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!
I don't usually post this but: I'd love to have you in my league
As for a projection, I'd probably say 700 rushing, 950 receiving, 12 TDs.
JWB
Why do you think that his numbers will regress!?
did you know, he is the second coming of Gale Sayers?! 
..he's just not a very good runner, and defenses will find ways to stop him in the passing game, too, just like the Redskins did..Did you watch Reggie Bush eat up your Giants. The Saints are returning everyone on offense from the second half of the season except for an upgrade at TE. I also usually dismiss all arguments like this that dwell on his ypc.
WARNING: Sophomore slump ahead!!!
Saints fall back to reality, and finish 8-8 or 7-9..tougher schedule, Saints won't sneak up on opponents like they did last year..Washington beat up on Drew Brees during a 16-10 win in N.O. late in the season. bush rushed 7 times for 14 yards in that game, and recorded just 19 rec yards. He failed to reach 60 rec yards in 12 games last season. one-half of his Rec TD's came in one game , when he scored 4 td vs defensively challenged SF in week 13..only went over 100 rec yards twice, BOTH times against defensively challenged teams that were vulnerable against the pass ( Dallas and SF)
Bush averaged a low 3.6 per carry in 2006..
400 rush yards
560 rec yards on 70 catches..Eric Metcalf, 2.0..
the hype fades quickly in 2007..
I guess the (2) playoff teams didn't see him coming when he went off for 220 yards and 2 td's.You only bring up 1 bad game, let me ask you a ? does Pitt have a bad defense? Would uou call them weak? He had 89 and a td against them. He had 150 and a td against NYG and 150 and a td against Dallas.nygiants56 said:did you know, he is the second coming of Gale Sayers?!
WARNING: Sophomore slump ahead!!!
Saints fall back to reality, and finish 8-8 or 7-9..tougher schedule, Saints won't sneak up on opponents like they did last year..Washington beat up on Drew Brees during a 16-10 win in N.O. late in the season. bush rushed 7 times for 14 yards in that game, and recorded just 19 rec yards. He failed to reach 60 rec yards in 12 games last season. one-half of his Rec TD's came in one game , when he scored 4 td vs defensively challenged SF in week 13..only went over 100 rec yards twice, BOTH times against defensively challenged teams that were vulnerable against the pass ( Dallas and SF)
Bush averaged a low 3.6 per carry in 2006....he's just not a very good runner, and defenses will find ways to stop him in the passing game, too, just like the Redskins did..
400 rush yards
560 rec yards on 70 catches..Eric Metcalf, 2.0..
the hype fades quickly in 2007..
a total of 151/1 against the Bears isn't bad either. Although 88 yards did come on one play.I guess the (2) playoff teams didn't see him coming when he went off for 220 yards and 2 td's.You only bring up 1 bad game, let me ask you a ? does Pitt have a bad defense? Would uou call them weak? He had 89 and a td against them. He had 150 and a td against NYG and 150 and a td against Dallas.nygiants56 said:
WARNING: Sophomore slump ahead!!!
Saints fall back to reality, and finish 8-8 or 7-9..tougher schedule, Saints won't sneak up on opponents like they did last year..Washington beat up on Drew Brees during a 16-10 win in N.O. late in the season. bush rushed 7 times for 14 yards in that game, and recorded just 19 rec yards. He failed to reach 60 rec yards in 12 games last season. one-half of his Rec TD's came in one game , when he scored 4 td vs defensively challenged SF in week 13..only went over 100 rec yards twice, BOTH times against defensively challenged teams that were vulnerable against the pass ( Dallas and SF)
Bush averaged a low 3.6 per carry in 2006..
400 rush yards
560 rec yards on 70 catches..Eric Metcalf, 2.0..
the hype fades quickly in 2007..
You have to take the good with the bad sometimes.
So, the real reason Bush never gets traded in dynasty leagues isn't because he's "untouchable" it's that his value simply doesn't warrant breaking the bank. I could probably get the same total numbers the next 3 years from Thomas Jones!Certainly Bush has the upside, but those numbers can be had for considerably less elsewhere...
That's where I have him too but with 1 or 2 more TD.
