Bush or LT #1 overall next year? (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

Oh boy, ruffled up the LT clain again.

This is by no means as outlandish as the LT supporters would love to think though. RBs is one of if not the EASIEST of all positions to transition from college to NFL. Bush is going to be one of if not the highest ranked prospect ever at the position. Several other rookie RBs faired as well or close as the OP is debating Bush to:

year, player, RB rank

89, Sanders, 4 (15 games)

92, Watters, 8

93, Bettis, 2

94, Faulk, 4

95, Martin, 2

96, Abdul-Jabbar, 9

96, George, 8

97, Dillon, 8

98, Taylor, 4

99, Edge, 1

00, M.Anderson, 4 (14 games)

01, LT, 7

02, Portis, 4

This analysis is wrong, because you're cherry-picking the top producing rookie RB. If you look at RBs who were chosen #1 or #2 overall (going, therefore, to bad teams like Reggie Bush is going to), you'll see:2005: Ronnie Brown (RB#18)

1995: Ki-Jana Carter (RB#34)

1994: Marshall Faulk (RB#4)

1990: Blair Thomas (RB#39)

1986: Bo Jackson (RB#28)

You have to go all the way back to 1983, Eric Dickerson, to find a RB who was drafted in the top two picks, who finished as a top-3 RB in his rookie season.

If Reggie Bush falls in the first round to the fourth or fifth pick, he might have a shot, but there is zero chance he leads the league in fantasy scoring or comes close while playing for San Francisco or Houston.

 

[Banger]

Oh boy, ruffled up the LT clain again.

This is by no means as outlandish as the LT supporters would love to think though.  RBs is one of if not the EASIEST of all positions to transition from college to NFL.  Bush is going to be one of if not the highest ranked prospect ever at the position.  Several other rookie RBs faired as well or close as the OP is debating Bush to:

year, player, RB rank

89, Sanders, 4 (15 games)

92, Watters, 8

93, Bettis, 2

94, Faulk, 4

95, Martin, 2

96, Abdul-Jabbar, 9

96, George, 8

97, Dillon, 8

98, Taylor, 4

99, Edge, 1

00, M.Anderson, 4 (14 games)

01, LT, 7

02, Portis, 4

This analysis is wrong, because you're cherry-picking the top producing rookie RB. If you look at RBs who were chosen #1 or #2 overall (going, therefore, to bad teams like Reggie Bush is going to), you'll see:2005: Ronnie Brown (RB#18)

1995: Ki-Jana Carter (RB#34)

1994: Marshall Faulk (RB#4)

1990: Blair Thomas (RB#39)

1986: Bo Jackson (RB#28)

You have to go all the way back to 1983, Eric Dickerson, to find a RB who was drafted in the top two picks, who finished as a top-3 RB in his rookie season.

If Reggie Bush falls in the first round to the fourth or fifth pick, he might have a shot, but there is zero chance he leads the league in fantasy scoring or comes close while playing for San Francisco or Houston.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

Oh boy, ruffled up the LT clain again.

This is by no means as outlandish as the LT supporters would love to think though.  RBs is one of if not the EASIEST of all positions to transition from college to NFL.  Bush is going to be one of if not the highest ranked prospect ever at the position.  Several other rookie RBs faired as well or close as the OP is debating Bush to:

year, player, RB rank

89, Sanders, 4 (15 games)

92, Watters, 8

93, Bettis, 2

94, Faulk, 4

95, Martin, 2

96, Abdul-Jabbar, 9

96, George, 8

97, Dillon, 8

98, Taylor, 4

99, Edge, 1

00, M.Anderson, 4 (14 games)

01, LT, 7

02, Portis, 4

This analysis is wrong, because you're cherry-picking the top producing rookie RB. If you look at RBs who were chosen #1 or #2 overall (going, therefore, to bad teams like Reggie Bush is going to), you'll see:2005: Ronnie Brown (RB#18)

1995: Ki-Jana Carter (RB#34)

1994: Marshall Faulk (RB#4)

1990: Blair Thomas (RB#39)

1986: Bo Jackson (RB#28)

You have to go all the way back to 1983, Eric Dickerson, to find a RB who was drafted in the top two picks, who finished as a top-3 RB in his rookie season.

