Saints fans (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Spin-off of the other thread. Who is the better player for the rest of their careers? Who is more valuable? Who do you want on your team?

 

[jurb26]

Not a Saints fan but voted Bush. I'd be shocked if this poll ended up close.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Not a Saints fan but voted Bush. I'd be shocked if this poll ended up close.

Why's that?

 

[Chase Stuart]

My thoughts from the other thread re: Colston.

Colston got 1,000 receiving yards as a rookie in 12 games. Counting playoffs, in 14 games Colston had 80/1156/8.

In 12 regular season games, Colston had 1,038 yards, an average of 87 YPG. That's the most receiving yards per game by any wide receiver since the merger. Only Moss and Boldin topped 80 RYPG as rookies.That's incredibly rare. He's a stud. He was your number 1 fantasy WR through 10 weeks this year.

He had a dominant rookie season, the likes of Moss, Boldin, Glenn, Galloway and Clayton. Moss and Boldin were/are top WRs; Glenn and Clayton had injury problems, and I think Galloway was an excellent and probably the most underrated receiver of this generation.

I also think the 2006 Saints were more like the 1995 Seahawks or the 1998 Vikings than the 1995 Patriots or 2004 Bucs, making the comparisons to Moss and Galloway the best ones. Colston was on a team that had four different players top 650 receiving yards, and he still was dominant.

 

[Bankerguy]

Much easier to replace Colston than Bush. Not many players have his skill set.

Seems like a slam dunk to me. Just my $0.02.

 

[-OZ-]

I think Chase is either fishing, or just in a small minority.

Bush has close to LT talent.

Colston might be Marvin Harrison, but I doubt it.

Personally, I'd take LT over Marvin.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think Chase is either fishing, or just in a small minority.Bush has close to LT talent.Colston might be Marvin Harrison, but I doubt it.Personally, I'd take LT over Marvin.

Well I'm not fishing. And I didn't say I'd take Colston over Bush. I just thought that a good percentage of Saints fans would take Colston. I guess I was way off there.I'm pretty sure if we conducted this poll at mid-season last year, Colston would have won.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think Chase is either fishing, or just in a small minority.Bush has close to LT talent.Colston might be Marvin Harrison, but I doubt it.Personally, I'd take LT over Marvin.

Fair enough, but a Bush pick is based entirely on potential, right?Or do you think Bush was better than Colston last year?

 

[EBF]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears.

A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears. A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.Who do you think was better last year?

 

[EBF]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears. A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.Who do you think was better last year?

Bush is easily the more valuable player. When you talk about NFL impact, you can't just boil a player's value down to statistics. Vince Young had less total yards than most of the starting QBs in the NFL, but is there any denying that he was absolutely critical in lifting that team from the cellar to the middle of the pack? Reggie Bush makes the entire Saints offense better. He makes plays in the passing game, the running game, and on special teams. Furthermore, his presence on the field demands extra attention from defenses and opens things up for the rest of the offense. Bush might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. There really aren't many guys in his class and it would be almost impossible to replace what he does with another player. On the other hand, I feel confident that anywhere from 15-40 WRs could have a similar impact to Colston's if they had been in the same situation last year. And if you're intent on using stats, here are some things to consider:Reggie Bush had the most catches of any RB in the NFL. He had more catches than any rookie RB in the history of the NFL. He averaged 4.8 YPC in his last eight games. He had more catches, total yards, and TDs than Colston (albeit in more games). Reggie Bush is more valuable than Marques Colston. I doubt there's a single GM in the NFL who would say otherwise.

 

[Borat]

Would you rather have Marshall Faulk in his prime, or Brandon Stokely?

 

[trader jake]

Fullback Fro would be proud.

Worst poll evah. (at least for today)

 

[The Jacket]

Would you rather have Marshall Faulk in his prime, or Brandon Stokely?

Bush isn't close to Faulk's prime and Colston is light years better than Stokley.Would you rather have Rice in his prime or Trung Candidate? Some seriously embarrassing comments in this thread.

 

[Borat]

Would you rather have Marshall Faulk in his prime, or Brandon Stokely?

Bush isn't close to Faulk's prime and Colston is light years better than Stokley.

Would you rather have Rice in his prime or Trung Candidate?



Some seriously embarrassing comments in this thread.

Really? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

 

[Cajun Heat]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears. A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.Who do you think was better last year?

