Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
"Reggie Bush will be an average NFL player at (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe T
- Start date
Joe T
Footballguy
this thread is going to be bumpalicious.
valhallan
Footballguy
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Why not?He called his shot, and he was basically spot-on. I posted a thread recommending selling Bush "high" several years ago (and was largely disregarded), but Joe nailed it from day one. Pretty impressive for a guy with this much hype.Edit. I often why some people have such trouble with folks bumping old threads. Yeah, it's a bit of chest-pounding, but that's part of the fun isn't it? And there could actually be some insight to be gained from how the discussion went.If all we ever do is rehash the same kind of arguments over and over for "new situations" and never look back to compare them to what actually happened, you have to wonder what the point of the CURRENT discussions are. I love to bump a thread where I was against the grain and ended up right. But I also don't mind when people bump a thread where I look like a moron (not that THAT ever happens
).
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I had my doubts about your claims until Lhucks showed up. Once Hucky weighed in it was a mortal lock that Bush would be a bust.update?1. See Barry Sanders2.
3. True
4. The guy could juke 6 midgets in a 6 x 6 room
5. You give it to thunder on the goalline, not lightning
6.
I think I nailed this one.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
If people can bump threads to slam a prediction, I don't see why it can be the other way around.
mikel2014
Footballguy
I don't think I would say he was spot on. If the main point was an average fantasy football player, I would be more inclined to say that. Reggie is a valuable NFL player for what he brings with mismatches, special teams, and receiving skills out of the backfield. It strikes me as a case of bad process / good result. The main reason he hasn't been as successful as a running back is because of his inability to run between the tackles. His speed, size, and the fact that he's a USC alumi are not the reasons he hasn't lived up to expectations.Why not?He called his shot, and he was basically spot-on. I posted a thread recommending selling Bush "high" several years ago (and was largely disregarded), but Joe nailed it from day one. Pretty impressive for a guy with this much hype.
Edit. I often why some people have such trouble with folks bumping old threads. Yeah, it's a bit of chest-pounding, but that's part of the fun isn't it? And there could actually be some insight to be gained from how the discussion went.
If all we ever do is rehash the same kind of arguments over and over for "new situations" and never look back to compare them to what actually happened, you have to wonder what the point of the CURRENT discussions are. I love to bump a thread where I was against the grain and ended up right. But I also don't mind when people bump a thread where I look like a moron (not that THAT ever happens).
34=Sweetness
Footballguy
Bush is a pretty solid NFL player. Won't live up to the hype, but he's valuable to the Saints. He's just not a feature runner, but that isn't a big deal in the modern NFL.
He was getting blasted because of idiotic reasons for basing his claim, like Bush "lacks speed" or "USC has a history of failure. One is patently untrue, the other, even if it was true, would have no bearing on a player's NFL prospects.
Blind squirrels find nuts too.
He was getting blasted because of idiotic reasons for basing his claim, like Bush "lacks speed" or "USC has a history of failure. One is patently untrue, the other, even if it was true, would have no bearing on a player's NFL prospects.
Blind squirrels find nuts too.
I don't think the book is written on this guy just yet.
He had microfracture surgery last offseason, and really was not healthy until later in the year......in which, he ran pretty hard, lowering his shoulder often, and delivering some blows, instead of taking them on. The fact that he played so early from the knee surgery was encouraging.
He had microfracture surgery last offseason, and really was not healthy until later in the year......in which, he ran pretty hard, lowering his shoulder often, and delivering some blows, instead of taking them on. The fact that he played so early from the knee surgery was encouraging.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
His approach was a little extreme, but I think most of his points have been validated - even some of the very controversial ones. People REALLY blasted the speed thing, but Bush was being given credit for phenomenal speed that he just doesn't have (I've seen him get caught from behind in situations that other backs might not have). He has good speed, not great speed (especially for a guy with his build). The USC slam was ridiculous, but the rest seem pretty accurate to me.People are going to claim (have claimed, will always claim, etc) that Bush is a good NFL player, and that's to some degree true. But the net is that he was HUGE bust based on expectation and investment. There are a lot of guys who can do what he does for a lot less. I'm not sure Kevin Faulk isn't as good as Bush. He's not any more of a match-up problem than any other decent scat-back out there IMO. He wasn't drafted to be a backup running back and punt returner. He was drafted to be a featured guy in all most of the snaps for the team. And when he WAS put in that position, he failed (and the team failed). Now that he has been removed from that position, the team found its greatest success.And obviously, he is not fantasy performer folks drafted him to be either.JMO
Maik Jeaunz
Footballguy
ask the Cardinals about his "lack of speed" in last year's playoff game.
he may have been an overrated fantasy player, but I don't see how anyone can label him a bust given all the dimensions he brings to the ground, passing, and return games.
he may have been an overrated fantasy player, but I don't see how anyone can label him a bust given all the dimensions he brings to the ground, passing, and return games.
