Player Spotlight: Reggie Bush (1 Viewer)

[TheFanatic]

I will say again, before Reggie got hurt he was averaging 95 yards a game

We need to straighten out this nonsense right now. Reggie was averaging 95 yards per game before he got hurt in week 7? Reggie is a good RB? Do you know what Reggie's YPC was in each of those 6 games?3.6 Tampa2.8 @Wash4.1 @Den3.1 San Fran2.4 Minnesota1.9 OaklandI'll even throw in the 7th game because he did have a good YPC in that game:6.1 @CarThat's a 3.38 YPC. 3.06 if you take out the 7th game. That's a good RB? He averaged under 40 yards per game for the first 6 games and 42 yards per game rushing if you count the 7th game.Now let's look at receiving. He did pretty well. He averaged 60 yards per game over the first 6. I took out the 7th game as he only had 1 catch for 5 yards so that should help the averages in your favor. That's nearly 1K receiving yards if averaged out over 16 games. But then again we both agree that is wishful thinking. He also had a YPR of 8.8 yards per catch. That's really good. Good enough to be the second best WR at RB on the team as Pierre Thomas averaged 9.2 yards per catch last year. Reggie also had 5 TD's in those 6 games which was pretty good but he also had 3 fumbles.Overall we have Reggie over the first 6 games:Reggie averaged:39 yards per game rushing3.06 YPC61 yards per game receiving8.8 YPR.833 TD's per game.50 fumbles per gameAnd a respectable 100 yards total per gameSo, now that we have looked at this impressive run of games by Reggie to prove he is the superior athlete, let's look at the games in which Pierre Thomas was relied upon heavily. All of the first 6 games Reggie played in he had 10 or more carries. Thomas had 7 games with 10 or more carries. Here is his YPC for each game:5.2 Tampa5.5 @KC5.8 Green Bay3.1 @TB6.4 Atl4.0 @Chi5.9 @DetThat's an aggregate average of 5.11 YPC. He only dropped below 4.0 in a single game. His YPR in those games was 10.14. He also had 9 TD's in those 7 games and just 1 fumble. In the 7 games Pierre Thomas was heavily utilized - and I know this is going to sound like cherry picking but remember, the stats the BJ's keep touting are the nice run Reggie had to start the season. I could leave out the first game against Tampa from Thomas's numbers and his averages go up, but the haters will hate 0 Thomas averaged:75 yards per game rushing5.11 YPC30 yards per game receiving10.14 YPR1.29 TD's per game (roughly 50% higher than Reggie).14 fumbles per gameAnd an even more respectable 105 total yards per gameWho is the better RB? Reggie is an exciting player and catches a lot of balls but even PT's YPR is higher than Reggie's.But here is where everyone will jump in and say that Reggie played harder run D's. And he did. The average rank of Run D's for Reggie was 16.5. The average rank of run D for Thomas was 22.2. That difference does not seem to account for PT averaging almost double the rushing yards and more than 2 extra YPC. I did not include any TD's Reggie may have gotten in special teams as that really isn't part of this discussion. Denver Hester scores a lot of TD's on special teams and that doesn't make him a good RB (or good WR for that matter). So, I ask you again, who is the better RB. Reggie's 6 games may have had him leading the league but PT had an even more impressive 7 games, even more so if we just go with the 6 where he got the full load at the end of the season (or at least most of the load).So, again I ask, who is the better RB? Even if we cherry pick Reggie's nice run at the beginning of the season when put up against the run PT had at the end of the season Bush falls short.

 

[Day Drinker]

So, I ask you again, who is the better RB?

Who cares? If they are both going in the third round, I want the guy who will score the most fantasy points, plain and simple. At this point, I still think that is Reggie because the Saints will find ways to get him the ball in space, and if healthy, his 75 receptions will put him over Pierre in my mind. But Pieerre will get his too, and I love the breakdowns by Fanatic, they really show the quality back that Pierre was last year.

 

[TheFanatic]

So, I ask you again, who is the better RB?

Who cares? If they are both going in the third round, I want the guy who will score the most fantasy points, plain and simple. At this point, I still think that is Reggie because the Saints will find ways to get him the ball in space, and if healthy, his 75 receptions will put him over Pierre in my mind. But Pieerre will get his too, and I love the breakdowns by Fanatic, they really show the quality back that Pierre was last year.

I agree that Bush has value to an NFL team and a FFB team. But doesn't this thread show that in just about every league some Reggie fan is going to grab him way too early? And the stats show pretty clearly that the better RB is PT. Reggie catches a lot of balls out of the backfield but that doesn't make the guy a great RB.

 

[massraider]

So, I ask you again, who is the better RB?

Who cares? If they are both going in the third round, I want the guy who will score the most fantasy points, plain and simple. At this point, I still think that is Reggie because the Saints will find ways to get him the ball in space, and if healthy, his 75 receptions will put him over Pierre in my mind. But Pieerre will get his too, and I love the breakdowns by Fanatic, they really show the quality back that Pierre was last year.

I agree that Bush has value to an NFL team and a FFB team. But doesn't this thread show that in just about every league some Reggie fan is going to grab him way too early?

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/a...ortby=consensusGoing by this, I would say 'no'.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Blackjacks, just ignore Fanatic. He's a ######## that is threatened by Reggies existence. We know he doesn't like him because he can't average more than 4 yds a carry.

We also know that in ppr leagues Reggie has just as good of a chance as anyone to lead all scorers barring injury. This was evident before last year's injury.

This thread has got way off course.

 

[TheFanatic]

Blackjacks, just ignore Fanatic. He's a ######## that is threatened by Reggies existence. We know he doesn't like him because he can't average more than 4 yds a carry.We also know that in ppr leagues Reggie has just as good of a chance as anyone to lead all scorers barring injury. This was evident before last year's injury.This thread has got way off course.

Insightful post. Well thought out, logical with a lot of statistical backing. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Blackjacks, just ignore Fanatic. He's a ######## that is threatened by Reggies existence. We know he doesn't like him because he can't average more than 4 yds a carry.We also know that in ppr leagues Reggie has just as good of a chance as anyone to lead all scorers barring injury. This was evident before last year's injury.This thread has got way off course.