"Who do you think was better last year?" and "Who would you rather have on your team going forward?" (your poll question) are two very different questions. Every Saints fan on earth is thrilled about Colston's emergence, but Bush is a game-breaker and extremely versatile weapon.

 

[Pickle Rody]

My thoughts from the other thread re: Colston.

Colston got 1,000 receiving yards as a rookie in 12 games. Counting playoffs, in 14 games Colston had 80/1156/8.

In 12 regular season games, Colston had 1,038 yards, an average of 87 YPG. That's the most receiving yards per game by any wide receiver since the merger. Only Moss and Boldin topped 80 RYPG as rookies. That's incredibly rare. He's a stud. He was your number 1 fantasy WR through 10 weeks this year.

He had a dominant rookie season, the likes of Moss, Boldin, Glenn, Galloway and Clayton. Moss and Boldin were/are top WRs; Glenn and Clayton had injury problems, and I think Galloway was an excellent and probably the most underrated receiver of this generation.

I also think the 2006 Saints were more like the 1995 Seahawks or the 1998 Vikings than the 1995 Patriots or 2004 Bucs, making the comparisons to Moss and Galloway the best ones. Colston was on a team that had four different players top 650 receiving yards, and he still was dominant.

I guess I'm in the minority.....voted Colston, not a Saints "fan".I'd love to have him as an Eagle. I wish we could find a diamond in the rough like this. Jason Avant is not one, and the jury is still out on Baskett. (I also favor Boldin over Fitzgerald, if that matters any.)

 

[FBGPoker]

Lets say they were both thrown back into this years draft. I highly doubt there would be any team who would take Colsten over Bush.

Like others have said, one of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a solid WR. It really isn't even close.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lets say they were both thrown back into this years draft. I highly doubt there would be any team who would take Colsten over Bush.Like others have said, one of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a solid WR. It really isn't even close.

What makes Colston a solid WR and not a future superstar WR?

 

[FBGPoker]

Lets say they were both thrown back into this years draft. I highly doubt there would be any team who would take Colsten over Bush.Like others have said, one of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a solid WR. It really isn't even close.

What makes Colston a solid WR and not a future superstar WR?

One of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a potential superstar WR.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Much easier to replace Colston than Bush. Not many players have his skill set.Seems like a slam dunk to me. Just my $0.02.

Not many players have LaVar Arrington's skill set, or Roy Williams' skill set. That doesn't make them the best LB or SS in the league. Colston the football player is much better than Colston the athlete.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lets say they were both thrown back into this years draft. I highly doubt there would be any team who would take Colsten over Bush.Like others have said, one of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a solid WR. It really isn't even close.

What makes Colston a solid WR and not a future superstar WR?

One of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a potential superstar WR.

Marion Barber III is more versatile than Reggie Bush. Barber can run outside, run inside, catch and block. Does that make Barber worth FAR more than Larry Fitzgerald?

 

[CalBear]

When I look at Colston, I wonder about guys like Chris Chambers (883 yards, 18.4 ypr, 7 TD rookie season) or Andre Johnson (996 yards, 14.8 ypr, 4 TD). What do Chambers, Johnson, and Boldin have in common? None of them has been to the playoffs.

Colston had a great rookie season. I'm glad to have him. But even in the rookie season, Bush had more yardage and more TDs, and I would argue had a greater impact to the team than Colston did. And I view Colston as more of a situationally-effective receiver like Chambers than a true game-breaker.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When I look at Colston, I wonder about guys like Chris Chambers (883 yards, 18.4 ypr, 7 TD rookie season) or Andre Johnson (996 yards, 14.8 ypr, 4 TD). What do Chambers, Johnson, and Boldin have in common? None of them has been to the playoffs. Colston had a great rookie season. I'm glad to have him. But even in the rookie season, Bush had more yardage and more TDs, and I would argue had a greater impact to the team than Colston did. And I view Colston as more of a situationally-effective receiver like Chambers than a true game-breaker.

Colston went to the playoffs last year. Colston's rookie year was quite a bit better than Johnson's or Chamber's rookie years. Colston was incredible last year.Why don't you "wonder about guys like" Eric Metcalf, Gary Anderson or Terry Kirby when you look at Bush? I don't understand this "Colston was a role player" shtick. He led the best offensive in his conference in receiving yards. He averaged more receiving yards per game than any rookie since the merger. What more did you want him to do?