If Reggie Bush falls in the first round to the fourth or fifth pick, he might have a shot, but there is zero chance he leads the league in fantasy scoring or comes close while playing for San Francisco or Houston.

zero chance?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Put this nonsense to an end please.

 

[bagger.]

Put this nonsense to an end please.

just because someone's opinion doesn't jive with yours doesn't mean that the topic should be locked.brass sack is bringing some interesting points to the table, albeit contrarian and unlikely.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Oh boy, ruffled up the LT clain again.

This is by no means as outlandish as the LT supporters would love to think though. RBs is one of if not the EASIEST of all positions to transition from college to NFL. Bush is going to be one of if not the highest ranked prospect ever at the position. Several other rookie RBs faired as well or close as the OP is debating Bush to:

year, player, RB rank

89, Sanders, 4 (15 games)

92, Watters, 8

93, Bettis, 2

94, Faulk, 4

95, Martin, 2

96, Abdul-Jabbar, 9

96, George, 8

97, Dillon, 8

98, Taylor, 4

99, Edge, 1

00, M.Anderson, 4 (14 games)

01, LT, 7

02, Portis, 4

Might as well finish this list, because this is such a that I want to bookmark it for the offseason.If someone sees someone better in a year (think I got everyone), let me know.

My corrections/fill ins: (to have the top rookie RB each year...)

89, Sanders, 4

90, E. Smith, 7

91, L. Russell, 19

92, Watters, 8

93, Bettis, 2

94, Faulk, 4

95, Martin, 2

96, George, 8

97, Dillon, 8

98, Taylor, 4

99, Edge, 1

00, M.Anderson, 4

01, LT, 7

02, Portis, 4

03, D. Davis, 14

04, W. McGahee, 9

05, R. Brown, 18

So, the last three years have been abberations in terms of rookie running backs.

But, that begs the question: Why? And what does this mean for Reggie Bush?

So, all years but two in the last

Missing Robert Edwards in NE in 98. Think he was somewhere in the vicinity of top 10 that year. Also, the same year as Bettis there was another ND RB who played in Washington that had a good rookie year then faded away.

Only taking the top rookie back for the list.

 

[stevec]

The chance Bush is the #1 fantasy scorer next year is non-zero, however, that's true of everyone in the NFL at a position that scores.Realistically, if we grant Bush the greatest rookie RB season ever, we get 370 carries for 1560 yards and 14 TD's with 63 catches for 600 yards and 5 TD's. I took James' 1999 and added 1 carry & 1 catch for a TD each at above average yardage.Now, let's look at the '99 Colts and compare them to the Texans/49ers:QB: Carr/Smith/Manning - 3 #1 overall picks, pretty comparable. ;DWR: Johnson/Battle/Harrison - guys to force defenses to respect the passOL: sucks/sucks/didn't suckThis isn't looking good for Bush as #1 overall.

 

[Keysersoze666]

I think the COACHING situation will have a huge impact on Bush's productivity at the NFL level and therefore making predictions without knowing what situation he'll be in is a huge crapshoot.I live in Ohio and there are a few similarities between what I see with Reggie Bush/USC and what happened with Archie Griffin/Ohio State. I've watched about 4 full USC games and in a significant percentage of the plays where Bush is rushing he is running through holes that Sam Adams and Grady Jackson standing side-by-side with their arms out COULDN'T fill. The only guys who consistently get this opportunity in the NFL are Priest and LJ and even then it's sporadic at best.ArchieG won back-to-back Heismans and was unstoppable when he got to challenge the 2nd and 3rd levels UNTOUCHED. Archie was 5'9", 182 which in the early 70's was probably comparable to ReggieB's size now. When Archie went to the pros he got arm-tackled by guys (DL-men) who never even touched him in college. The Bengals never figured out how to use ArchieG's skills in a way that maximized his strengths.Now I'm positive that Bush is a superior athlete in this comparison, that isn't the heart of the comparison, BUT I do think he will require a scheme and coaching innovation to get him MEANINGFUL touches ala Brian Westbrook. To me, the Philly/Westy model is what Bush needs to be a superior weapon in the NFL and without that ... he will disappoint based on his fantasy football draft slot.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Put this nonsense to an end please.

just because someone's opinion doesn't jive with yours doesn't mean that the topic should be locked.brass sack is bringing some interesting points to the table, albeit contrarian and unlikely.

