What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Reggie Bush's size has not had any success (1 Viewer)

Liquid Tension

Footballguy
It is pretty much the consensus that this guy is the best player and all you hear is "can't miss" and things like the "best player to...in 20 years”

After watching him in the title game I was not too impressed (the lateral showed some lack of awareness but big deal). Yes, - he is elusive in the open field and fast (but as far as I have not even the fastest back in the draft. At 5’11” and 201 lbs can he be a feature back?

What happens when there isn’t so much space when he gets to the pros? What happens when 245 lb defensive players run a 4.5 and don’t allow him to get to the corner, let alone turn it? He does not seem like the type of guy who can lower his shoulder and run HARD. Even Portis can run hard and has always had the heart if not the size. More on Portis in a little bit.

Let’s just take the assumption that the only thing that could hold back Bush is his size. The size may impact his durability as he has been able to share the load in college. Both Caddy and Ronnie Brown broke down a little bit last year and they were in the same type of boat (granted this may not be statistically meaningful) as Bush until they got to the pros. If the size is THE issue, who is a close comp and have these other guys been able to pack on some weight to make them more “pro ready?”

As I list some of these guys I need to note that my own personal belief is that if a guy is only going to weigh 205 pounds or so, I would rather him be short and hold that weight rather than 5’11” or taller carrying the same weight. The lower center of gravity should give the player more power rather than spreading the weight over more height.

Westbrook was a great playmaker in college and he came out at 5’8” 200 and has only put on about 3-4 pounds since. Westbrook is still a great playmaker and perhaps the best open field runner in the game. Again I would rather my player be 5’8” and 205 than 5’11” and 205 (assuming Bush can add 3-4 pounds in the first 3 years in the league) Please keep in mind that some scouts say he is already maxed out bulk wise based on how ripped he is and adding fat wouldn’t help.

Lower weight guys who have been successful:

Portis because he is perhaps the best comp in terms of size, even though Portis is 10 pounds heavier now. Portis is 5’11” and 213. This weight is acceptable but Portis is still a little lean.

Tiki Barber 5’10 and 200 weight has increased 3 pounds – Another good example of a light guy playing well, although Tiki is more like 5’8” than 5’10” IMO

D. Davis 5’9” 216. – Has 15 more pounds packed into a less tall frame.

Priest Holmes – 5’9” 205 – Again packed into a smaller frame.

Lower weight guys with a little success:

Maurice Morris – Not in the same league in talent but was a 2nd round pick. Was 5’11” and 202 coming out of college and has remained at the same weight.

Julius Jones – 5’10” 205 – Has had trouble staying healthy.

Tatum Bell is 5’11” and 213 put on 4 pounds according to my records

Willie Parker – 5’10” and 209. Still 8 pounds heavier than Bush and an inch shorter to pack that weight into.

Lower weight guys with very little success:

JJ Arrington is 5’9” and 214 and people call him too light? If Bush were doing what he has done with this size I wouldn’t be writing this.

Maurice Hicks is 5’11” and 200 lbs – so this is the closest in size and Hicks is a fast back. Is this the best comp? Think about the stature of Hicks on the field and he looks like he will get pushed around

Reno Mahe – 5’10” 212. This is a guy people are saying is too light?

Lee Suggs – 6’0” and 206.

Amos Zereoue – 5’10” and 200

Moe Williams – 6’1” 210

I am not saying that Bush will or won’t be good. What I am saying is that we need to look at the negatives that could materialize. If, and it is a big if he can pack on 12 pounds and not lose too much speed, he would be the same size as Portis and Tatum Bell; guys that you wouldn’t mistake for power guys.

Bottom line is that I couldn’t find ANY guys who are 5’11” or above that weigh less than 210 lbs or less who have been very successful who are still playing. I am sure there are some out there (please find them) but it is a small set. Moe Williams and Lee Suggs are the only people who have had some success.