Joe T
Footballguy
No one said he is a bust, I said he would be an average NFL player at best. Which is what he is.
shader
Footballguy
There's no question that he's a bust in terms of what he was expected to be. He's still very valuable, he's still a decent fantasy RB in PPR leagues...but he's a bust.
The guy was hyped as the RB who would revolutionize the game. He hasn't come close to that.
In fact, when we label new rb's, if someone compares them to Reggie Bush, that is considered a BAD comparison. Meaning the guy is going to get 10 carries a game.
Bush can still be electric and exciting, as he showed in the playoffs last year. But Sproles was electric in the 2008 playoffs and no one is mistaking him for an NFL stud.
Bush failed to live up to expectations. That's clear.
The guy was hyped as the RB who would revolutionize the game. He hasn't come close to that.
In fact, when we label new rb's, if someone compares them to Reggie Bush, that is considered a BAD comparison. Meaning the guy is going to get 10 carries a game.
Bush can still be electric and exciting, as he showed in the playoffs last year. But Sproles was electric in the 2008 playoffs and no one is mistaking him for an NFL stud.
Bush failed to live up to expectations. That's clear.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Great call Joe :X
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Actually, I said he is a bust. He doesn't bring any "dimensions" that 20 other dudes don't bring and those other dudes didn't cost a #2 overall draft pick and a gazillion dollars a year. In this year's FA class alone, there were three or four guys who could probably fill his shoes (Sproles?, Harrison?, Washington?, Taylor?). Yes, every once in a while, he breaks a big play and looks good doing it. So do a lot of other guys, and many of them have done it on a more consistent basis than Bush has given the massive opportunities he was/is given.He's not the biggest bust of all time or anything - he is at least contributing to his team. I guess it depends a bit on your definition of "bust" but to me, not coming anywhere close to expectations means you are a bust.
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
lol did this guys teleport to 2010 and then go back to 2006 before making this topic?
Harrassment Panda
Footballguy
I stole this from Saintsreport.com, so I can't take credit for doing the homework:On offense, the Saints averaged 14.6 yards per play when Bush was on the field. Compared to 4.9 yards per play when he was on the sideline. He's clearly very, very valuable to his team, so regardless of his personal stats you can't call him anything close to a "bust" especially in an era where most teams are RBBC.Holy Schneikes said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Warrior
Footballguy
No way. Either that's not true, or its based on a really small sample that doesn't really prove anything.Maybe it's including every kick return in the 'on the field' category Ooooor it's because he's on the field in every obvious passing down and they're giving him credit for Brees to Colston 50 yard receptions. Either way, that stat is worthless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Harrassment Panda
Footballguy
Like I said, it's not my homework, so I take no offense. More elaboration from the guy who did it. If you don't believe it, that's fine, no skin off my nose. But anybody who has spent any amount of time watching the Saints offense over the last few years knows what an effective decoy he is. Stats or no stats.http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showt...d.php?t=481092::X No way. Either that's not true, or its based on a really small sample that doesn't really prove anything.
Maybe it's including every kick return in the 'on the field' category
Ooooor it's because he's on the field in every obvious passing down and they're giving him credit for Brees to Colston 50 yard receptions.
Either way, that stat is worthless.
But here is the real STATS that you don't see. The Saints amassed 6500 yards of offense in the regular season last year. The average yards per play on offense was 6.1 yards per play. The Saints averaged 14.6 yards per play when Bush was ON the field as compared to 4.9 yards per play when he was on the sideline. What that tells you is Bush is as effective as a logistical nightmare to defenses by JUST being there. Second, and I found this absolutley amazing, when Bush was lined up in the slot, the Wide Out or TE on that side of the field had a 86 percent completion rate. That means that when he runs a clear out, he commands coverage, opening up other receivers.
When Bush lines up as a RB, the Saints average yards per reception is 8.8. When Bush lines up as a WR or slot receiver, that number jumps to 19.7. Stats do not lie. The Saints are a significantly better offense when he is on the field with or without the ball.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maik Jeaunz
Footballguy
stop making sense.Like I said, it's not my homework, so I take no offense. More elaboration from the guy who did it. If you don't believe it, that's fine, no skin off my nose. But anybody who has spent any amount of time watching the Saints offense over the last few years knows what an effective decoy he is. Stats or no stats.http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showt...d.php?t=481092:No way. Either that's not true, or its based on a really small sample that doesn't really prove anything.
Maybe it's including every kick return in the 'on the field' category
Ooooor it's because he's on the field in every obvious passing down and they're giving him credit for Brees to Colston 50 yard receptions.
