PDA

View Full Version : Players that Scott Wright Overrated


whokevjones
02-15-2011, 08:15 AM
I respect Scott Wright's scouting ability and his football knowledge more than any other perso, so I mean this with no disrespect. I was just wondering some of the players in the past few years that Scott had a very high grade on in the early rounds that did not pan out. For example, I think he was high on Robert Ayers. If you could give some reasons why he liked them and a guess why they didn't pan out too (defensive scheme) that'd be great too.

Scott Wright
02-15-2011, 08:41 AM
Oh, this should be a fun thread for me! Here come the ghosts of my past! :o

For the record, I definitely wasn't that high on Robert Ayers. I gave Ayers the benefit of the doubt and rated him as a late first rounder based on his performance as a senior and at the Senior Bowl. However, the concern was that he was a "paycheck" player who only turned it on when he saw the dollar signs. Based on his final year, Ayers was a Top 10 pick. Based on the first three years of his career, Ayers was a mid-rounder at best.

FUNBUNCHER
02-15-2011, 08:44 AM
Scott ranks 'em, he doesn't coach em up!!lol

Sniper
02-15-2011, 08:52 AM
Based on his final year, Ayers was a Top 10 pick.

Really? He had a decent amount of tackles for loss (15.5), but he had a measly three sacks all season and all came against mediocre to bad teams (One against Mississippi State, two against Vanderbilt). I'd be hard-pressed to remember a UT game that year where I thought, "Wow, this kid is a stud," and it seemed like he was somewhat limited athletically. Fast forward two years later, and he's got 1.5 sacks and doesn't do much of anything. If you can't rush the passer in college, your odds aren't very good in the pros.

BuddyCHRIST
02-15-2011, 09:11 AM
Not many guys that weren't consensus highly ranked guys, but Brady Quinn at 2 overall stands out, though I had him ranked similarly.

A Perfect Score
02-15-2011, 09:15 AM
Really? He had a decent amount of tackles for loss (15.5), but he had a measly three sacks all season and all came against mediocre to bad teams (One against Mississippi State, two against Vanderbilt). I'd be hard-pressed to remember a UT game that year where I thought, "Wow, this kid is a stud," and it seemed like he was somewhat limited athletically. Fast forward two years later, and he's got 1.5 sacks and doesn't do much of anything. If you can't rush the passer in college, your odds aren't very good in the pros.

Don't forget he gained alot of steam at the Senior Bowl with a dominating week as well, and we all know just how quickly that can fast track you into the first round.

TACKLE
02-15-2011, 09:35 AM
Really? He had a decent amount of tackles for loss (15.5), but he had a measly three sacks all season and all came against mediocre to bad teams (One against Mississippi State, two against Vanderbilt). I'd be hard-pressed to remember a UT game that year where I thought, "Wow, this kid is a stud," and it seemed like he was somewhat limited athletically. Fast forward two years later, and he's got 1.5 sacks and doesn't do much of anything. If you can't rush the passer in college, your odds aren't very good in the pros.

He looked great against Bama. He was making plays all over the field and gave Andre Smith all he could handle. Not that that changes what you had to say, but he did standout in that game.

Captain Canuck
02-15-2011, 09:43 AM
Brady Quinn and Jimmy Clausen

ElectricEye
02-15-2011, 09:51 AM
I thought Ayers was pretty good his Senior year even without the numbers. I really didn't think he was a good value at 18, but there was talk he could have gone even higher out there at the time. Think this discussion would be a little bit different if the Broncos had run a 4-3 the past few years. Maybe not completely different, but OLB really is not a good fit for him at all.

AntoinCD
02-15-2011, 10:59 AM
if that was an honest question, you can find everything you need here:

http://www.draftcountdown.com/sub/Archives.php

Scott how did you miss so badly in 2008 with Danny Woodhead and BenJarvus Green-Ellis? 30 and 32 in the RBs. Come on it was clear as day that they were going to be stars ;)

Halsey
02-15-2011, 11:34 AM
Here are some that Scott, and most of the rest of us, appear wrong about:

Tim Couch
LaVar Arrington
Courtney Brown
David Terrell
Joey Harrington
Charles Rodgers
Robert Gallery
Alex Smith
Reggie Bush
Brady Quinn
Vernon Gholston
Andre Smtih

Scott looks very good when you look at his overall rankings, however.

Roddoliver
02-15-2011, 11:38 AM
Ayers is a 4-3 DE struggling as a 3-4 OLB. But he is not a very good player. He does not have a good variety of moves, using an ineffective bull rush most of the time. And he has a very slow first step. Maybe he will improve in his more natural position, but he wanted to be a LB, got the oppotunity and failed.

djp
02-15-2011, 11:39 AM
Brady Quinn was one for sure.

