This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
.
That was enjoyable to watch.2300 + yards and 15 td's in 2 years and the guy is a bust.....please (add in 160 catches during that span)
I agree... Reggie = value right now. People are turning their backs on him after 1 bad season. Yeah, hes got ?? around him.. but what people w/ 2 yrs or less experience doesn't.
Bush averages 3.7 YPC. That's just not going to cut it for a RB that doesn't handle short yardage duties or tote the rock 25 times a game.
What happened to the "he's getting goal line carries?"
RB isn't a position that most players need three years to learn. Most of the best rbs have done very well by the end of year 2, if they have had the amount of touches that Bush has.
In 1.5 PPR leagues he'll be gold.Bush is really a WR in a RB's body and should be used as such. Bring back Deuce.
Those #'s are fine and all and thanks for the list, but you cannot overlook his involvement in the passing game, which is a MAJOR asset of his both in fantasy terms and NFL terms for the Saints. At this point, he is really a hybrid RB/WR. I know other RB's have caught a lot of passes like Westbrook and LT and SJax, but Reggie, so far, is just used more often in that role and it's almost become a primary role for him. I don't know if he can be a traditional RB in the sense of the word, but I think last year was the first time he's ever been asked to run like one. I think he improved throughout the course of the year last year in that role and I think the Saint's playcalling did as well. I just don't think they've exactly figured out how they want to use him and tried to be a little too cute in their playcalling up until the 2nd half the season. I agree that RB's shouldn't require a long learning curve, but this may be a slight exception. His role in 2006 was much like it was in college when he split time with Deuce and was very effective, esp. the 2nd half of the year. Last year, they gave him the full load when Deuce went down, but both poor O-line play and poor playcalling held him back at first. Couple that his first time trying to be a "traditional" RB and I'm not surprised he didn't do well. Then he got hurt.This year will be very telling, both in how they approach their current RB's (whether or not they cut Deuce, what they do with Pierre Thomas, the draft, etc.) and if they adjust their playcalling. I still think he CAN be a between-the-tackle RB but needs to stop trying to create a highlight reel on every carry. I saw hints of that in the 2nd half and am encouraged it's possible.I just don't think you can compare him to most any other RB because he is just used very differently (up to this point). Westbrook is someone that seemed to "get it" the last couple of years and has turned into a complete, elite RB. While his YPC was higher than Bush's earlier in his career, I don't think he ran even half as well as he does now. There is still plenty of room for improvement for Bush.
Disagree. He just catches a ton of dumpoffs, and does little with them. His yards per reception average was 5.5- which is just terrible. He had only 1 catch last year where he gained more than 20 yards (it went for 25), and only three other catches that went for 15 or more. I saw a stat while watching a game last year near the end of his season when it was mentioned that he had caught exactly one ball beyond ten yards of the line of scrimmage. So, yes, he does catch the ball a lot- but he is in no way shape or form a hybrid wr/rb.Edit to add: Westbrook in year two was a much more dynamic player. He had 11 tds on 154 touches on offense with 5.2 average on yards per run and 9.0 on yards per carry. He had 5 runs of 20+ yards and 5 catches of 20+ yards.
there's that man love for Reggie by Timmy. Did that highlight reel give you a stiffy?Did anyone notice that less than half of the plays were runs. And less than a quarter of the plays were runs between the tackles.
To compare "Bush"-like RB's...Marshall Faulk averaged less than 3.7 yards/carry after his first three seasons (3.9 yards/carry after two seasons).Tiki Barber averaged 3.7 yards/carry after his first three seasons (3.6 yards/carry after two seasons).
wow.. Chase is usually spot on w/ his stuff. I am very disappointed that he did not mention those 2.
Marshall Faulk had over 600 carries his first two years in the league. Barber had under 200. I don't think either are very strong comparisons. Faulk rushed for more than twice as many yards his first two years in the league than Bush. He's a good comparison to Bush only if Dan Marino's a good comparison for Derek Anderson.If you want to include Bush's receiving prowess, and you want to get Barber into the data set, let's limit it to:wow.. Chase is usually spot on w/ his stuff. I am very disappointed that he did not mention those 2.
Cherry-picking stats majorly dilutes the data set. I'm curious...how many RB's in NFL history have had 70+ receptions in their first two seasons?? For example, the NFL's #4 all-time leading rusher (Curtis Martin) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 76 receptions his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he had too many carries to "qualify". The NFL's #6 all-time leading rusher (Eric Dickerson) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 213 carries his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he did not have enough receptions to "qualify". The list goes on and on.I highly doubt anybody views Bush as a threat to ADP's #1 dynasty ranking. However, to completely dismiss him b/c of his yards/carry after his first two seasons is short-sided...Marshall Faulk had over 600 carries his first two years in the league. Barber had under 200. I don't think either are very strong comparisons. Faulk rushed for more than twice as many yards his first two years in the league than Bush. He's a good comparison to Bush only if Dan Marino's a good comparison for Derek Anderson.If you want to include Bush's receiving prowess, and you want to get Barber into the data set, let's limit it to:wow.. Chase is usually spot on w/ his stuff. I am very disappointed that he did not mention those 2.