Insightful post. Well thought out, logical with a lot of statistical backing. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

Wow, you know how to cut to the bone don't you. Guess all that grilling experience is finally paying off.

 

[moderated]

So, I ask you again, who is the better RB?

Who cares? If they are both going in the third round, I want the guy who will score the most fantasy points, plain and simple. At this point, I still think that is Reggie because the Saints will find ways to get him the ball in space, and if healthy, his 75 receptions will put him over Pierre in my mind. But Pieerre will get his too, and I love the breakdowns by Fanatic, they really show the quality back that Pierre was last year.

I agree that Bush has value to an NFL team and a FFB team. But doesn't this thread show that in just about every league some Reggie fan is going to grab him way too early? And the stats show pretty clearly that the better RB is PT. Reggie catches a lot of balls out of the backfield but that doesn't make the guy a great RB.

Using PT"s small sample and your faulty logic Thomas is one of the top 5 RB's in the NFL.Let's see Pierre do it for a year against decent defenses. He's basically proved nothing so far due to a half season where he played against pee wee league d's.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I will say again, before Reggie got hurt he was averaging 95 yards a game

We need to straighten out this nonsense right now. Reggie was averaging 95 yards per game before he got hurt in week 7? Reggie is a good RB? Do you know what Reggie's YPC was in each of those 6 games?3.6 Tampa2.8 @Wash4.1 @Den3.1 San Fran2.4 Minnesota1.9 OaklandI'll even throw in the 7th game because he did have a good YPC in that game:6.1 @CarThat's a 3.38 YPC. 3.06 if you take out the 7th game. That's a good RB? He averaged under 40 yards per game for the first 6 games and 42 yards per game rushing if you count the 7th game.

Is Matt Forte a good RB?13/50 - 3.8 - against HOU23/73 - 3.2 - against GNB11/34 - 3.1 - against NOR21/69 - 3.3 - against JAX20/56 - 2.8 - against MIN20/76 - 3.8 - against ATL15/36 - 2.4 - against DET19/43 - 2.3 - against PHI27/89 - 3.3 - against TAM

 

[Blackjacks]

Okay guys, let's just admit that eventhough his arguements are completely imiginary and he forgot to actually prove his arguements with any form of statistical evidence.....let's just agree with him cause we all know he is right cause...........cause he said so.

I know it's hard to believe after reading all the other evidence, and how it all made so much sense, we've seen to side against him but the fanatic knew back in college that Reggie was gonna be a bust and now he has lived up to his expectations.

We should all just say thank you to the fanatic for helping us find out the truth about Reggie before it was to late

Long live the fanatic....................................................and God bless

 

[hornedfrog]

Who cares about his YPC? We're talking fantasy RB here. I'll take 95 yards per game in a heartbeat.

 

[Blackjacks]

Who cares about his YPC? We're talking fantasy RB here. I'll take 95 yards per game in a heartbeat.

sounds logical.......but logic doesn't work in this thread

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Who cares about his YPC? We're talking fantasy RB here. I'll take 95 yards per game in a heartbeat.

The people who should care about ACTUAL performance vs fantasy performance in previous years are the people who are interested in PREDICTING what will happen with a given player rather than REACTING to what is currently happening with that player (i.e. people who win leagues).As I have stated about a billion times, it isn't about whether Bush will put up numbers IF he continues to get massive amounts of opportunity. He will. Anybody in the NFL would. The question is whether or not he WILL continue to get that massive amount of opportunity, which is where his actual NFL production comes into play.

Okay guys, let's just admit that eventhough his arguements are completely imiginary and he forgot to actually prove his arguements with any form of statistical evidence.....let's just agree with him cause we all know he is right cause...........cause he said so.

OK, I am not the Fanatic, but I have to believe this is partially a fishing trip. How much statistical evidence do you need? Your whole argument is facing a HUGE uphill battle with regard to statistical evidence. And while there is always a case to be made despite statistics, and I can respect trying to do that (stats aren't everything - I freely admit that), to then claim the other side has no evidence is ridiculous.How many posts have I made in which the evidence CLEARLY contradicts positions you have taken? How many of them have you completely ignored?When I show that Thomas has been far superior in every situation over both of their entire careers, I get crickets. When you complain I am using six games as a "sample" when in fact I am using 14+ games for Thomas and 3 years for Bush, I get crickets. When you say Bush makes the offense "click" and I point out that the offense (and the team) does better without Bush than with him, I get crickets.We are all just repeating ourselves at this point though (and we are now on a pretty steep downward trend in terms of civility and constructive discussion as well), so this will be my last input on this thread.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Who cares about his YPC? We're talking fantasy RB here. I'll take 95 yards per game in a heartbeat.

The people who should care about ACTUAL performance vs fantasy performance in previous years are the people who are interested in PREDICTING what will happen with a given player rather than REACTING to what is currently happening with that player (i.e. people who win leagues).As I have stated about a billion times, it isn't about whether Bush will put up numbers IF he continues to get massive amounts of opportunity. He will. Anybody in the NFL would. The question is whether or not he WILL continue to get that massive amount of opportunity, which is where his actual NFL production comes into play.

Okay guys, let's just admit that eventhough his arguements are completely imiginary and he forgot to actually prove his arguements with any form of statistical evidence.....let's just agree with him cause we all know he is right cause...........cause he said so.

OK, I am not the Fanatic, but I have to believe this is partially a fishing trip. How much statistical evidence do you need? Your whole argument is facing a HUGE uphill battle with regard to statistical evidence.

Well here is the stat that is rather important for fantasy leagues:After seven weeks in 2008, Reggie Bush was a Top 8 fantasy RBYou can not discard what he did simply because his "stats" were not that impressive. I posted 9 games of Matt Forte where his YPC were putrid and he still put up good fantasy numbers. Points are points and I don't care how you get them as long as you are getting them.

