Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
A few threads on both of these guys, but not one that ties these two together in terms of their long term value. I see these guys in failry similar situations, likely both to end up in the RB40-45 range, but with attractive upside value at this point in the season.
In one corner, we have Michael Bush, a solid 6'1 245 runner who has put his leg injuries behing him, making the best of his carries and appearing like his the runner he was back in Louisville. With Fargas out likely through the bye, and with McFadden -- the clear talent and no question starter at this point -- ailing with minor turf toe, Bush has the ability to step up and take a greater load in the next few games.
Raiders have an early bye, so with the team likely wanting to protect McFadden, and give Fargas the time to heal, I expect Bush to have a chance to split carries. Much depends on how McFadden can play through his injury, of course, but the opportunity is there. The only bright spot on the Raiders offensive attack is their ability to move the ball downfield on the ground.
Short term, door seems open for Bush -- long term, however, much revolves around Fargas. Will Bush go back to seeing just a handfull of carries once Fargas comes back, or does he have the shot to solidify his role -- especially if Fargas can't come back?
On the other hand, you have Brandon Jackson. He's the clear cut backup, and has looked decent in his role splitting carries with a struggling Ryan Grant. At 5'10 and 220, Jackson has decent size, but no one considers him a dynamic, forceful runner -- Grant seems to have the leg up on him in every aspect of the game when healthy. But the point is, Grant isn't healthy, and hamstrings can linger. Jackson has done well with his time, and if Grant continues to ail, the team may have to rely more in Jackson in the rushing attack.
GB looks to continue to be a strong offensive team with Rogers under center, especially through the air. This is a good thing for a back. On the downside, Jackson isn't a worldbeater, and the coaching staff seem eager to throw Lumpkin into the mix as well if Grant continues to be gimpy. While Jackson could have a great opportunity to take advantage of, with all the praise heaped on Lumpkin, it's also possible that Jackson could slip to the #3 back if Lumpkin comes in to be a difference maker on the squad. Not probable, but could happen.
So, long term, given these situations, who do you think holds greater value at this point in the season?
My gut tells me it's Bush -- I think Fargas' injury is worse that we know right now, and while McFadden will cement himself as a Top 20 back, Bush will find a role both short and long term.
Problem is, my head is telling me that Jackson is in the better long term position, more established on the depth chart, and on an offense that will give him more opportunity to run. And I think it's more likely that Jackson gets more carries from Grant than Bush gets from McFadden and Fargas.
What say you?
In one corner, we have Michael Bush, a solid 6'1 245 runner who has put his leg injuries behing him, making the best of his carries and appearing like his the runner he was back in Louisville. With Fargas out likely through the bye, and with McFadden -- the clear talent and no question starter at this point -- ailing with minor turf toe, Bush has the ability to step up and take a greater load in the next few games.
Raiders have an early bye, so with the team likely wanting to protect McFadden, and give Fargas the time to heal, I expect Bush to have a chance to split carries. Much depends on how McFadden can play through his injury, of course, but the opportunity is there. The only bright spot on the Raiders offensive attack is their ability to move the ball downfield on the ground.
Short term, door seems open for Bush -- long term, however, much revolves around Fargas. Will Bush go back to seeing just a handfull of carries once Fargas comes back, or does he have the shot to solidify his role -- especially if Fargas can't come back?
On the other hand, you have Brandon Jackson. He's the clear cut backup, and has looked decent in his role splitting carries with a struggling Ryan Grant. At 5'10 and 220, Jackson has decent size, but no one considers him a dynamic, forceful runner -- Grant seems to have the leg up on him in every aspect of the game when healthy. But the point is, Grant isn't healthy, and hamstrings can linger. Jackson has done well with his time, and if Grant continues to ail, the team may have to rely more in Jackson in the rushing attack.
GB looks to continue to be a strong offensive team with Rogers under center, especially through the air. This is a good thing for a back. On the downside, Jackson isn't a worldbeater, and the coaching staff seem eager to throw Lumpkin into the mix as well if Grant continues to be gimpy. While Jackson could have a great opportunity to take advantage of, with all the praise heaped on Lumpkin, it's also possible that Jackson could slip to the #3 back if Lumpkin comes in to be a difference maker on the squad. Not probable, but could happen.
So, long term, given these situations, who do you think holds greater value at this point in the season?
My gut tells me it's Bush -- I think Fargas' injury is worse that we know right now, and while McFadden will cement himself as a Top 20 back, Bush will find a role both short and long term.
Problem is, my head is telling me that Jackson is in the better long term position, more established on the depth chart, and on an offense that will give him more opportunity to run. And I think it's more likely that Jackson gets more carries from Grant than Bush gets from McFadden and Fargas.
What say you?