between 3.42 and 3.92 YPC after two seasons
between 162 and 462 carries after two seasons
at least 70 receptions after two seasons
Reggie Bush
Tiki Barber
Mike Alstott
Terry Kirby
Edgar Bennett
Ronnie Harmon
Gary Anderson
James Jones
James Wilder
Earl Cooper
Joe Washington
Alvin Maxson
Vic Washington
Ron Johnson
Larry Smith
Jim Kiick
You're way off on Dickerson. Not sure who you mean, since only Greg Jones has had 213 carries through two seasons, and you obviously didn't mean him.There's a huge difference between Curtis Martin and Reggie Bush. Martin had more rushing yards each of his first two seasons than Bush did in his first two years combined. How is that all comparable? Getting a significant number of carries is a pretty good sign that a player is good.Cherry-picking stats majorly dilutes the data set. I'm curious...how many RB's in NFL history have had 70+ receptions in their first two seasons?? For example, the NFL's #4 all-time leading rusher (Curtis Martin) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 76 receptions his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he had too many carries to "qualify". The NFL's #6 all-time leading rusher (Eric Dickerson) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 213 carries his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he did not have enough receptions to "qualify". The list goes on and on.I highly doubt anybody views Bush as a threat to ADP's #1 dynasty ranking. However, to completely dismiss him b/c of his yards/carry after his first two seasons is short-sided...Marshall Faulk had over 600 carries his first two years in the league. Barber had under 200. I don't think either are very strong comparisons. Faulk rushed for more than twice as many yards his first two years in the league than Bush. He's a good comparison to Bush only if Dan Marino's a good comparison for Derek Anderson.If you want to include Bush's receiving prowess, and you want to get Barber into the data set, let's limit it to:wow.. Chase is usually spot on w/ his stuff. I am very disappointed that he did not mention those 2.
between 3.42 and 3.92 YPC after two seasons
between 162 and 462 carries after two seasons
at least 70 receptions after two seasons
Reggie Bush
Tiki Barber
Mike Alstott
Terry Kirby
Edgar Bennett
Ronnie Harmon
Gary Anderson
James Jones
James Wilder
Earl Cooper
Joe Washington
Alvin Maxson
Vic Washington
Ron Johnson
Larry Smith
Jim Kiick
...and history shows you could miss multiple Hall of Famers by doing so.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=304
You're way off on Dickerson. Not sure who you mean, since only Greg Jones has had 213 carries through two seasons, and you obviously didn't mean him.There's a huge difference between Curtis Martin and Reggie Bush. Martin had more rushing yards each of his first two seasons than Bush did in his first two years combined. How is that all comparable? Getting a significant number of carries is a pretty good sign that a player is good.Cherry-picking stats majorly dilutes the data set. I'm curious...how many RB's in NFL history have had 70+ receptions in their first two seasons?? For example, the NFL's #4 all-time leading rusher (Curtis Martin) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 76 receptions his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he had too many carries to "qualify". The NFL's #6 all-time leading rusher (Eric Dickerson) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 213 carries his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he did not have enough receptions to "qualify". The list goes on and on.I highly doubt anybody views Bush as a threat to ADP's #1 dynasty ranking. However, to completely dismiss him b/c of his yards/carry after his first two seasons is short-sided...Marshall Faulk had over 600 carries his first two years in the league. Barber had under 200. I don't think either are very strong comparisons. Faulk rushed for more than twice as many yards his first two years in the league than Bush. He's a good comparison to Bush only if Dan Marino's a good comparison for Derek Anderson.If you want to include Bush's receiving prowess, and you want to get Barber into the data set, let's limit it to:wow.. Chase is usually spot on w/ his stuff. I am very disappointed that he did not mention those 2.
between 3.42 and 3.92 YPC after two seasons
between 162 and 462 carries after two seasons
at least 70 receptions after two seasons
Reggie Bush
Tiki Barber
Mike Alstott
Terry Kirby
Edgar Bennett
Ronnie Harmon
Gary Anderson
James Jones
James Wilder
Earl Cooper
Joe Washington
Alvin Maxson
Vic Washington
Ron Johnson
Larry Smith
Jim Kiick
...and history shows you could miss multiple Hall of Famers by doing so.
