 56 touches; Bush fumbles once every 180 touches.

 

[SWC]

toblert is not only a great player but he is a quality individual who is nice to others and would improve any room he walked in to so that is a plus and hey lets face it the guy likes to eat so he will be in a lot of rooms when he goes to restaurants so the whole community around will be better wherever he goes as long as that community has an old country buffet

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

The OP could be right. But I prefer Bush. He has carried the ball more and therefore shown more that he can be a featured back. Tolbert has 1410 yards on 341 carries compared to 2642 on 632 carries. And Bush has a better career rushing ypc despite playing for a less complete offense; most of those years Oakland was a one dimensional team--a running team. Bush is a good receiver too--no advantage to Tolbert there. Both are good blockers.Bush appears to have better ball security; 4 fumbles on 723 touches; Tolbert has 8 fumbles on 450 Touches. Let's assume they are equal as runners, despite the fact that Bush has performed slightly better over 50% more carries, the ball security difference alone would set him apart. You may not care about it, but NFL teams do. Tolbert fumbles once ever 56 touches; Bush fumbles once every 180 touches.

Agree with this. I think there is some over thinking going on here. We're about to find out what actual GMs think of each of these guys though. Let's see who gets the better contract.

 

[MAC_32]

The OP could be right. But I prefer Bush. He has carried the ball more and therefore shown more that he can be a featured back. Tolbert has 1410 yards on 341 carries compared to 2642 on 632 carries. And Bush has a better career rushing ypc despite playing for a less complete offense; most of those years Oakland was a one dimensional team--a running team. Bush is a good receiver too--no advantage to Tolbert there. Both are good blockers.Bush appears to have better ball security; 4 fumbles on 723 touches; Tolbert has 8 fumbles on 450 Touches. Let's assume they are equal as runners, despite the fact that Bush has performed slightly better over 50% more carries, the ball security difference alone would set him apart. You may not care about it, but NFL teams do. Tolbert fumbles once ever 56 touches; Bush fumbles once every 180 touches.

Agree with this. I think there is some over thinking going on here. We're about to find out what actual GMs think of each of these guys though. Let's see who gets the better contract.

Bush will get the better contract and is the more valuable player because he will be given a greater opportunity. Donesn't change my opinion that Tolbert's the better player though.

 

[doowain]

IMO Tolbert's upside is as a 1B. He'll never be "the guy". He's not elusive. He's not "fast". He does some things well, sure.

In the right situation (SD), he'll score enough TDs and catch enough balls to make you plug him in as a RB3 most weeks, but I just don't see how you can make a case for him over Bush.

Wasn't Bush Top 3 this year during the stretch where he took over for DMC? Tolbert is too reliant on TDs and receptions for me. Hard to imagine a more perfect situation for his services (and ignoring of his shortcomings) than SD, so when (if) he leaves, his value will not increase IMO.

ETA: FWIW, I own neither.

 

[gianmarco]

IMO Tolbert's upside is as a 1B. He'll never be "the guy". He's not elusive. He's not "fast". He does some things well, sure.

In the right situation (SD), he'll score enough TDs and catch enough balls to make you plug him in as a RB3 most weeks, but I just don't see how you can make a case for him over Bush.

Wasn't Bush Top 3 this year during the stretch where he took over for DMC? Tolbert is too reliant on TDs and receptions for me. Hard to imagine a more perfect situation for his services (and ignoring of his shortcomings) than SD, so when (if) he leaves, his value will not increase IMO.

ETA: FWIW, I own neither.

He was RB21 in 2010 and RB 16 in 2011. That's a RB3 "in the right situation"? He did that with just 182 carries and 121 carries.

Also, try watching the video above. Small sample but he's clearly "fast" on most of those runs.

 

[SayWhat?]

IMO Tolbert's upside is as a 1B. He'll never be "the guy". He's not elusive. He's not "fast". He does some things well, sure.

In the right situation (SD), he'll score enough TDs and catch enough balls to make you plug him in as a RB3 most weeks, but I just don't see how you can make a case for him over Bush.

Wasn't Bush Top 3 this year during the stretch where he took over for DMC? Tolbert is too reliant on TDs and receptions for me. Hard to imagine a more perfect situation for his services (and ignoring of his shortcomings) than SD, so when (if) he leaves, his value will not increase IMO.

