Bush vs. Peterson (1 Viewer)

[Zigg]

Non-fantasy, which would you rather have to build your team around?

 

[sib]

Non-fantasy, which would you rather have to build your team around?

I would say Reggie Bush. He requires extra attention whenever he is on the field. He can line up as an RB..line up at WR..and he can also return punts. I would rather have Reggie because of his versatility to build a team around.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Non-fantasy, which would you rather have to build your team around?

I would say Reggie Bush. He requires extra attention whenever he is on the field. He can line up as an RB..line up at WR..and he can also return punts. I would rather have Reggie because of his versatility to build a team around.

Peterson is special, that's extremely certain. But, defensive coordinators have to gameplan around Reggie, and he's only going to get better.

 

[-OZ-]

Depends on your philosophy.

I like to use the RB as a receiving weapon and agree with Sib about versatility, so I'd take Bush.

Teams like Pittsburgh and New England (I assume) would prefer Peterson.

There's also something to be said for his work ethic and character.

I wish Peterson has participated in the hands competition. Wouldn't affect his draft position, so I understand why he didn't, but it would help us FFers.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Depends on your philosophy. I like to use the RB as a receiving weapon and agree with Sib about versatility, so I'd take Bush.Teams like Pittsburgh and New England (I assume) would prefer Peterson. There's also something to be said for his work ethic and character. I wish Peterson has participated in the hands competition. Wouldn't affect his draft position, so I understand why he didn't, but it would help us FFers.

I would probably opt for Bush only because I value flexibility and creativity in an offense a lot and Bush provides that more than Peterson. I would be able to answer better if you told me how good my defense was. The better my defense is, the more valuable Peterson becomes.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I would be able to answer better if you told me how good my defense was. The better my defense is, the more valuable Peterson becomes.

I completely disagree with this.Your offense's goal is to maximize point production. In the NFL, very, very few defenses are good enough to sacrifice points for a smaller standard deviation of that point total (which is the argument for consistency over production). You put the offensive players on the field that are going to score you the most points. Period. I can think of about 3-4 defenses in NFL *history* that would be good enough to be the exception to this rule.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It depends on what style of offense that you're going to run. If you're running a WCO or want to involve the RB a lot in the passing game, then Bush is probably your guy. If you just want a RB to line up and run the ball between the tackles, then Peterson is probably a better fit.

I think that people are still thinking more as a fan than as a GM. How many Super Bowl rings do Barry Sanders and Thurman Thomas have? How many does Emmitt Smith have? Emmitt wasn't as exciting or as explosive as Barry and TT, but he was a great fit in the Dallas offense. I honestly doubt that the Cowboys would have been as good with a guys like Sanders.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I think that people are still thinking more as a fan than as a GM. How many Super Bowl rings do Barry Sanders and Thurman Thomas have? How many does Emmitt Smith have? Emmitt wasn't as exciting or as explosive as Barry and TT, but he was a great fit in the Dallas offense. I honestly doubt that the Cowboys would have been as good with a guys like Sanders.

Hoooold on a minute.This is the biggest fallacy in the NFL. One player does not make a team. Arguing Super Bowl rings as a measure of which is the better player is absolute crap.I'm not saying TT or Barry are better than Emmitt, but I *will* say that Emmitt's Cowboys>>>>>Barry's Lions in terms of other talent.

 

[ThePittbully]

I really like both guys, and I'm taking AD this year, but I would much rather build a team around bush. He has so much more versatility and requires so much more attention from a defense. He can run up the middle, on a counter or stretch, he is the master of the screen, he can line up at wide out, he's been known to throw the halfback pass, and he can be a return man as well. Also his moves are so much smoother then AD, while AD does have much power but I think Reggie's power for his size is very underated.

But it as stated above it depends on your gameplan, if you are looking to pound the rock 30+ times every game and play clock control then obviously reggie wouldnt be the first back on your list. Although I totally believe Reggie can be a 20+ carry back if you need him to. I didnt think so going into last season but I do now

 

[MelKiperJr]

I'd go with Reggie, with all of the reasoning above (versatility), but the major reason is marketing. The guy looks like a advertising gold-mine.

 

[Domination]

I think that it is completely dependant on the team and philosophy. Bush is an exceptional talent and does need to be gameplanned around. But Bush has yet to show that he carry the load of the team. I think that if you go with Bush, then you have to have a good complimentary back who can carry some of the load. I think that Bush is a great weapon, but not a great RB. Peterson is a prototypical RB, that you could base your running attack on. But he is definitle lacking in the recieving aspect of the game. I forsee Peterson as a Dillon type who needs a K Faulk for the recieving to succeed. As for Bush I would compare him to Westbrook, and if in a system similar to Philly the he could succeed. But he still needs a bigger back to help shoulder some of the load, such as Buckhalter. Although not great, I think that he is one of the main reasons that Westy stayed healthy this past year.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I would be able to answer better if you told me how good my defense was. The better my defense is, the more valuable Peterson becomes.