I don't think I'm cherry picking the stats against Bush; I'm actually cherry picking them in his favor, by adding Barber to the data set. But a low number of carries and a low yards per carry average almost always indicate a running back that isn't very good at running.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=304
Yeah, I accidentally used Dickerson's final two seasons. My bad.How many RB's have had 70+ receptions after their first two seasons??You're way off on Dickerson. Not sure who you mean, since only Greg Jones has had 213 carries through two seasons, and you obviously didn't mean him.There's a huge difference between Curtis Martin and Reggie Bush. Martin had more rushing yards each of his first two seasons than Bush did in his first two years combined. How is that all comparable? Getting a significant number of carries is a pretty good sign that a player is good.Cherry-picking stats majorly dilutes the data set. I'm curious...how many RB's in NFL history have had 70+ receptions in their first two seasons?? For example, the NFL's #4 all-time leading rusher (Curtis Martin) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 76 receptions his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he had too many carries to "qualify". The NFL's #6 all-time leading rusher (Eric Dickerson) averaged 3.85 yards/carry and had 213 carries his first two seasons, but missed your list b/c he did not have enough receptions to "qualify". The list goes on and on.I highly doubt anybody views Bush as a threat to ADP's #1 dynasty ranking. However, to completely dismiss him b/c of his yards/carry after his first two seasons is short-sided...Marshall Faulk had over 600 carries his first two years in the league. Barber had under 200. I don't think either are very strong comparisons. Faulk rushed for more than twice as many yards his first two years in the league than Bush. He's a good comparison to Bush only if Dan Marino's a good comparison for Derek Anderson.If you want to include Bush's receiving prowess, and you want to get Barber into the data set, let's limit it to:wow.. Chase is usually spot on w/ his stuff. I am very disappointed that he did not mention those 2.
between 3.42 and 3.92 YPC after two seasons
between 162 and 462 carries after two seasons
at least 70 receptions after two seasons
Reggie Bush
Tiki Barber
Mike Alstott
Terry Kirby
Edgar Bennett
Ronnie Harmon
Gary Anderson
James Jones
James Wilder
Earl Cooper
Joe Washington
Alvin Maxson
Vic Washington
Ron Johnson
Larry Smith
Jim Kiick
...and history shows you could miss multiple Hall of Famers by doing so.
I don't think I'm cherry picking the stats against Bush; I'm actually cherry picking them in his favor, by adding Barber to the data set. But a low number of carries and a low yards per carry average almost always indicate a running back that isn't very good at running.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=304
You say that like it matters.Why is a reception, by default, considered a good thing?I would be impressed by the large number of receptions Bush has had if it had translated into a large number of yards.But, playing in a role as one of the focal points of his teams offense (on a team known for its good to great offense), Bush has only put up 2300 yards in two years. That isn't that great.
No offense, but I disagree this is a good post, for these reasons:1. To cite two examples of players who started with low ypc and became All Pro caliber feature RBs is to cite two outliers... which proves nothing.2. Faulk may have had a similar ypc, but their first 3 years are not at all comparable. Faulk was a workhorse, with 801 carries in 45 games over those first 3 seasons, and he scored 29 rushing TDs. (And he was arguably just as effective a receiver over that span - he caught fewer passes than Bush, though still a lot - more than 50 passes per year - but scored at a similar or better rate and averaged more yards per catch.)
They are indeed outliers. But Bush is talented enough to become another outlier. When you look at that list, you don't see many #2 overall picks. I'm not saying he's destined to improve, but I think it might be a little short-sighted to use his low YPC during his 1st 2 yrs as a reason that he will never be successful. The fact that Faulk had many more carries is actually worse, I think. But, because of how talented he was, he was never in danger of losing his job despite a low YPC. I see Bush the same way. Pulling up a list of virtual unknowns that fit his #'s does not prove much, IMO. His situation is far different than most of those guys.No offense, but I disagree this is a good post, for these reasons:1. To cite two examples of players who started with low ypc and became All Pro caliber feature RBs is to cite two outliers... which proves nothing.2. Faulk may have had a similar ypc, but their first 3 years are not at all comparable. Faulk was a workhorse, with 801 carries in 45 games over those first 3 seasons, and he scored 29 rushing TDs. (And he was arguably just as effective a receiver over that span - he caught fewer passes than Bush, though still a lot - more than 50 passes per year - but scored at a similar or better rate and averaged more yards per catch.)
That's not a list of unknowns. There are some decent backs on there, and some very highly rated ones coming out of college.And having many carries and a below avg YPC average has been shown as an indicator of success. So it's much worse for Bush to have 160 carries a year than it was for Faulk and his 270. Lamont Warren was worse than Faulk those years, and the Colts OL was pretty bad. McAlister, Stecker and Thomas have all had some success in NO running the ball. It's not like the Saints have a bad OL.They are indeed outliers. But Bush is talented enough to become another outlier. When you look at that list, you don't see many #2 overall picks. I'm not saying he's destined to improve, but I think it might be a little short-sighted to use his low YPC during his 1st 2 yrs as a reason that he will never be successful. The fact that Faulk had many more carries is actually worse, I think. But, because of how talented he was, he was never in danger of losing his job despite a low YPC. I see Bush the same way. Pulling up a list of virtual unknowns that fit his #'s does not prove much, IMO. His situation is far different than most of those guys.No offense, but I disagree this is a good post, for these reasons:1. To cite two examples of players who started with low ypc and became All Pro caliber feature RBs is to cite two outliers... which proves nothing.2. Faulk may have had a similar ypc, but their first 3 years are not at all comparable. Faulk was a workhorse, with 801 carries in 45 games over those first 3 seasons, and he scored 29 rushing TDs. (And he was arguably just as effective a receiver over that span - he caught fewer passes than Bush, though still a lot - more than 50 passes per year - but scored at a similar or better rate and averaged more yards per catch.)