When a post starts off with inaccurate info, why even bother with the rest...2006 S.O.S. (Rank / Team / Opp. '05 win % / Opp. '05 wins)nygiants56 said:
My issue for Bush is that it's extremly hard to put up uber stud numbers when there is another RB as a teammate that gets the ball more than you do. There have been a couple of times in the 70s when a team produced a Top 3 RB and a Top 10 RB (the OJ era Bills and Payton era Bears each did it once), but in this era I think it is very unlikely that two guys from the same team can coexist and one of them be a Top 5 back when they are essentially splitting the workload.As for dynasty, IMO Bush will thrive if Deuce were out of the picture. McAllister is signed through 2012 but his salary gets up above $5 million per year and goes up from there starting in 2009. Until that point, if I'm the Saints front office there is little reason to part ways with Deuce as he is a reasonably priced, very talented player. The Saints made the playoffs after a woeful 2005, the team is selling tickets like hotcakes, the area is into football again, and the skies are blue again. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.As for the Thomas Jones comparison, that could be valid and one reason why I don't see me selecting Bush in a redraft league this year.
Those looking to acquire will view it this way.Those owning will see his potential and tend to overlook this.
Full disclosure: Saints
I can't see any reason whatsoever for Bush's reception numbers to be cut by almost a third (from 88 to 60). Screens and dumpoffs to Reggie were so productive for the Saints last year (particularly at the end of the season) that it would be madness for them to stop utilizing them to the extent they did last year. 60 receptions puts him at less than 4 catches a game, and I simply can't imagine that happening given the way the Saints used Bush last year.
I could review the bounty of players that had great Games 9-16 that did worse the following year (or at the very least on par for 16 games to what they did in 8 games. For eamples, see Kevin Jones, Willis McGahee, Julius Jones, Larry Johnson, et al. I had outlined a lot of other guys in a Willis McGahee Player Spotlight from a couple years ago but the page seems to have been taken down. Long story short, rarely do these things play out to the extrapolation of the 8 game stats.As for 96 receptions, only 6 RBs have ever hit 90 in a year. Certainly I have no idea what Bush will get receiving wise, but I would be surprised if he got that many. And teams may also scheme to defend him better.Full disclosure: Saints
I'll use that most dangerous of statistics, second half splits, to prove my point:
Games 9-16 - 10 90 429 4.8 7 76 52 584 11.2 3 161.3 16.1
Do you really think Reggie will only have 8 more catches in all of next season than he did in the last eight games last year (including game 16 where he barely played)?
I'm going in the opposite direction. I don't see a huge change in the way Deuce and Reggie are utilized, but I do see Reggie improving, and the Saints continuing to make him the centerpiece of the offense.
180 carries, 795 yds, 6 TD
96 catches, 880 yds, 5 TD
I had MtCalf on my fantasy team and he was doing very well since he was a RB but was catching more balls then actually rushing with it, we use to give double points for receptions and rec TD for RB;s.
He had a 11.2 average over the last 10 (playoffs included). He also upped his ypc from 2.6 to 4.8. To me that shows the guy had a slight learning curve. Unlike the rest of the rookies Bush wasn't playing like a seasoned vet from game 1.
David, I completely agree about second half splits. I called them "dangerous" for a reason, and you've hit it on the head. I've been burned a couple times in drafts using that logic (William Green several years back comes to mind).That said, I don't think you've provided much support for the notion that Bush will suffer a fairly drastic drop off in receptions. As you noted, running backs who grabbed more than 50 balls in their rookie year (and who averaged 59 catches during that season) dropped off to 42 catches on average the second year. However, Bush absolutely smashed the 59 catches mark, which leads me to believe he's an entirely different type of player than those guys. This is supported by the fact that Bush is only the second RB in NFL history to have 80+ catches in his first year (Earl Cooper had 83 in 1980). In fact, only 4 guys have had 70 or more catches in their first year as a RB (add H. Walker and Terry Kirby). Thus, I'm not sure the historical trends are likely to hold up in his case.I could review the bounty of players that had great Games 9-16 that did worse the following year (or at the very least on par for 16 games to what they did in 8 games. For eamples, see Kevin Jones, Willis McGahee, Julius Jones, Larry Johnson, et al. I had outlined a lot of other guys in a Willis McGahee Player Spotlight from a couple years ago but the page seems to have been taken down. Long story short, rarely do these things play out to the extrapolation of the 8 game stats.As for 96 receptions, only 6 RBs have ever hit 90 in a year. Certainly I have no idea what Bush will get receiving wise, but I would be surprised if he got that many. And teams may also scheme to defend him better.Full disclosure: Saints
I'll use that most dangerous of statistics, second half splits, to prove my point:
Games 9-16 - 10 90 429 4.8 7 76 52 584 11.2 3 161.3 16.1
Do you really think Reggie will only have 8 more catches in all of next season than he did in the last eight games last year (including game 16 where he barely played)?