 

[JuSt CuZ]

Look at all the NFL teams that passed on Colston, not once, not twice, but at least 6 times, and regret a talent like that. Looks like the fantasy owners will do that again. Do you have to be reminded that Bush is still going to split time, the RB are deeper then ever this year, u take bush and i'll take colston..... AND I"LL REPEAT AS CHAMP, oh and I had colston, not bush and won the championship.

Brees made Gates a player, he'll make colston one 2!!!1

 

[TME]

Lets say they were both thrown back into this years draft. I highly doubt there would be any team who would take Colsten over Bush.Like others have said, one of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a solid WR. It really isn't even close.

What makes Colston a solid WR and not a future superstar WR?

One of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a potential superstar WR.

Marion Barber III is more versatile than Reggie Bush. Barber can run outside, run inside, catch and block. Does that make Barber worth FAR more than Larry Fitzgerald?

I like Barber but I would call him a well rounded back, not versatile. Bush is versatile...a weapon - line him up in the slot, let him return punts, get him the ball in space. Barber is none of that - but he looks like a solid everydown back (still yet to be proven however).

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lets say they were both thrown back into this years draft. I highly doubt there would be any team who would take Colsten over Bush.Like others have said, one of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a solid WR. It really isn't even close.

What makes Colston a solid WR and not a future superstar WR?

One of the most versitile RB's in the NFL is worth FAR more than a potential superstar WR.

Marion Barber III is more versatile than Reggie Bush. Barber can run outside, run inside, catch and block. Does that make Barber worth FAR more than Larry Fitzgerald?

I like Barber but I would call him a well rounded back, not versatile. Bush is versatile...a weapon - line him up in the slot, let him return punts, get him the ball in space. Barber is none of that - but he looks like a solid everydown back (still yet to be proven however).

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.My point isn't to debate semantics. It's that just classifying Bush as unique, versatile, well-rounded, rare or special doesn't make him great. Mike Vick is versatile and unique. So is Plaxico Burress. So is Ben Watson. And Ben Troupe. And Dan Klecko. That doesn't make them superstars. There's value in there, for sure, but it's not like every super-versatile player is better than every non super-versatile player.

 

[EBF]

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

He was also only a rookie. If you look at the two backs who compare most favorably to Bush, Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber, neither guy did squat as a rookie. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bush's best days may still be ahead of him. To conclude that he doesn't run well inside, doesn't block, and is not a good short-yardage runner is premature. He rushed for 16 TDs on 200 carries as a college senior. They weren't all 20+ yard runs. I think there's reason to believe that he'll develop into an all-around back just as Westbrook and Barber have.

 

[duaneok66]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears.

A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.

Who do you think was better last year?

Bush is easily the more valuable player. When you talk about NFL impact, you can't just boil a player's value down to statistics. Vince Young had less total yards than most of the starting QBs in the NFL, but is there any denying that he was absolutely critical in lifting that team from the cellar to the middle of the pack?

Reggie Bush makes the entire Saints offense better. He makes plays in the passing game, the running game, and on special teams. Furthermore, his presence on the field demands extra attention from defenses and opens things up for the rest of the offense.

Bush might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. There really aren't many guys in his class and it would be almost impossible to replace what he does with another player.

On the other hand, I feel confident that anywhere from 15-40 WRs could have a similar impact to Colston's if they had been in the same situation last year.

And if you're intent on using stats, here are some things to consider:

Reggie Bush had the most catches of any RB in the NFL. He had more catches than any rookie RB in the history of the NFL. He averaged 4.8 YPC in his last eight games. He had more catches, total yards, and TDs than Colston (albeit in more games).

Reggie Bush is more valuable than Marques Colston. I doubt there's a single GM in the NFL who would say otherwise.

He's not even close to Westbrook, and even Jackson had more YPC . . . try again . . .

 

[duaneok66]

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

He was also only a rookie. If you look at the two backs who compare most favorably to Bush, Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber, neither guy did squat as a rookie. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bush's best days may still be ahead of him. To conclude that he doesn't run well inside, doesn't block, and is not a good short-yardage runner is premature. He rushed for 16 TDs on 200 carries as a college senior. They weren't all 20+ yard runs.

I think there's reason to believe that he'll develop into an all-around back just as Westbrook and Barber have.

based on what??

 

[EBF]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears.

A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.

Who do you think was better last year?

Bush is easily the more valuable player. When you talk about NFL impact, you can't just boil a player's value down to statistics. Vince Young had less total yards than most of the starting QBs in the NFL, but is there any denying that he was absolutely critical in lifting that team from the cellar to the middle of the pack?