I can handle if someone's opinion doesn't jive, but a huge discrepancy like a rookie and the best RB in the game is stretching it way too far and certainly

 

[GreedoShotFirst]

Oh boy, ruffled up the LT clain again.

This is by no means as outlandish as the LT supporters would love to think though.  RBs is one of if not the EASIEST of all positions to transition from college to NFL.  Bush is going to be one of if not the highest ranked prospect ever at the position.  Several other rookie RBs faired as well or close as the OP is debating Bush to:

year, player, RB rank

89, Sanders, 4 (15 games)

92, Watters, 8

93, Bettis, 2

94, Faulk, 4

95, Martin, 2

96, Abdul-Jabbar, 9

96, George, 8

97, Dillon, 8

98, Taylor, 4

99, Edge, 1

00, M.Anderson, 4 (14 games)

01, LT, 7

02, Portis, 4

Might as well finish this list, because this is such a that I want to bookmark it for the offseason.If someone sees someone better in a year (think I got everyone), let me know.

My corrections/fill ins: (to have the top rookie RB each year...)

89, Sanders, 4

90, E. Smith, 7

91, L. Russell, 19

92, Watters, 8

93, Bettis, 2

94, Faulk, 4

95, Martin, 2

96, George, 8

97, Dillon, 8

98, Taylor, 4

99, Edge, 1

00, M.Anderson, 4

01, LT, 7

02, Portis, 4

03, D. Davis, 14

04, W. McGahee, 9

05, R. Brown, 18

So, the last three years have been abberations in terms of rookie running backs.

But, that begs the question: Why? And what does this mean for Reggie Bush?

So, all years but two in the last

Missing Robert Edwards in NE in 98. Think he was somewhere in the vicinity of top 10 that year. Also, the same year as Bettis there was another ND RB who played in Washington that had a good rookie year then faded away.

Reggie Brooks 1993 was | 16 | 223 1063 4.8 3 | 21 186 8.9 0

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The real problem here is that even on the minute chance that Bush has the best rookie RB season ever despite being on a terrible team, he would STILL only be putting up about the same numbers LT2 puts up yearly.

 

[Gr00vus]

brass sack is bringing some interesting points to the table, albeit contrarian and unlikely.

Did he hide them in another thread? Because I'm not seeing them. He's stated an opnion backed with not much else.You Bush fans might want to at least be a little more conservative in the TD projections - Bush does struggle in short yardage situations. Maybe he'll fix that going forward in his career, but right now he isn't an everydown back.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

brass sack is bringing some interesting points to the table, albeit contrarian and unlikely.

Did he hide them in another thread? Because I'm not seeing them. He's stated an opnion backed with not much else.You Bush fans might want to at least be a little more conservative in the TD projections - Bush does struggle in short yardage situations. Maybe he'll fix that going forward in his career, but right now he isn't an everydown back.

Tiki Barber ring any bells for you?

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

The real problem here is that even on the minute chance that Bush has the best rookie RB season ever despite being on a terrible team, he would STILL only be putting up about the same numbers LT2 puts up yearly.

minute chance?It's a freaking LOCK!

 

[Gr00vus]

Tiki Barber ring any bells for you?

Wouild you draft Barber ahead of LaDainian?

 

[Kit Fisto]

Put this nonsense to an end please.

just because someone's opinion doesn't jive with yours doesn't mean that the topic should be locked.brass sack is bringing some interesting points to the table, albeit contrarian and unlikely.

I can handle if someone's opinion doesn't jive, but a huge discrepancy like a rookie and the best RB in the game is stretching it way too far and certainly

When will people realize that college success doesn't always translate to the pros?