 

[TheFanatic]

Well here is the stat that is rather important for fantasy leagues:After seven weeks in 2008, Reggie Bush was a Top 8 fantasy RB

And in a similar 7 game span, later in the season Pierre Thomas outperformed those numbers. I'm not exactly sure how to go back and see what the rankings for the RB's were from the weeks that Pierre Thomas dominated, but I'm sure someone out there can do that.

You can not discard what he did simply because his "stats" were not that impressive. I posted 9 games of Matt Forte where his YPC were putrid and he still put up good fantasy numbers. Points are points and I don't care how you get them as long as you are getting them.

Forte got ample opportunity despite a poor YPC. Do you think he will continue to get that ample opportunity should he continue to have sub par YPC? Holy Shneikies summed it up well. The whole point here is that if Reggie, or any other RB, keeps coming up short, no matter how many jerseys he sells or where he was drafted will keep him on the field.

 

[TheFanatic]

Using PT"s small sample and your faulty logic Thomas is one of the top 5 RB's in the NFL.

Uh, where did I ever compare him to any other RB in the league other than Bush? In passing I mentioned him along with Deuce, but no where did I compare him to another active RB. And you call my logic faulty.

Let's see Pierre do it for a year against decent defenses. He's basically proved nothing so far due to a half season where he played against pee wee league d's.

It's not like Reggie ran against great D's last year either. He ran against the Vikings, but he also ran against the Raiders. To make it out like Reggie every week ran against the steel curtain and Thomas ran against the Rams. Talk about a weak straw man.

 

[TheFanatic]

How many posts have I made in which the evidence CLEARLY contradicts positions you have taken? How many of them have you completely ignored?

Don't forget completely lying about Bush being the #1 overall RB over the first 7 weeks in a non PPR league. Can't believe I missed that and didn't call him on it. I'm in that league with him.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Well here is the stat that is rather important for fantasy leagues:

After seven weeks in 2008, Reggie Bush was a Top 8 fantasy RB

And in a similar 7 game span, later in the season Pierre Thomas outperformed those numbers. I'm not exactly sure how to go back and see what the rankings for the RB's were from the weeks that Pierre Thomas dominated, but I'm sure someone out there can do that.

You can not discard what he did simply because his "stats" were not that impressive. I posted 9 games of Matt Forte where his YPC were putrid and he still put up good fantasy numbers. Points are points and I don't care how you get them as long as you are getting them.

Forte got ample opportunity despite a poor YPC. Do you think he will continue to get that ample opportunity should he continue to have sub par YPC?

Absolutely, he is a first round pick as is Reggie. The Saints will continue to get Reggie touches just to save face. I am no fan of Reggie Bush, but its clear the Saints will do everything possible to try and get him the ball. They really want him to succeed and will give him every opportunity to touch the ball until his contract is up.

 

[TheFanatic]

Well here is the stat that is rather important for fantasy leagues:

After seven weeks in 2008, Reggie Bush was a Top 8 fantasy RB

And in a similar 7 game span, later in the season Pierre Thomas outperformed those numbers. I'm not exactly sure how to go back and see what the rankings for the RB's were from the weeks that Pierre Thomas dominated, but I'm sure someone out there can do that.

You can not discard what he did simply because his "stats" were not that impressive. I posted 9 games of Matt Forte where his YPC were putrid and he still put up good fantasy numbers. Points are points and I don't care how you get them as long as you are getting them.

Forte got ample opportunity despite a poor YPC. Do you think he will continue to get that ample opportunity should he continue to have sub par YPC?

Absolutely, he is a first round pick as is Reggie. The Saints will continue to get Reggie touches just to save face. I am no fan of Reggie Bush, but its clear the Saints will do everything possible to try and get him the ball. They really want him to succeed and will give him every opportunity to touch the ball until his contract is up.

I agree with this completely. But at some point teams cut the ties. Ryan Leaf was the 2nd overall pick. Forte did well fantasy wise and will get ample opportunity again this year but eventually, if he were to stumble, they will move into another direction. Reggie will get chances to touch the ball but do you think that they will continue to test the guy to try to see if he can be a legit every down RB? Maybe he gets yet another chance based on the off the field stuff (draft position, ticket sales, jersey sales, etc), but if he does not perform they will rely more on a guy that can. It seems that guy could be Thomas, but he still has to do it long term.

 

[moderated]

When you complain I am using six games as a "sample" when in fact I am using 14+ games for Thomas and 3 years for Bush, I get crickets.

You don't get crickets, your using games where he got less then 5 touches and counting them towards your 14 game sample.How about this, he's had around 180 carries TOTAL in his career, that is not a significant sample and borderline irrelevant when trying to predict his future.Kevin Barlow looked amazing with a small sample, and SUCKED once his sample became relevant.You can argue you think PT looks better by watching him, but trying to argue it using stats from an insignificant sample isn't the way to do it.

 

[Blackjacks]

How many posts have I made in which the evidence CLEARLY contradicts positions you have taken? How many of them have you completely ignored?

Don't forget completely lying about Bush being the #1 overall RB over the first 7 weeks in a non PPR league. Can't believe I missed that and didn't call him on it. I'm in that league with him.

I was wrong about the #1 thing I guess. I had Portis and Bush and I guess Portis was the #1 at the time but I think Bush was better than #7. I'm pretty sure he was in our top 5 but I could be wrong.I wasn't lying.......I was just incorrect. There is a difference.I can agree with some of the above posts. If you think Reggie is going to stop getting touches and that will be his decline, although I disagree, I can see that side of an arguement. I, on the other hand, don't see that happening so i will say againthat as long as he is healthy Reggie will get the ball and be a stud for fantasy purposes and the Saints.

 

[TheFanatic]

I can agree with some of the above posts. If you think Reggie is going to stop getting touches and that will be his decline, although I disagree, I can see that side of an arguement. I, on the other hand, don't see that happening so i will say againthat as long as he is healthy Reggie will get the ball and be a stud for fantasy purposes and the Saints.