Either way, that stat is worthless.
But here is the real STATS that you don't see. The Saints amassed 6500 yards of offense in the regular season last year. The average yards per play on offense was 6.1 yards per play. The Saints averaged 14.6 yards per play when Bush was ON the field as compared to 4.9 yards per play when he was on the sideline. What that tells you is Bush is as effective as a logistical nightmare to defenses by JUST being there. Second, and I found this absolutley amazing, when Bush was lined up in the slot, the Wide Out or TE on that side of the field had a 86 percent completion rate. That means that when he runs a clear out, he commands coverage, opening up other receivers.
When Bush lines up as a RB, the Saints average yards per reception is 8.8. When Bush lines up as a WR or slot receiver, that number jumps to 19.7. Stats do not lie. The Saints are a significantly better offense when he is on the field with or without the ball.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
this thread is going to be bumpalicious.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
Much respect for JoeT who went against the grain, voiced a wildly unpopular opinion, gave his reasoning, and still had the board heaping contempt upon him. Way to think outside the box, JoeT.
Football Menace
Footballguy
Call him what you will. Bush single handedly set the tone for the playoffs, and in my opinion, won that Arizona game for us. We won the freaking Superbowl, so no matter the cost, ALL PLAYERS WERE WORTH THEIR SALARY.
Also Reggie is due for an HUGE salary this season, and the Saints are paying it no questions asked. So that tells me that, in their minds, Reggie is worth the salary that he is due. That's good enough for me.
Also Reggie is due for an HUGE salary this season, and the Saints are paying it no questions asked. So that tells me that, in their minds, Reggie is worth the salary that he is due. That's good enough for me.
The hype around Best does not seem close to what the hype was around Bush, IMO. Best is getting hyped for sure, but not as potentially the greatest running back to ever be drafted into the NFL (which was the sort of hype that Reggie received coming out of college). It is not often that Best is considered the best back in this draft let alone the best back to ever be drafted. Excellent call, JoeT. Spot on with this one.
eliasartigue
Footballguy
I see you follow the Texans and while I dont root against them you can't tell me you still rather have M.Williams over Bush. While your team struggles year in and year out the Saints have been dominant on O since Bush was drafted. He isn't an elite fantasy RB but he is a great piece of the Saints offense. People can call him a bust all they want but in the post season he is a BEAST.
ATC1
Footballguy
People will attribute that to Payton and Brees. However, as Panda pointed out with the stats while he is on the field and Menace pointed out that the saints have won the Superbowl and have no problems paying Bush, I would take Bush over Mario Williams every time.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Yeah, I'd LOVE to see how those numbers are calculated.I look at the site "advanced NFL stats" sometimes for fun. They have an interesting stats that measures how effective a guy is and how much the player "adds to the chance of winning" and/or "add to the chance of team scoring points" on for any given situation (basically what the guy does compared to what is reasonably expected of him in that situation, and the effect it has on the team's success). You can break both of those numbers down per play and makes some interesting comparisons.
Thomas has a career .14 expected points per play. That's a pretty high number. Bush has a career net of 0. Meaning that even on a high octane offense, he basically just does exactly what most players will do in that situation.
Thomas' success rate is 50.9 % (meaning he gets what the team "needs" a little over half of the time. Bush is at 44% (though he was better last year).
Basically, the Saint's score MORE points when Thomas is doing something than when Bush is doing something by a fairly wide margin. They are also more likely to win. Again, these are calculated on a per-play basis. My beef against Bush all along has been that when you look at ANYTHING he does, if you take into account his opportunities, he should have been doing more. Now that the team has severely scaled down those opportunities and he is used almost exclusively in situations that are geared for him, he has been much more effective (though still not a true stud).
For example, though didn't qualify in terms of carries last year, Bush's DVOA (another entertaining "effectiveness" stat) was very very good last year (for the first time ever - he is usually toward the very bottom of the list). You know who was a little better and used similarly? Kevin Faulk (who I mentioned in my first post).
Now, I don't think any of these numbers include special teams play. So if you want to call Bush a great punt-returner, that's fine by me. He adds to the team's success with that ability. But like I said before, that's not even close to what was expected of him.
Here's an article explaining the stats if anyone is interested.
WPA/EPA
TheFanatic
Footballguy
He's above average as a Fantasy player and below average as a RB. He's above average as a receiving RB and thus he scores well in fantasy but in the NFL he doesn't move the chains and that has cost him playing time his entire career.mikel2014 said:
redBourne
Footballguy
Just wanted to throw out there that bumping threads, especially 4 years old, is spot on to discussions about rookie or young players. You truly won't know until at least 3 or more years if a guy has lived up to his expectations. So here we are, revisiting a topic that could not begin to be proven until now .