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is spectacular; I just think we should let him get drafted before all this speculation. And putting him on a pedestal equal or higher than LT2, Edge or Alexander is flat out ridiculous.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

Tiki Barber ring any bells for you?

Wouild you draft Barber ahead of LaDainian?

No, but Barber is an everydown back and is the same size as Reggie "Happy Pants" Bush.

 

[Kit Fisto]

The real problem here is that even on the minute chance that Bush has the best rookie RB season ever despite being on a terrible team, he would STILL only be putting up about the same numbers LT2 puts up yearly.

minute chance?It's a freaking LOCK!

I'm convinced... this is a fishing trip.It's a lock...

 

[Gr00vus]

No, but Barber is an everydown back and is the same size as Reggie "Happy Pants" Bush.

That's great, and how many years (hint it's been many) did it take for the Giants to get right with Barber being an everydown back? Remember Ron Dayne? What about Brandon Jacobs? So on and so forth.And how many years has Tiki Barber been the #1 FF running back? How many years has he finished ahead of LaDainian?

More importantly, Bush was given chances at short yardage at USC (I saw it myself in fact) and he failed nearly every time, whereas Lindell White was successful (very successful). Bush couldn't pick up short yardage on the Bruins for goodness sake, and that's easier to do than selling Snackwells to Oprah.

He's going to be on a bottom tier team, probably with a bottom tier offensive line, going up against NFL calibre defenses that will be keyed on stopping him. That's not a recipe for a #1 FF performance.

 

[David Yudkin]

For those arguing that there is usually a rookie RB that fares very well, be reminded that does not necessarily mean that the #1 RB drafted is that guy from year to year. Here are how the first drafted RB have ranked fantasy wise since 1980:05 Ronnie Brown (currently 18th)04 Steven Jackson (33rd)03 Willis McGahee (DNP)02 William Green (27th)01 LaDainian Tomlinson (7th)00 Jamal Lewis (16th)99 Edgerring James (1)98 Curtis Enis (54th)97 Warrick Dunn (13th)96 Lawrence Phillips (38th)95 Ki-Jana Carter (DNP)94 Marshall Faulk (4th)93 Garrison Hearst (Not in the Top 100)92 Tommy Vardell (64th)91 Leonard Russell (19th)90 Blair Thomas (39th)89 Barry Sanders (4th)88 Gaston Green (108th)87 Alonzo Highsmith (86th)86 Bo Jackson (DNP)85 Ethan Horton (Converted to a TE)84 Mike Rozier (44th) (Special USFL player draft)84 Greg Bell (12th)83 Eric Dickerson (1)82 Darrin Nelson (77th)81 George Rogers (4)80 Billy Sims (1)I'd say that those guys certainly were across the entire spectrum.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

For those arguing that there is usually a rookie RB that fares very well, be reminded that does not necessarily mean that the #1 RB drafted is that guy from year to year. Here are how the first drafted RB have ranked fantasy wise since 1980:

05 Ronnie Brown (currently 18th)

04 Steven Jackson (33rd)

03 Willis McGahee (DNP)

02 William Green (27th)

01 LaDainian Tomlinson (7th)

00 Jamal Lewis (16th)

99 Edgerring James (1)

98 Curtis Enis (54th)

97 Warrick Dunn (13th)

96 Lawrence Phillips (38th)

95 Ki-Jana Carter (DNP)

94 Marshall Faulk (4th)

93 Garrison Hearst (Not in the Top 100)

92 Tommy Vardell (64th)

91 Leonard Russell (19th)

90 Blair Thomas (39th)

89 Barry Sanders (4th)

88 Gaston Green (108th)

87 Alonzo Highsmith (86th)

86 Bo Jackson (DNP)

85 Ethan Horton (Converted to a TE)

84 Mike Rozier (44th) (Special USFL player draft)

84 Greg Bell (12th)

83 Eric Dickerson (1)

82 Darrin Nelson (77th)

81 George Rogers (4)

80 Billy Sims (1)

I'd say that those guys certainly were across the entire spectrum.

Comparing Reggie to Leonard Russell is an insult to Reggie's abilities.