ETA: FWIW, I own neither.

I would think that this is revisionist thinking, no? Bush had never been "the guy" in his career, and wouldn't have been this past season had it not been for a significant injury to McFadden. If Mathews had gone down for the last ten weeks of 2011 instead of McFadden, I think you could flip flop the names in the above paragraph and not bat an eye. I don't think Bush's strong finish in 2011 means anything as it relates to whether he is more or less capable than Tolbert going forward. They've very similar backs IMO in that they're both extremely capable, but not exceptional.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

IMO Tolbert's upside is as a 1B. He'll never be "the guy". He's not elusive. He's not "fast". He does some things well, sure.

In the right situation (SD), he'll score enough TDs and catch enough balls to make you plug him in as a RB3 most weeks, but I just don't see how you can make a case for him over Bush.

Wasn't Bush Top 3 this year during the stretch where he took over for DMC? Tolbert is too reliant on TDs and receptions for me. Hard to imagine a more perfect situation for his services (and ignoring of his shortcomings) than SD, so when (if) he leaves, his value will not increase IMO.

ETA: FWIW, I own neither.

I would think that this is revisionist thinking, no? Bush had never been "the guy" in his career, and wouldn't have been this past season had it not been for a significant injury to McFadden. If Mathews had gone down for the last ten weeks of 2011 instead of McFadden, I think you could flip flop the names in the above paragraph and not bat an eye. I don't think Bush's strong finish in 2011 means anything as it relates to whether he is more or less capable than Tolbert going forward. They've very similar backs IMO in that they're both extremely capable, but not exceptional.

I'd agree that neither is exceptional. I'd also agree they are both capable. So fantasy value is really going to come down to whom is going to get a better opportunity?

 

[doowain]

IMO Tolbert's upside is as a 1B. He'll never be "the guy". He's not elusive. He's not "fast". He does some things well, sure.

In the right situation (SD), he'll score enough TDs and catch enough balls to make you plug him in as a RB3 most weeks, but I just don't see how you can make a case for him over Bush.

Wasn't Bush Top 3 this year during the stretch where he took over for DMC? Tolbert is too reliant on TDs and receptions for me. Hard to imagine a more perfect situation for his services (and ignoring of his shortcomings) than SD, so when (if) he leaves, his value will not increase IMO.

ETA: FWIW, I own neither.

He was RB21 in 2010 and RB 16 in 2011. That's a RB3 "in the right situation"? He did that with just 182 carries and 121 carries.

Also, try watching the video above. Small sample but he's clearly "fast" on most of those runs.

I watched every San Diego Chargers game this year. I don't need to watch the video above to know he's not fast. Relatively fast for a fat man? Yes. Fast? No.ETA: FWIW, Tolbert used to run a 4.68 40. I'd venture to guess he hasn't gotten faster.

 

[mlball77]

I voted Bush, but admittedly, this thread has made me realize the gap isn't as significant as I may have originally thought. -I still give the advantage to Bush though, as I'm more comfortable with his body of work and I feel like he at least has the potential to be a lead back in a RBBC whereas I see Tolbert as more locked in as the secondary back in a RBBC. Of course, both of their respective values will be impacted considerably by their eventual landing spots.

 

[Jason Wood]

Great post, and I agree with the OP that Tolbert is the guy I would want, all things being equal. And the great thing is that you can probably get Tolbert for cheaper than you can get Bush, even though I think -- at worst, they have comparable abilities and, more likely, Tolbert is the better player.

 

[gianmarco]

I voted Bush, but admittedly, this thread has made me realize the gap isn't as significant as I may have originally thought. -I still give the advantage to Bush though, as I'm more comfortable with his body of work and I feel like he at least has the potential to be a lead back in a RBBC whereas I see Tolbert as more locked in as the secondary back in a RBBC. Of course, both of their respective values will be impacted considerably by their eventual landing spots.