Scott Wright
02-15-2011, 11:48 AM
Here are some that Scott, and most of the rest of us, appear wrong about:

Tim Couch
LaVar Arrington
Courtney Brown
David Terrell
Joey Harrington
Charles Rodgers
Robert Gallery
Alex Smith
Reggie Bush
Brady Quinn
Vernon Gholston
Andre Smtih

Scott looks very good when you look at his overall rankings, however.

I kind of count Tim Couch as a win for me considering he was the #1 overall pick and I had him rated as a mid first rounder. Arrington was a very good NFL player before injuries got him. I don't count Reggie Bush as a bust either. One thing that haunts me is Cortland Finnegan, who I didn't even have in my rankings and he is now one of the better cornerbacks in the league.

Halsey
02-15-2011, 12:05 PM
I kind of count Tim Couch as a win for me considering he was the #1 overall pick and I had him rated as a mid first rounder. Arrington was a very good NFL player before injuries got him. I don't count Reggie Bush as a bust either. One thing that haunts me is Cortland Finnegan, who I didn't even have in my rankings and he is now one of the better cornerbacks in the league.

I can see an argument for Couch, but I still say you were wrong about Arrington and Bush. Neither of those guys have lived up to being rated the top players in their respective Drafts. I totally bought into Arrington at the time, but I never understood why so many people expected Bush to be a great player in the NFL. He's a WR playing RB. His lack of production as a runner and struggles with injuries aren't just bad luck.

Scott Wright
02-15-2011, 12:09 PM
I can see an argument for Couch, but I still say you were wrong about Arrington and Bush. Neither of those guys have lived up to being rated the top players in their respective Drafts. I totally bought into Arrington at the time, but I never understood why so many people expected Bush to be a great player in the NFL. He's a WR playing RB. His lack of production as a runner and struggles with injuries aren't just bad luck.

I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.

bigbluedefense
02-15-2011, 12:11 PM
I remember thinking Brady Quinn was the next Tom Brady. I don't think I ever was THAT wrong about a qb prospect ever.

regoob2
02-15-2011, 12:24 PM
Malcolm Kelly and Limas Sweed but I was high on them as well.

Crickett
02-15-2011, 12:35 PM
I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.

Are you kidding? People didn't peg Reggie Bush as an elite starting running back, they pegged him as one of the all time greats.


There were people proclaiming him (not actual scouts obviously) as the best running back prospect ever (or at least since O.J. Simpson) and one of the best prospects anyone had ever seen. Ranking him with draft prospects of the prior ten years and balking at the mention of Ryan Leaf because after all, he was drafted second.

I've been following the draft closely for about eight years and was at least aware of it for the seven years prior to that.

In that time, I have never seen a prospect as incredibly hyped as Reggie Bush.

Not Palmer, not Peyton (not after Tennessee lost to Nebraska anyway), not Eli, not Megatron, no one.

TonyGfortheTD
02-15-2011, 12:58 PM
Really? He had a decent amount of tackles for loss (15.5), but he had a measly three sacks all season and all came against mediocre to bad teams (One against Mississippi State, two against Vanderbilt). I'd be hard-pressed to remember a UT game that year where I thought, "Wow, this kid is a stud," and it seemed like he was somewhat limited athletically. Fast forward two years later, and he's got 1.5 sacks and doesn't do much of anything. If you can't rush the passer in college, your odds aren't very good in the pros.

There's a lot more to determining a players worth than sack count.

Halsey
02-15-2011, 01:18 PM
I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.

So if I told you 5 years ago that Reggie Bush would have 33 total TDs and around 5,000 total yards after 5 years in the league, you wouldn't be at least a little surprised by his lack of production?

wonderbredd24
02-15-2011, 01:35 PM
I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.
You know I appreciate the fact that no one is going to bat 1.000 and there will be big hits and big misses, but you had Reggie Bush rated as the #1 overall player in the entire 2006 draft. If all you envisioned was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role, there had to be a ton of players you would have rated higher purely on their eventual contributions. D'Brickashaw Ferguson had the tools to be at the very least a decent pass protecting left tackle. That alone would be worth more than what you had Bush bringing to the proverbial table.

2006 was a nightmare for draftniks, NFL teams and the players.

1. Reggie Bush, RB, Southern Cal
4. Matt Leinart, QB, Southern Cal
7. Vince Young, QB, Texas
8. Michael Huff, S, Texas
11. Winston Justice, OT, Southern Cal
13. Ernie Sims. OLB, Florida State
14. Jimmy Williams, CB, Virginia Tech
19. Chad Jackson, WR, Florida
20. Tye Hill, CB, Clemson
22. Bobby Carpenter, OLB, Ohio State
23. Lendale White, RB, Southern Cal
27. Daniel Bullocks, S, Nebraska
28. Jason Allen, S, Tennessee
31. Leonard Pope, TE, Georgia
37. Darnell Bing, S, Southern Cal

Good God you were sucking down the USC Kool-Aid. Winston Justice might be the best of the group.

