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

[TheFanatic]

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.

How hard is it to have vision when your O-Line just opened a hole that a Semi could drive through? I didn't see a ton of USC games, but I didn't see Reggie making something out of nothing very much. He had huge holes to run through nearly every carry. In the NFL, and particuarly on the Texans, he's going to be gobbled up at the line of scrimmage and take a lot of hits behind the line of scrimmage. That doesn't bode well for a lighter back. It hasn't boded well for DDavis in his 3 years there and he has more bulk that Bush. If Bush is a Texan and they don't do more to bolster the O-Line, look for a very disappointing year from Bush in 2006. If he winds up somewhere else that has a better O-Line he could make something happen, but Texas is not that place....

 

[matuski]

Barry Sanders was too small too.

Clearly height/weight ratio is the determing factor for NFL success.

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

At the end of the day, you're making a storm out of a teacup. 

LOL, wtf?!

Sorry, an Australian/English slang. Making an issue to bigger than what it really is. It's like saying that you shouldn't drive a car because you might get into a car accident.

 

[cstu]

What is so difficult about putting on 10lbs. of muscle? Bonds put on 30 in one offseason.

Seriously, there's no reason why Bush with the right nutrition can't be 215 by next season.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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. Are you even reading what you write??? "zero reason to believe just because it never happened before doesn't mean it is unlikely"???...man I wish you were in my league

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).

[COLOR=purple]Fair enough, but it is a lot harder for me to find that out so I looked at what I could look at. Believe it or not though there have been RB's taken very early in the draft that did not work out

 

[Christo]

Seriously, there's no reason why Bush with the right nutrition can't be 215 by next season.

But no one has provided any reason that would lead to the conclusion that putting on the weight is necessary for Reggie Bush to excel in the NFL.

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Believe it or not though there have been RB's taken very early in the draft that did not work out.

Yes, even ones with "perfect" measurables. Don't make me use the "O" word.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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?

Yes it is arbitrary, but i could have picked 205 as Bush is not there yet and it would have been more "even" for everyone. BTW, if I did that Curtis would be pout as well and it would have been valid because Bush still has a few pounds to get there. I gave Bush significant growth to get to 212 lbs and we still only found one person...What are the odds Bush gains 11 pounds in the next 2 years?

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds. Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

 

[cstu]

Seriously, there's no reason why Bush with the right nutrition can't be 215 by next season.

But no one has provided any reason that would lead to the conclusion that putting on the weight is necessary for Reggie Bush to excel in the NFL.

Because it's a ridiculous conclusion. If Bush isn't big enough, his team will get him to bulk up the way many other backs have. I don't think he's too small to play at his weight but it is just common sense for a guy with his frame to bulk up to 215+.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Seriously, there's no reason why Bush with the right nutrition can't be 215 by next season.

But no one has provided any reason that would lead to the conclusion that putting on the weight is necessary for Reggie Bush to excel in the NFL.

Hmm, the fact that we can't find a single player at 5'11" who weighed less than 205 be successful may be something that makes you at least take notice?Christo wrote, 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.

I don't know, maybe someone else can, but you mention vision and experience? He has less experience than many guys coming out of college and not many guys enjoyed the same gaping holes to run through. As for speed, we know guys are faster than him right now and these guys weigh more than Bush and are shorter (should be an advantage). As for skill set, not sure what was not covered with the speed, vision and experience, but Bush does have great hands which is a huge plus. Of course a negative would be that in the biggest game of the year he choked trying to make a forced lateral...not sure what that says about mental makeup?

 

[Liquid Tension]

Seriously, there's no reason why Bush with the right nutrition can't be 215 by next season.

But no one has provided any reason that would lead to the conclusion that putting on the weight is necessary for Reggie Bush to excel in the NFL.

Because it's a ridiculous conclusion. If Bush isn't big enough, his team will get him to bulk up the way many other backs have. I don't think he's too small to play at his weight but it is just common sense for a guy with his frame to bulk up to 215+.

You make this out to be much easier than it is. Tatum Bell was asked to bulk up and he put on a whopping 4 pounds.

 

[Liquid Tension]

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds. Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

 

[coolnerd]

I am pretty certain that I have read a thread on this board that established that there was no correlation between physical size of RBs and their ability to average a certain number of carries/touches or time missed due to injury (major or nagging).

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

NFL Network showed Bush at the combine weigh-ins. The kid is put together. If Warrick Dunn and Clinton Portis can be Pro Bowlers in the NFL there is no doubt he can too.

 

[MLBrandow]

I don't know if anyone brought this up, but most of these guys weigh more than in your comparisons.

All this means is Reggie Bush is likely to add 5-10 lbs between now and training camp.

I'm not sure that it takes a 1,000 word report to explain that.

Also, Cadillac Williams was 5'11 205 his senior year at Auburn, and he started the preseason at 5'11 217. It's safe to say he didn't lose much mobility.

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Warrick Dunn has been mentioned a lot. He's like 5'10 and 180 lbs right? That heigh-weight ratio is worse than Bush's 5'11 201 lbs.

 

[MLBrandow]

Warrick Dunn has been mentioned a lot. He's like 5'10 and 180 lbs right? That heigh-weight ratio is worse than Bush's 5'11 201 lbs.

He also runs much lower than most backs. He's very hard to get a clean hit on, which is why he's been so successful in staying healthy and producing. I think Bush would be a good comparison in that respect. Guys can bring him down, but it's just so hard to get a good lick on him.