 

[Marc Levin]

Comparing Reggie to Leonard Russell is an insult to Reggie's abilities.

Brass Sack =

 

[Gr00vus]

Comparing Reggie to Leonard Russell is an insult to Reggie's abilities.

Brass Sack =

Extra Super !

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

Comparing Reggie to Leonard Russell is an insult to Reggie's abilities.

Brass Sack =

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

No, but Barber is an everydown back and is the same size as Reggie "Happy Pants" Bush.

That's great, and how many years (hint it's been many) did it take for the Giants to get right with Barber being an everydown back? Remember Ron Dayne? What about Brandon Jacobs? So on and so forth.And how many years has Tiki Barber been the #1 FF running back? How many years has he finished ahead of LaDainian?

More importantly, Bush was given chances at short yardage at USC (I saw it myself in fact) and he failed nearly every time, whereas Lindell White was successful (very successful). Bush couldn't pick up short yardage on the Bruins for goodness sake, and that's easier to do than selling Snackwells to Oprah.

He's going to be on a bottom tier team, probably with a bottom tier offensive line, going up against NFL calibre defenses that will be keyed on stopping him. That's not a recipe for a #1 FF performance.

While I'm not an expert on Oprah Winfrey's eating habits, I do agree that how effectively Reggie gets used will be a factor of his coaches ability to take advantage of his skills. Clearly, Tiki was/is under used by his coaches. Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen to Reggie.

 

[David Yudkin]

For those arguing that there is usually a rookie RB that fares very well, be reminded that does not necessarily mean that the #1 RB drafted is that guy from year to year.  Here are how the first drafted RB have ranked fantasy wise since 1980:

05 Ronnie Brown (currently 18th)

04 Steven Jackson (33rd)

03 Willis McGahee (DNP)

02 William Green (27th)

01 LaDainian Tomlinson (7th)

00 Jamal Lewis (16th)

99 Edgerring James (1)

98 Curtis Enis (54th)

97 Warrick Dunn (13th)

96 Lawrence Phillips (38th)

95 Ki-Jana Carter (DNP)

94 Marshall Faulk (4th)

93 Garrison Hearst (Not in the Top 100)

92 Tommy Vardell (64th)

91 Leonard Russell (19th)

90 Blair Thomas (39th)

89 Barry Sanders (4th)

88 Gaston Green (108th)

87 Alonzo Highsmith (86th)

86 Bo Jackson (DNP)

85 Ethan Horton (Converted to a TE)

84 Mike Rozier (44th) (Special USFL player draft)

84 Greg Bell (12th)

83 Eric Dickerson (1)

82 Darrin Nelson (77th)

81 George Rogers (4)

80 Billy Sims (1)

I'd say that those guys certainly were across the entire spectrum.

Comparing Reggie to Leonard Russell is an insult to Reggie's abilities.

Where in this post or anywhere in this thread did I even MENTION Reggie Bush. I have given NO OPINION on him AT ALL other than to post how other top RB picks have done. I'm glad you can draw firm conclusions from a list.But since you didn't bother to ask, IMO, Bush will do well but I doubt his new team will enable him to reach the elite level of production of other top RB. Of course, we have no idea one way or the other because we don't even know where he is going to be playing yet.

 

[Sinrman]

Not going to bother with the replies, and I'm quite sure it's been said time after time, but uhhhhh NO!

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

FYI - This is not a fishing trip. I believe Reggie Bush is the best football player to come out of college in 20 years. If you don't like my opinions, please say so, but do not call this fishing anymore. Thanks.

 

[Marc Levin]

Where in this post or anywhere in this thread did I even MENTION Reggie Bush.  I have given NO OPINION on him AT ALL other than to post how other top RB picks have done.  I'm glad you can draw firm conclusions from a list.

BS - this is why I say:In fact, BIG TIME

 

[Marc Levin]

FYI - This is not a fishing trip. I believe Reggie Bush is the best football player to come out of college in 20 years. If you don't like my opinions, please say so, but do not call this fishing anymore. Thanks.

fishing.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

FYI - This is not a fishing trip.  I believe Reggie Bush is the best football player to come out of college in 20 years.  If you don't like my opinions, please say so, but do not call this fishing anymore.  Thanks.

fishing.