Doesn’t this scare you?

 
B-o-r-i-n-g.

Marshall Faulk did ok playing at 5'10 and 211 lbs.

There's no reason to believe why Bush can't put on 10-lbs and still be as quick and elusive as he already is. Plenty of guys out of college get into better condition once they become pros.

 
Nothing to see here. It's not like Bush is a midget. Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.

 
The guy flat out dominated college football. Sure plenty of guys have been complete busts and were never able to translate their college success to the pros, but you have to give the benefit of the doubt that Bush can succeed. None of this "gloom and doom" crap. Everything is being overanaylsed - just like the combine. Overrated.

 
Bush has a solid frame and will be at 215 in no time if he isn't already. Bush knows the kind of work he has to put in to be successful in the NFL and he has the heart to do it.

 
Nothing to see here. It's not like Bush is a midget. Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
:lmao: :goodposting: :thumbup:
 
Bush will be a star. I'm not saying that he will be LT or Faulk from day one, but the potential is definitely there and I'm as convinced about him as I am any college player I've ever seen. Now that doesn't mean I would be willing to make a stupid trade for him, but a few pounds wouldn't concern me because of his ability to do it on the field over the course of his college career.

I also think Maurice Drew will be a solid NFL contributer despite his lack of height. He's basically 5'7", weighs 205 lbs, runs a 4.4, and has legs like tree trunks. He reminds me of Brian Westbrook. If he winds up in the right spot.

Basically, there are enough examples to show me that, in the NFL, running ability trumps size any day. There are plenty of big running backs who flop.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing to see here. It's not like Bush is a midget. Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
:lmao: :goodposting: :thumbup:
Payton and Dorsett aren't good comparisons, defenders were nowhere near as big and fast 30-20 years ago as they are today. Dunn is probably the best comparison IMO, and Bush's supposed downside. If Bush ends up with Dunn's career, I wouldn't be too disapointed. He may be considered a bust just due to the hype, but Dunn is a damn good RB. 31 years old and top 26 in rushing yards, he might be able to make the top 20 this year (needs less than 1,100)

Seriously, if a top 20 rusher is the downside, sign me up.

 
*CUT FROM OTHER THREAD*

Normally I agree with you when it comes to backs that have a difficult time cracking the 200 pound mark. However Bush is not one of those guys. I have probably seen him play 16 games over the past couple of seasons and he has the two things that all great backs have...

VISION and FULL-TILT CUTTING ability

Bush sees the entire field unlike any runner I have every watched. His vision isn't just good but legendary and when he sees the crack he cuts full speed without a hitch and leaves the defenders standing still with blown ankles.

Add to that more pop at the point of attack than most folks realize and I am convinced he is going to be a star at the next level. He will take a routine flare pass and turn it into an 80-yard highlight reel.

Bush = :eek:

 
Nothing to see here.  It's not like Bush is a midget.  Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
:lmao: :goodposting: :thumbup:
Payton and Dorsett aren't good comparisons, defenders were nowhere near as big and fast 30-20 years ago as they are today. Dunn is probably the best comparison IMO, and Bush's supposed downside. If Bush ends up with Dunn's career, I wouldn't be too disapointed. He may be considered a bust just due to the hype, but Dunn is a damn good RB. 31 years old and top 26 in rushing yards, he might be able to make the top 20 this year (needs less than 1,100)

Seriously, if a top 20 rusher is the downside, sign me up.
Has it been 20 years since Barry was tearing up defenses? Wow, what have I been doing all this time?
 