I'm going in the opposite direction. I don't see a huge change in the way Deuce and Reggie are utilized, but I do see Reggie improving, and the Saints continuing to make him the centerpiece of the offense.
180 carries, 795 yds, 6 TD
96 catches, 880 yds, 5 TD
Don't fair ctches go against his avg. That could do alot with this #.KING said:
Cooper 83 --> 51Walker 76 --> 60David, I completely agree about second half splits. I called them "dangerous" for a reason, and you've hit it on the head. I've been burned a couple times in drafts using that logic (William Green several years back comes to mind).That said, I don't think you've provided much support for the notion that Bush will suffer a fairly drastic drop off in receptions. As you noted, running backs who grabbed more than 50 balls in their rookie year (and who averaged 59 catches during that season) dropped off to 42 catches on average the second year. However, Bush absolutely smashed the 59 catches mark, which leads me to believe he's an entirely different type of player than those guys. This is supported by the fact that Bush is only the second RB in NFL history to have 80+ catches in his first year (Earl Cooper had 83 in 1980). In fact, only 4 guys have had 70 or more catches in their first year as a RB (add H. Walker and Terry Kirby). Thus, I'm not sure the historical trends are likely to hold up in his case.I could review the bounty of players that had great Games 9-16 that did worse the following year (or at the very least on par for 16 games to what they did in 8 games. For eamples, see Kevin Jones, Willis McGahee, Julius Jones, Larry Johnson, et al. I had outlined a lot of other guys in a Willis McGahee Player Spotlight from a couple years ago but the page seems to have been taken down. Long story short, rarely do these things play out to the extrapolation of the 8 game stats.As for 96 receptions, only 6 RBs have ever hit 90 in a year. Certainly I have no idea what Bush will get receiving wise, but I would be surprised if he got that many. And teams may also scheme to defend him better.Full disclosure: Saints
I'll use that most dangerous of statistics, second half splits, to prove my point:
Games 9-16 - 10 90 429 4.8 7 76 52 584 11.2 3 161.3 16.1
Do you really think Reggie will only have 8 more catches in all of next season than he did in the last eight games last year (including game 16 where he barely played)?
I'm going in the opposite direction. I don't see a huge change in the way Deuce and Reggie are utilized, but I do see Reggie improving, and the Saints continuing to make him the centerpiece of the offense.
180 carries, 795 yds, 6 TD
96 catches, 880 yds, 5 TD
I dont see how any team can scheme any more against Bush than what teams did last year.
What are you trying to prove with this? That Bush is not a great open field threat? Did you actually watch the games last year when he got the ball in space? He made some pretty spectacular plays. The fact of the matter is that he is not a typical RB so it took NO a while to figure out how to use him. It also took Bush a while to adjust to the speed of NFL defenders. By the end of the year, I was seeing some real proof that Bush is a playmaker at this level. Defenses really focused on Bush, moreso IMO than on any of the other rookies. They may still do so, but Bush proved he can still be productive and the NO offense as a whole can be explosive if defenses sell out to stop Bush.KING said:
Just to continue to flesh out the comparisons to Cooper, Walker, and Kirby:Cooper:Cooper 83 --> 51Walker 76 --> 60David, I completely agree about second half splits. I called them "dangerous" for a reason, and you've hit it on the head. I've been burned a couple times in drafts using that logic (William Green several years back comes to mind).That said, I don't think you've provided much support for the notion that Bush will suffer a fairly drastic drop off in receptions. As you noted, running backs who grabbed more than 50 balls in their rookie year (and who averaged 59 catches during that season) dropped off to 42 catches on average the second year. However, Bush absolutely smashed the 59 catches mark, which leads me to believe he's an entirely different type of player than those guys. This is supported by the fact that Bush is only the second RB in NFL history to have 80+ catches in his first year (Earl Cooper had 83 in 1980). In fact, only 4 guys have had 70 or more catches in their first year as a RB (add H. Walker and Terry Kirby). Thus, I'm not sure the historical trends are likely to hold up in his case.I could review the bounty of players that had great Games 9-16 that did worse the following year (or at the very least on par for 16 games to what they did in 8 games. For eamples, see Kevin Jones, Willis McGahee, Julius Jones, Larry Johnson, et al. I had outlined a lot of other guys in a Willis McGahee Player Spotlight from a couple years ago but the page seems to have been taken down. Long story short, rarely do these things play out to the extrapolation of the 8 game stats.As for 96 receptions, only 6 RBs have ever hit 90 in a year. Certainly I have no idea what Bush will get receiving wise, but I would be surprised if he got that many. And teams may also scheme to defend him better.Full disclosure: Saints
I'll use that most dangerous of statistics, second half splits, to prove my point:
Games 9-16 - 10 90 429 4.8 7 76 52 584 11.2 3 161.3 16.1
Do you really think Reggie will only have 8 more catches in all of next season than he did in the last eight games last year (including game 16 where he barely played)?