39 voters and I disagree with you. But thanks for calling my opinion BS. The lack of respect around here is ingratiating.

 

[CalBear]

FYI - This is not a fishing trip. I believe Reggie Bush is the best football player to come out of college in 20 years. If you don't like my opinions, please say so, but do not call this fishing anymore. Thanks.

Thinking Reggie Bush is the best player to come out of college in 20 years is, at least, a defensible position. Thinking that means that he has greater value than Tomlinson, who is also among the best players to come out of college in 20 years, and who has several years of experience and is in an effective offense with an RB-first mentality, is, well...if it's not fishing, it's just stupid.

 

[Gr00vus]

While I'm not an expert on Oprah Winfrey's eating habits, I do agree that how effectively Reggie gets used will be a factor of his coaches ability to take advantage of his skills. Clearly, Tiki was/is under used by his coaches. Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen to Reggie.

If USC is any indication, then he won't be getting many short yardage carries, and from what I've seen that would be best utilizing his skills (or in this case avoiding his lack of a particular skill). This would serve as a rather large negative factor in his chances at being the #1 FF running back. Refusing to acknowledge this would be simply irrational.

 

[-OZ-]

FYI - This is not a fishing trip.  I believe Reggie Bush is the best football player to come out of college in 20 years.  If you don't like my opinions, please say so, but do not call this fishing anymore.  Thanks.

fishing.

39 voters and I disagree with you. But thanks for calling my opinion BS. The lack of respect around here is ingratiating.

If he lands in Denver, KC, Indianapolis or Seattle; he just may be the #1 scorer next year.What are the chances of that?

A key reason Edge was #1 as a rookie was the team around him. Right now it looks doubtful that Bush will land on a team near as talented.

 

[Marc Levin]

FYI - This is not a fishing trip.  I believe Reggie Bush is the best football player to come out of college in 20 years.  If you don't like my opinions, please say so, but do not call this fishing anymore.  Thanks.

Thinking Reggie Bush is the best player to come out of college in 20 years is, at least, a defensible position. Thinking that means that he has greater value than Tomlinson, who is also among the best players to come out of college in 20 years, and who has several years of experience and is in an effective offense with an RB-first mentality, is, well...if it's not fishing, it's just stupid.

what he said.I love Reggie Bush as much as ANYone - I called him the #1 overall pick in this year's (2006) draft since BEFORE the 2005 draft.

That said, if you step onto a fantasy football message board like this one and try to argue rookie Reggie Bush should be selected over perennial first overall fantasy pick Ladanian Tomlinson (or SA, or EDge, or Larry Johnson) - well, let's just say I agree with CalBear.

Even Marshal Faulk and Barry Sanders did not finish as the #1 RB in fantasy their rookie year (which was the point of David "stat king" Yudkin's post)

Anyway, your position is completely baseless in fact, though you are entitled to your opinion. When faced with a situation like that, we call it fishing since the only responses you could possibly expect to get are those that completely disagree with your position.

 

[Marc Levin]

A key reason Edge was #1 as a rookie was the team around him.

With Edge it was a very unique situation - they had a top-5 fantasy scorer on their team already in Faulk and they traded him AWAY to get edge.The ONLY team with that kind of chance in this year's draft is Houston since DD is a top-10 FF scorer. That said, DD has never been a threat for the #1 overall FF spot - Faulk WAS that threat before he was traded to StLou and replaced with Edge.Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

 

[-OZ-]

A key reason Edge was #1 as a rookie was the team around him.

With Edge it was a very unique situation - they had a top-5 fantasy scorer on their team already in Faulk and they traded him AWAY to get edge.The ONLY team with that kind of chance in this year's draft is Houston since DD is a top-10 FF scorer. That said, DD has never been a threat for the #1 overall FF spot - Faulk WAS that threat before he was traded to StLou and replaced with Edge.