Reggie Bush makes the entire Saints offense better. He makes plays in the passing game, the running game, and on special teams. Furthermore, his presence on the field demands extra attention from defenses and opens things up for the rest of the offense.

Bush might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. There really aren't many guys in his class and it would be almost impossible to replace what he does with another player.

On the other hand, I feel confident that anywhere from 15-40 WRs could have a similar impact to Colston's if they had been in the same situation last year.

And if you're intent on using stats, here are some things to consider:

Reggie Bush had the most catches of any RB in the NFL. He had more catches than any rookie RB in the history of the NFL. He averaged 4.8 YPC in his last eight games. He had more catches, total yards, and TDs than Colston (albeit in more games).

Reggie Bush is more valuable than Marques Colston. I doubt there's a single GM in the NFL who would say otherwise.

He's not even close to Westbrook, and even Jackson had more YPC . . . try again . . .

Brian Westbrook as a rookie - 9 catches for 86 yardsSteven Jackson as a rookie - 19 catches for 189 yards

Reggie Bush as a rookie - 88 catches for 742 yards

 

[EBF]

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

He was also only a rookie. If you look at the two backs who compare most favorably to Bush, Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber, neither guy did squat as a rookie. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bush's best days may still be ahead of him. To conclude that he doesn't run well inside, doesn't block, and is not a good short-yardage runner is premature. He rushed for 16 TDs on 200 carries as a college senior. They weren't all 20+ yard runs.

I think there's reason to believe that he'll develop into an all-around back just as Westbrook and Barber have.

based on what??

They have a similar build and skill set. As I mentioned, Bush had 16 rushing TDs on 200 carries as a junior in college, so there's plenty of reason to believe that he can be effective in the red zone. He is a bit light for an NFL RB, but not all that much smaller than a guy like Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, or Tiki Barber.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

He was also only a rookie. If you look at the two backs who compare most favorably to Bush, Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber, neither guy did squat as a rookie. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bush's best days may still be ahead of him. To conclude that he doesn't run well inside, doesn't block, and is not a good short-yardage runner is premature. He rushed for 16 TDs on 200 carries as a college senior. They weren't all 20+ yard runs. I think there's reason to believe that he'll develop into an all-around back just as Westbrook and Barber have.

No one doubts that Bush has an incredibly high ceiling. This thread is more about the lack of respect Colston gets. You claim that Bush was a rookie last year, but what about Colston averaging more receiving yards per game than any rookie wide receiver since 1960? Isn't that special?

 

[duaneok66]

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

He was also only a rookie. If you look at the two backs who compare most favorably to Bush, Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber, neither guy did squat as a rookie. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bush's best days may still be ahead of him. To conclude that he doesn't run well inside, doesn't block, and is not a good short-yardage runner is premature. He rushed for 16 TDs on 200 carries as a college senior. They weren't all 20+ yard runs.

I think there's reason to believe that he'll develop into an all-around back just as Westbrook and Barber have.

based on what??

They have a similar build and skill set. As I mentioned, Bush had 16 rushing TDs on 200 carries as a junior in college, so there's plenty of reason to believe that he can be effective in the red zone. He is a bit light for an NFL RB, but not all that much smaller than a guy like Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, or Tiki Barber.

you cant always use college stats to validate an argument . . . meanwhile in the pros, I am still waiting for Bush to break a tackle . . .

 

[CalBear]

I don't understand this "Colston was a role player" shtick. He led the best offensive in his conference in receiving yards. He averaged more receiving yards per game than any rookie since the merger. What more did you want him to do?

Bush led the best offense in the conference in total yards. He had more receptions and 300 more yards than Colston, and that's not counting his return yards, and he scored more than Colston. Colston had a great season, no doubt, but Bush outperformed him.And it goes even further in Bush's favor if you look at the splits. In the second half of the season plus the playoffs (10 games), Bush averaged 4.8 yards per carry, 11.2 yards per reception and had all 10 of his TDs. Colston's first 8 games, he had 700 yards and 7 TDs; in his second 8 games (10 games minus two missed with injury) he had 456 yards and 2 TDs. Partly that's attributable to being injured, but that's not the split I want to see in the rookie season of someone I want to identify as potentially phenomenal.

 

[Tommy Collins]

Bush has close to LT talent.

Except Bush can't run between the tackles.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't understand this "Colston was a role player" shtick. He led the best offensive in his conference in receiving yards. He averaged more receiving yards per game than any rookie since the merger. What more did you want him to do?