There are two different issues here. Health and running better. I have said this maybe a dozen times in this thread, that if he stays on the field and runs the ball better inside he will be a stud and the Saints will use him accordingly. If he cannot stay on the field they will still use him when he is on the field, but I gotta believe that they will limit his touches to try to keep him on the field more. He has big play ability. And he is great for the passing game. There is no question about that. He just needs to make more of the small plays to earn his playing time. If he can't get the tough yards inside, can't run between the tackles, his playing time will be reduced. If everyone on the field knows that when Bush trots onto the field the play is going to be a passing play or to the outside, other teams will indeed game plan for Reggie by knowing that the play about to be run was just broadcasted by Reggie being in there. An offensive "tell" if you will.What would be really interesting is if they lined up PT and Bush in a two back set. That way teams could not know if Reggie's going around the outside or getting a dump off or if PT is going to run up the gut. If the Saints want to keep Reggie on the field for what he does in the passing game, but he keeps breaking down, they will limit his touches to keep him on the field. Limited touches over 16 games is a lot better than a lot of touches over 9 games. Reggie's contract is coming up in the next couple of seasons. They will need to see if he can handle the load before they start negotiations. He will likely get abundant carries this year to see if he can handle that just as he did early last year. For Reggie owners and Reggie fans you need to hope that he can stay on the field. Another repeat of last season and he is likely out of there if he tries to convince management that he is worth a $20 million SB because he sells a lot of jerseys...

 

[Holy Schneikes]

When you complain I am using six games as a "sample" when in fact I am using 14+ games for Thomas and 3 years for Bush, I get crickets.

You don't get crickets, your using games where he got less then 5 touches and counting them towards your 14 game sample.How about this, he's had around 180 carries TOTAL in his career, that is not a significant sample and borderline irrelevant when trying to predict his future.Kevin Barlow looked amazing with a small sample, and SUCKED once his sample became relevant.You can argue you think PT looks better by watching him, but trying to argue it using stats from an insignificant sample isn't the way to do it.

As I said before, I'm using career numbers which include TWELVE games with TEN+ touches (for Thomas). You categorized that as "6 games" in the "best possible scenario". Not exactly the most accurate complaint about the stats. 180 carries does not a career make, I agree with that. But it's a decent starting point for evaluation. If you need more than 180 carries to get a feel for a guy, you've got problems in this game.That doesn't mean I believe he'll necessarily continue on that pace (especially if goes to a different team). As I've also said before, I don't think Thomas is a super-back. He's a good back playing in a great system.In any case, my more relevant point was to show just how bad Bush's performance has been thus far in his career. For that, the production on his touches vs the guys he's playing with IS very telling. You don't need more than 3 years of data to make an evaluation on THAT. If your prefer a larger sample size, take Thomas as an individual out of the equation and compare what Bush has done per touch vs what every other NO RB in the past three years has done per touch. If you do that, you'll find results similar to what we see in the other comparison - Bush falls short of the other guys. I'm sure you and others would find excuses as to why that would be the case, but I think the answer is much simpler - he's not a very good RB. And wrapped up in there is the fact that he's not all THAT exciting (in terms of actual production - he CAN be fun to WATCH sometimes) as a receiver either. He's competent, has good hands, etc, but does NOT really do what everybody assumes/believes he does, which is break big plays on any kind of regular basis.

 

[TheFanatic]

You can argue you think PT looks better by watching him, but trying to argue it using stats from an insignificant sample isn't the way to do it.

This is a bit debatable. It's not taking 3 games to decide the guy will be a stud. But it's not 32 games either. And for the record, this is not a discussion of PT vs the league/ It's PT against Bush. The most comparable stats are what we have for 2008 which include small sample sizes for both. But considering this is a FFB website, we don't necessarily have the luxury of waiting for a larger sample size. We need to make a decision earlier than that if we want to get him on our teams. Can he be the next Barlow? Sure. Can Reggie be the next Dominick Davis? Sure. And the funniest thing here, for me, is that I was defending DD against the same arguments I am making against Reggie. I was wrong about DD. For the Reggie fans I hope I am wrong here.

In the end, we have a guy in a short period of time who has done well and a guy over 3 years that hasn't. The team will likely sort this mess out this year. Give Reggie a chance to succeed but be ready to see what PT can do in case he can't.

 

[David Yudkin]

Let me get this straight. A player that has played in fewer games every season, scored fewer fantasy points every season, been ranked lower every season, and COMING OFF OF MICROSURGERY is getting projected as high as ever in people's projections?

He's consistently averaged in the 11-12 ppg range fantasy wise. I don't see any reason to think he would do better than that. In fact, I'd be inclined to think he would do worse coming off of surgery. Pick the number of games he plays and that would probably be an accurate total of fantasy points.

I'm guessing 10.5 fantasy ppg x 12 games = 126 fantasy points. I'm not sure how he would get that, but . . .

120 rushes, 400 rushing yards, 2 rushing TD

60 receptions, 500 receiving yards, 4 receiving TD

 

[Ray_T]

NEWS FLASH:

Associated Press (AP) - Reggie Bush will be missing the next 3 weeks of camp due to a papercut. He got it while signing one of his many endorsement deals and it later became infected. Bush commented: 'it hurts a lot, but since I've been on the antibiotics it's improved steadily. I think I'll be ready for the season opener.'

We will bring you more on this story as it develops.

 

[TheFanatic]

NEWS FLASH:Associated Press (AP) - Reggie Bush will be missing the next 3 weeks of camp due to a papercut. He got it while signing one of his many endorsement deals and it later became infected. Bush commented: 'it hurts a lot, but since I've been on the antibiotics it's improved steadily. I think I'll be ready for the season opener.'We will bring you more on this story as it develops.

But did you see the youtube video of his highlights? My favorite Uniquely Reggie media moment was in his rookie year I think. Sports Center showed him make two runs. One was for like 8 yards where he deked and spun a couple of times and made 8 yards out of nothing. The second was a 6 yard carry. These were the first two highlights of that game. Reggie finished the game with 12 yards rushing, but all we saw was the two highlight reel runs not the other 5 carries he got little or no yardage on...