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

Although, one can't help but wonder what Indy or Seattle could do to land the pick, if they wanted to ditch Alexander or Edge, as they were rumored to last year.

Then again, I can't imagine doing so would help their cap a whole lot.

Come to think of it, if Seattle were to lose Alexander and draft Maroney, D Williams or Jerome Harrison, Bush may not be the #1 rookie RB.

 

[David Yudkin]

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

Actually, I partly disagree with this. If Bush were to get in an environment that might support elite fantasy RB production (that albeit is very unlikely) OR on a team that will give him the ball 400 times (again unlikely), it's not out of the question that Bush COULD be the #1 overall RB.HOWEVER . . .The foolish part is DRAFTING him as if that is a given and a likely outcome. The risks and the probability make investing a top fantasy draft pick on Bush a poor decision.Could it happen? It's happen at least 4 times in the past 25 years. Will it happen? I doubt it, but someone at some point is going to have to jump in and take Bush--it's just a question as to who will blink first.I've seen people draft Michael Vick first overall, and I must say I'd rather take Bush first than Vick.

 

[Marc Levin]

A key reason Edge was #1 as a rookie was the team around him.

With Edge it was a very unique situation - they had a top-5 fantasy scorer on their team already in Faulk and they traded him AWAY to get edge.The ONLY team with that kind of chance in this year's draft is Houston since DD is a top-10 FF scorer. That said, DD has never been a threat for the #1 overall FF spot - Faulk WAS that threat before he was traded to StLou and replaced with Edge.

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

Although, one can't help but wonder what Indy or Seattle could do to land the pick, if they wanted to ditch Alexander or Edge, as they were rumored to last year.

Then again, I can't imagine doing so would help their cap a whole lot.

Come to think of it, if Seattle were to lose Alexander and draft Maroney, D Williams or Jerome Harrison, Bush may not be the #1 rookie RB.

Maybe I'm wrong, but IIRC StLou had the #1 and Indsy had the #4 or #5 when they made the trade. Sea and Indy are playoff teams. St Lou was getting a superstar RB In Faulk to move down a few spots (didn't that pick turn into Torry Holt?)Wouldn't you trade away a shot at drafting Edge for Faulk and Holt?

There are no teams in this draft in that posiiton.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

A key reason Edge was #1 as a rookie was the team around him.

With Edge it was a very unique situation - they had a top-5 fantasy scorer on their team already in Faulk and they traded him AWAY to get edge.The ONLY team with that kind of chance in this year's draft is Houston since DD is a top-10 FF scorer. That said, DD has never been a threat for the #1 overall FF spot - Faulk WAS that threat before he was traded to StLou and replaced with Edge.

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

 

[Marc Levin]

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

Actually, I partly disagree with this. If Bush were to get in an environment that might support elite fantasy RB production (that albeit is very unlikely) OR on a team that will give him the ball 400 times (again unlikely), it's not out of the question that Bush COULD be the #1 overall RB.HOWEVER . . .

The foolish part is DRAFTING him as if that is a given and a likely outcome. The risks and the probability make investing a top fantasy draft pick on Bush a poor decision.

Could it happen? It's happen at least 4 times in the past 25 years. Will it happen? I doubt it, but someone at some point is going to have to jump in and take Bush--it's just a question as to who will blink first.

I've seen people draft Michael Vick first overall, and I must say I'd rather take Bush first than Vick.

well, David - now we are into semantics since I said it is not "realistic." Your example above is in the realm of "possible" - not "realistic."

 

[Marc Levin]

A key reason Edge was #1 as a rookie was the team around him.

With Edge it was a very unique situation - they had a top-5 fantasy scorer on their team already in Faulk and they traded him AWAY to get edge.The ONLY team with that kind of chance in this year's draft is Houston since DD is a top-10 FF scorer. That said, DD has never been a threat for the #1 overall FF spot - Faulk WAS that threat before he was traded to StLou and replaced with Edge.

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

Now you are CLEARLY fishing - you obviously don't want intellligent discussion, so I might as well shut this thread down - is that better for you than my response above?