Nothing to see here. It's not like Bush is a midget. Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
:lmao: :goodposting: :thumbup:
Payton and Dorsett aren't good comparisons, defenders were nowhere near as big and fast 30-20 years ago as they are today. Dunn is probably the best comparison IMO, and Bush's supposed downside. If Bush ends up with Dunn's career, I wouldn't be too disapointed. He may be considered a bust just due to the hype, but Dunn is a damn good RB. 31 years old and top 26 in rushing yards, he might be able to make the top 20 this year (needs less than 1,100)

Seriously, if a top 20 rusher is the downside, sign me up.
Has it been 20 years since Barry was tearing up defenses? Wow, what have I been doing all this time?
Barry - 1989 to 1998Payton - 75 to 87

Dorsett - 77 to 88

 
I'm not really worried about his size. In fact, I'm more worried about taller guys than I am shorter ones.

In order to be a successful fantasy RB, the most important thing is to just be able to play the entire season. There have been plenty of smaller guys who could take a season's worth of pounding and there have been plenty of bigger guys who couldn't.

He either will be able to take a season's worth of work or he won't. That ability will have little to do with his size IMO, just his mental toughness and pain tolerance.

 
Barry - 1989 to 1998
I know.My post was intended to add a touch of :sarcasm: , just a touch.
:whoosh: I didn't mention Barry in my original post, so I didn't get the sarcasm.
But you did fail to mention Sanders when labeling Dorsett and Payton, when the post you were replying to also mentioned Sanders ;)
Fair enough.The average defender is also bigger today than he was in 1998.
:link: Even if that is true, I guarantee you it's not that big of a difference. The Colts still draft shrimp defensive players.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing to see here. It's not like Bush is a midget. Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
David you missed the entire point. It is about being LIGHT AND TALL. There is VERY little success for people who are 5'11" and under 212 lb. I have yet to find anyone who is still playing who has been very successful...can you? Throwing out Tony Dorsett shows you didn't missed the part about playing now. Guys back then were a lot lighter. You also just listed guys who are not 5'11" OR TALLER and only one is still playing but his weight is packed it into a 5'9" frame (BTW, I read that Dunn is now 200 lbs' but I am not sure)Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?

 
Nothing to see here.  It's not like Bush is a midget.  Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
:lmao: :goodposting: :thumbup:
Yep, they are playing today and all 5'11" or taller :thumbdown:
 
Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?
Curtis Martin.5'11" and 210 pounds. A picture of health and consistency throughout his career, minus last year.

 
Bush will be a star. I'm not saying that he will be LT or Faulk from day one, but the potential is definitely there and I'm as convinced about him as I am any college player I've ever seen. Now that doesn't mean I would be willing to make a stupid trade for him, but a few pounds wouldn't concern me because of his ability to do it on the field over the course of his college career.

I also think Maurice Drew will be a solid NFL contributer despite his lack of height. He's basically 5'7", weighs 205 lbs, runs a 4.4, and has legs like tree trunks. He reminds me of Brian Westbrook. If he winds up in the right spot.

Basically, there are enough examples to show me that, in the NFL, running ability trumps size any day. There are plenty of big running backs who flop.
Barracuda, I agree that packing MORE weight than Bush into a smaller frame has shown to be more successful in the NFL than weighing less in a 5'11" frame. I couldn't find a single back playing now who has been very successful being this tall and light? Again, I am not saying this is cut in stone that Bush won't be successful, but the facts show nobody is right now (and it is a MUCH different game now than 10 years ago)
 
Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?
Curtis Martin.5'11" and 210 pounds. A picture of health and consistency throughout his career, minus last year.
Also, Edge is listed as 6'0" and 214 lbs. But I guess since that is two pounds heavier than your completely arbitrary 212 lb criteria, you'll throw that out?
 
Nothing to see here.  It's not like Bush is a midget.  Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
:lmao: :goodposting: :thumbup:
Yep, they are playing today and all 5'11" or taller :thumbdown:
I simply insinuated that smaller RBs can be very successful, and the most over exaggerated thing about RBs is their size.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not really worried about his size. In fact, I'm more worried about taller guys than I am shorter ones.

In order to be a successful fantasy RB, the most important thing is to just be able to play the entire season. There have been plenty of smaller guys who could take a season's worth of pounding and there have been plenty of bigger guys who couldn't.