Bush led the best offense in the conference in total yards. He had more receptions and 300 more yards than Colston, and that's not counting his return yards, and he scored more than Colston. Colston had a great season, no doubt, but Bush outperformed him.And it goes even further in Bush's favor if you look at the splits. In the second half of the season plus the playoffs (10 games), Bush averaged 4.8 yards per carry, 11.2 yards per reception and had all 10 of his TDs. Colston's first 8 games, he had 700 yards and 7 TDs; in his second 8 games (10 games minus two missed with injury) he had 456 yards and 2 TDs. Partly that's attributable to being injured, but that's not the split I want to see in the rookie season of someone I want to identify as potentially phenomenal.

Why does the second half of the season matter more than the first half?BTW, was Edgerrin James more valuable than Anquan Boldin last year? James had more total yards than him and scored more than him.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears.

A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.

Who do you think was better last year?

Bush is easily the more valuable player. When you talk about NFL impact, you can't just boil a player's value down to statistics. Vince Young had less total yards than most of the starting QBs in the NFL, but is there any denying that he was absolutely critical in lifting that team from the cellar to the middle of the pack?

Reggie Bush makes the entire Saints offense better. He makes plays in the passing game, the running game, and on special teams. Furthermore, his presence on the field demands extra attention from defenses and opens things up for the rest of the offense.

Bush might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. There really aren't many guys in his class and it would be almost impossible to replace what he does with another player.

On the other hand, I feel confident that anywhere from 15-40 WRs could have a similar impact to Colston's if they had been in the same situation last year.

And if you're intent on using stats, here are some things to consider:

Reggie Bush had the most catches of any RB in the NFL. He had more catches than any rookie RB in the history of the NFL. He averaged 4.8 YPC in his last eight games. He had more catches, total yards, and TDs than Colston (albeit in more games).

Reggie Bush is more valuable than Marques Colston. I doubt there's a single GM in the NFL who would say otherwise.

He's not even close to Westbrook, and even Jackson had more YPC . . . try again . . .

Brian Westbrook as a rookie - 9 catches for 86 yardsSteven Jackson as a rookie - 19 catches for 189 yards

Reggie Bush as a rookie - 88 catches for 742 yards

You weren't comparing rookie seasons -- you said he might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. Not best rookie RB receiver -- best current RB receiver.In which case, that's a very debatable point.

 

[EBF]

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

He was also only a rookie. If you look at the two backs who compare most favorably to Bush, Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber, neither guy did squat as a rookie. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bush's best days may still be ahead of him. To conclude that he doesn't run well inside, doesn't block, and is not a good short-yardage runner is premature. He rushed for 16 TDs on 200 carries as a college senior. They weren't all 20+ yard runs. I think there's reason to believe that he'll develop into an all-around back just as Westbrook and Barber have.

No one doubts that Bush has an incredibly high ceiling. This thread is more about the lack of respect Colston gets. You claim that Bush was a rookie last year, but what about Colston averaging more receiving yards per game than any rookie wide receiver since 1960? Isn't that special?

Hey, that's great, but times are changing and it's becoming more and more common for rookie WRs to eclipse the 1,000 yard mark. In the salary cap era, some of these guys are thrust into action for lack of a better option. That's not to diminish his achievements. He had a great year. But your question was who would I rather have and it's still not close. To me, Colston is roughly equivalent to someone like Plaxico Burress. I'd much rather have Reggie Bush than Burress. Now maybe Colston will come out and tear up the league next year, but from where we stand right now, I'm going to side with Bush by a wide margin.

 

[EBF]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears.

A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.

Who do you think was better last year?

Bush is easily the more valuable player. When you talk about NFL impact, you can't just boil a player's value down to statistics. Vince Young had less total yards than most of the starting QBs in the NFL, but is there any denying that he was absolutely critical in lifting that team from the cellar to the middle of the pack?

Reggie Bush makes the entire Saints offense better. He makes plays in the passing game, the running game, and on special teams. Furthermore, his presence on the field demands extra attention from defenses and opens things up for the rest of the offense.

Bush might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. There really aren't many guys in his class and it would be almost impossible to replace what he does with another player.

On the other hand, I feel confident that anywhere from 15-40 WRs could have a similar impact to Colston's if they had been in the same situation last year.

And if you're intent on using stats, here are some things to consider:

Reggie Bush had the most catches of any RB in the NFL. He had more catches than any rookie RB in the history of the NFL. He averaged 4.8 YPC in his last eight games. He had more catches, total yards, and TDs than Colston (albeit in more games).