Let's assume that Bush does have a better body of work (which I don't think he does) and that he can potentially get more of a lead role. He's still about to turn 28 years old. Typically, guys at this age start to lose value and aren't players to invest in. Look at DeAngelo or Gore or S. Jackson, all of whom have proven far more and are only 1 year older.....and these guys are valued the same if not lower than Bush. Also, why is Tolbert locked into a secondary back role? When he filled in as the starter in 2010 for Mathews, he did quite well. He can easily shoulder a heavy load. Below are all the games in his career where he's gotten > 15 carries. Of note, these are all from the last 2 years:

19/83/1 and 4/57

25/111/1 and 2/42

26/103/1 and 2/15

16/82/2 and 1/13

17/73/0 and 3/17

16/100/1 and 2/3

16/66/1 and 1/13

17/46/1 and 0/0

That's 152/664/8 (4.4 ypc). When he gets carries, he performs quite well. What if he ends up in TB and earns the bulk of the carries over Blount, whom the team doesn't trust in pass protection at all? Those are the current rumors. And, with him only being 26, he could be viewed similarly to Turner coming out of SD.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where each lands and the kind of contracts they get. I just find it interesting that so many people want to invest in a 28 yo RB when his value can only go down after this year simply because of his age. If for nothing else, give me the similar producing guy that has just as much opportunity that is 2 yrs younger.

 

[gianmarco]

IMO Tolbert's upside is as a 1B. He'll never be "the guy". He's not elusive. He's not "fast". He does some things well, sure.

In the right situation (SD), he'll score enough TDs and catch enough balls to make you plug him in as a RB3 most weeks, but I just don't see how you can make a case for him over Bush.

Wasn't Bush Top 3 this year during the stretch where he took over for DMC? Tolbert is too reliant on TDs and receptions for me. Hard to imagine a more perfect situation for his services (and ignoring of his shortcomings) than SD, so when (if) he leaves, his value will not increase IMO.

ETA: FWIW, I own neither.

I would think that this is revisionist thinking, no? Bush had never been "the guy" in his career, and wouldn't have been this past season had it not been for a significant injury to McFadden. If Mathews had gone down for the last ten weeks of 2011 instead of McFadden, I think you could flip flop the names in the above paragraph and not bat an eye. I don't think Bush's strong finish in 2011 means anything as it relates to whether he is more or less capable than Tolbert going forward. They've very similar backs IMO in that they're both extremely capable, but not exceptional.

Not only that, but Tolbert also put up top 10 numbers in the games he filled in for Mathews in 2010. It's just that Mathews didn't miss as many games as DMC did last year, so it's further away and not over a prolonged stretch so it doesn't seem nearly as significant.

 

[mlball77]

I voted Bush, but admittedly, this thread has made me realize the gap isn't as significant as I may have originally thought. -I still give the advantage to Bush though, as I'm more comfortable with his body of work and I feel like he at least has the potential to be a lead back in a RBBC whereas I see Tolbert as more locked in as the secondary back in a RBBC. Of course, both of their respective values will be impacted considerably by their eventual landing spots.

Let's assume that Bush does have a better body of work (which I don't think he does) and that he can potentially get more of a lead role. He's still about to turn 28 years old. Typically, guys at this age start to lose value and aren't players to invest in. Look at DeAngelo or Gore or S. Jackson, all of whom have proven far more and are only 1 year older.....and these guys are valued the same if not lower than Bush. Also, why is Tolbert locked into a secondary back role? When he filled in as the starter in 2010 for Mathews, he did quite well. He can easily shoulder a heavy load. Below are all the games in his career where he's gotten > 15 carries. Of note, these are all from the last 2 years:

19/83/1 and 4/57

25/111/1 and 2/42

26/103/1 and 2/15

16/82/2 and 1/13

17/73/0 and 3/17

16/100/1 and 2/3

16/66/1 and 1/13

17/46/1 and 0/0

That's 152/664/8 (4.4 ypc). When he gets carries, he performs quite well. What if he ends up in TB and earns the bulk of the carries over Blount, whom the team doesn't trust in pass protection at all? Those are the current rumors. And, with him only being 26, he could be viewed similarly to Turner coming out of SD.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where each lands and the kind of contracts they get. I just find it interesting that so many people want to invest in a 28 yo RB when his value can only go down after this year simply because of his age. If for nothing else, give me the similar producing guy that has just as much opportunity that is 2 yrs younger.