 

[Bevo]

About all I can say is that if someone in one of my leagues (except dynasty) takes Bush #1 I hope I am in their division so I get to play him twice.

 

[Banger]

About all I can say is that if someone in one of my leagues (except dynasty) takes Bush #1 I hope I am in their division so I get to play him twice.

ditto and I hope I have the #2 pick.

 

[Marc Levin]

About all I can say is that if someone in one of my leagues (except dynasty) takes Bush #1 I hope I am in their division so I get to play him twice.

I'll double that up with I hope I am in the top-4 if someone in my league takes Bush #1 overall.I just got an early X-mas present!

 

[Keys Myaths]

A key reason Edge was #1 as a rookie was the team around him.

With Edge it was a very unique situation - they had a top-5 fantasy scorer on their team already in Faulk and they traded him AWAY to get edge.The ONLY team with that kind of chance in this year's draft is Houston since DD is a top-10 FF scorer. That said, DD has never been a threat for the #1 overall FF spot - Faulk WAS that threat before he was traded to StLou and replaced with Edge.

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

Although, one can't help but wonder what Indy or Seattle could do to land the pick, if they wanted to ditch Alexander or Edge, as they were rumored to last year.

Then again, I can't imagine doing so would help their cap a whole lot.

Come to think of it, if Seattle were to lose Alexander and draft Maroney, D Williams or Jerome Harrison, Bush may not be the #1 rookie RB.

Maybe I'm wrong, but IIRC StLou had the #1 and Indsy had the #4 or #5 when they made the trade. Sea and Indy are playoff teams. St Lou was getting a superstar RB In Faulk to move down a few spots (didn't that pick turn into Torry Holt?)Wouldn't you trade away a shot at drafting Edge for Faulk and Holt?

There are no teams drafting early in this draft in that posiiton.

Fixed, to keep the nitpickers away.Carry on.

 

[Keys Myaths]

About all I can say is that if someone in one of my leagues (except dynasty) takes Bush #1 I hope I am in their division so I get to play him twice.

I'll double that up with I hope I am in the top-4 if someone in my league takes Bush #1 overall.I just got an early X-mas present!

I think that's a possibility, though...which is why I'm convinced that Bush is this year's Peyton Manning.He's might consistently knock down one of the big 4 running backs in drafts next year...which is great news, actually.

 

[Marc Levin]

tx, keith

 

[Keys Myaths]

About all I can say is that if someone in one of my leagues (except dynasty) takes Bush #1 I hope I am in their division so I get to play him twice.

ditto and I hope I have the #2 pick.

I think the top 3 RBs next year are all very similar.

 

[David Yudkin]

Simply put, it is not realiastic for Bush to be the #1 overall scorer in FF in 2006 - no matter what you think of his "skill" and there is noone with a higher opinion of his skill than me.

Actually, I partly disagree with this. If Bush were to get in an environment that might support elite fantasy RB production (that albeit is very unlikely) OR on a team that will give him the ball 400 times (again unlikely), it's not out of the question that Bush COULD be the #1 overall RB.HOWEVER . . .

The foolish part is DRAFTING him as if that is a given and a likely outcome. The risks and the probability make investing a top fantasy draft pick on Bush a poor decision.

Could it happen? It's happen at least 4 times in the past 25 years. Will it happen? I doubt it, but someone at some point is going to have to jump in and take Bush--it's just a question as to who will blink first.

I've seen people draft Michael Vick first overall, and I must say I'd rather take Bush first than Vick.

well, David - now we are into semantics since I said it is not "realistic." Your example above is in the realm of "possible" - not "realistic."

My point was that even if Bush were to wind up as the #1 RB, he's not worth the risk of taking him #1 overall (or near the top of the first round).But I do think Bush, even without playing a down, has a better chance at being the #1 back than a lot of other RB, and that in and of itself will drive his draft position up.

I am by no means a Bush backer, but he could have more upside than half the league's starting RBs if his NFL team is committed to giving him the ball A LOT from Day 1.

And its not out of the realm of possibilty (again semantics here) that a decent team could try to trade up to get him . . . (NE? SEA? IND? GB? CAR?)