Reggie Bush is more valuable than Marques Colston. I doubt there's a single GM in the NFL who would say otherwise.

He's not even close to Westbrook, and even Jackson had more YPC . . . try again . . .

Brian Westbrook as a rookie - 9 catches for 86 yardsSteven Jackson as a rookie - 19 catches for 189 yards

Reggie Bush as a rookie - 88 catches for 742 yards

You weren't comparing rookie seasons -- you said he might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. Not best rookie RB receiver -- best current RB receiver.In which case, that's a very debatable point.

Good point, but even if you just look at last year's stats, you can still make a very strong case for Bush being the best receiving RB in the NFL. Only Jackson had more catches (and not by much).

 

[duaneok66]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears.

A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.

Who do you think was better last year?

Bush is easily the more valuable player. When you talk about NFL impact, you can't just boil a player's value down to statistics. Vince Young had less total yards than most of the starting QBs in the NFL, but is there any denying that he was absolutely critical in lifting that team from the cellar to the middle of the pack?

Reggie Bush makes the entire Saints offense better. He makes plays in the passing game, the running game, and on special teams. Furthermore, his presence on the field demands extra attention from defenses and opens things up for the rest of the offense.

Bush might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. There really aren't many guys in his class and it would be almost impossible to replace what he does with another player.

On the other hand, I feel confident that anywhere from 15-40 WRs could have a similar impact to Colston's if they had been in the same situation last year.

And if you're intent on using stats, here are some things to consider:

Reggie Bush had the most catches of any RB in the NFL. He had more catches than any rookie RB in the history of the NFL. He averaged 4.8 YPC in his last eight games. He had more catches, total yards, and TDs than Colston (albeit in more games).

Reggie Bush is more valuable than Marques Colston. I doubt there's a single GM in the NFL who would say otherwise.

He's not even close to Westbrook, and even Jackson had more YPC . . . try again . . .

Brian Westbrook as a rookie - 9 catches for 86 yardsSteven Jackson as a rookie - 19 catches for 189 yards

Reggie Bush as a rookie - 88 catches for 742 yards

You weren't comparing rookie seasons -- you said he might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. Not best rookie RB receiver -- best current RB receiver.In which case, that's a very debatable point.

Good point, but even if you just look at last year's stats, you can still make a very strong case for Bush being the best receiving RB in the NFL. Only Jackson had more catches (and not by much).

come on, give it up . . . Westbrook was better than Bush, and you know it . . .

 

[duaneok66]

Bush by about eighty million lightyears.

A good WR over a game-changing RB with rare versatility? No thanks.

This is about as thoughtful as "a RB that can't run over an incredible WR? No way."Colston had more receiving yards per game than any rookie WR since the merger. Bush averaged 3.6 YPC last year.

Who do you think was better last year?

Bush is easily the more valuable player. When you talk about NFL impact, you can't just boil a player's value down to statistics. Vince Young had less total yards than most of the starting QBs in the NFL, but is there any denying that he was absolutely critical in lifting that team from the cellar to the middle of the pack?

Reggie Bush makes the entire Saints offense better. He makes plays in the passing game, the running game, and on special teams. Furthermore, his presence on the field demands extra attention from defenses and opens things up for the rest of the offense.

Bush might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. There really aren't many guys in his class and it would be almost impossible to replace what he does with another player.

On the other hand, I feel confident that anywhere from 15-40 WRs could have a similar impact to Colston's if they had been in the same situation last year.

And if you're intent on using stats, here are some things to consider:

Reggie Bush had the most catches of any RB in the NFL. He had more catches than any rookie RB in the history of the NFL. He averaged 4.8 YPC in his last eight games. He had more catches, total yards, and TDs than Colston (albeit in more games).

Reggie Bush is more valuable than Marques Colston. I doubt there's a single GM in the NFL who would say otherwise.

He's not even close to Westbrook, and even Jackson had more YPC . . . try again . . .

Brian Westbrook as a rookie - 9 catches for 86 yardsSteven Jackson as a rookie - 19 catches for 189 yards

Reggie Bush as a rookie - 88 catches for 742 yards

You weren't comparing rookie seasons -- you said he might already be the best receiving RB in the NFL. Not best rookie RB receiver -- best current RB receiver.In which case, that's a very debatable point.