I'm going in the opposite direction. I don't see a huge change in the way Deuce and Reggie are utilized, but I do see Reggie improving, and the Saints continuing to make him the centerpiece of the offense.
180 carries, 795 yds, 6 TD
96 catches, 880 yds, 5 TD
Kirby 75--> 14 (injured) --> 66
Again, none of that has any direct bearing on Bush, so my projection was a guesstimate on my part. Maybe he will get more. But I would not be shocked if he saw a precipitous dropoff.
No matter what, none of these players will have any bearing on what Bush does in 07. And there are so few examples to base a comparison that the sample size would prohibit any firm theoretical conclusions. The bottom line is that Bush had an insane amount of receptions for a rookie . . . or for any other RB. Bush is one of only 8 guys to have 88 receptions as a RB (Centers did it twice).You are right, I have nothing to "prove" that Bush will drop off in receptions next year. However, the likelihood that his totals go up seem pretty remote IMO. For example, LT had 100 receptions one year and people were eager to pencil him in for that many the next year. And he dropped off to 53.Just to continue to flesh out the comparisons to Cooper, Walker, and Kirby:Cooper:Cooper 83 --> 51Walker 76 --> 60David, I completely agree about second half splits. I called them "dangerous" for a reason, and you've hit it on the head. I've been burned a couple times in drafts using that logic (William Green several years back comes to mind).That said, I don't think you've provided much support for the notion that Bush will suffer a fairly drastic drop off in receptions. As you noted, running backs who grabbed more than 50 balls in their rookie year (and who averaged 59 catches during that season) dropped off to 42 catches on average the second year. However, Bush absolutely smashed the 59 catches mark, which leads me to believe he's an entirely different type of player than those guys. This is supported by the fact that Bush is only the second RB in NFL history to have 80+ catches in his first year (Earl Cooper had 83 in 1980). In fact, only 4 guys have had 70 or more catches in their first year as a RB (add H. Walker and Terry Kirby). Thus, I'm not sure the historical trends are likely to hold up in his case.I could review the bounty of players that had great Games 9-16 that did worse the following year (or at the very least on par for 16 games to what they did in 8 games. For eamples, see Kevin Jones, Willis McGahee, Julius Jones, Larry Johnson, et al. I had outlined a lot of other guys in a Willis McGahee Player Spotlight from a couple years ago but the page seems to have been taken down. Long story short, rarely do these things play out to the extrapolation of the 8 game stats.As for 96 receptions, only 6 RBs have ever hit 90 in a year. Certainly I have no idea what Bush will get receiving wise, but I would be surprised if he got that many. And teams may also scheme to defend him better.Full disclosure: Saints
I'll use that most dangerous of statistics, second half splits, to prove my point:
Games 9-16 - 10 90 429 4.8 7 76 52 584 11.2 3 161.3 16.1
Do you really think Reggie will only have 8 more catches in all of next season than he did in the last eight games last year (including game 16 where he barely played)?
I'm going in the opposite direction. I don't see a huge change in the way Deuce and Reggie are utilized, but I do see Reggie improving, and the Saints continuing to make him the centerpiece of the offense.
180 carries, 795 yds, 6 TD
96 catches, 880 yds, 5 TD
Kirby 75--> 14 (injured) --> 66
Again, none of that has any direct bearing on Bush, so my projection was a guesstimate on my part. Maybe he will get more. But I would not be shocked if he saw a precipitous dropoff.