 

[Christo]

I don't know, maybe someone else can, but you mention vision and experience? He has less experience than many guys coming out of college and not many guys enjoyed the same gaping holes to run through. As for speed, we know guys are faster than him right now and these guys weigh more than Bush and are shorter (should be an advantage). As for skill set, not sure what was not covered with the speed, vision and experience, but Bush does have great hands which is a huge plus. Of course a negative would be that in the biggest game of the year he choked trying to make a forced lateral...not sure what that says about mental makeup?

And yet, you want to throw out all of these variables and just look at his height and weight.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds.  Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

My concerns are more fantasy related (in order):- RBBC

- Playing on a team with poor OL

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

- Played on a team in college that opened more holes than a piece of swiss cheese

- Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

- Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

- Size/durability

So there are other things that to me are bigger question marks than his size.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds.  Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

My concerns are more fantasy related (in order):- RBBC

- Playing on a team with poor OL

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

- Played on a team in college that opened more holes than a piece of swiss cheese

- Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

- Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

- Size/durability

So there are other things that to me are bigger question marks than his size.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I am pretty certain that I have read a thread on this board that established that there was no correlation between physical size of RBs and their ability to average a certain number of carries/touches or time missed due to injury (major or nagging).

That is a different situation because that is after they have been successful and we are trying to see if this person will be.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I don't know if anyone brought this up, but most of these guys weigh more than in your comparisons.

All this means is Reggie Bush is likely to add 5-10 lbs between now and training camp.

I'm not sure that it takes a 1,000 word report to explain that.

Also, Cadillac Williams was 5'11 205 his senior year at Auburn, and he started the preseason at 5'11 217. It's safe to say he didn't lose much mobility.

I had Caddy at 214 for the NFL combine and he is at 217 now. Of course he broke down a few times last year and he is 13 pounds heavier than Bush at the same time. Not sure what you meant by weigh more than my comps? I pulled most from teh FBG site but some from NFL .com

 

[cstu]

Seriously, there's no reason why Bush with the right nutrition can't be 215 by next season.

But no one has provided any reason that would lead to the conclusion that putting on the weight is necessary for Reggie Bush to excel in the NFL.

Because it's a ridiculous conclusion. If Bush isn't big enough, his team will get him to bulk up the way many other backs have. I don't think he's too small to play at his weight but it is just common sense for a guy with his frame to bulk up to 215+.

You make this out to be much easier than it is. Tatum Bell was asked to bulk up and he put on a whopping 4 pounds.

From everything I've read about both players, Bush appears to be a much more driven player than Bell. There's a reason beyond his size that Shanahan isn't enamored with Bell.

 

[Liquid Tension]

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds.  Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

My concerns are more fantasy related (in order):- RBBC

- Playing on a team with poor OL

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

- Played on a team in college that opened more holes than a piece of swiss cheese

- Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

- Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

- Size/durability

So there are other things that to me are bigger question marks than his size.

You see Dave isn't that a much better response than ignoring my original post Now we are getting somewhere...

In terms of your 9 concerns, the first 5 are only related to Houston so that will take care of itself. Now on to the important stuff.

Playing on a team that opened more holes than swiss cheese. from a scouting perspective, this is concerning because people talk about great vision, but when you take the ball and either run outside or go through a truck size hole and then bounce it outside that doesn't show the vision of dodging bullets behind the line of scrimmage, breaking a tackle and finding that small hole you burst through. He does seem to have a good feel in space of where to go though. He hasn't seen a tough game yet and responded well.

Not always on the field for clutch plays: What does this say to the folks that believe reggie will be the man? Why is that folks?

Never had a massive workload: As I had brought up in my comments, Brown and Caddy had the same situation and they each suffered some injuries last year. Not sure if that really matters or not, but clearly he hasn't absorbed the pounding and having to play through a really sore body the NFL demands.

Size and Durability: Somewhat answered in the previous. BTW, my main size is issue is the way it is distributed. if reggie were 5'9" and 200 his legs would be much thicker and I think that matters. I would rather a guy be 5'9" and 200 then 5'11" and 200. Do you agree?

 

[coolnerd]

I am pretty certain that I have read a thread on this board that established that there was no correlation between physical size of RBs  and their ability to average a certain number of carries/touches or time missed due to injury (major or nagging).

That is a different situation because that is after they have been successful and we are trying to see if this person will be.

so showing that your basic premise is flawed has nothing to with defeating your argument? Honestly, I have read this thread and you have made up your mind that 5'11 201 is height.weight combination that you are uncomfortable. I accept that and will not try to produce anything to the contrary because you not really open to it.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

As anyone who has ever taken a single stats class will tell you this post has 0 relevancy. Picking arbitrary numbers such as 5'11" when there are a handful of examples the measure in at 5'10" is a bit convenient. How much does 1 inch actually matter? It's a negligible difference.

That's not to mention that the whole notion of height and weight is meaningless since actually getting an accurate reading of what a player's true numbers are is virtually impossible and the extent to which the readings are "fibbed" varies greatly from team to team.

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds. Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

My concerns are more fantasy related (in order):- RBBC

- Playing on a team with poor OL

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

- Played on a team in college that opened more holes than a piece of swiss cheese

- Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

- Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

- Size/durability

So there are other things that to me are bigger question marks than his size.

Good posting? Lmao. Unsubstantiated and made-up posting is more like it. Take some time to actually look at it.Playing on a team with a poor OL

A poor PASS BLOCKING O-line. Houston is fine as a run blocking O-line as we've seen with every RB they put back there having success. In '04 DD went for 1766 yards and 14 touchdowns and isn't half the player most think Bush will be.