He either will be able to take a season's worth of work or he won't. That ability will have little to do with his size IMO, just his mental toughness and pain tolerance.
You may be right. And I agree that I am not worried about shorter guys, my point is that I am worried about taller guys who are light. Maybe they are taller targets to hit at?
 
Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?
Please find a single player who is playing now who has the speed, talent and intangibles comparable to Reggie Bush.
 
I'm not really worried about his size.  In fact, I'm more worried about taller guys than I am shorter ones.

In order to be a successful fantasy RB, the most important thing is to just be able to play the entire season.  There have been plenty of smaller guys who could take a season's worth of pounding and there have been plenty of bigger guys who couldn't.

He either will be able to take a season's worth of work or he won't.  That ability will have little to do with his size IMO, just his mental toughness and pain tolerance.
You may be right. And I agree that I am not worried about shorter guys, my point is that I am worried about taller guys who are light. Maybe they are taller targets to hit at?
Especially when they run upright (see Chris Brown and LHUCKS posts) ;) Before someone blows a fuse, I'm not saying Bush runs upright, but just poking fun at past Chris Brown posts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing to see here.  It's not like Bush is a midget.  Other notables include . . .

Barry Sanders 5'8", 200

Walter Payton 5'10", 202

Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180

Thurman Thomas 5'10", 200

IIRC, Tony Dorsett played at under 200 lbs.
David you missed the entire point. It is about being LIGHT AND TALL. There is VERY little success for people who are 5'11" and under 212 lb. I have yet to find anyone who is still playing who has been very successful...can you? Throwing out Tony Dorsett shows you didn't missed the part about playing now. Guys back then were a lot lighter. You also just listed guys who are not 5'11" OR TALLER and only one is still playing but his weight is packed it into a 5'9" frame (BTW, I read that Dunn is now 200 lbs' but I am not sure)Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?
I think the idea of judging a player on measurables alone has clearly been demonstrated as pure folly. So:Please find a single player who is playing now (or for that matter, ever) who had the speed, vision, experience and skill set coming out of college that Bush has.

 
Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?
Curtis Martin.5'11" and 210 pounds. A picture of health and consistency throughout his career, minus last year.
:blackdot: Maybe I should have said under 208 :P Good job, that is one I missed. I did say that there had to be a few, but it is pretty rare. Martin has been a warrior and a great player.

I mean even if we find one or two more, it is a factor. Also, if the scouts are right Bush may have trouble adding weight?

Maybe this is such a rare specimen that his speed vision etc more than make up for it? I don't know, but almost every time I have seen him run he doesn't get touched until he is tackled

 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique. I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.

 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
Of course, like i've already mentioned, who knows if he'll be the all-time superstud that he is being purported to be. He could indeed flop. But the fact of the matter is that he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
I don't think he's the next Marshall Faulk, but he may be the next Gayle Sayers, which IMO is better than Faulk. Had his career not been cut short by injury, and putting his era in perspective with Marshall's era, Sayers was better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?
Are you suggesting that 5'11" is considered TALL for football? I don't think it is, but since you asked, here are players near the proportions of Bush that have played in within the past few years . . .Ahman Green 72/218Edgerrin James 72/214Lee Suggs 72/206Cadillac Williams 71/217Chester Taylor 71/213Clinton Portis 71/212Curtis Martin 71/210Garrison Hearst 71/215Maurice Hicks 71/200Maurice Morris 71/202Mewelde Moore 71/209Reuben Droughns 71/215Samkon Gado 71/210Tatum Bell 71/213Charlie Garner 70/190Emmitt Smith 70/216Julius Jones 70/205Marshall Faulk 70/211Onterrio Smith 70/214Tiki Barber 70/200Willie Parker 70/209Frank Gore 69/212Michael Bennett 69/211Priest Holmes 69/213Travis Henry 69/215Warrick Dunn 69/180Brian Westbrook 68/203As for players that were 5'11" or taller and 211 or lighter, the only player that really has done anything in recent years that has not been mentioned was Moe Williams (73/210), but there is a major flaVV in the logic going on here. Bush is still at the point where his body will add bulk as he is still quite young. IMO, he will gain weight/muscle from here on out, so comparing his smallish frame now vs. what it will be in a few years is a bit misleading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is like the "discussion" that people had about Daunte Culpepper's small hands. Or that Anquan Boldin ran a slow 40 at the combine. You're just overanalysing Reggie Bush stature.

