Mike Bush (1 Viewer)

[eefflrat]

We have all been hearing the speculation that Bush might not be a UFA because his first year didn't count toward his years of service.

I am very confused. Didn't he get paid that first year? Wasn't it the teams decision to put him on the IR? Haven't there been ornery players who spent their first year on IR, like Willis McGahee with his blown out knee? He's been credited that year as a pro.

I don't understand why he won't be a UFA , what is the real deal?

 

[Anarchy99]

I believe the confusion lies from him being placed on the non football related injury list. So he got paid but did not get credit for an accrued season in the NFL.

 

[Bayhawks]

I believe the confusion lies from him being placed on the non football related injury list. So he got paid but did not get credit for an accrued season in the NFL.

If I'm not mistaken, so did McGahee his first year, but he got credit for that season. The only thing I've seen about Bush not being a FA is speculation from Adam Caplan (Fox Sports) that Bush won't be a FA. I've found nothing on the net to substantiate that, nor have a found any info (either way) about how the non football injury list impacts NFL player's years of service.

 

[JoeSteeler]

It has been reported that Bush will be unrestricted. However, Fox Sports reported late last week that Bush will be a restricted free agent. He was drafted in 2007, but he missed his first reason because he was on the non football injury list. He has played three NFL seasons.

According to two NFL sources I spoke to Tuesday, the current expectation is, indeed, that Bush will be restricted in that scenario. Again, nothing will be official until the lockout ends and there is still a gray area, but it looks like Bush might be restricted.

That would be a break for the Raiders. They want to retain Bush and they have several other free-agent issues facing them. Bush would likely be very popular as an unrestricted free agent. The restricted free-agent market rarely moves.

http://espn.go.com/b...a-restricted-fa

 

[Anarchy99]

I believe the confusion lies from him being placed on the non football related injury list. So he got paid but did not get credit for an accrued season in the NFL.

If I'm not mistaken, so did McGahee his first year, but he got credit for that season. The only thing I've seen about Bush not being a FA is speculation from Adam Caplan (Fox Sports) that Bush won't be a FA. I've found nothing on the net to substantiate that, nor have a found any info (either way) about how the non football injury list impacts NFL player's years of service.

McGahee only spent 8 games on the non football injury list and then was added to the regular roster but was inactive the final 8 games. I'm not sure, but I suspect that is the difference between McGahee and Bush.

 

[UnknownCoach]

The new CBA isnt out yet.

 

[az_prof]

I believe the confusion lies from him being placed on the non football related injury list. So he got paid but did not get credit for an accrued season in the NFL.

If I'm not mistaken, so did McGahee his first year, but he got credit for that season. The only thing I've seen about Bush not being a FA is speculation from Adam Caplan (Fox Sports) that Bush won't be a FA. I've found nothing on the net to substantiate that, nor have a found any info (either way) about how the non football injury list impacts NFL player's years of service.

I don't think anyone knows. Adam Caplan is talking out of his behind.

 

[Birdie048]

Rotoworld post from a few days ago...

Citing two league sources, ESPN.com's Bill Williamson confirms a report by FOX Sports that Michael Bush's free agency is expected to be restricted this year.Adam Caplan of FOX Sports has been all over this one since February, citing Bush's rookie season spent on the NFI list. Bush's status won't be officially announced until the lockout is over, but it certainly looks like he'll be back in Silver and Black as Darren McFadden's handcuff for another season. Jul 5, 4:51 PM

 

[eakfootball]

I guess he won't be unrestricted.

 

[kncks12]

Remember depending on the CBA there may not be a restricted this year, meaning every player will be UFA

 

[bengalbuck]

Remember depending on the CBA there may not be a restricted this year, meaning every player will be UFA

I think there is almost definitely going to still be restricted FA for 3rd year guys. If Bush is classified as only having 3 years of service, he'll almost definitely be restricted.The other guys with 4 years or more likely won't be restricted though like they were last year when the CBA is announced, but Bush still will be.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'd like to see what he could do with a full season as a starter... Something needs to happen.

 

[KellysHeroes]

doesn't matter, Raiders will do anything to keep him

 

[bigern1000]

I'd be very surprised if he wasn't a Raider this season.

Then again, it IS the Raiders...

 

[sihaokills]

I think the Raiders want to keep Bush

 

[The_Head_Ape]

Anything new to see here?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Anything new to see here?

Bush is not unrestricted. He's staying in Oakland.

 

[Chadstroma]

Just read on RTSports notes that his agent expects him to be restricted:

Oakland Raiders impending free-agent RB Michael Bush's agent said he is under the impression that Bush will be a restricted free agent because he did not play in his first season.

 

[GridironMenace]

no.

/thread

 

[massraider]

One more year for dynasty owners to 'hold', before being disappointed.

He's so dramatically overrated, its comical.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

It's now official. Bush is RFA. link

 

[Raider Nation]

I think the Raiders want to keep Bush

Everybody wants Bush.