Team that doesn't run much

Houston runs plenty, not that it matters. Bush doesn't need 380 carries to be successful, as many NFL RBs with receiving skills like his don't. In Faulk's record breaking 2001 season in which he was NFL and Fantasy MVP with 26 touchdowns and a super bowl ring he had 250 carries.

Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

Dumbest arguement I have ever heard to knock a player. EVER. You are of course referring to the 4th and 1 against Texas. Bush was in in situations that dictate a need for him. Even the greatest players ever are not the greatest at every situation. If Jerome Bettis and Barry Sanders were on the same team in their prime and they were stuck with a 4th and 1 to win the superbowl Bettis would be in and Sanders would be on the bench. Same situation here. When you have another 1st round talent that is a bulldozing back who has been getting 4 yards up the middle all day long you use him in that situation whether you have Justin Fargas or Barry Sanders or Reggie Bush along with him.

Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

Bush averaged 22 touches per game this year. That is right on par with most NFL RBs. As has been previously noted he like many others doesn't need to run the ball 25 times a game to be successful. Despite an NFL sized workload he has not had any injury problems coming out of college which is more than can be said for the durability of most college RBs.

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

Same team that has been churning out good fantasy RBs the last few years despite these same issues. Now they add Kubiak which only aids the run game.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I am pretty certain that I have read a thread on this board that established that there was no correlation between physical size of RBs  and their ability to average a certain number of carries/touches or time missed due to injury (major or nagging).

That is a different situation because that is after they have been successful and we are trying to see if this person will be.

so showing that your basic premise is flawed has nothing to with defeating your argument? Honestly, I have read this thread and you have made up your mind that 5'11 201 is height.weight combination that you are uncomfortable. I accept that and will not try to produce anything to the contrary because you not really open to it.

You have it all wrong, I am totally open to it and am waiting for good reasons of why I should throw the hypothesis away, but nobody has show in it yet. I haven't come to the conclusion that Bush WILL fail in my own mind. In fact, I think he will be able to produce in the NFL, what i am not sure is if he will produce like Portis+ or a real good 3rd down back. I am looking for evidence of why I should be more comfortable with my opinion and ignore the size and weight issues that appear to have some statistical significance, even if this ONE time it won't matter.

Many people have taken this post to be about bashing Reggie and that is NOT the situation in the least

 

[slimflop]

As anyone who has ever taken a single stats class will tell you this post has 0 relevancy. Picking arbitrary numbers such as 5'11" when there are a handful of examples the measure in at 5'10" is a bit convenient. How much does 1 inch actually matter? It's a negligible difference.

That's not to mention that the whole notion of height and weight is meaningless since actually getting an accurate reading of what a player's true numbers are is virtually impossible and the extent to which the readings are "fibbed" varies greatly from team to team.

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds. Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

My concerns are more fantasy related (in order):- RBBC

- Playing on a team with poor OL

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

- Played on a team in college that opened more holes than a piece of swiss cheese

- Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

- Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

- Size/durability

So there are other things that to me are bigger question marks than his size.

Good posting? Lmao. Unsubstantiated and made-up posting is more like it. Take some time to actually look at it.Playing on a team with a poor OL

A poor PASS BLOCKING O-line. Houston is fine as a run blocking O-line as we've seen with every RB they put back there having success. In '04 DD went for 1766 yards and 14 touchdowns and isn't half the player most think Bush will be.

Team that doesn't run much

Houston runs plenty, not that it matters. Bush doesn't need 380 carries to be successful, as many NFL RBs with receiving skills like his don't. In Faulk's record breaking 2001 season in which he was NFL and Fantasy MVP with 26 touchdowns and a super bowl ring he had 250 carries.

Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

Dumbest arguement I have ever heard to knock a player. EVER. You are of course referring to the 4th and 1 against Texas. Bush was in in situations that dictate a need for him. Even the greatest players ever are not the greatest at every situation. If Jerome Bettis and Barry Sanders were on the same team in their prime and they were stuck with a 4th and 1 to win the superbowl Bettis would be in and Sanders would be on the bench. Same situation here. When you have another 1st round talent that is a bulldozing back who has been getting 4 yards up the middle all day long you use him in that situation whether you have Justin Fargas or Barry Sanders or Reggie Bush along with him.

Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

Bush averaged 22 touches per game this year. That is right on par with most NFL RBs. As has been previously noted he like many others doesn't need to run the ball 25 times a game to be successful. Despite an NFL sized workload he has not had any injury problems coming out of college which is more than can be said for the durability of most college RBs.

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

Same team that has been churning out good fantasy RBs the last few years despite these same issues. Now they add Kubiak which only aids the run game.

The Texans also did not abandon the run. I did not run the numbers but I would bet DD had more pts in the 2nd half of games.

 

[David Yudkin]

As anyone who has ever taken a single stats class will tell you this post has 0 relevancy. Picking arbitrary numbers such as 5'11" when there are a handful of examples the measure in at 5'10" is a bit convenient. How much does 1 inch actually matter? It's a negligible difference.

That's not to mention that the whole notion of height and weight is meaningless since actually getting an accurate reading of what a player's true numbers are is virtually impossible and the extent to which the readings are "fibbed" varies greatly from team to team.

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds.  Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

My concerns are more fantasy related (in order):- RBBC

- Playing on a team with poor OL

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

- Played on a team in college that opened more holes than a piece of swiss cheese

- Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

- Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

- Size/durability

So there are other things that to me are bigger question marks than his size.

Good posting? Lmao. Unsubstantiated and made-up posting is more like it. Take some time to actually look at it.Playing on a team with a poor OL

A poor PASS BLOCKING O-line. Houston is fine as a run blocking O-line as we've seen with every RB they put back there having success. In '04 DD went for 1766 yards and 14 touchdowns and isn't half the player most think Bush will be.