I’m not investing in either, but if I were, and the cost was the same, I’d go with Bush. However, my hunch is that one could buy Tolbert significantly cheaper, so that would probably make me pause and probably go after him. I do agree that the 1-2 years that Bush is older than Tolbert is a knock on his dynasty value. However, Bush's body of work is still the one I'm more comfortable with. As for my belief that Tolbert is more of a #2 in a RBBC, I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine many GM’s or coaches wanting to enter the season with Tolbert as their lead back in a RBBC (this is something important to consider for dynasty value, imo). I think that it is possible that a couple teams could be ok with Bush as their lead back in a RBBC though. It’s all guesswork on how teams see these guys, but this is my guess on the general perception... and again, imo, this impacts the fantasy value of the players in question.

 

[gianmarco]

This is a startup posted in the startup dynasty thread: http://football26.myfantasyleague.com/2012/options?L=59204&O=17

Michael Bush went at 5.6 ahead of guys like Jennings, Bowe, Britt, and Maclin.

Of course Tolbert wasn't taken until 10.6.

Pretty big disparity that I don't think actually exists.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

tolbert's success is attributed to the chargers offense and scheme. norv's a joke of a coach in most ways, but he is one of the best at using his offensive players properly.

Woulda been interesting to see what Bush could have done in SD seeing there were rumors of them trading for Bush for 2 or 3 seasons ago. Tolbert was injured once or twice last season as well. Cant remeber if it was a hammy or his head. What has his injury history been previous to that?As best i can recall Bush had a thumb injury during pre season the year DMC broke out. Before that was the broke leg.Just watching the highlights it seems Tolbert doesnt have many moves but does have sneaky speed.Bush on the other hand puts on a lot of moves but only really showed a big burst in the TB game from a few years ago now.Questions:Who would you prefer to come in and close out a game in the 4th quarter?Who would you prefer to be in there when the games tight in the 4th?

 

[mlball77]

This is a startup posted in the startup dynasty thread: http://football26.myfantasyleague.com/2012/options?L=59204&O=17

Michael Bush went at 5.6 ahead of guys like Jennings, Bowe, Britt, and Maclin.

Of course Tolbert wasn't taken until 10.6.

Pretty big disparity that I don't think actually exists.

Interesting. To me, that is a bit too much of a disparity, and believe Bush went a couple of rounds too early if the guys you listed were still available. -I own Jennings and Bowe in one league and no way I'd even think about moving either for Bush right now.

 

[massraider]

I am on record as saying that Bush is overrated, and that extrapolating his numbers in relief of DMC is a fool's errand.

The biggest thing, to me, that people overlook is that the Raiders have had a very decent run game for a while. Underrated blocking for a while, because for a while, their line was so bad. Not anymore. Bush has talent, and can catch the ball, but there have been questions about endurance in the past. Doesn't run as hard as a man that size should, either. He is a 1B in a RBBC, IMO.

Where things get really dangerous, I think, is if he winds up in a "great" situation. His value will skyrocket.

 

[Steed]

I voted Bush, but admittedly, this thread has made me realize the gap isn't as significant as I may have originally thought. -I still give the advantage to Bush though, as I'm more comfortable with his body of work and I feel like he at least has the potential to be a lead back in a RBBC whereas I see Tolbert as more locked in as the secondary back in a RBBC. Of course, both of their respective values will be impacted considerably by their eventual landing spots.

Let's assume that Bush does have a better body of work (which I don't think he does) and that he can potentially get more of a lead role. He's still about to turn 28 years old. Typically, guys at this age start to lose value and aren't players to invest in. Look at DeAngelo or Gore or S. Jackson, all of whom have proven far more and are only 1 year older.....and these guys are valued the same if not lower than Bush. Also, why is Tolbert locked into a secondary back role? When he filled in as the starter in 2010 for Mathews, he did quite well. He can easily shoulder a heavy load. Below are all the games in his career where he's gotten > 15 carries. Of note, these are all from the last 2 years:

19/83/1 and 4/57

25/111/1 and 2/42

26/103/1 and 2/15

16/82/2 and 1/13

17/73/0 and 3/17

16/100/1 and 2/3

16/66/1 and 1/13

17/46/1 and 0/0

That's 152/664/8 (4.4 ypc). When he gets carries, he performs quite well. What if he ends up in TB and earns the bulk of the carries over Blount, whom the team doesn't trust in pass protection at all? Those are the current rumors. And, with him only being 26, he could be viewed similarly to Turner coming out of SD.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where each lands and the kind of contracts they get. I just find it interesting that so many people want to invest in a 28 yo RB when his value can only go down after this year simply because of his age. If for nothing else, give me the similar producing guy that has just as much opportunity that is 2 yrs younger.

