Raiders Starting Running Back? (1 Viewer)

[bocksheesh]

Any news or new insights from Oakland as to who will be the official starting RB for the Raiders?

I know that McFadden has long been presumed to be the starter, but wondering what's taking Cable so long to announce.

I have Bush stashed deep on my roster and am wondering whether he's actually worth hanging on to.

 

[Raider Nation]

This topic seems to pop up once a day.

The word "STARTER" is irrelevant. Bush and McFadden will each get plenty of work.

In my humble opinion, as always.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Has Fargas been ruled out for Week 1?

 

[jobarules]

As long as its not Fargas Ill be happy (I own Bush & McFadden and both will see time).

 

[Keith1]

As long as its not Fargas Ill be happy (I own Bush & McFadden and both will see time).

I have Bush and McFadden as well, but I am unlikely to start them both, so I hope there is a clear cut guy there.

 

[Banger]

As long as its not Fargas Ill be happy (I own Bush & McFadden and both will see time).

I have Bush and McFadden as well, but I am unlikely to start them both, so I hope there is a clear cut guy there.

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

 

[Keith1]

As long as its not Fargas Ill be happy (I own Bush & McFadden and both will see time).

I have Bush and McFadden as well, but I am unlikely to start them both, so I hope there is a clear cut guy there.

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

that would be, as far as I'm concerned, the worst of both worlds. Would not be able to start both of them and would inevitably pick the wrong guy from week to week.

 

[jobarules]

As long as its not Fargas Ill be happy (I own Bush & McFadden and both will see time).

I have Bush and McFadden as well, but I am unlikely to start them both, so I hope there is a clear cut guy there.

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

that would be, as far as I'm concerned, the worst of both worlds. Would not be able to start both of them and would inevitably pick the wrong guy from week to week.

Sorry to break it to you but you really didnt do your research if you thought it was gonna be anything other than that

 

[Keith1]

As long as its not Fargas Ill be happy (I own Bush & McFadden and both will see time).

I have Bush and McFadden as well, but I am unlikely to start them both, so I hope there is a clear cut guy there.

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

that would be, as far as I'm concerned, the worst of both worlds. Would not be able to start both of them and would inevitably pick the wrong guy from week to week.

Sorry to break it to you but you really didnt do your research if you thought it was gonna be anything other than that

I was not planning on drafting McFadden. He fell to me in the 5th round (at 5.05, pick # 53 overall) and I felt I could not pass on him there. Once I grabbed him, I made it a point to protect myself by grabbing Bush. But when I walked in the door at my draft, I did not plan on ending up with either of them. Funny how that stuff happens at the draft.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Found this at KFFL on Fargas. Take it for what it's worth:

Fargas expected to practice FridayTue, 08 Sep 2009David White, of the San Francisco Chronicle, reports Oakland Raiders RB Justin Fargas (hamstring) remains out with a hamstring injury, but head coach Tom Cable believes Fargas will practice Friday, Sept. 11.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think people are overestimating the role that Bush will play. But that's just like, my opinion man.

 

[Raider Nation]

I think people are overestimating the role that Bush will play. But that's just like, my opinion man.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think people are overestimating the role that Bush will play. But that's just like, my opinion man.

It's not just my opinion?

 

[Raider Nation]

I think people are overestimating the role that Bush will play. But that's just like, my opinion man.

It's not just my opinion?

The first part. Read through my Bush thread. Lots of good info. Running out the door now.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think people are overestimating the role that Bush will play. But that's just like, my opinion man.

It's not just my opinion?

The first part. Read through my Bush thread. Lots of good info. Running out the door now.

I'll believe it when I see it. Regardless, every backfield is some sort of RBBC nowadays. I'm guessing it'll be something like the AP/Chet split.

 

[az_prof]

I expect McFadden to get at least 60% of touches, but I wonder why there has been such a delay in announcing the starter? It's odd really. Would anyone be surprised if a first round pick in his second year who was widely acclaimed were announced the starter? So, if it is him, why the secrecy and delay? It makes me wonder if Bush won't be a bigger factor than some think. The way that Bush was used in preseason, where he was clearly being given an opportunity, makes me wonder even more.

I THINK it will be McFadden, but I don't think this is as clear cut as some think. Michael Bush is a very talented back who has looked very good in a Raider's uniform.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I expect McFadden to get at least 60% of touches, but I wonder why there has been such a delay in announcing the starter? It's odd really. Would anyone be surprised if a first round pick in his second year who was widely acclaimed were announced the starter? So, if it is him, why the secrecy and delay? It makes me wonder if Bush won't be a bigger factor than some think. The way that Bush was used in preseason, where he was clearly being given an opportunity, makes me wonder even more.