 

[-jb-]

worst. spotlight. ever.

 

[Blackjacks]

You can argue you think PT looks better by watching him, but trying to argue it using stats from an insignificant sample isn't the way to do it.

This is a bit debatable. It's not taking 3 games to decide the guy will be a stud. But it's not 32 games either. And for the record, this is not a discussion of PT vs the league/ It's PT against Bush. The most comparable stats are what we have for 2008 which include small sample sizes for both. But considering this is a FFB website, we don't necessarily have the luxury of waiting for a larger sample size. We need to make a decision earlier than that if we want to get him on our teams. Can he be the next Barlow? Sure. Can Reggie be the next Dominick Davis? Sure. And the funniest thing here, for me, is that I was defending DD against the same arguments I am making against Reggie. I was wrong about DD. For the Reggie fans I hope I am wrong here.

In the end, we have a guy in a short period of time who has done well and a guy over 3 years that hasn't. The team will likely sort this mess out this year. Give Reggie a chance to succeed but be ready to see what PT can do in case he can't.

I still don't get why you go here?I agree Reggie gets hurt, I agree he could have a problem perhaps getting on the field in the future but how can you say he hasn't been successful WHEN HE"S ON THE FIELD? He has done very well...........this is so annoying.

 

[TheFanatic]

I still don't get why you go here?I agree Reggie gets hurt, I agree he could have a problem perhaps getting on the field in the future but how can you say he hasn't been successful WHEN HE"S ON THE FIELD? He has done very well...........this is so annoying.

You have got to stop thinking about this in terms of FFB. He ranks really low in comparison with other RB's with similar opportunity. You rave about the 6 games he had last year where he did really well in terms of FFB. But as a RUNNING BACK he rushed for 40 yards per game over that period of time. Again, tell me how that makes him a great RB when he is on the field. Even when we take probably his best 6 game run ever, he still only ran for 40 yards per game. You're right it is annoying. You accuse me of some blind hate and some sort of anti homerism. This from the guy who drafted him first overall while wearing his jersey and has his pic as his avatar. You need to look in the mirror bro. My analysis has been MUCH more balanced than your anecdotal highlight reels that prove jack. You need to step away from this thread because you are getting crushed over and over again...

 

[Blackjacks]

I still don't get why you go here?I agree Reggie gets hurt, I agree he could have a problem perhaps getting on the field in the future but how can you say he hasn't been successful WHEN HE"S ON THE FIELD? He has done very well...........this is so annoying.

You have got to stop thinking about this in terms of FFB. He ranks really low in comparison with other RB's with similar opportunity. You rave about the 6 games he had last year where he did really well in terms of FFB. But as a RUNNING BACK he rushed for 40 yards per game over that period of time. Again, tell me how that makes him a great RB when he is on the field. Even when we take probably his best 6 game run ever, he still only ran for 40 yards per game. You're right it is annoying. You accuse me of some blind hate and some sort of anti homerism. This from the guy who drafted him first overall while wearing his jersey and has his pic as his avatar. You need to look in the mirror bro. My analysis has been MUCH more balanced than your anecdotal highlight reels that prove jack. You need to step away from this thread because you are getting crushed over and over again...

I love Reggie and you hate Reggie. I'm not accusing either one of us of anything, that's just how it is.I am not getting crushed at all. You have just prooved over and over again that you went against the grain when Reggie was drafted and said he was going to b awful You have stuck by your guns and are trying to show why you are right and many on this board are wrong. You are trying to show that your eye was better than scounts when Reggie was coming out of college while watching 1/3 of his games and now in the pros when you watch some (at best) of his games you come up with some statements to back up your beliefs. I will still stand by if a guy gets 100 yards a game and a td a game he is extremely valueable in the nfl and fantasy football. I, as you know, have P. Thomas on my keeper team with Reggie. I don't have to talk him up just cause I have him. I own both and Reggie is the guy that I believe is more valueable. The only thing against Reggie is his health. If he could stay healthy a whole year he would put up increable stats and help his team out immensely. I'm sure however, he still would have major flaws that you would help us find.You can say you have nothing against Reggie but we know you do. It's nothing personal between you and me. It's just our opinions. If I were you I would go back through ths thread and look at your comments and look how many facts are there and how many are opinions. Both sides of this party can argue and prove stats and theories both ways. I say the believers just keep drafting him and the non believers don't. It's that easy

 

[two_dollars]

170 carries for 650 yds

70 receptions for 500 yds

8 total TD's

would have put him at RB12 in our PPR league last season.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Read through most of this and have had a similar debate on Saints MB's. I would have to say I'm on the side of the unimpressed when it comes to Reggie. A few points to note...

1) Out of the 50 RB's that have at least 300 total rushes in the last 3 years, Bush ranks 42nd in YPC? That's the bottom 20% of the NFL. The guys Bush is ahead of have last names like Droughns, Benson, Rhodes, Foster.

2) Alot of people point to Bush's prowess in the passing game. However, compared against other RB's who have averaged 20 receptions/year the last 3 years (or if their careers are less than 3 years), Bush ranks 38th out of 58 RB's?

3) With Bush, here is what Brees produced on average (per game)

24.9 Completions

38.2 Attempts

284.6 Yards

65.3% Completion Rate

7.45 YPA

1.7 TD's

1.0 INT's

Without Bush, here is what Brees produced on average (per game)

28.2 Completions

42.3 Attempts

333.4 Yards

66.7% Completion Rate

7.88 YPA

2.4 TD's

0.8 INT's

Bush has some highlight plays, his performance against MIN last year was electric. But to some of the points made above, it almost appears that the Saints force the ball to Reggie to justify that pick and contract. I know that in PPR formats he has a lot of value. In fact, it's players like Bush that I point to for not getting involved in PPR leagues.

I know some will point to YPC/YPR not being a stat relevant in FF, but this debate seems to have taken on a tone of evaluating the player himself. And these stats IMO evaljuate what a player does each time he gets the ball.