Good point, but even if you just look at last year's stats, you can still make a very strong case for Bush being the best receiving RB in the NFL. Only Jackson had more catches (and not by much).

come on, give it up . . . Westbrook was better than Bush, and you know it . . .

moreover, Jackson was better last year, so Bush was #3 (at best) . . .

 

[Saints-Man]

My thoughts from the other thread re: Colston.Colston got 1,000 receiving yards as a rookie in 12 games. Counting playoffs, in 14 games Colston had 80/1156/8.In 12 regular season games, Colston had 1,038 yards, an average of 87 YPG. That's the most receiving yards per game by any wide receiver since the merger. Only Moss and Boldin topped 80 RYPG as rookies.That's incredibly rare. He's a stud. He was your number 1 fantasy WR through 10 weeks this year. He had a dominant rookie season, the likes of Moss, Boldin, Glenn, Galloway and Clayton. Moss and Boldin were/are top WRs; Glenn and Clayton had injury problems, and I think Galloway was an excellent and probably the most underrated receiver of this generation.I also think the 2006 Saints were more like the 1995 Seahawks or the 1998 Vikings than the 1995 Patriots or 2004 Bucs, making the comparisons to Moss and Galloway the best ones. Colston was on a team that had four different players top 650 receiving yards, and he still was dominant.

Those are excellent points, Chase. However, I was able to watch 12 of the Saints games last year and he is at best their 3rd offensive option. They use Bush as a threat first(whether run or pass), then power run with Deuce, and then use Colston. Remember, in Colston's absence Copper caught 7 passes for 135 yards in weeks 11 & 12( he was hurt early in the week 13 game). Copper is at best a journeyman type of WR and he too benifited from the opposing defenses keying on both Bush and McCallister. Also, Bush also caught 88 passses for 742 yards & 2 TDs. So, as a RB, Bush had more catches , but less yards and TDs. It is impressive that a RB was your leading pass receiver on a team with a Pro Bowl QB. Bush was able to do this with McCallister being the dominant rusher on the Saints. Colston was able to put up these numbers without any quality receiving options at either the other WR(Horn was injured most of the year) or TE. As the Saints improve these positions(whether this year or in following years), I think Colston's totals will stay where they are or drop a bit as the ball is spread around.So, if I could only keep one, it would be Bush. However, Colston is the type of player you win with in the NFL. He is a hard worker who does all he asked to do, including downfield blocking. I am very happy that both are part the the Saints organization. I just think Bush has more a shot at true greatness than Colston does.

 

[Saints-Man]

I think Chase is either fishing, or just in a small minority.

Bush has close to LT talent.

Colston might be Marvin Harrison, but I doubt it.

Personally, I'd take LT over Marvin.

Fair enough, but a Bush pick is based entirely on potential, right?Or do you think Bush was better than Colston last year?

Yes, I do. While the Saints would have suffered if they had lost either of them last year, it was HC Payton's excellent use of Bush(sometimes as a decoy) that oppened up the Saints offense and of course the perfect trigger man in Brees to take advantage of these schemes.I believe the Saints would not have been as explosive without Bush than without Colston. I think Colston benefits from Bush, and not the other way around. I arrive at this conclusion by watching the games and seeing all the different things that Bush did in the New Orleans offense. While Colston had a great year, even late in the year he was still facing single coverage.

I am glad both are Saints. I am not trying to diminish Colston's contributions last year in any way. I just think Bush's contributions were greater. Not only in numbers, but in the schemes it allowed the Saints to employ.

 

[Saints-Man]

Much easier to replace Colston than Bush. Not many players have his skill set.

Seems like a slam dunk to me. Just my $0.02.

Not many players have LaVar Arrington's skill set, or Roy Williams' skill set. That doesn't make them the best LB or SS in the league. Colston the football player is much better than Colston the athlete.

 

[Saints-Man]

....

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

My point isn't to debate semantics. It's that just classifying Bush as unique, versatile, well-rounded, rare or special doesn't make him great. Mike Vick is versatile and unique. So is Plaxico Burress. So is Ben Watson. And Ben Troupe. And Dan Klecko. That doesn't make them superstars. There's value in there, for sure, but it's not like every super-versatile player is better than every non super-versatile player.

I agree with this. Bush can not be considered great yet.

 

[Saints-Man]

When I look at Colston, I wonder about guys like Chris Chambers (883 yards, 18.4 ypr, 7 TD rookie season) or Andre Johnson (996 yards, 14.8 ypr, 4 TD). What do Chambers, Johnson, and Boldin have in common? None of them has been to the playoffs.