I THINK it will be McFadden, but I don't think this is as clear cut as some think. Michael Bush is a very talented back who has looked very good in a Raider's uniform.

Strategery, m'boy. A.K.A. MINDGAMES!

 

[az_prof]

Here it is: http://www.raiders.com/team/default.aspx?id=150

It looks like it is Fargas, McFadden, and Bush. Wow. This is a surprise to me.

I know that this is an up to date depth chart because I have been checking and even yesterday it was empty and said that the depth chart would be announced on Tuesday. It wasn't. It has been updated today.

Take it for what it's worth: a Team's unofficial depth chart on their web site.

 

[CrossEyed]

Here it is: http://www.raiders.com/team/default.aspx?id=150

It looks like it is Fargas, McFadden, and Bush. Wow. This is a surprise to me.

I know that this is an up to date depth chart because I have been checking and even yesterday it was empty and said that the depth chart would be announced on Tuesday. It wasn't. It has been updated today.

Take it for what it's worth: a Team's unofficial depth chart on their web site.

They also have Schilens listed at #1 and he can't even play yet, can he?

 

[davearm]

Fargas is going from out to #1? Yeah right.

 

[BigGreenMachine]

Here it is: http://www.raiders.com/team/default.aspx?id=150

It looks like it is Fargas, McFadden, and Bush. Wow. This is a surprise to me.

I know that this is an up to date depth chart because I have been checking and even yesterday it was empty and said that the depth chart would be announced on Tuesday. It wasn't. It has been updated today.

Take it for what it's worth: a Team's unofficial depth chart on their web site.

They also have Schilens listed at #1 and he can't even play yet, can he?

How old is that thing? I wouldn't put too much stock in that "unofficial" depth chart

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

that would be, as far as I'm concerned, the worst of both worlds. Would not be able to start both of them and would inevitably pick the wrong guy from week to week.

Sorry to break it to you but you really didnt do your research if you thought it was gonna be anything other than that

I was not planning on drafting McFadden. He fell to me in the 5th round (at 5.05, pick # 53 overall) and I felt I could not pass on him there. Once I grabbed him, I made it a point to protect myself by grabbing Bush. But when I walked in the door at my draft, I did not plan on ending up with either of them. Funny how that stuff happens at the draft.

How does it feel now that you're invested in one of the worst offenses in the NFL sporting a time share at RB? Going into the drafts the Raiders's offensive players were pretty much out of consideration for me. If you're a FBG member, you should read the "don't suck" article - it helps to avoid "stuff happens at the draft" type picks that leave you in these situations wishing you'd done something else with those picks and roster slots.

 

[nola]

Here it is: http://www.raiders.com/team/default.aspx?id=150

It looks like it is Fargas, McFadden, and Bush. Wow. This is a surprise to me.

I know that this is an up to date depth chart because I have been checking and even yesterday it was empty and said that the depth chart would be announced on Tuesday. It wasn't. It has been updated today.

Take it for what it's worth: a Team's unofficial depth chart on their web site.

I read elsewhere that Cable will announce the starting RB tomorrow. I think they just left the old position depth at RB until he makes the announcement. On that same page on the Raiders site, they have a "Featured Player" article on Fargas. Its been there for the last few days. I think they are trying to show respect to the veteran. But Cable listed his "playmakers" recently, and 2 were RBs, and neither was Fargas.

 

[az_prof]

Here it is: http://www.raiders.com/team/default.aspx?id=150

It looks like it is Fargas, McFadden, and Bush. Wow. This is a surprise to me.

I know that this is an up to date depth chart because I have been checking and even yesterday it was empty and said that the depth chart would be announced on Tuesday. It wasn't. It has been updated today.

Take it for what it's worth: a Team's unofficial depth chart on their web site.

They also have Schilens listed at #1 and he can't even play yet, can he?

That doesn't mean he isn't #1. It means that week 2 or 3 or 4 Schillens is the starter. This is not an old depth chart--it was just added today.

 

[Sputnikv8]

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

that would be, as far as I'm concerned, the worst of both worlds. Would not be able to start both of them and would inevitably pick the wrong guy from week to week.