Nice stats and all but this is similar to the Mewelde Moore situation. He always put up nice numbers yet never got a starting job after Minnesota. Why? Perception around the league that he wasn't a starting caliber RB.

 

[Tau837]

I voted Bush, but admittedly, this thread has made me realize the gap isn't as significant as I may have originally thought. -I still give the advantage to Bush though, as I'm more comfortable with his body of work and I feel like he at least has the potential to be a lead back in a RBBC whereas I see Tolbert as more locked in as the secondary back in a RBBC. Of course, both of their respective values will be impacted considerably by their eventual landing spots.

Let's assume that Bush does have a better body of work (which I don't think he does) and that he can potentially get more of a lead role. He's still about to turn 28 years old. Typically, guys at this age start to lose value and aren't players to invest in. Look at DeAngelo or Gore or S. Jackson, all of whom have proven far more and are only 1 year older.....and these guys are valued the same if not lower than Bush. Also, why is Tolbert locked into a secondary back role? When he filled in as the starter in 2010 for Mathews, he did quite well. He can easily shoulder a heavy load. Below are all the games in his career where he's gotten > 15 carries. Of note, these are all from the last 2 years:

19/83/1 and 4/57

25/111/1 and 2/42

26/103/1 and 2/15

16/82/2 and 1/13

17/73/0 and 3/17

16/100/1 and 2/3

16/66/1 and 1/13

17/46/1 and 0/0

That's 152/664/8 (4.4 ypc). When he gets carries, he performs quite well. What if he ends up in TB and earns the bulk of the carries over Blount, whom the team doesn't trust in pass protection at all? Those are the current rumors. And, with him only being 26, he could be viewed similarly to Turner coming out of SD.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where each lands and the kind of contracts they get. I just find it interesting that so many people want to invest in a 28 yo RB when his value can only go down after this year simply because of his age. If for nothing else, give me the similar producing guy that has just as much opportunity that is 2 yrs younger.

On the bolded, IMO you are off base. I think Turner was viewed around the league as a guy with the talent/skills to be a RB1; he just had the misfortune to be backing up a HOF RB while in San Diego. I don't think Tolbert is viewed the same way, nor should he be. Turner is both stronger and much faster than Tolbert.

 

[gianmarco]

I voted Bush, but admittedly, this thread has made me realize the gap isn't as significant as I may have originally thought. -I still give the advantage to Bush though, as I'm more comfortable with his body of work and I feel like he at least has the potential to be a lead back in a RBBC whereas I see Tolbert as more locked in as the secondary back in a RBBC. Of course, both of their respective values will be impacted considerably by their eventual landing spots.

Let's assume that Bush does have a better body of work (which I don't think he does) and that he can potentially get more of a lead role. He's still about to turn 28 years old. Typically, guys at this age start to lose value and aren't players to invest in. Look at DeAngelo or Gore or S. Jackson, all of whom have proven far more and are only 1 year older.....and these guys are valued the same if not lower than Bush. Also, why is Tolbert locked into a secondary back role? When he filled in as the starter in 2010 for Mathews, he did quite well. He can easily shoulder a heavy load. Below are all the games in his career where he's gotten > 15 carries. Of note, these are all from the last 2 years:

19/83/1 and 4/57

25/111/1 and 2/42

26/103/1 and 2/15

16/82/2 and 1/13

17/73/0 and 3/17

16/100/1 and 2/3

16/66/1 and 1/13

17/46/1 and 0/0

That's 152/664/8 (4.4 ypc). When he gets carries, he performs quite well. What if he ends up in TB and earns the bulk of the carries over Blount, whom the team doesn't trust in pass protection at all? Those are the current rumors. And, with him only being 26, he could be viewed similarly to Turner coming out of SD.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where each lands and the kind of contracts they get. I just find it interesting that so many people want to invest in a 28 yo RB when his value can only go down after this year simply because of his age. If for nothing else, give me the similar producing guy that has just as much opportunity that is 2 yrs younger.