 

[Blackjacks]

Read through most of this and have had a similar debate on Saints MB's. I would have to say I'm on the side of the unimpressed when it comes to Reggie. A few points to note...1) Out of the 50 RB's that have at least 300 total rushes in the last 3 years, Bush ranks 42nd in YPC? That's the bottom 20% of the NFL. The guys Bush is ahead of have last names like Droughns, Benson, Rhodes, Foster. 2) Alot of people point to Bush's prowess in the passing game. However, compared against other RB's who have averaged 20 receptions/year the last 3 years (or if their careers are less than 3 years), Bush ranks 38th out of 58 RB's? 3) With Bush, here is what Brees produced on average (per game)24.9 Completions38.2 Attempts284.6 Yards65.3% Completion Rate7.45 YPA1.7 TD's1.0 INT'sWithout Bush, here is what Brees produced on average (per game)28.2 Completions42.3 Attempts333.4 Yards66.7% Completion Rate7.88 YPA2.4 TD's0.8 INT'sBush has some highlight plays, his performance against MIN last year was electric. But to some of the points made above, it almost appears that the Saints force the ball to Reggie to justify that pick and contract. I know that in PPR formats he has a lot of value. In fact, it's players like Bush that I point to for not getting involved in PPR leagues.I know some will point to YPC/YPR not being a stat relevant in FF, but this debate seems to have taken on a tone of evaluating the player himself. And these stats IMO evaljuate what a player does each time he gets the ball.

All good points.I do just want to point out that the week Reggie went down is also the last week the Saints #1 wr was on the bench due to injury. Of course Brees' #'s went up, he got Colston back.I saw a couple of posts similiar to this. Reggie doesn't make the offense click kind of stuff and didn't respond but I had to respond to this. You take any #1 wr out of an offense (especially a pillar of consistency like Colston) and I would be surprised if #'s didn't take a hit.Imagine Bush and Colston together.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Read through most of this and have had a similar debate on Saints MB's. I would have to say I'm on the side of the unimpressed when it comes to Reggie. A few points to note...1) Out of the 50 RB's that have at least 300 total rushes in the last 3 years, Bush ranks 42nd in YPC? That's the bottom 20% of the NFL. The guys Bush is ahead of have last names like Droughns, Benson, Rhodes, Foster. 2) Alot of people point to Bush's prowess in the passing game. However, compared against other RB's who have averaged 20 receptions/year the last 3 years (or if their careers are less than 3 years), Bush ranks 38th out of 58 RB's? 3) With Bush, here is what Brees produced on average (per game)24.9 Completions38.2 Attempts284.6 Yards65.3% Completion Rate7.45 YPA1.7 TD's1.0 INT'sWithout Bush, here is what Brees produced on average (per game)28.2 Completions42.3 Attempts333.4 Yards66.7% Completion Rate7.88 YPA2.4 TD's0.8 INT'sBush has some highlight plays, his performance against MIN last year was electric. But to some of the points made above, it almost appears that the Saints force the ball to Reggie to justify that pick and contract. I know that in PPR formats he has a lot of value. In fact, it's players like Bush that I point to for not getting involved in PPR leagues.I know some will point to YPC/YPR not being a stat relevant in FF, but this debate seems to have taken on a tone of evaluating the player himself. And these stats IMO evaljuate what a player does each time he gets the ball.

All good points.I do just want to point out that the week Reggie went down is also the last week the Saints #1 wr was on the bench due to injury. Of course Brees' #'s went up, he got Colston back.I saw a couple of posts similiar to this. Reggie doesn't make the offense click kind of stuff and didn't respond but I had to respond to this. You take any #1 wr out of an offense (especially a pillar of consistency like Colston) and I would be surprised if #'s didn't take a hit.Imagine Bush and Colston together.

I should have pointed out that the Bress with/without Bush comparison was made over Bush's 3 year career (which coincides with Brees' tenure there).

 

[Dancing Bear]

If one looks at the Top 25 RB's ranked by Footballguys.com today and objectively reviews the ability of a RB to have a play from scrimmage of 20 yards or greater, then you discover this :

Rushing

===============

Bush has only 7 rushing plays of 20 or more yards for a 1.7% clip. This ranks him 24 out of 25!!!!! He is only better than Thomas Jones.

Adrian Peterson has a 5.3% clip which means he is 3 times more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.

Pierre Thomas has an 2.2% clip which means he is nearly 30% more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.

Deuce McAllister had a 2.1% clip over the same 3 years he shared duties with Bush.

Receiving

===============

Bush has only 12 receiving plays of 20 or more yards for a 4.1% clip. This ranks him 19 out of 25 here!!!!!

Michael Turner has an 8.0% clip which means he is nearly 2 times more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.

Pierre Thomas has an 7.8% clip which means he is also nearly 2 times more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.

Deuce McAllister had a 4.7% clip over the same 3 years he shared duties with Bush.

Reggie Bush is 100% HYPE! Historically he has not been able to outperform his teammates. Given the opportunity Pierre Thomas will continue to outperform him.

 

[jurb26]

2) Alot of people point to Bush's prowess in the passing game. However, compared against other RB's who have averaged 20 receptions/year the last 3 years (or if their careers are less than 3 years), Bush ranks 38th out of 58 RB's?

How exactly is this a relevant number to be using for a guy who has averaged over 70 receptions/year and never less than 52 in a single season (which is well over 2x the number you choose to use and that was in a 10 game season)?I'm baffled at how so many Bush antagonists' play with numbers in these ways. This isn't even remotely close to a relevant stat comparison.