Sorry to break it to you but you really didnt do your research if you thought it was gonna be anything other than that

I was not planning on drafting McFadden. He fell to me in the 5th round (at 5.05, pick # 53 overall) and I felt I could not pass on him there. Once I grabbed him, I made it a point to protect myself by grabbing Bush. But when I walked in the door at my draft, I did not plan on ending up with either of them. Funny how that stuff happens at the draft.

How does it feel now that you're invested in one of the worst offenses in the NFL sporting a time share at RB? Going into the drafts the Raiders's offensive players were pretty much out of consideration for me. If you're a FBG member, you should read the "don't suck" article - it helps to avoid "stuff happens at the draft" type picks that leave you in these situations wishing you'd done something else with those picks and roster slots.

Wow. condescend much? This worst offense was a pretty decent overall rushing team last year. If the gamble, that either injury or on the field play, allows one of these guys to get the lionshare.... the reward could be big.

 

[Gr00vus]

Wow. condescend much? This worst offense was a pretty decent overall rushing team last year. If the gamble, that either injury or on the field play, allows one of these guys to get the lionshare.... the reward could be big.

Where's the condescension? It was a decent running team last year. Overall it's still a lousy offense. Yardage is nice but it's important to feel like there's a decent chance of scoring as well - and there just isn't. On top of that it's a full blown RBBC. There are better gambles to take than spending a 5th round pick on a piece of that offense. Had he waited he'd probably be in a better situation and not having to figure out which of these guys to start. Reading the article mentioned would have provided the foresight to avoid the problem he now has.

 

[UnknownCoach]

I expect McFadden to get at least 60% of touches, but I wonder why there has been such a delay in announcing the starter? It's odd really. Would anyone be surprised if a first round pick in his second year who was widely acclaimed were announced the starter? So, if it is him, why the secrecy and delay? It makes me wonder if Bush won't be a bigger factor than some think. The way that Bush was used in preseason, where he was clearly being given an opportunity, makes me wonder even more.I THINK it will be McFadden, but I don't think this is as clear cut as some think. Michael Bush is a very talented back who has looked very good in a Raider's uniform.

I think its just a show of respect to the other two RBs and trying to say that all 3 are good enough to start in this league. Its going to be McFadden who should be a PPR stud this year and worthy of RB2 in any league.

 

[Black&Gold]

I think people fail to realize that if M. Bush wouldn't have been injured going into the draft, he would have been a top 5 pick. I have him in all 3 of my leagues. I like McFadden as well, but you're not opening your eyes if you think Bush won't get touches.

 

[ScottyFargo]

How does it feel now that you're invested in one of the worst offenses in the NFL sporting a time share at RB? Going into the drafts the Raiders's offensive players were pretty much out of consideration for me. If you're a FBG member, you should read the "don't suck" article - it helps to avoid "stuff happens at the draft" type picks that leave you in these situations wishing you'd done something else with those picks and roster slots.

Wow. condescend much? This worst offense was a pretty decent overall rushing team last year. If the gamble, that either injury or on the field play, allows one of these guys to get the lionshare.... the reward could be big.

Yeah I think it's too easy to just paint a team as "sucky" and assume that the individual players aren't worth anything. I think the talent is going to get the ball in Oakland.

 

[MCguidance]

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

that would be, as far as I'm concerned, the worst of both worlds. Would not be able to start both of them and would inevitably pick the wrong guy from week to week.

Sorry to break it to you but you really didnt do your research if you thought it was gonna be anything other than that

I was not planning on drafting McFadden. He fell to me in the 5th round (at 5.05, pick # 53 overall) and I felt I could not pass on him there. Once I grabbed him, I made it a point to protect myself by grabbing Bush. But when I walked in the door at my draft, I did not plan on ending up with either of them. Funny how that stuff happens at the draft.

How does it feel now that you're invested in one of the worst offenses in the NFL sporting a time share at RB? Going into the drafts the Raiders's offensive players were pretty much out of consideration for me. If you're a FBG member, you should read the "don't suck" article - it helps to avoid "stuff happens at the draft" type picks that leave you in these situations wishing you'd done something else with those picks and roster slots.

We've seen dominant rushers on poor teams.

 

[LBH]

I think people fail to realize that if M. Bush wouldn't have been injured going into the draft, he would have been a top 5 pick. I have him in all 3 of my leagues. I like McFadden as well, but you're not opening your eyes if you think Bush won't get touches.