I completely disagree with this.Your offense's goal is to maximize point production. In the NFL, very, very few defenses are good enough to sacrifice points for a smaller standard deviation of that point total (which is the argument for consistency over production). You put the offensive players on the field that are going to score you the most points. Period. I can think of about 3-4 defenses in NFL *history* that would be good enough to be the exception to this rule.

Peterson allows more clock control and shortening the game. If i have a great D, thats gonna be my game plan.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I would be able to answer better if you told me how good my defense was. The better my defense is, the more valuable Peterson becomes.

I completely disagree with this.Your offense's goal is to maximize point production. In the NFL, very, very few defenses are good enough to sacrifice points for a smaller standard deviation of that point total (which is the argument for consistency over production). You put the offensive players on the field that are going to score you the most points. Period. I can think of about 3-4 defenses in NFL *history* that would be good enough to be the exception to this rule.

I disagree with this. If the offense's goal was to maximize point production, no one would every take a knee. No one would run on 3 and 8 in the middle of the fourth quarter with a 14 point lead. The goal of the offense is to score enough to win. Sometimes you score less than the maximum, but in doing so, you prevent the other team from scoring. Almost no team focuses on maximizing point production exclusively.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I would be able to answer better if you told me how good my defense was. The better my defense is, the more valuable Peterson becomes.

I completely disagree with this.Your offense's goal is to maximize point production. In the NFL, very, very few defenses are good enough to sacrifice points for a smaller standard deviation of that point total (which is the argument for consistency over production). You put the offensive players on the field that are going to score you the most points. Period. I can think of about 3-4 defenses in NFL *history* that would be good enough to be the exception to this rule.

Peterson allows more clock control and shortening the game. If i have a great D, thats gonna be my game plan.

And I'm arguing that a defense that allows that strategy to be successful comes once in a generation.Every other defense in history, no matter how good, has been shaky enough that you need points more than a reduction in variance.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I would be able to answer better if you told me how good my defense was. The better my defense is, the more valuable Peterson becomes.

I completely disagree with this.Your offense's goal is to maximize point production. In the NFL, very, very few defenses are good enough to sacrifice points for a smaller standard deviation of that point total (which is the argument for consistency over production). You put the offensive players on the field that are going to score you the most points. Period. I can think of about 3-4 defenses in NFL *history* that would be good enough to be the exception to this rule.

I disagree with this. If the offense's goal was to maximize point production, no one would every take a knee. No one would run on 3 and 8 in the middle of the fourth quarter with a 14 point lead. The goal of the offense is to score enough to win. Sometimes you score less than the maximum, but in doing so, you prevent the other team from scoring. Almost no team focuses on maximizing point production exclusively.

I'm talking about the game as a whole, not the last 3 minutes of a game.I'd argue that in the last three minutes, or a blowout, which is the two situations you bring up, the variance in Bush vs. Peterson isn't as much as you bring up.

 

[H.K.]

At this point in time, Bush is more of a known quantity. He has played a full season in the NFL and shown that he can get 1300 YFS and 8 TD's (not to mention win you a game with a punt return).

I love Peterson, and assume he'll be a good pro, but today I know that Reggie can help me win, so I'd take him for that reason and his versatility.

 

[-OZ-]

I would be able to answer better if you told me how good my defense was. The better my defense is, the more valuable Peterson becomes.

I completely disagree with this.Your offense's goal is to maximize point production. In the NFL, very, very few defenses are good enough to sacrifice points for a smaller standard deviation of that point total (which is the argument for consistency over production). You put the offensive players on the field that are going to score you the most points. Period. I can think of about 3-4 defenses in NFL *history* that would be good enough to be the exception to this rule.

Peterson allows more clock control and shortening the game. If i have a great D, thats gonna be my game plan.

And I'm arguing that a defense that allows that strategy to be successful comes once in a generation.Every other defense in history, no matter how good, has been shaky enough that you need points more than a reduction in variance.

Are you trying to say Peterson won't score points? I actually disagree with Sig's last point here though, if I have a bad defense, I want an offense that will control the clock and keep the D rested and off the field. At times this year (before the playoffs) it seemed Peyton scored too quickly and his D got worn out, thus letting the opponent march on them.

 

[cacksman]

Are you trying to say Peterson won't score points? I actually disagree with Sig's last point here though, if I have a bad defense, I want an offense that will control the clock and keep the D rested and off the field. At times this year (before the playoffs) it seemed Peyton scored too quickly and his D got worn out, thus letting the opponent march on them.

I would rather score quickly than potentially not at all.

 

[Riffraff]

I'll side with the minority.

Give me the franchise type back that can carry a team on the ground.

I'll let a WR or defensive back return kicks/punts.

I don't want Eric Bienemy or Eric/Terry Metcalf as the centerpiece of my offense.