The most important aspect is that Reggie Bush was pretty good in college.

 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
I don't think he's the next Marshall Faulk, but he may be the next Gayle Sayers, which IMO is better than Faulk. Had his career not been cut short by injury, and putting his era in perspective with Marshall's era, Sayers was better.
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer. The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
I don't think he's the next Marshall Faulk, but he may be the next Gayle Sayers, which IMO is better than Faulk. Had his career not been cut short by injury, and putting his era in perspective with Marshall's era, Sayers was better.
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer. The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
Yes, you're correct that there are very few (if any) RBs that are comparable to Reggie Bush's stature (and that have been successful in the NFL).But the real question is - does it matter?

 
Please find a single player who is playing now who is successful at being a taller back 5'11" or above and under 212 lbs?
Are you suggesting that 5'11" is considered TALL for football? I don't think it is, but since you asked, here are players near the proportions of Bush that have played in within the past few years . . .Ahman Green 72/218

Edgerrin James 72/214

Lee Suggs 72/206

Cadillac Williams 71/217

Chester Taylor 71/213

Clinton Portis 71/212

Curtis Martin 71/210

Garrison Hearst 71/215

Maurice Hicks 71/200

Maurice Morris 71/202

Mewelde Moore 71/209

Reuben Droughns 71/215

Samkon Gado 71/210

Tatum Bell 71/213

Charlie Garner 70/190

Emmitt Smith 70/216

Julius Jones 70/205

Marshall Faulk 70/211

Onterrio Smith 70/214

Tiki Barber 70/200

Willie Parker 70/209

Frank Gore 69/212

Michael Bennett 69/211

Priest Holmes 69/213

Travis Henry 69/215

Warrick Dunn 69/180

Brian Westbrook 68/203

As for players that were 5'11" or taller and 211 or lighter, the only player that really has done anything in recent years that has not been mentioned was Moe Williams (73/210), but there is a major flaVV in the logic going on here. Bush is still at the point where his body will add bulk as he is still quite young. IMO, he will gain weight/muscle from here on out, so comparing his smallish frame now vs. what it will be in a few years is a bit misleading.
I did mention Moe Williams in the original post. The entire list you sent has only one guy who is taller and light and successful and that is Curtis Martin.

The official stats I saw have Reggie Bush at 201. I used 5'11" as the breakpoint for tall and I used the 212 lb mark as well as the cutoff for light. You may be right about adding weight even if others aren't so sure, but to break out of this criteria Bush would have to put on more than 10 pounds and that is a lot. I could have used 205 and Martin would be knocked out, but I gave him room to grow in my criteria

 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
I don't think he's the next Marshall Faulk, but he may be the next Gayle Sayers, which IMO is better than Faulk. Had his career not been cut short by injury, and putting his era in perspective with Marshall's era, Sayers was better.
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer. The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
Yes, you're correct that there are very few (if any) RBs that are comparable to Reggie Bush's stature (and that have been successful in the NFL).But the real question is - does it matter?
The answer is an uncategorical "NO" - if you were wondering.
 
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer. The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
I appreciate the different perspective.I believe that the point others have tried to make, though, is that is only a part of the picture. You can dissect out his physical size and say "odds are against him". You can also play that game with his skill set and say "Sayers and Sanders are HOFers".