 

[moderated]

Reggie Bush is 100% HYPE!

he's the real deal

 

[Blackjacks]

If one looks at the Top 25 RB's ranked by Footballguys.com today and objectively reviews the ability of a RB to have a play from scrimmage of 20 yards or greater, then you discover this :Rushing===============Bush has only 7 rushing plays of 20 or more yards for a 1.7% clip. This ranks him 24 out of 25!!!!! He is only better than Thomas Jones.Adrian Peterson has a 5.3% clip which means he is 3 times more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.Pierre Thomas has an 2.2% clip which means he is nearly 30% more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.Deuce McAllister had a 2.1% clip over the same 3 years he shared duties with Bush.Receiving===============Bush has only 12 receiving plays of 20 or more yards for a 4.1% clip. This ranks him 19 out of 25 here!!!!!Michael Turner has an 8.0% clip which means he is nearly 2 times more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.Pierre Thomas has an 7.8% clip which means he is also nearly 2 times more likely to bust off a big play than Reggie.Deuce McAllister had a 4.7% clip over the same 3 years he shared duties with Bush.Reggie Bush is 100% HYPE! Historically he has not been able to outperform his teammates. Given the opportunity Pierre Thomas will continue to outperform him.

I do think this post is a little misleading due to playing the #'s you want to but I am finally glad that the Anti-Bush bandwagon is finally finding stats to post instead of "cause I said so" comments.

 

[Dancing Bear]

I do think this post is a little misleading due to playing the #'s you want to but I am finally glad that the Anti-Bush bandwagon is finally finding stats to post instead of "cause I said so" comments.

I appreciate the complement!I'm not suggesting that you should, but if you were to check you will see that I have posted nothing but REAL statistics in discussing this topic from the beginning.I would like to clarify one thing though, I have not "played" with any #'s here. I have simply posted RB performance facts.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

2) Alot of people point to Bush's prowess in the passing game. However, compared against other RB's who have averaged 20 receptions/year the last 3 years (or if their careers are less than 3 years), Bush ranks 38th out of 58 RB's?

How exactly is this a relevant number to be using for a guy who has averaged over 70 receptions/year and never less than 52 in a single season (which is well over 2x the number you choose to use and that was in a 10 game season)?I'm baffled at how so many Bush antagonists' play with numbers in these ways. This isn't even remotely close to a relevant stat comparison.

Fact is that Bush has more career receiving yards as he does rushing yards, but that isn't so much a function of his playmaking or open field ability as it is simply that New Orleans throws the ball a heck of a lot with one of the Top 3 QB's in the NFL and the Saints try as often as possible to incorporate him into the offense.I don't think it's a bad idea to incorporate your most productive weapons into your offense as much as possible, but is Bush productive? Or at least more effective than other options on the Saints? When the Falcons bring a Jerious Norwood into the game, or the Jets bring a Leon Washington into the game, it's to provide a game breaking element that is unique to their abilities. And in that role, they have produced extremely well. What does Bush bring to the table that a Kevin Faulk doesn't...?

Look at Kevin Faulk...

Last 3 years:

148 catches

1225 yards

6 TD's

8.3 YPR

Bush

213 catches

1599 yards

8 TD's

7.5 YPR

Bush's hands are good, but it's not like his catch percentage is off the charts? It's in line with what you would expect from alot of solid pass receiving options out of the backfield. If the Saints had Kevin Faulk instead of Reggie Bush, could he not do the same things? He at least has success taking the ball on a handoff.

 

[David Yudkin]

2) Alot of people point to Bush's prowess in the passing game. However, compared against other RB's who have averaged 20 receptions/year the last 3 years (or if their careers are less than 3 years), Bush ranks 38th out of 58 RB's?

How exactly is this a relevant number to be using for a guy who has averaged over 70 receptions/year and never less than 52 in a single season (which is well over 2x the number you choose to use and that was in a 10 game season)?I'm baffled at how so many Bush antagonists' play with numbers in these ways. This isn't even remotely close to a relevant stat comparison.

Fact is that Bush has more career receiving yards as he does rushing yards, but that isn't so much a function of his playmaking or open field ability as it is simply that New Orleans throws the ball a heck of a lot with one of the Top 3 QB's in the NFL and the Saints try as often as possible to incorporate him into the offense.I don't think it's a bad idea to incorporate your most productive weapons into your offense as much as possible, but is Bush productive? Or at least more effective than other options on the Saints? When the Falcons bring a Jerious Norwood into the game, or the Jets bring a Leon Washington into the game, it's to provide a game breaking element that is unique to their abilities. And in that role, they have produced extremely well. What does Bush bring to the table that a Kevin Faulk doesn't...?

Look at Kevin Faulk...

Last 3 years:

148 catches

1225 yards

6 TD's

8.3 YPR

Bush

213 catches

1599 yards

8 TD's

7.5 YPR

Bush's hands are good, but it's not like his catch percentage is off the charts? It's in line with what you would expect from alot of solid pass receiving options out of the backfield. If the Saints had Kevin Faulk instead of Reggie Bush, could he not do the same things? He at least has success taking the ball on a handoff.

Faulk has averaged 3.2 receptions and 26.6 receiving yards per game over the past 3 years. Bush has averaged 5.6 and 42.1 per game. Not quite the same IMO.

 

[Blackjacks]

I do think this post is a little misleading due to playing the #'s you want to but I am finally glad that the Anti-Bush bandwagon is finally finding stats to post instead of "cause I said so" comments.

I appreciate the complement!I'm not suggesting that you should, but if you were to check you will see that I have posted nothing but REAL statistics in discussing this topic from the beginning.I would like to clarify one thing though, I have not "played" with any #'s here. I have simply posted RB performance facts.

I was using the words "playing with #s" to just show how you were representing your arguements with facts. I wasn't referring to you as one of the few that hasn't been showing facts. There has been some rubish posted here and some good info. Like I stated earlier, if PT is the only show in town I'll be giddy. I don't think he will be due to the talents I have seen out if Reggie. I was giving you a compliment on your post. It was a nice piece of info.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I do think this post is a little misleading due to playing the #'s you want to but I am finally glad that the Anti-Bush bandwagon is finally finding stats to post instead of "cause I said so" comments.