 

[Blackjacks]

I'll side with the minority.Give me the franchise type back that can carry a team on the ground.I'll let a WR or defensive back return kicks/punts. I don't want Eric Bienemy or Eric/Terry Metcalf as the centerpiece of my offense.

I wouldn't want one of those guys either but I do want Reggie!!!!!!!!!If your compare Reggie to those guys than it would be fair for me to compare ADP to Tyrone Wheatley.I was going to compare him to Chris Brown but that would be 2 Chris Brown references in the last week to Peterson and I just don't wish that upon anyone.I do like Peterson but in my opinion Bush just does alot more.Don't forget even though Reggie didn't start off great he had one of the better rookie years in the past 10 years and like someone said earlier he is only going to get better.

 

[bcr8f]

Non-fantasy, which would you rather have to build your team around?

I would say Reggie Bush. He requires extra attention whenever he is on the field. He can line up as an RB..line up at WR..and he can also return punts. I would rather have Reggie because of his versatility to build a team around.

In my 1.5 PPR league I like Bush. Peterson still has injury concerns.

 

[KING]

I'll side with the minority.Give me the franchise type back that can carry a team on the ground.I'll let a WR or defensive back return kicks/punts. I don't want Eric Bienemy or Eric/Terry Metcalf as the centerpiece of my offense.

bush = eric metcalf.this guy goes down so easy, even deion sanders could tackle him. as an old browns fan, it's amazing just how much he does look like metcalf. great speed, moves, but, if you sneeze on him, he's down.bush is good for draw plays, and swinging out of the backfield. he is not a 25 carry back. nor we he be able to grind out the yards as such, while you're trying to protect a lead. peterson has to prove he can stay healthy. with his running style, you're not going to get 8 - 10 years out of him. just keep giving him the ball until he wears out or breaks down. eddie george?

 

[bcr8f]

I'll side with the minority.Give me the franchise type back that can carry a team on the ground.I'll let a WR or defensive back return kicks/punts. I don't want Eric Bienemy or Eric/Terry Metcalf as the centerpiece of my offense.

bush = eric metcalf.this guy goes down so easy, even deion sanders could tackle him. as an old browns fan, it's amazing just how much he does look like metcalf. great speed, moves, but, if you sneeze on him, he's down.

Sorry but that isn't true at all. Bush is a lot stronger and tougher than Metcalf was.He's more like an excellent WR in a RB's body.

 

[Riffraff]

Sorry but that isn't true at all. Bush is a lot stronger and tougher than Metcalf was.

He's more like an excellent WR in a RB's body.

It will be a good career for Bush to just match Eric Metcalf's stats. Metcalf was in the league 13 years, had about 8,000 career yards.

541 receptions. 43 TDs. 3 Pro Bowls.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MetcEr00.htm

Saying Bush = Metcalf shouldn't be construed as a bad thing.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I'd love to have that choice and I'm not sure which way I'd go. We do have the luxury of having seen Bush for a year and got an inkling of what he could do, though by no means the totality of his ability, IMO.

with that advantage, plus the versatility he has catching and in other areas, I'm tempted to say Reggie.

But it's hard for me to judge -- even at the college level, I didn't see AP as much as I did Bush.

 

[T with T]

Ok first of all Comparing REGGIE BUSH to E. Bienemy or E. Metcalf is idiotic... Bush was a rookie he is gonna get wayyy better.. Bush had half the touches or carries as a lot of the better runners in the league and still ended up with 1300 yfs and 8 tds with 88 catches... and that was splitting time.. Reggie is underrated in power and running between the tackles and sayin that he goes down when you sneeze on him really shows how much u lack in information.. Reggie is 6-0 208 and will probably put another 5 pounds on.. If you remember he did 26 reps of 225... He is an incredible runner/receiver combo and he is a once in a lifetime player.... I think he is a mixture of M. Faulk, Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers... Don't even put R. Bush in the same Sentence as METCALF LOL ahahahahahah

 

[Darth Cheney]

Bush.... he's shown he can play at a top level in the NFL.

 

[Domination]

Ok first of all Comparing REGGIE BUSH to E. Bienemy or E. Metcalf is idiotic... Bush was a rookie he is gonna get wayyy better.. Bush had half the touches or carries as a lot of the better runners in the league and still ended up with 1300 yfs and 8 tds with 88 catches... and that was splitting time.. Reggie is underrated in power and running between the tackles and sayin that he goes down when you sneeze on him really shows how much u lack in information.. Reggie is 6-0 208 and will probably put another 5 pounds on.. If you remember he did 26 reps of 225... He is an incredible runner/receiver combo and he is a once in a lifetime player.... I think he is a mixture of M. Faulk, Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers... Don't even put R. Bush in the same Sentence as METCALF LOL ahahahahahah

You are definitely drinking the R Bush Kool-aid.