Team that doesn't run much

Houston runs plenty, not that it matters. Bush doesn't need 380 carries to be successful, as many NFL RBs with receiving skills like his don't. In Faulk's record breaking 2001 season in which he was NFL and Fantasy MVP with 26 touchdowns and a super bowl ring he had 250 carries.

Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

Dumbest arguement I have ever heard to knock a player. EVER. You are of course referring to the 4th and 1 against Texas. Bush was in in situations that dictate a need for him. Even the greatest players ever are not the greatest at every situation. If Jerome Bettis and Barry Sanders were on the same team in their prime and they were stuck with a 4th and 1 to win the superbowl Bettis would be in and Sanders would be on the bench. Same situation here. When you have another 1st round talent that is a bulldozing back who has been getting 4 yards up the middle all day long you use him in that situation whether you have Justin Fargas or Barry Sanders or Reggie Bush along with him.

Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

Bush averaged 22 touches per game this year. That is right on par with most NFL RBs. As has been previously noted he like many others doesn't need to run the ball 25 times a game to be successful. Despite an NFL sized workload he has not had any injury problems coming out of college which is more than can be said for the durability of most college RBs.

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

Same team that has been churning out good fantasy RBs the last few years despite these same issues. Now they add Kubiak which only aids the run game.

Time out.I never once said that Bush was going to Houston (admittedly the most likely option at the moment). I was outlining things that would be of a concern. For example, I hardly expect the Titans to look like the Rams, so some of those concerns really don't pertain to the Texans.

But since Houston was brought up, they do have a new coach, MAY be looking to pass more, and lost someone off of the OL. It's a bit premature to know with great certainty what to expect.

 

[Liquid Tension]

As anyone who has ever taken a single stats class will tell you this post has 0 relevancy.  Picking arbitrary numbers such as 5'11" when there are a handful of examples the measure in at 5'10" is a bit convenient.  How much does 1 inch actually matter?  It's a negligible difference.

That's not to mention that the whole notion of height and weight is meaningless since actually getting an accurate reading of what a player's true numbers are is virtually impossible and the extent to which the readings are "fibbed" varies greatly from team to team.

IMO, the closest younger back is Clinton Portis in terms of size, and there were reports that in his rookie season he dropped down to 185 pounds.  Portis seems to have turned out all right.

I have some reservations about Reggie Bush, but size is not one of my major concerns.

So what is your reservation then?

My concerns are more fantasy related (in order):- RBBC

- Playing on a team with poor OL

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

- Played on a team in college that opened more holes than a piece of swiss cheese

- Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

- Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

- Size/durability

So there are other things that to me are bigger question marks than his size.

Good posting? Lmao. Unsubstantiated and made-up posting is more like it. Take some time to actually look at it.Playing on a team with a poor OL

A poor PASS BLOCKING O-line. Houston is fine as a run blocking O-line as we've seen with every RB they put back there having success. In '04 DD went for 1766 yards and 14 touchdowns and isn't half the player most think Bush will be.

Team that doesn't run much

Houston runs plenty, not that it matters. Bush doesn't need 380 carries to be successful, as many NFL RBs with receiving skills like his don't. In Faulk's record breaking 2001 season in which he was NFL and Fantasy MVP with 26 touchdowns and a super bowl ring he had 250 carries.

Not always on the field on clutch plays at USC

Dumbest arguement I have ever heard to knock a player. EVER. You are of course referring to the 4th and 1 against Texas. Bush was in in situations that dictate a need for him. Even the greatest players ever are not the greatest at every situation. If Jerome Bettis and Barry Sanders were on the same team in their prime and they were stuck with a 4th and 1 to win the superbowl Bettis would be in and Sanders would be on the bench. Same situation here. When you have another 1st round talent that is a bulldozing back who has been getting 4 yards up the middle all day long you use him in that situation whether you have Justin Fargas or Barry Sanders or Reggie Bush along with him.

Workload questions (never had a massive workload)

Bush averaged 22 touches per game this year. That is right on par with most NFL RBs. As has been previously noted he like many others doesn't need to run the ball 25 times a game to be successful. Despite an NFL sized workload he has not had any injury problems coming out of college which is more than can be said for the durability of most college RBs.

- Team that doesn't run much

- Team that is awful and will abandon run in second half

- Playing on a team with limited weapons could mean 8 in the box

Same team that has been churning out good fantasy RBs the last few years despite these same issues. Now they add Kubiak which only aids the run game.

Time out.I never once said that Bush was going to Houston (admittedly the most likely option at the moment). I was outlining things that would be of a concern. For example, I hardly expect the Titans to look like the Rams, so some of those concerns really don't pertain to the Texans.

But since Houston was brought up, they do have a new coach, MAY be looking to pass more, and lost someone off of the OL. It's a bit premature to know with great certainty what to expect.

That would be your first, you have two remaining

 

[WhoDat]

5'11" and 201...

2 inches taller and 10 pounds lighter than the league average. Proper nutrition and weight training will see him above the 210 mark by the time camp rolls around. Also, the kid is going to easily grade a 7 on his pre-draft card. Most likely, he hits the 7.5 mark or higher. Those are once in a lifetime pre-draft grades.

If Bush grades out less than 6.5, spend time worrying about his ability to produce at the next level. If the kid grades out at or higher than 7, be happy to own the 1.1 or go trade for it.

How is it that NFL scouting departments and player development teams anticipate and or think Bush might grade out as high as OJ and BO, who are the only two RB to ever register an 8, and people are worried about his size? I am well aware of the points being made in this thread but am I just completely missing something.

