Saints fans (1 Viewer)

[Saints-Man]

Ah, I understand.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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?

I don't think it's obvious that Bush was trying too hard early in the year. No, I don't expect Bush to have another stretch that's so ugly. I also don't think LT will rush for 30 TDs ever again in his career.

My only point was I see little to no utility in examining splits in general, and no utility when examining which was the better player last year. The first 8 games are just as, and sometimes more important, than the last 8 games. I have no preference whether my star player excels in the first half and is average in the second, or vice versa.

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.

Ok. We'll agree to disagree, then.

 

[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?

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.

I agree with all of this. And I've never said that I would rather have Colston than Bush. My original claim was that I thought Saints fans might prefer Colston to Bush. I think we can rule that one out, now. I also believe Colston and Bush are pretty similar in value. I don't really know which one I'd rather have if I was starting my own team.The only exception I'd take to your argument was the implication that being explosive is the same as being better. I agree that Bush makes the Saints explosive, but that's not necessarily the same thing as making them better. Curtis Martin didn't make the Jets explosive, but he helped them win a lot of games.

 

[CalBear]

Another point: The two games Colston missed, Bush had 330 total yards and 5 TDs. We don't have a measure for how Colston would have done without Bush, but Bush proved he could be a monster without Colston.

 

[LBH]

Another point: The two games Colston missed, Bush had 330 total yards and 5 TDs. We don't have a measure for how Colston would have done without Bush, but Bush proved he could be a monster without Colston.

wow, i didnt realize that. Pretty interesting

 

[JuSt CuZ]

Neither of them will win you a super bowl with out a solid team around them, and neither of them are the the first over all pick. Both of them will suck if drew goes down anyways!!!!!

JuSt CuZ i'M cHaMp

 

[trader jake]

Marion Barber III is more versatile than Reggie Bush. Barber can run outside, run inside, catch and block.

For all that is right in the world (and at FBG's) please stop this insanity Chase. I know it's a bit slow before the draft but this thread is embarrassing.I'll assume this is boredom run amok or a fishing trip Chase but I'll ask anyway: If you were an NFL GM and had a redo selection in last year's draft would you select Colston or Bush?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Marion Barber III is more versatile than Reggie Bush. Barber can run outside, run inside, catch and block.

For all that is right in the world (and at FBG's) please stop this insanity Chase.

Do you think Barber is not more versatile and well-rounded than Bush?

 

[trader jake]

That's what I thought.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

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.

Just to further expand on this point, in the two games Colston missed last year the Saints won 31-13 @ ATL and 34-10 against the 9ers, so their offense didn't really miss a beat.Granted, it's a small sample size and we have no measure of how they did without Bush since he didn't miss any games, but it's still worth noting.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

Just to further expand on this point, in the two games Colston missed last year the Saints won 31-13 @ ATL and 34-10 against the 9ers, so their offense didn't really miss a beat.Granted, it's a small sample size and we have no measure of how they did without Bush since he didn't miss any games, but it's still worth noting.

The Saints also lost to the Bengals in the other game Colston didn't play. They only scored 16 points, but did roll up a million yards.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

As a Saints fan, I'm really torn in this decisions because Colston was phenominal before the injury and still dominant afterwards.

Bush gives them such a unique weapon and makes other players so much better, so it is very tough to choose.

Colston didn't make such specatular plays towards the end of the year and Bush started to come on, so I'd guess a lot of fans would remember what was most recent, but no way is there a clear choice between the two.

 

[jurb26]

If Colston had been drafted in round 1 or 2 of the NFL draft and had half the hype or expectations surrounding him as Bush did then this question never would have been asked. Chase, I agree this thread has gone down the embarrassing road. Bush is a far superior. Hell, take away all that the guy can do from just lining up at RB and evaluate just what he can do as a pass catcher or lined up as a WR. Bush is almost as good a WR as Colston. Colston can't to any of the other things Bush can. This is not even close.

 

[JohnnyU]

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?

I think Colston sneaked up on a lot of teams last year. If teams start to roll coverage to Colston I don't think he will be nearly as effective and will struggle for separation due to his lack of speed. Yes, he will still be a viable possession type, but a lot of his success is due to single coverage IMO. If teams don't roll coverage to Colston I can see just as much success in 2007 as he had in 2006, and that might just happen considering the other weapons the Saints have that puts pressure on opposing defenses.

 

[LBH]

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?

I think Colston sneaked up on a lot of teams last year. If teams start to roll coverage to Colston I don't think he will be nearly as effective and will struggle for separation due to his lack of speed. Yes, he will still be a viable possession type, but a lot of his success is due to single coverage IMO. If teams don't roll coverage to Colston I can see just as much success in 2007 as he had in 2006, and that might just happen considering the other weapons the Saints have that puts pressure on opposing defenses.

I dont think teams were looking at Colston as the saints #2wr last year. Sure he took the league by surpise early but teams were recognizing that he was clearly the go to option at wr by mid season

 

[Thom Yorke]

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?

I think Colston sneaked up on a lot of teams last year. If teams start to roll coverage to Colston I don't think he will be nearly as effective and will struggle for separation due to his lack of speed. Yes, he will still be a viable possession type, but a lot of his success is due to single coverage IMO. If teams don't roll coverage to Colston I can see just as much success in 2007 as he had in 2006, and that might just happen considering the other weapons the Saints have that puts pressure on opposing defenses.

There seems to be a perception that Colston is slow...certainly, he's not a burner, but he ran a 4.51 near draft time last year. He's plenty fast enough.

 

[Thom Yorke]

As a Saints fan, I'm really torn in this decisions because Colston was phenominal before the injury and still dominant afterwards.

Bush gives them such a unique weapon and makes other players so much better, so it is very tough to choose.

Colston didn't make such specatular plays towards the end of the year and Bush started to come on, so I'd guess a lot of fans would remember what was most recent, but no way is there a clear choice between the two.

This is true, but one of Colston's best plays -- a gorgeous, diving end zone catch on 4th down against the Giants--came late in the season. Just an incredible play.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

I agree with all of this. And I've never said that I would rather have Colston than Bush. My original claim was that I thought Saints fans might prefer Colston to Bush. I think we can rule that one out, now. I also believe Colston and Bush are pretty similar in value. I don't really know which one I'd rather have if I was starting my own team.

The only exception I'd take to your argument was the implication that being explosive is the same as being better. I agree that Bush makes the Saints explosive, but that's not necessarily the same thing as making them better. Curtis Martin didn't make the Jets explosive, but he helped them win a lot of games.

Hmmm...then maybe I used the wrong term. With the exception of Bush, the Saints have no real home run threat. And, except for a punt return during the year and the long TD pass against Chicago in the playoffs, Bush didn't really make many long plays. The Saints weren't a team all year that could score points quickly(This is my impression from watching them play and not from stats). However, with Brees at the helm, they were very efficient and could move the ball on you with the right blend of weapons(credit goes to HC Payton on that). I don't really think the Saints offense in 2006 as explosive, but I viewed it as varied and one that efficiently exploited the matchup advantages from week to week.

I definitely agree with your point that an explosive offense is not neccesarily a good offense or an effective one. I think the term "explosive" when it comes to football is overused to the point where it is meaningless.

 

[Saints-Man]

Marion Barber III is more versatile than Reggie Bush. Barber can run outside, run inside, catch and block.

For all that is right in the world (and at FBG's) please stop this insanity Chase.

Do you think Barber is not more versatile and well-rounded than Bush?

At this point in their careers, I do think Barber is more versatile.