Sniper
02-15-2011, 01:41 PM
There's a lot more to determining a players worth than sack count.

Yup, there are. Unfortunately, all of the other first-round prospects seem to be able to rush the passer and do other things.

ElectricEye
02-15-2011, 02:21 PM
Yup, there are. Unfortunately, all of the other first-round prospects seem to be able to rush the passer and do other things.
Sack totals aren't always indicative of how active a pass rusher you are. Ayers was moved around a lot at Tennessee and got significant looks at defensive tackle and that hurt his sack totals a bit. He still beat his man with regularity his Senior year.

BuddyCHRIST
02-15-2011, 02:21 PM
I tend to agree with what everyone else has said about Bush, I'm a Saints fan and he is just not a great player by any means. He's a pretty good weapon to have, but honestly he's been a guy who if you picked up in the 4th round he would have been a decent value. But he's barely a number 2 back, much less a guy who splits time. His actual running ability has regressed since his rookie year and right now about all he is, is an injury prone return man.

To say he's not a bust at number 2 overall and all the hype is insane.

SolidGold
02-15-2011, 02:32 PM
I remember when Bush was being compared to Gale Sayers...

CashmoneyDrew
02-15-2011, 03:46 PM
Robert Ayers was great his senior year and TitanHope and I were even hyping him before his SR year started because he had shown flashes as a rotation/backup up until then.
The way Ayers was used his senior year didn't allow him to build up a lot of sack totals. Think of it how Eric Berry was used his JR year were he wasn't allowed to build up his stats as much as his first two years.
Robert Ayers is woefully miscast in a 3-4 and should show steady improvement if the Broncos move back to a 4-3.

brasho
02-15-2011, 05:07 PM
Oh, this should be a fun thread for me! Here come the ghosts of my past! :o

For the record, I definitely wasn't that high on Robert Ayers. I gave Ayers the benefit of the doubt and rated him as a late first rounder based on his performance as a senior and at the Senior Bowl. However, the concern was that he was a "paycheck" player who only turned it on when he saw the dollar signs. Based on his final year, Ayers was a Top 10 pick. Based on the first three years of his career, Ayers was a mid-rounder at best.

Yeah, Mayock loved him... I couldn't see the reason. Mayock said he was an underachiever that came on as a senior... a senior season in which I failed to see where he really came on.

brasho
02-15-2011, 05:10 PM
I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.

I said from the start about Reggie Bush that he would be another Darrin Nelson... and after 5 years... I just don't see it. At this point, Reggie Bush has performed like a 2nd rounder at best.

brasho
02-15-2011, 05:12 PM
Scott how did you miss so badly in 2008 with Danny Woodhead and BenJarvus Green-Ellis? 30 and 32 in the RBs. Come on it was clear as day that they were going to be stars ;)

A lot of people on the old buccaneers.com message board really liked Danny Woodhead... particularly Mary Jane Watson, whomever she was. It was puzzling to me how a guy that productive (even at Chadron St.) with his stocky build and fantastic measurables could go so unnoticed at the time.

brasho
02-15-2011, 05:15 PM
Malcolm Kelly and Limas Sweed but I was high on them as well.

Seriously, Malcolm Kelly more than any other had a million red flags on him. that horrible attitude at this pro day, his pathetic 40 times, the excuses that followed, and then the extensive history of knee injuries. I had that guy on the Terrence Cody area of my draft board.

TonyGfortheTD
02-15-2011, 06:06 PM
A lot of people on the old buccaneers.com message board really liked Danny Woodhead... particularly Mary Jane Watson, whomever she was. It was puzzling to me how a guy that productive (even at Chadron St.) with his stocky build and fantastic measurables could go so unnoticed at the time.

I think most, if not all of us, were amazed he didn't get drafted at all.

NotRickJames
02-16-2011, 12:49 AM
I don't consider Couch a bust.

He did wonders with what he had to work with in Cleveland.

tjsunstein
02-16-2011, 01:04 AM
Look who he had rated first in 2005. What a joke! Just kidding.

TitanHope
02-16-2011, 01:18 AM
Robert Ayers was great his senior year and TitanHope and I were even hyping him before his SR year started because he had shown flashes as a rotation/backup up until then.
The way Ayers was used his senior year didn't allow him to build up a lot of sack totals. Think of it how Eric Berry was used his JR year were he wasn't allowed to build up his stats as much as his first two years.
Robert Ayers is woefully miscast in a 3-4 and should show steady improvement if the Broncos move back to a 4-3.

*fist pound*

Also, a 4-3 LE going to 3-4 OLB in the pros doesn't spell success. I think he'll bounce back this year now that he's in a proper front.