I think the writing has been on the wall since week 17 of last season that it was going to be the MBush/DMcfadden show in 09. I cant see Fargas getting many touches this year with the talent in that backfield. Anybody believing one back is going to dominate fantasy production in oakland needs pretend they have both RBs on their fantasy team or take a closer look at Mcfadden/Bush. Im guessing it will be close to an even split in touches regardless of who "starts" the game

 

[Gr00vus]

We've seen dominant rushers on poor teams.

Who were in full RBBC?

 

[Maven]

9/2

Raiders to name starting running back

The Contra Costa Times is reporting that Raiders' coach Tom Cable has decided who will be the team's number one running back this season. Cable said he would not announce the decision until he has had a chance to inform Darren McFadden, Justin Fargas, and Michael Bush of his decision.

http://www.rototimes.com/nfl/player.php?tq...s&nid=62631

 

[MCguidance]

We've seen dominant rushers on poor teams.

Who were in full RBBC?

Full RBBC is a different story - should have read the post, lol.

 

[Raider Nation]

I think people fail to realize that if M. Bush wouldn't have been injured going into the draft, he would have been a top 5 pick.

1st round? Most likely.Top 5? Not a chance.

 

[kutta]

Wow. condescend much? This worst offense was a pretty decent overall rushing team last year. If the gamble, that either injury or on the field play, allows one of these guys to get the lionshare.... the reward could be big.

Where's the condescension? It was a decent running team last year. Overall it's still a lousy offense. Yardage is nice but it's important to feel like there's a decent chance of scoring as well - and there just isn't. On top of that it's a full blown RBBC. There are better gambles to take than spending a 5th round pick on a piece of that offense. Had he waited he'd probably be in a better situation and not having to figure out which of these guys to start. Reading the article mentioned would have provided the foresight to avoid the problem he now has.

The Raiders rushed for the 10th most yards in the league last year. That's pretty good. Sure they didn't rush for a lot of TD's, but the 49ers and Lions rushed for 1 more TD than the Raiders (did you downgrade Gore and Kevin Smith?), the Packers had 2 more rushing TD's (did you downgrade Grant?), and the Cowboys and Redskins had 3 more TD's (did you downgrade Barber, Jones, and Portis?). And, BTW, the Raiders rushed for more yards than all those teams except the Redskins. It is not too hard to see that if one of the Raider RBs gets the majority of the carries, he could be a pretty good FF RB.Reading articles is great and all. But sometimes a little critical thought and research helps too.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Wow. condescend much? This worst offense was a pretty decent overall rushing team last year. If the gamble, that either injury or on the field play, allows one of these guys to get the lionshare.... the reward could be big.

Where's the condescension? It was a decent running team last year. Overall it's still a lousy offense. Yardage is nice but it's important to feel like there's a decent chance of scoring as well - and there just isn't. On top of that it's a full blown RBBC. There are better gambles to take than spending a 5th round pick on a piece of that offense. Had he waited he'd probably be in a better situation and not having to figure out which of these guys to start. Reading the article mentioned would have provided the foresight to avoid the problem he now has.

The Raiders rushed for the 10th most yards in the league last year. That's pretty good. Sure they didn't rush for a lot of TD's, but the 49ers and Lions rushed for 1 more TD than the Raiders (did you downgrade Gore and Kevin Smith?), the Packers had 2 more rushing TD's (did you downgrade Grant?), and the Cowboys and Redskins had 3 more TD's (did you downgrade Barber, Jones, and Portis?). And, BTW, the Raiders rushed for more yards than all those teams except the Redskins. It is not too hard to see that if one of the Raider RBs gets the majority of the carries, he could be a pretty good FF RB.Reading articles is great and all. But sometimes a little critical thought and research helps too.

And that was a team who really really struggled on third downs. Russell should be much improved over last year and the wide receivers are more talented despite the inexperience.

 

[Gr00vus]

Wow. condescend much? This worst offense was a pretty decent overall rushing team last year. If the gamble, that either injury or on the field play, allows one of these guys to get the lionshare.... the reward could be big.

Where's the condescension? It was a decent running team last year. Overall it's still a lousy offense. Yardage is nice but it's important to feel like there's a decent chance of scoring as well - and there just isn't. On top of that it's a full blown RBBC. There are better gambles to take than spending a 5th round pick on a piece of that offense. Had he waited he'd probably be in a better situation and not having to figure out which of these guys to start. Reading the article mentioned would have provided the foresight to avoid the problem he now has.