I said it in another thread and I will say it here. I played against B. Sanders, while he was at OSU. I was not on the sidelines watching him. I was running around trying to tackle him. My jock and pads are still sitting on a field in Oklahoma. I have watched many of Bush's games and seen some game tape.

Bush is that talented. Period. There's a reason scouts and teams are creaming themselves over this kid. He is that good. I don't care how tall or slight he might be the guy can play football and the difference in talent, assuming he does arrive in Houston, between himself and D. Davis will be evident from the first snap in training camp.

 

[Liquid Tension]

5'11" and 201...

2 inches taller and 10 pounds lighter than the league average. Proper nutrition and weight training will see him above the 210 mark by the time camp rolls around. Also, the kid is going to easily grade a 7 on his pre-draft card. Most likely, he hits the 7.5 mark or higher. Those are once in a lifetime pre-draft grades.

If Bush grades out less than 6.5, spend time worrying about his ability to produce at the next level. If the kid grades out at or higher than 7, be happy to own the 1.1 or go trade for it.

How is it that NFL scouting departments and player development teams anticipate and or think Bush might grade out as high as OJ and BO, who are the only two RB to ever register an 8, and people are worried about his size? I am well aware of the points being made in this thread but am I just completely missing something.

I said it in another thread and I will say it here. I played against B. Sanders, while he was at OSU. I was not on the sidelines watching him. I was running around trying to tackle him. My jock and pads are still sitting on a field in Oklahoma. I have watched many of Bush's games and seen some game tape.

Bush is that talented. Period. There's a reason scouts and teams are creaming themselves over this kid. He is that good. I don't care how tall or slight he might be the guy can play football and the difference in talent, assuming he does arrive in Houston, between himself and D. Davis will be evident from the first snap in training camp.

I think that Barry cut much sharper than Reggie does. Barry also had power with those large thighs off his cuts. Reggie is a better receiver and from I have seen seems to have better top end speed. I don't think Reggie has a low enough center of gravity to do what Barry did, but if he a rich man's Clinton Portis that is pretty darned good. BTW, where did you get your averages from? I would think the average back is 5'10" and weighs 215 but I have nothing to prove that.

Thanks.

 

[WhoDat]

The league averages are coming from just about every scouting synopsis I have on Bush. They are linked with the rest of his information and it is consistent among PFW, Street and Smith, Sporting News, etc...Plus, I worked in an NFL scouting department at one time and still have access to current data via a relative still employed by that team.

Bush is 2 inches taller and 10 pounds lighter than league average. He is also expected to be the highest rated RB since Bo Jackson.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I never once said that Bush was going to Houston (admittedly the most likely option at the moment). I was outlining things that would be of a concern. For example, I hardly expect the Titans to look like the Rams, so some of those concerns really don't pertain to the Texans.

I guess the combination of Houston being the most likely spot and some of the concerns listed being commonly associated with the Texans (particularly the RBBC) just made it seem that way. I wasn't even conciously trying to assume Houston there, I thought it had been explicitly stated. My mistake.

But since Houston was brought up, they do have a new coach, MAY be looking to pass more, and lost someone off of the OL. It's a bit premature to know with great certainty what to expect.

I reallize you say "may" here but that new coach you mentioned was formerly the offensive coordinator of a team that relied heavily on the run, and ran the ball more than half the time.Houston MAY trade for Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson but saying that doesn't make it part of the arguement..

 

[EBF]

Bush is not a power runner. He's not a guy who will carry the ball 25 times a game. His value doesn't hinge on his ability to carry the ball in short yardage situations, but rather on his receiving skills and his big play capabilities. He's kind of like Warrick Dunn on steroids. He won't be traditional 300 carry back in the NFL, but I have no doubt that he'll be an impact player at the pro level.

A lot of people who knock Bush don't seem to have watched him play very much. I was fortunate enough to see a lot of his games over the past few years and I came away extremely impressed with his skills. He's the real deal. He has elite speed, incredible burst, great quickness, good hands, and is a great natural athlete (fluid, has great balance). Rest assured that he's going to make plenty of "wow" plays in his NFL career.

The argument that he won't succeed because he lacks the ideal size is nothing short of stupid. While Bush may never develop into the Faulk clone that some people imagine, he has all the tools (and size) needed to become an impact weapon in the mold of Brian Westbrook.

The real problem with Bush is that some people have the wrong expectations for him. They think he's the second coming of Tomlinson, which clearly isn't the case. Bush is much more of a WR/RB hybrid. NFL teams know this and still view him as a top prospect. Why? Because success in the NFL doesn't depend on one's ability to score fantasy football points. Reggie Bush may never develop into the 2,000 total yard 20+ TD monster that FF players dream of, but you can bet that he's going to help his NFL team win football games.

Finally, keep in mind that he's only 21. It would be foolish to assume that he'll grow, but it would also be foolish to assume that a 21 year-old lacks the potential to gain weight.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Doesn’t this scare you?

Hi LT,Yes it absolutely scares me. I'm one of the few that are not putting him straight into the Hall of Fame. I think he'll be very good but I am definitely not on the bandwagon.

J

 

[Ozymandias]

The chances are 50-50 for anybody being drafted in the top ten, to become a star. Bush fits that profile, as does everybody else who is drafted in the top ten.

From what I've heard, old timers tend to rank Bush with Gale Sayers as the two most explosive players they have ever seen.

Gale Sayers was 6' 0", and weighed 200 lbs.

 

[WhoDat]

EBF, good post.