</pats Joe T on the back>
.</pats Joe T on the back>
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
Fargas has more 1000 yard rushing seasons than Reggie Bush.Bush: 1940Fargas: 3369
Joe T
Footballguy
Yes.Sincerely,Natron MeansKarim Abdul-JabarAnthony ThomasIkey WoodsAntowain SmithTravis HenryMike AndersonBrandon JacobsandMike Alstott
switz
Footballguy
Wow that's a LONG list... I mean, such average runningbacks too. Funny how that list is pretty much a list of big RBs who had great success until injury.Bush has been much more than an average NFL player.
If he would have gone to the Texans he'd probably would have been cut.He signed a 51M contact making him one of the highest paid running backs. In those turns, he's a huge bust.He went to maybe the only team, the only offense that could use him well. He landed at the ideal spot in the league, and he's still grossly overpaid. He's a great special teams guy. Average slot WR. Poor RB. You work out the math on that however you want, but I'm going with Joe on this one.
ROBOPUNTER
Footballguy
good work to JoeT
Joe T
Footballguy
Not to mention Bush's production has declined every year he has been in the league (which should easily continue this year).
switz
Footballguy
Here's the problem with your call...#2 is totally wrong, Bush's speed has been very evident in the NFL#5 is meaningless#6 is meaninglessBasically, outside of total bias, your call basically boils down to him beingToo small - which he isn'tToo slow - which he isn'tUnable to run inside without big holes - true, but it's the same as a lot of RBsSo stop straining yourself to pat yourself on the back. Even though Bush has had some injury issues, your call on him was far more wrong than right.
Joe T
Footballguy
I guess you missed the thread title.So stop straining yourself to pat yourself on the back. Even though Bush has had some injury issues, your call on him was far more wrong than right.
Joe T
Footballguy
nipseythis thread is going to be bumpalicious.
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
the ownage is palpable
Shutout
Footballguy
Yeah, this is great.
I especially love all these backlashes on Joe trying to pick nits about
"#1 is wrong...#5 is out of context/irellevant".
Reminds me of that picture that says ""NEVER GIVE UP WITHOUT A FIGHT" and it has a bird eating a frog and the frog is halfway down its throat but the arms are still choking the bird.
To appreciate this thread (which I am just reading through for the first time today), you have to remember the Collossal scale of hype that was being talked about when Bush came out. He was THE slam dunk #1, "gonna be everything you can imagine and more" player.
So for Joe to come out here and nail it...*tips hat...golf claps*
It really doesn't matter that all the antagonists are saying this is wrong (in their opinion) or this is irrelevant...what's important is that IT's ALL irrelevant except for the one and only statement Joe was making: That Reggie Bush will be an average player, at best. And on that, he is absoultely correct six years in.
He could have had his #1 point being "Reggie Bush has bad breath and that is what I base my opinion on...doesn't matter. when he looked at Reggie, as a whole, and factored in all he knew, he went against the buffalo and lemmings herds and was the MINORITY voice that said "he will not be what ALL of you are saying he will be...and he was right.
he could ahve simply said "He won't be good, based on my reasoning" and left it at that but you know how it is in these forums. you can't SAY ANYTHING without someone asking you to back it up..so he did...doesn't matter if others didn't agree with the method. The hypothesis was accurate.
Well played sir! If I had a mustache icon I would post it here. :{0
I especially love all these backlashes on Joe trying to pick nits about
"#1 is wrong...#5 is out of context/irellevant".
Reminds me of that picture that says ""NEVER GIVE UP WITHOUT A FIGHT" and it has a bird eating a frog and the frog is halfway down its throat but the arms are still choking the bird.
To appreciate this thread (which I am just reading through for the first time today), you have to remember the Collossal scale of hype that was being talked about when Bush came out. He was THE slam dunk #1, "gonna be everything you can imagine and more" player.
So for Joe to come out here and nail it...*tips hat...golf claps*
It really doesn't matter that all the antagonists are saying this is wrong (in their opinion) or this is irrelevant...what's important is that IT's ALL irrelevant except for the one and only statement Joe was making: That Reggie Bush will be an average player, at best. And on that, he is absoultely correct six years in.
He could have had his #1 point being "Reggie Bush has bad breath and that is what I base my opinion on...doesn't matter. when he looked at Reggie, as a whole, and factored in all he knew, he went against the buffalo and lemmings herds and was the MINORITY voice that said "he will not be what ALL of you are saying he will be...and he was right.
he could ahve simply said "He won't be good, based on my reasoning" and left it at that but you know how it is in these forums. you can't SAY ANYTHING without someone asking you to back it up..so he did...doesn't matter if others didn't agree with the method. The hypothesis was accurate.
Well played sir! If I had a mustache icon I would post it here. :{0