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1980 sfo | 16 | 171 720 4.2 5 | 83 567 6.8 4 |
| 1981 sfo | 16 | 98 330 3.4 1 | 51 477 9.4 0 |
| 1982 sfo | 9 | 24 77 3.2 0 | 19 153 8.1 1 |
| 1983 sfo | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 15 207 13.8 3 |
| 1984 sfo | 16 | 3 13 4.3 0 | 41 459 11.2 4 |
| 1985 sfo | 15 | 2 12 6.0 0 | 4 45 11.2 0 |
| 1986 rai | 5 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 93 | 298 1152 3.9 6 | 213 1908 9.0 12 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Clearly, Cooper's role in the offense was greatly diminished after year 1 -- his carries were cut nearly in half. Thus, I don't think the comparison is valid, assuming you are willing to agree that Bush's role will remain similar or increase.
Walker:
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1986 dal | 16 | 151 737 4.9 12 | 76 837 11.0 2 |
| 1987 dal | 12 | 209 891 4.3 7 | 60 715 11.9 1 |
| 1988 dal | 16 | 361 1514 4.2 5 | 53 505 9.5 2 |
| 1989 dal | 5 | 81 246 3.0 2 | 22 261 11.9 1 |
| 1989 min | 11 | 169 669 4.0 5 | 18 162 9.0 1 |
| 1990 min | 16 | 184 770 4.2 5 | 35 315 9.0 4 |
| 1991 min | 15 | 198 825 4.2 10 | 33 204 6.2 0 |
| 1992 phi | 16 | 267 1070 4.0 8 | 38 278 7.3 2 |
| 1993 phi | 16 | 174 746 4.3 1 | 75 610 8.1 3 |
| 1994 phi | 16 | 113 528 4.7 5 | 50 500 10.0 2 |
| 1995 nyg | 16 | 31 126 4.1 0 | 31 234 7.5 1 |
| 1996 dal | 16 | 10 83 8.3 1 | 7 89 12.7 0 |
| 1997 dal | 16 | 6 20 3.3 0 | 14 149 10.6 2 |
Walker doesn't support your argument either, as he missed 4 games in 1987. Extrapolate his 60 catches through 12 games over a full season, and he would have had 80 catches, a modest increase from year one.
Finally, Kirby:
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1993 mia | 16 | 119 390 3.3 3 | 75 874 11.7 3 |
| 1994 mia | 4 | 60 233 3.9 2 | 14 154 11.0 0 |
| 1995 mia | 16 | 108 414 3.8 4 | 66 618 9.4 3 |
| 1996 sfo | 14 | 134 559 4.2 3 | 52 439 8.4 1 |
| 1997 sfo | 16 | 125 418 3.3 6 | 23 279 12.1 1 |
| 1998 sfo | 9 | 48 258 5.4 3 | 16 134 8.4 0 |
| 1999 cle | 16 | 130 452 3.5 6 | 58 528 9.1 3 |
| 2000 oak | 1 | 11 51 4.6 0 | 3 19 6.3 0 |
| 2001 oak | 11 | 10 49 4.9 0 | 9 62 6.9 0 |
| 2002 oak | 6 | 16 51 3.2 0 | 17 115 6.8 1 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 109 | 761 2875 3.8 27 | 333 3222 9.7 12 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Obviously, Kirby was hurt in year 2, so we can't really take much from that. However, in year three, he saw his receptions decline to 66, or a bit over 10%. However, Kirby clearly was not as involved in Miami's offense as Bush was in year one, as evidenced by the fact that he never had more than 119 carries in those two years.
Based on the above, I don't see much historical support for 1) a player ever doing what Bush did in his rookie year, or 2) assuming that Bush will suffer a substantial drop in receptions in year 2.
Generally I would agree with you, and I'm often the one actually making that same point. However all of those guys have something in common that Bush doesn't...namely that they all missed a lot of time or played little in the first half of the season and were playing the 2nd half fresh.Also, none of them made the visible strides in improving their play that we saw with Bush last year. For whatever reason, they went on a role at the end of the year without really doing anything different than they had done before. With Bush, we all saw the improvements he made to his game which directly led to much of his improvements statistically.
I doubt few would argue that Bush was much better the last 8 games than the first 8 games. But there have been countless times when players at all positions have posted seemingly insane numbers over a short stretch that many would project as the norm as opposed to the exception.People can project Bush however they want. I'll take the under if the bar is set at last year's reception total. Who knows, maybe Bush will get his 110 receptions next year which is basically what his extrapolated stats would indicate.