I am not ready to bronze the kid's bust and put him in Canton. There is a lot of football left to be played but what I cannot believe is the number of people...high number of people...that are getting that deep into the weeds regarding Bush's size.

There is something extremely significant to the fact that NFL scouts are predicting he scores a 7-8 on his scorecard. That...just...does...not...happen. Again, someone please clue me in on what you see that 32 scouting departments do not see. Honest question.

EBF hit on something.. Bush will be used in multiple ways on offense. He is not going to run Study Body Left and Study Body Right 25 times per game. Given his size and speed, he is far too quick to be guarded by a LB, S or CB in pass coverage. The LB is too big and will quickly loose him. The S is too slow. The CB is to small. Bush in space versus a lone defender is going to cause DC nightmares next fall.

Bush becomes a major problem if he trots out of the backfield and into the slot against man coverage. He is going to cause mismatch problems especially if D. Davis is left in the backfield, assuming Bush does go to the Texans.

He will be an impact football player. Now, he might not be a 25 TD FF darling but interms of actual football success the kid is going to be good.

 

[Aaronur]

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.

Maybe I should have said under 208 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

maybe that is why he is so good

 

[Liquid Tension]

Bush is not a power runner. He's not a guy who will carry the ball 25 times a game. His value doesn't hinge on his ability to carry the ball in short yardage situations, but rather on his receiving skills and his big play capabilities. He's kind of like Warrick Dunn on steroids. He won't be traditional 300 carry back in the NFL, but I have no doubt that he'll be an impact player at the pro level.

A lot of people who knock Bush don't seem to have watched him play very much. I was fortunate enough to see a lot of his games over the past few years and I came away extremely impressed with his skills. He's the real deal. He has elite speed, incredible burst, great quickness, good hands, and is a great natural athlete (fluid, has great balance). Rest assured that he's going to make plenty of "wow" plays in his NFL career.

The argument that he won't succeed because he lacks the ideal size is nothing short of stupid. While Bush may never develop into the Faulk clone that some people imagine, he has all the tools (and size) needed to become an impact weapon in the mold of Brian Westbrook.

The real problem with Bush is that some people have the wrong expectations for him. They think he's the second coming of Tomlinson, which clearly isn't the case. Bush is much more of a WR/RB hybrid. NFL teams know this and still view him as a top prospect. Why? Because success in the NFL doesn't depend on one's ability to score fantasy football points. Reggie Bush may never develop into the 2,000 total yard 20+ TD monster that FF players dream of, but you can bet that he's going to help his NFL team win football games.

Finally, keep in mind that he's only 21. It would be foolish to assume that he'll grow, but it would also be foolish to assume that a 21 year-old lacks the potential to gain weight.

Nicely done. I think this makes great sense and I believe that at the NFL level this will be very valuable. Now to the question most of us here care more about...will that translate into a good fantasy back or a guy that you hope you start on the day he breaks one? Again nice post!

 

[Wilbur Wood]

A couple of points:

#1 NFL teams, who have access to all of the data in the world, are not concernced that Bush's height/weight ratio will impair his success in the NFL. This is a universally held perspective. The NFL will DISCRIMINATE against stellar college players at various positions to the extent that they are concerned about size -- The 6' QB, the undersized OT, the oversized CB, the Vilma-sized LBs. Thus, the NFL teams front offices WILL discriminate based upon size, yet there is not one team that if they found themselves with pick 1.01 and 5 seconds left on the 15 minute clock, would not shout out - Reggie Bush. End of story on size.

#2 IMO, mega-FF production out of the RB position is largely driven by a confluence of circumstances that are virtually impossible to forecast for RBs entering the NFL draft. Context is more important than Skill. Put a Top 20 RB talent together with a "Best in Class" NFL offense (one that will feature the RB) and you have the best FF RB. Priest Holmes and KC. Marshall Faulk and Stl. Sean Alexander and Sea.

#3 "Busts" at the RB position (and this is a gut feel and someone like Yudkin may run some data that questions the validity of my premise) at the top of the NFL draft are much rarer than at other offensive skill positions such as QB or WR. That is because there is a much higher correlation between "raw measurables & past performance" at the RB position than there is with a QB and WR.

Conclusion: Bush's size is not a problem. His measurables per point #3 justify his draft stake. His ultimate long-term FF prowess will be determined by factors that no one on this board has the capability with which to assess.

 

[H.K.]

Interesting discussion, but I think talent over rides size especially at skill positions. Guys like Warrick Dunn and Doug Flutie have done fine. I also wonder how many previous WR's were built like Moss before he hit the league, probably few, and I can't think of any that had similiar success.

I agree with Yudkin that the most critical part of Bush's impact will depend on what team he goes to, and if it is indeed Houston, I would be surprised to see him be dominant at the NFL level.

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Nearly a hundred posts later, we still arrive to the same conclusion that we had formulated within the first minutes of this thread being created. Hey, it's all in good fun!

 

[stbugs]

A couple of points:

#1 NFL teams, who have access to all of the data in the world, are not concernced that Bush's height/weight ratio will impair his success in the NFL. This is a universally held perspective. The NFL will DISCRIMINATE against stellar college players at various positions to the extent that they are concerned about size -- The 6' QB, the undersized OT, the oversized CB, the Vilma-sized LBs. Thus, the NFL teams front offices WILL discriminate based upon size, yet there is not one team that if they found themselves with pick 1.01 and 5 seconds left on the 15 minute clock, would not shout out - Reggie Bush. End of story on size.