You mean like my post in the middle of the first page of the thread directly comparing Bush's career production per opportunity to Thomas' career production per opportunity?Or on the 2nd page when I countered "Bush makes the offense tick" with direct stats indicating NO scores more and wins more when Bush isn't playing?Then we have the recent post (not mine) showing the passing game in general (the listed stats were for Brees, but it amounts to the same thing) has been better without Bush than with him over his three year career span?All that and you are still harping that anti-Bush "side" of the discussion isn't bringing anything concrete to the table? All some of you seem to be doing is throwing up vague (or downright incorrect) complaints about the facts WE are presenting for our side of the discussion."Oh you shouldn't look 10+ yard gains, that's not relevant - wait, we see the same or similar trends with 20+ yards? Oh.""You are cherry picking Thomas' numbers over 6 games! - wait, that was his entire career including 14+ significant games and 12 with 10+ tocuhes? Oh.""Brees' increase in performance without Bush must be due to the loss of Colston! - wait, that's over his entire career? Oh.""His rushing is a little poor, but his receiving is AWESOME - wait, the vast majority of NFL starters and every RB who has played significantly for NO during Bush's career produce more per opportunity even as receivers? Oh.""You guys are playing with numbers." Yeah, that's what we do here.I'd love to see ANYTHING concrete from the Bush camp that shows how he is doing a great job as a RB, or is really helping his team (other than being a good punt returner), particularly if you somehow take opportunity into account. The best you seem to be able to come up with is a 6 game stretch where he put up good total yardage numbers and a couple of TDs against fairly poor defenses, but even that has been shown to be fairly lacking when looked at in depth (really poor YPC, and if that doesn't do much for you, the fact that the team scored less and won less during that stretch than when he was out). Mostly what we get is "Man, defenses really have to focus on Bush", or "He's a game-changer", or "Watch the highlights", or "You have to look at his WHOLE game" without much to back ANY of it up. It kinda takes some cajones to say we aren't bringing stats to to the table (or are bringing them late) when those are the basis of your arguments.

 

[jurb26]

Appreciating Bush as a fantasy option isn't really a difficult concept to follow, yet many people try to make as such. The bottom line is this. Bush has averaged 17.3 touches per game over his 3 year career (11.7 rushes and 5.6 receptions) and there has been no indication that NO will stop giving him those opportunities. He has averaged 40.78 rushing yards a game, 42 receiving yards a game and 0.5 TDs a game over his career. That's over 80 total yards a game and a chance to score every other week. Those are respectable numbers no matter what the format is but in PPR leagues when you add in those 5+ receptions every week it is gold.

 

[TheFanatic]

I do think this post is a little misleading due to playing the #'s you want to but I am finally glad that the Anti-Bush bandwagon is finally finding stats to post instead of "cause I said so" comments.

You mean like my post in the middle of the first page of the thread directly comparing Bush's career production per opportunity to Thomas' career production per opportunity?Or on the 2nd page when I countered "Bush makes the offense tick" with direct stats indicating NO scores more and wins more when Bush isn't playing?Then we have the recent post (not mine) showing the passing game in general (the listed stats were for Brees, but it amounts to the same thing) has been better without Bush than with him over his three year career span?All that and you are still harping that anti-Bush "side" of the discussion isn't bringing anything concrete to the table? All some of you seem to be doing is throwing up vague (or downright incorrect) complaints about the facts WE are presenting for our side of the discussion."Oh you shouldn't look 10+ yard gains, that's not relevant - wait, we see the same or similar trends with 20+ yards? Oh.""You are cherry picking Thomas' numbers over 6 games! - wait, that was his entire career including 14+ significant games and 12 with 10+ tocuhes? Oh.""Brees' increase in performance without Bush must be due to the loss of Colston! - wait, that's over his entire career? Oh.""His rushing is a little poor, but his receiving is AWESOME - wait, the vast majority of NFL starters and every RB who has played significantly for NO during Bush's career produce more per opportunity even as receivers? Oh.""You guys are playing with numbers." Yeah, that's what we do here.I'd love to see ANYTHING concrete from the Bush camp that shows how he is doing a great job as a RB, or is really helping his team (other than being a good punt returner), particularly if you somehow take opportunity into account. The best you seem to be able to come up with is a 6 game stretch where he put up good total yardage numbers and a couple of TDs against fairly poor defenses, but even that has been shown to be fairly lacking when looked at in depth (really poor YPC, and if that doesn't do much for you, the fact that the team scored less and won less during that stretch than when he was out). Mostly what we get is "Man, defenses really have to focus on Bush", or "He's a game-changer", or "Watch the highlights", or "You have to look at his WHOLE game" without much to back ANY of it up. It kinda takes some cajones to say we aren't bringing stats to to the table (or are bringing them late) when those are the basis of your arguments.

Gone 10 days on vacation and seems nothing has changed. BJ has not offered a single legit stat stating why Bush is a great RB deserved of his man love all the while telling the people who have provided those stats nothing but derision and shots at their integrity for "playing with the numbers." But hey, none of those stats compare with legit support such as this:

2) You need to youtube Reggie if you don't think he broke ALOT of tackles in college

God love you Tim. Heaping piles of mountainous evidence to the contrary and yet you still only see mole hills and visions of Reggie walking on water.

 

[eliasartigue]

I have drafted Bush every year in PPR leagues and I was disappointed with the injuries. He is a number 1 fantasy RB when healthy. I am also a die hard Saints fan and have watched all his games. To those who think he can't carry the rock, its understandable when looking at stats.

When on the field he is dynamite. He single-handedly tried to win games for us. Minnesota last year was one we should have won.

All those saying he won't ever be anything; Do you remember Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber? Those 2 guys took awhile before they hit their stride. Not many NFL teams use just one back anymore so he wont be a bellcow if thats what you are looking for but he will help the Saints and fantasy owners win games.

That can't be denied.

 

[Blackjacks]

STAT

Reggie averaged just under a 100 yards a game and a td when on the field last year

 

[eliasartigue]

I also put blame on the Oline as well as FB for Reggie not running good between the tackles. That was one of the reasons Karney was let go. He was not to keen on blocking for Bush and one dimensional. Many times Bush had a defender in his face as soon as he got the ball. Enter Evans and watch Bush run through the defenses.

 

[TheFanatic]

STATReggie averaged just under a 100 yards a game and a td when on the field last year

Gotta love this guy saying that others cherry pick stats and play with the numbers!!! Keep trying Tim.