The Raiders rushed for the 10th most yards in the league last year. That's pretty good. Sure they didn't rush for a lot of TD's, but the 49ers and Lions rushed for 1 more TD than the Raiders (did you downgrade Gore and Kevin Smith?), the Packers had 2 more rushing TD's (did you downgrade Grant?), and the Cowboys and Redskins had 3 more TD's (did you downgrade Barber, Jones, and Portis?). And, BTW, the Raiders rushed for more yards than all those teams except the Redskins. It is not too hard to see that if one of the Raider RBs gets the majority of the carries, he could be a pretty good FF RB.Reading articles is great and all. But sometimes a little critical thought and research helps too.

My opinion is based on research and critical thought - the article mentioned was just another reference point. The Raiders offense scored the 4th least total TDs in the league last year. They had a total of 9 rushing TDs, also 4th worst in the NFL. They've got a full blown 2 way, possibly 3 way RBBC going (unlike SF, DET, GB, WAS and even DAL to a good extent). I don't see much of that changing for the Raiders. It's great that they put up all those rushing yards, right up until you think about drafting one of the three guys who put them up. Then you're running the risk of a) not getting the right guy or b) getting all of them to cover your bases and spending 3 roster spots to play guess the guy who'll get a majority of the carries - even though it's not even an appreciable majority.I in fact did downgrade several of those players you mentioned due to their circumstances (which honestly don't have much to do with the Raiders) - but even then they don't come close to the Raider situation. Your conditional about one of the Raider RBs getting a majority of the carries doesn't amount to much given what we know about how they'll be used - it only likely comes to pass through injury to 2 of the three backs. Granted all 3 have had their share of nagging injuries, but I hardly see that as an endorsement for investing in them, particularly in the 5th round. Besides you can make that majority of carries argument for tons of players, it's not a selling point for just Raider running backs. Let's also not forget that their QB is a rather large man who could vulture a goal line TD or two himself, further reducing the Raider RBs already sparse value. But as long as we're making faulty comparisons to other teams, the Patriots rushed for more yards than the Raiders last year, had a higher YPC than the Raiders, rushed for 21 TDs and look to have a much better offense this season than the Raiders. Which of their RBs would you recommend drafting in the 5th round this year? If none, what's the soonest you'd draft one of their backs? How confident would you be starting that back? How is their situation worse than the Raiders? What do the Patriots have to do with the Raiders? About as much as the Packers, Redskins, Cowboys, Lions and 49ers do.So much for critical thinking. Sometimes it really is as easy as avoiding investing in (injury prone) guys participating in a 3 way time share on a woeful offense. You really want to play "guess if Huggie Bear gets more carries this week" all season long?

 

[Keith1]

I don't know...I don't think there will be. I think McFadden will get the lionshare of the receptions and some carries but I think Bush will have more carries. Maybe something like 10-12 carries/5 receptions for McFadden and Bush about 15 carries/game.

that would be, as far as I'm concerned, the worst of both worlds. Would not be able to start both of them and would inevitably pick the wrong guy from week to week.

Sorry to break it to you but you really didnt do your research if you thought it was gonna be anything other than that

I was not planning on drafting McFadden. He fell to me in the 5th round (at 5.05, pick # 53 overall) and I felt I could not pass on him there. Once I grabbed him, I made it a point to protect myself by grabbing Bush. But when I walked in the door at my draft, I did not plan on ending up with either of them. Funny how that stuff happens at the draft.

How does it feel now that you're invested in one of the worst offenses in the NFL sporting a time share at RB? Going into the drafts the Raiders's offensive players were pretty much out of consideration for me. If you're a FBG member, you should read the "don't suck" article - it helps to avoid "stuff happens at the draft" type picks that leave you in these situations wishing you'd done something else with those picks and roster slots.

I am a regular FBG member. I had read the article (How To Avoid The Suck). But as a FBG member, one of (if not THE) reasons I joined the site was for the Draft Dominator. I use it. I rely upon it. If McFadden is ranked 20+ points more than the next guy, I'm supposed to take some one else because McFadden (my RB3 so why not swing for the fences) is on a lousy team ??? That makes NO sense. As for the guys who I passed on to take him, I think McFadden is a better pick than Addai, Benson, Len Dale, Lynch, etc...

 

[BINGBING]

I think people fail to realize that if M. Bush wouldn't have been injured going into the draft, he would have been a top 5 pick.

1st round? Most likely.Top 5? Not a chance.