#2 IMO, mega-FF production out of the RB position is largely driven by a confluence of circumstances that are virtually impossible to forecast for RBs entering the NFL draft. Context is more important than Skill. Put a Top 20 RB talent together with a "Best in Class" NFL offense (one that will feature the RB) and you have the best FF RB. Priest Holmes and KC. Marshall Faulk and Stl. Sean Alexander and Sea.

#3 "Busts" at the RB position (and this is a gut feel and someone like Yudkin may run some data that questions the validity of my premise) at the top of the NFL draft are much rarer than at other offensive skill positions such as QB or WR. That is because there is a much higher correlation between "raw measurables & past performance" at the RB position than there is with a QB and WR.

Conclusion: Bush's size is not a problem. His measurables per point #3 justify his draft stake. His ultimate long-term FF prowess will be determined by factors that no one on this board has the capability with which to assess.

To be honest, I would bet that in the end, the risk with top 10 or 15 picks is probably the same at every position. I saw OL mentioned in another thread as the "safest" pick but after looking at the 2000-2005 drafts there was a better chance of getting a good QB than a good OL in the top 10 (11 for Big Ben) picks.As for RBs, here are some guys that I might put on the bust list for RBs taken early since 1985:

2005 Benson #4, Still early, but not looking good so far. Williams and Brown look good, but might not be studs, who knows.

2004 No RBs taken early.

2003 No RBs taken early.

2002 William Green #16, big bust, falls just outside my top 15 cutoff but he was the first RB taken.

2001 No busts. Only LT, stud, taken in top 15.

2000 Thomas Jones #7 (Yes he was decent in 2005, but definitely still a bust based on draft position and the fact that he is his 3rd team). Jamal Lewis was a good pick, not in LT stud territory.

2000 Ron Dayne #11, nuff said.

1999 No busts. EJames and RWilliams were great and good, respectively. RWilliams is more of a bust, just based on personal issues, but was good on the field.

1998 Curtis Enis #5, bust.

1997 No busts. Warrick Dunn is a quality player.

1996 Lawrence Phillips #6, bust.

1996 T. Biakabatuka #8, bust.

1995 Ki-Jana Carter #1, big, big bust since #1 overall. Honorable mention busts to Rashaan Salaam at #21.

1994 No busts. Only stud Marshall Faulk taken in top 15.

1993 Garrison Hearst at #3 overall is an OK pick. He was good overall, but certainly not a stud as some of the top 5 RBs have been. Bettis #10 is a HOFer.

1992 Tommy Vardell #9, bad pick.

1991 Leonard Russell #14, bad pick.

1990 Blair Thomas #2, big, big bust, especially with Emmit Smith going at #17.

1989 Tim Worley #7, too bad Barry Sanders was gone already.

1989 Sammie Smith #9, see above.

1988 Gaston Green #14, first RB taken, still not a good pick.

1987 Damn, all 3 picks in top 15 were bad. Alonzo Highsmith #3, Brent Fullwood #4, D.J. Dozier #14. Awful, awful 1st round for RBs, could be the worst so far, unless you consider Paul Palmer #19, Roger Vick #21, Rod Bernstine #24, and Terrence Flagler #25 quality picks. :X

1986 Only Keith Byars at #10 and John L. Williams #15 were taken early and while they were both good pros, but I would almost consider them busts as RBs. Williams only averaged 600 yards per year over his 8 year career and Byars was a receiving fullback.

1985 No RBs taken early. Honorable mention bust to George Adams the first RB taken at #19.

All in all, there are a good amount of busts with some great players (Edge, LT, Faulk, Sanders) and some good players (R. Williams, J. Lewis, W. Dunn, J. Bettis), but doesn't look like a safe position to me even in the top 15 picks.

Also, RBs don't have as many high profile "busts" because a few years no RB was even picked in the top 15.

 

[cws3030]

Finally, keep in mind that he's only 21. It would be foolish to assume that he'll grow, but it would also be foolish to assume that a 21 year-old lacks the potential to gain weight.

couldn't agree more...while i don't have reggie in the HoF just yet, i think he will weigh over 214 come the start of the season.

 

[Warpig]

If I'm not mistaken...and please correct me if I am, but wasn't the greatest RB ever (sans Payton) somewhat frail? Emmitt Smith was about 5'9" and around 200 lbs. All he did was rush/receive for gobs of yards and TD's. I seem to remember him running over people a time or two as well. With that said, I don't think Warrick Dunn could handle 20+ touches a game. It's good that he has Duckett there to take the short yardage beating which probably has added a couple extra years to Dunn's career. Dunn is only about 5'8" and 185 lbs. He's able to bouch off of big hits. Bush will be just fine.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Finally, keep in mind that he's only 21. It would be foolish to assume that he'll grow, but it would also be foolish to assume that a 21 year-old lacks the potential to gain weight.

couldn't agree more...while i don't have reggie in the HoF just yet, i think he will weigh over 214 come the start of the season.

No way he gains 13 pounds before the start of the season? Do you guys know what it entails to put on that much weight and make it productive weight? I mean he could just strap on to 5 lb plates to his chest and back with the way you guys are talking. Maybe, and I mean maybe in 2 years he could pack on 13 pounds.

 

[Liquid Tension]

A couple of points:

#1  NFL teams, who have access to all of the data in the world, are not concernced that Bush's height/weight ratio will impair his success in the NFL.  This is a universally held perspective.  The NFL will DISCRIMINATE against stellar college players at various positions to the extent that they are concerned about size --  The 6' QB,  the undersized OT,  the oversized CB, the Vilma-sized LBs.  Thus, the NFL teams front offices WILL discriminate based upon size, yet there is not one team that if they found themselves with pick 1.01 and 5 seconds left on the 15 minute clock, would not shout out - Reggie Bush.  End of story on size.