Neither does a proper evalutation of what Bush may, or may not, be able to do in the NFL. Both his skill set and his size (and any and all other factors) have to be accounted for.

 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.

The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
I don't think he's the next Marshall Faulk, but he may be the next Gayle Sayers, which IMO is better than Faulk. Had his career not been cut short by injury, and putting his era in perspective with Marshall's era, Sayers was better.
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer. The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
Yes, you're correct that there are very few (if any) RBs that are comparable to Reggie Bush's stature (and that have been successful in the NFL).

But the real question is - does it matter?

:shrug: But when we are all making an analysis we need to go into it with our eyes open that it is rare this type of body is successful. Could he be the 2nd or 3rd in the era, sure, but we have to acknowledge that the odds are aginst him (and that is with him adding 9 pounds)
 
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer.  The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
I appreciate the different perspective.I believe that the point others have tried to make, though, is that is only a part of the picture. You can dissect out his physical size and say "odds are against him". You can also play that game with his skill set and say "Sayers and Sanders are HOFers".

Neither does a proper evalutation of what Bush may, or may not, be able to do in the NFL. Both his skill set and his size (and any and all other factors) have to be accounted for.
Agreed. The key I think is that if he has the great vision everyone talk about that will make a big reason for his success. BTW, I purposely haven't said this yet, but I traded for the 1st overall pick in our draft so I am weighing my own options. My hope is that Houston either trades DD or the pick so the decision is easier

 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
I don't think he's the next Marshall Faulk, but he may be the next Gayle Sayers, which IMO is better than Faulk. Had his career not been cut short by injury, and putting his era in perspective with Marshall's era, Sayers was better.
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer. The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
Yes, you're correct that there are very few (if any) RBs that are comparable to Reggie Bush's stature (and that have been successful in the NFL).But the real question is - does it matter?
The answer is an uncategorical "NO" - if you were wondering.
Well that settles it then...sorry for all the "logic" folks
 
Fact of the matter is that Reggie Bush is unique.  I think everybody agrees with that.
There have been many players who looked so unique and dominating in college, only to completely fail once they got into the NFL. He is special in the college game. Once he gets into the NFL, he will be playing against teams made up entirely of people who would be "special" if they were playing in college right now.The idea that Reggie Bush is head and shoulders better than RBs like Marshall Faulk and LdT coming out of college is silly IMO.
I don't think he's the next Marshall Faulk, but he may be the next Gayle Sayers, which IMO is better than Faulk. Had his career not been cut short by injury, and putting his era in perspective with Marshall's era, Sayers was better.
The purpose of what I wrote was to add a different perspective instead of the easy thing to do which is give him a literary hummer. The key here is to at least acknowledge that the success rate of tall and light guys is not common in todays game.
Yes, you're correct that there are very few (if any) RBs that are comparable to Reggie Bush's stature (and that have been successful in the NFL).But the real question is - does it matter?
The answer is an uncategorical "NO" - if you were wondering.
Well that settles it then...sorry for all the "logic" folks
At the end of the day, you're making a storm out of a teacup. There is absolutely zero reason to believe that "tall-ish backs who are light" can't succeed in the NFL. Just because nobody has done it before doesn't mean that it can't be done - or that it's unlikely. Does every back coming out of college have the exact skillset that Bush offers? Your premise is circumstantial at best, pure incitement at worst.

I would give your premise a little more credibility if you can tell me (with a straight face) if a 5'11 201-lbs RB with a similar skillset as that offered by Reggie Bush has flopped in the pros. But you can't because Reggie Bush has no predecessors (in recent times anyways).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
we have to acknowledge that the odds are aginst him (and that is with him adding 9 pounds)
Clearly, no one is agreeing with you.
:rolleyes: I guess I expected more from some of the people on this board. The sad part is that we do agree and this is why I traded a lot for the 1st pick in the draft.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top