Top 10 high enough???http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.2.html

 

[BINGBING]

I am a regular FBG member. I had read the article (How To Avoid The Suck). But as a FBG member, one of (if not THE) reasons I joined the site was for the Draft Dominator. I use it. I rely upon it. If McFadden is ranked 20+ points more than the next guy, I'm supposed to take some one else because McFadden (my RB3 so why not swing for the fences) is on a lousy team ??? That makes NO sense. As for the guys who I passed on to take him, I think McFadden is a better pick than Addai, Benson, Len Dale, Lynch, etc...

And owning a RB with receiving skills on a crappy team can be a big gift in PPR leagues.....see Steven Jackson.

 

[Raider Nation]

I think people fail to realize that if M. Bush wouldn't have been injured going into the draft, he would have been a top 5 pick.

1st round? Most likely.Top 5? Not a chance.

Top 10 high enough???http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.2.html

Well... a SI.com mock... that settles THAT then!

 

[BINGBING]

I think people fail to realize that if M. Bush wouldn't have been injured going into the draft, he would have been a top 5 pick.

1st round? Most likely.Top 5? Not a chance.

Top 10 high enough???http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.2.html

Well... a SI.com mock... that settles THAT then!

Digging up a 2007 mock draft before he broke his leg in the first game that season isn't the easiest thing to find. Happy googling to you if you think you can find another mock that's pre-injury.

 

[ttea]

I didn't realize people were so high (relatively) on Bush for this year.

I picked him with my last pick but then dropped him for Cribbs.

After reading this thread I dropped Cribbs for Bush again.

He's probably not gonna touch my starting lineup outside of bye weeks, but could be good trade bait since my league went WR heavy early.

 

[Raider Nation]

I think people fail to realize that if M. Bush wouldn't have been injured going into the draft, he would have been a top 5 pick.

1st round? Most likely.Top 5? Not a chance.

Top 10 high enough???http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.2.html

Well... a SI.com mock... that settles THAT then!

Digging up a 2007 mock draft before he broke his leg in the first game that season isn't the easiest thing to find. Happy googling to you if you think you can find another mock that's pre-injury.

I don't have to dig anything up. I'm not the one trying to prove he'd be a Top-5 pick.I don't mean to be combative, but you're swimming upstream here, BING. I have already done tons of research on this topic when someone in my Michael Bush thread challenged my statement that Bush would have been a 1st-round pick had he not gotten injured. I dug up countless mocks and articles, and the consensus from sources I respect is that he "most likely" was a 1st-round pick. To be honest, I found just as many sources which contended he was probably just outside the 1st round. Nowhere did I ever see or hear of him being a probable Top-5 pick, even well before the broken leg.

Before the injury (which occurred on 9/3/06) put a halt to what could have been a Heisman type senior season, Bush rushed for more than 1,000 yards as a junior and caught a lot of the media’s attention including ESPN draft “guru” Mel Kiper who ranked Bush as the No. 13 senior prospect in the country entering his senior season.

Kiper had him as the 13th-ranked senior! The 1st round is usually dominated by underclassmen. Only 3 of the top 12 picks this past April were seniors.

 

[BINGBING]

I don't have to dig anything up. I'm not the one trying to prove he'd be a Top-5 pick.

Neither am I.

 

[runner06]

Mock drafts, even those close to the draft, but especially those made months prior to the draft are WAY off on where they project most players to go. Even if a mock draft from a site like ESPN or cnnsi.com projected him to go in the top 5, it means nothing. The fact of the matter is that he broke his leg. It's impossible to say for sure to say where he would have gone. I'm guessing he would have gone mid 1st to mid 2nd but at the end of the day we're all just speculating.

 

[runner06]

Also, someone cited the fact the Raiders only had 9 rushing touchdowns last season as a reason not to select any of the Raiders offense.

While that's certainly something you should take into account, I could easily see that number going up quite a bit this season. McFadden was hurt all of last season and Michael Bush will probably be used more this season. It's not unthinkable to think that the two could combine for 14-16 touchdowns. That doesn't account for the reception touchdowns McFadden will probably score. You're underrating the two if you're limiting their combined touchdown total will nine again.

 

[Raider Nation]

I don't have to dig anything up. I'm not the one trying to prove he'd be a Top-5 pick.

Neither am I.

Sorry. The three question marks in "Top 10 high enough???" made me think you were trying to prove something.Anyway, who cares. Football tomorrow. I love you all!

 

[ScottyFargo]

DMC is the man, I don't see how it could be any other way.