#2  IMO,  mega-FF production out of the RB position is largely driven by a confluence of circumstances that are virtually impossible to forecast for RBs entering the NFL draft.  Context is more important than Skill.  Put a Top 20 RB talent together with a "Best in Class" NFL offense (one that will feature the RB) and you have the best FF RB.    Priest Holmes and KC.  Marshall Faulk and Stl. Sean Alexander and Sea. 

#3  "Busts" at the RB position (and this is a gut feel and someone like Yudkin may run some data that questions the validity of my premise) at the top of the NFL draft are much rarer than at other offensive skill positions such as QB or WR.  That is because there is a much higher correlation between "raw measurables & past performance" at the RB position than there is with a QB and WR.

Conclusion:  Bush's size is not a problem.  His measurables per point #3 justify his draft stake.  His ultimate long-term FF prowess will be determined by factors that no one on this board has the capability with which to assess.

To be honest, I would bet that in the end, the risk with top 10 or 15 picks is probably the same at every position. I saw OL mentioned in another thread as the "safest" pick but after looking at the 2000-2005 drafts there was a better chance of getting a good QB than a good OL in the top 10 (11 for Big Ben) picks.As for RBs, here are some guys that I might put on the bust list for RBs taken early since 1985:

2005 Benson #4, Still early, but not looking good so far. Williams and Brown look good, but might not be studs, who knows.

2004 No RBs taken early.

2003 No RBs taken early.

2002 William Green #16, big bust, falls just outside my top 15 cutoff but he was the first RB taken.

2001 No busts. Only LT, stud, taken in top 15.

2000 Thomas Jones #7 (Yes he was decent in 2005, but definitely still a bust based on draft position and the fact that he is his 3rd team). Jamal Lewis was a good pick, not in LT stud territory.

2000 Ron Dayne #11, nuff said.

1999 No busts. EJames and RWilliams were great and good, respectively. RWilliams is more of a bust, just based on personal issues, but was good on the field.

1998 Curtis Enis #5, bust.

1997 No busts. Warrick Dunn is a quality player.

1996 Lawrence Phillips #6, bust.

1996 T. Biakabatuka #8, bust.

1995 Ki-Jana Carter #1, big, big bust since #1 overall. Honorable mention busts to Rashaan Salaam at #21.

1994 No busts. Only stud Marshall Faulk taken in top 15.

1993 Garrison Hearst at #3 overall is an OK pick. He was good overall, but certainly not a stud as some of the top 5 RBs have been. Bettis #10 is a HOFer.

1992 Tommy Vardell #9, bad pick.

1991 Leonard Russell #14, bad pick.

1990 Blair Thomas #2, big, big bust, especially with Emmit Smith going at #17.

1989 Tim Worley #7, too bad Barry Sanders was gone already.

1989 Sammie Smith #9, see above.

1988 Gaston Green #14, first RB taken, still not a good pick.

1987 Damn, all 3 picks in top 15 were bad. Alonzo Highsmith #3, Brent Fullwood #4, D.J. Dozier #14. Awful, awful 1st round for RBs, could be the worst so far, unless you consider Paul Palmer #19, Roger Vick #21, Rod Bernstine #24, and Terrence Flagler #25 quality picks. :X

1986 Only Keith Byars at #10 and John L. Williams #15 were taken early and while they were both good pros, but I would almost consider them busts as RBs. Williams only averaged 600 yards per year over his 8 year career and Byars was a receiving fullback.

1985 No RBs taken early. Honorable mention bust to George Adams the first RB taken at #19.

All in all, there are a good amount of busts with some great players (Edge, LT, Faulk, Sanders) and some good players (R. Williams, J. Lewis, W. Dunn, J. Bettis), but doesn't look like a safe position to me even in the top 15 picks.

Also, RBs don't have as many high profile "busts" because a few years no RB was even picked in the top 15.

Good info Bugs! KiJana Carter was a guaranteed stud when he came out. Blair Thomas was as well.For some of the others that keep bringing up short guys...packing in the same weight in a shorter frame should be a bonus. A guy like Joe Morris had really thick legs but if had the same weight over a 5'11" body I don't think he would be effective

 

[Blackjacks]

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.

How hard is it to have vision when your O-Line just opened a hole that a Semi could drive through? I didn't see a ton of USC games, but I didn't see Reggie making something out of nothing very much. He had huge holes to run through nearly every carry. In the NFL, and particuarly on the Texans, he's going to be gobbled up at the line of scrimmage and take a lot of hits behind the line of scrimmage. That doesn't bode well for a lighter back. It hasn't boded well for DDavis in his 3 years there and he has more bulk that Bush. If Bush is a Texan and they don't do more to bolster the O-Line, look for a very disappointing year from Bush in 2006. If he winds up somewhere else that has a better O-Line he could make something happen, but Texas is not that place....

People always make this point about his huge holes and my ? to them is didn't Lendale White have them to then. I agree that Bush had a good line but most of his miraculous runs were tot he outside as where White's were inside. Wouldn't have White prospered from this oline more? As for Bush not making something out of nothing huh???????? This kid made some many moves to get out of traffic it wasn't even funny. I'll let you go ont his one because you said you didn't watch many games but trust me he did. I'm not putting him in the hall of fame yet or nothing all I'm stating is that if he gets a notch down due to his line than so should White. Also id DD could put up the #'s he did in Houston than obviously than run blocking most not be horrible. I agree their pass protection is horrible but obviously theu can run the ball and it can only get better with a better skilled back in there.