Colston had a great rookie season. I'm glad to have him. But even in the rookie season, Bush had more yardage and more TDs, and I would argue had a greater impact to the team than Colston did. And I view Colston as more of a situationally-effective receiver like Chambers than a true game-breaker.

Colston went to the playoffs last year. Colston's rookie year was quite a bit better than Johnson's or Chamber's rookie years. Colston was incredible last year.

Why don't you "wonder about guys like" Eric Metcalf, Gary Anderson or Terry Kirby when you look at Bush?

I don't understand this "Colston was a role player" shtick. He led the best offensive in his conference in receiving yards. He averaged more receiving yards per game than any rookie since the merger. What more did you want him to do?

Do you mean receiving yards per game? Because both Terry Glenn & TO each had more receiving yards total than Colston.

 

[CalBear]

Why does the second half of the season matter more than the first half?

We're talking about rookies. It was obvious that Bush was trying too hard early in the year, and his production improved once he calmed down and got some experience in the pros. You'd hope that rookies get better as they get more experience, right? (Oh, and those numbers include the playoffs, which do matter more).To put it another way; do you expect to ever see an 8-game stretch of Bush's career from here on out where he averages 2.6 yards per carry?

BTW, was Edgerrin James more valuable than Anquan Boldin last year? James had more total yards than him and scored more than him.

James touched the ball 4 times as often as Boldin, in addition to scoring more, gaining more yardage, and becoming the first 1000-yard Cardinals back in many years. Yes, I think it's obvious that he was more valuable than Boldin. In Arizona's 5 wins, Boldin had just 19 receptions for 292 yards; James averaged over 100 yards per game in Cardinal wins.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm not sure what the difference is between well-rounded and versatile. But either way, I think Barber is as versatile a RB as there is. Bush doesn't run well inside, he doesn't black, he's not as good a short-yardage runner.

He was also only a rookie. If you look at the two backs who compare most favorably to Bush, Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber, neither guy did squat as a rookie. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bush's best days may still be ahead of him. To conclude that he doesn't run well inside, doesn't block, and is not a good short-yardage runner is premature. He rushed for 16 TDs on 200 carries as a college senior. They weren't all 20+ yard runs. I think there's reason to believe that he'll develop into an all-around back just as Westbrook and Barber have.

No one doubts that Bush has an incredibly high ceiling. This thread is more about the lack of respect Colston gets. You claim that Bush was a rookie last year, but what about Colston averaging more receiving yards per game than any rookie wide receiver since 1960? Isn't that special?

Hey, that's great, but times are changing and it's becoming more and more common for rookie WRs to eclipse the 1,000 yard mark. In the salary cap era, some of these guys are thrust into action for lack of a better option. That's not to diminish his achievements. He had a great year. But your question was who would I rather have and it's still not close. To me, Colston is roughly equivalent to someone like Plaxico Burress. I'd much rather have Reggie Bush than Burress. Now maybe Colston will come out and tear up the league next year, but from where we stand right now, I'm going to side with Bush by a wide margin.

Ok, what makes you think Colston is someone like Burress and not someone like Cris Carter or Marvin Harrison or Jerry Rice? Burress had 273 receiving yards his rookie year. The best comparisons to Colston are Moss, Boldin and Galloway in terms of rookie success. That's pretty damn good company, no?

 

[Chase Stuart]

When I look at Colston, I wonder about guys like Chris Chambers (883 yards, 18.4 ypr, 7 TD rookie season) or Andre Johnson (996 yards, 14.8 ypr, 4 TD). What do Chambers, Johnson, and Boldin have in common? None of them has been to the playoffs.

Colston had a great rookie season. I'm glad to have him. But even in the rookie season, Bush had more yardage and more TDs, and I would argue had a greater impact to the team than Colston did. And I view Colston as more of a situationally-effective receiver like Chambers than a true game-breaker.

Colston went to the playoffs last year. Colston's rookie year was quite a bit better than Johnson's or Chamber's rookie years. Colston was incredible last year.

Why don't you "wonder about guys like" Eric Metcalf, Gary Anderson or Terry Kirby when you look at Bush?

I don't understand this "Colston was a role player" shtick. He led the best offensive in his conference in receiving yards. He averaged more receiving yards per game than any rookie since the merger. What more did you want him to do?

Do you mean receiving yards per game? Because both Terry Glenn & TO each had more receiving yards total than Colston.

I meant he was the leading receiver on the best offense. Sorry for the confusion.