On the bolded, IMO you are off base. I think Turner was viewed around the league as a guy with the talent/skills to be a RB1; he just had the misfortune to be backing up a HOF RB while in San Diego. I don't think Tolbert is viewed the same way, nor should he be. Turner is both stronger and much faster than Tolbert.

That's why I said "could" be viewed. Meaning, there may be a team out there that views his skillset as a guy they want to make the main ball carrier. I'm not saying that's what the overall opinion of him is. This is similar to Hillis, IMO. He wasn't viewed as the main guy in Denver until he was needed. Then Cleveland picked him up and still didn't view him as such but then made a big impact after injuries. Now, he's viewed as a guy that can carry the load. It's not crazy to think some team sees the same in Tolbert.

 

[Kleck]

(KFFL) The Arizona Cardinals have interest in free-agent RB Michael Bush (Raiders), and the player posted on his official Twitter Tuesday, March 13, that the "weather is awesome," after arriving in Arizona. It is uncertain when the two sides will meet.

huh...

 

[massraider]

(KFFL) The Arizona Cardinals have interest in free-agent RB Michael Bush (Raiders), and the player posted on his official Twitter Tuesday, March 13, that the "weather is awesome," after arriving in Arizona. It is uncertain when the two sides will meet.

huh...

Ha! That would be hilarious.

 

[zamboni]

(KFFL) The Arizona Cardinals have interest in free-agent RB Michael Bush (Raiders), and the player posted on his official Twitter Tuesday, March 13, that the "weather is awesome," after arriving in Arizona. It is uncertain when the two sides will meet.

huh...

Ha! That would be hilarious.

It would be killing three birds (pun not intended) with one stone.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

PFT is reporting Bush is on his way to Cinnci for a visit. BJGE too.

 

[gianmarco]

So........

Bush to Chicago

Tolbert to Carolina

Both not desirable, both starters ahead of them are FA's next year.

Is Bush still preferred over Tolbert?

 

[MAC_32]

Is Bush still preferred over Tolbert?

Not for me. I'd rather gamble on the better player, Tolbert, since they're both in poor situations now.Hopefully you didn't get stuck holding the bag on either of them, now I'm real glad I moved Tolbert before free agency though.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Is Bush still preferred over Tolbert?

Not for me. I'd rather gamble on the better player, Tolbert, since they're both in poor situations now.

I wouldnt touch Tolbert with the current situation in CAR, he will be a waste of a pick unless Stewart or DWill gets traded.Bush is at least the clear #2 RB for his team and will get a good amount of GL touches I would guess.

 

[gianmarco]

Is Bush still preferred over Tolbert?

Not for me. I'd rather gamble on the better player, Tolbert, since they're both in poor situations now.

I wouldnt touch Tolbert with the current situation in CAR, he will be a waste of a pick unless Stewart or DWill gets traded.Bush is at least the clear #2 RB for his team and will get a good amount of GL touches I would guess.

DeAngelo will be 30 in one year. Stewart will be a free agent. For 2012, both of these guys have limited fantasy value. Bush has virtually no chance to go up barring injury. Stewart could still be traded and increased Tolbert's.For 2013, Bush will be 29 and Tolbert 27. If anything, Tolbert has much more of a chance to increase his current value than Bush. Right now, both are practically worthless in terms of 2012 contribution.

 

[MAC_32]

Is Bush still preferred over Tolbert?

Not for me. I'd rather gamble on the better player, Tolbert, since they're both in poor situations now.

I wouldnt touch Tolbert with the current situation in CAR, he will be a waste of a pick unless Stewart or DWill gets traded.Bush is at least the clear #2 RB for his team and will get a good amount of GL touches I would guess.

DeAngelo will be 30 in one year. Stewart will be a free agent. For 2012, both of these guys have limited fantasy value. Bush has virtually no chance to go up barring injury. Stewart could still be traded and increased Tolbert's.For 2013, Bush will be 29 and Tolbert 27. If anything, Tolbert has much more of a chance to increase his current value than Bush. Right now, both are practically worthless in terms of 2012 contribution.