Who's better? Why? (1 Viewer)

[cubd8]

Michael Bush has been very good when given the chance to play in Oakland.

This season, he is averaging 4.3 YPC, 5 TD's, 599 yards heading into his game against Chicago on Sunday.

Since getting full-time carries, he has averaged 5.8, 5.1, 5.2, and 3.6 YPC.

He has also put up good receiving numbers this season, 16 catches for 249 yards.

Last season, he had 4 games where he had more than 20 carries, and he had 4.0, 2.4, 4.1 and 5.5 YPC, and brok 95 yards in 3 of those 4 games with 3 TD's.

He was a 2nd round pick (I believe) so it's not like he didn't have talent coming out of college.

As for McFadden, he's averaging 5.4 YPC, 4 TD's and 614 yards. In his 6 games of meaningful touches, 4 games had YPC of 4.6 or greater (including 9.0 and 6.8) and only 2 games where he was held in check under 4.0 YPC.

He's had 3 runs of 40+ in these games as well.

His injury history is a concern with only 6 games played this season, 3 missed games last season and a decent share of injuries in both 2008 and 2009.

So, simples questions - who is better and why?

Factor everything into this question - the durability, big play ability, versility, etc.

 

[The Godfather]

Mcfadden is a little better because he can create more big plays while still pushing the pile. He made jason campbell better because teams hade to worry even more about the run. Bush can do the same thing, and is a little better in the battering ram role, but he doesn't have as much big play threat.

If they were on different teams with lesser offensive lines, mcfadden would be more successful by a mile, but neither would look as good as they do in oakland this year.

If I could have either for a cheap contract, id take mcfadden. If I could have either, but had to franchise tag them, id be more likely to take bush, because I couldn't afford the injury risk.

 

[need2know]

bush is better because he actually plays