BigBanger
02-16-2011, 01:31 AM
I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=related

So you knew the guy was going to be mediocre and still ranked him 1st overall? Now I feel better for just being flat out wrong about the guy.

Scott Wright
02-16-2011, 01:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=related

So you knew the guy was going to be mediocre and still ranked him 1st overall? Now I feel better for just being flat out wrong about the guy.

I don't think Reggie Bush is mediocre...

In fact, Bush is one of the two or three best at what he does. Also, a lot of what Bush provides doesn't necessarily show up in stat sheets. The Saints entire offense is different when he's out.

BigBanger
02-16-2011, 01:58 AM
I don't think Reggie Bush is mediocre...

In fact, Bush is one of the two or three best at what he does. Also, a lot of what Bush provides doesn't necessarily show up in stat sheets. The Saints entire offense is different when he's out.
I didn't know people still said that. I thought everyone stopped defending him after they won a SB with Bush on the sidelines for a great majority of the season.

Scott Wright
02-16-2011, 02:17 AM
I didn't know people still said that. I thought everyone stopped defending him after they won a SB with Bush on the sidelines for a great majority of the season.

Are you kidding? Bush was big in the playoffs and a key to the Saints winning the Super Bowl.

Flyboy
02-16-2011, 02:32 AM
I didn't know people still said that. I thought everyone stopped defending him after they won a SB with Bush on the sidelines for a great majority of the season.

LOL. I know this thread / forum is full of Reggie Bush bashers (which it has consistently been full of but I digress), but seriously? How about how big he came up against the Cardinals in the Divisional Game? Reggie Bush has definitely underperformed in regards to where he was selected in the draft, but people making him out to be just some bum with no talent is asinine. He creates incredible match-up problems for opposing defenses and plays a vital role into how Sean Payton likes to run the offense.

Halsey
02-16-2011, 05:43 AM
Even if you think Bush is an elite player, he's missed 20 games in 5 seasons. I didn't look to see if he's missed any playoff games. Again, it's not bad luck that he's missed those games. He's not built to be a RB. He'd probably be better off if he pulled an Eric Metcalf and became a WR.

BigBanger
02-16-2011, 06:34 AM
Are you kidding? Bush was big in the playoffs and a key to the Saints winning the Super Bowl.
He had a long TD run against Arizona. They won by 30. Other than that? He's a check down back that provides an exciting play only when he's jumping over people into the endzone from the 5 yard line, which is pretty rare. I don't think he was much of a key to winning the SB. We obviously have a different view of what a playmaker actually is.

Tracy Porter? That was a key to the Saints winning. Drew Brees utilizing the short passing game to substitute for no running game? That was a key. Recovering an onside kick at the start of the half and taking one possession away from Peyton Manning? That was a key. Dwight Freeny not being able to play for almost 3 QTs? That was a key. Reggie Bush catching a couple check downs? Really?

LOL. I know this thread / forum is full of Reggie Bush bashers (which it has consistently been full of but I digress), but seriously? How about how big he came up against the Cardinals in the Divisional Game? Reggie Bush has definitely underperformed in regards to where he was selected in the draft, but people making him out to be just some bum with no talent is asinine. He creates incredible match-up problems for opposing defenses and plays a vital role into how Sean Payton likes to run the offense.
They won by 30 points.

The part in BOLD is all I'm saying. He wasn't close to being worth a top 3 pick. Simple as that. To say otherwise is a complete joke, which I refer back to Billy Madison.

He's not a bum. He's a major disappointment. A MAJOR ONE. No one, who thought he was the best player in the draft (right here), imagined him being a 3rd down back that catches some short passes and makes some minimal gains in the running game. He's a ******* backup RB. You don't take backup RBs in the top 3 and you don't consider them one of the best prospects of all-time. He was supposed to be a superstar. Not a guy his own organization wants to trade because they feel he's getting paid too much TO BE A ******* BACKUP RB!!!! Oh my gosh, he had a 45 yard TD run in a route against Arizona... IN THE PLAYOFFS!!!!! Stop the ******* presses.


He's the 4th best RB from his own class. He went #2 overall. That's a bust. Case closed.

Black Bolt
02-16-2011, 08:51 AM
I can see an argument for Couch, but I still say you were wrong about Arrington and Bush. Neither of those guys have lived up to being rated the top players in their respective Drafts. I totally bought into Arrington at the time, but I never understood why so many people expected Bush to be a great player in the NFL. He's a WR playing RB. His lack of production as a runner and struggles with injuries aren't just bad luck.

He was not wrong about Arrington IMO. Arrington had injuries, but dominated for a short while. Everyone accept for me and McShay as wrong on Gholston.

Black Bolt
02-16-2011, 08:53 AM
LOL. I know this thread / forum is full of Reggie Bush bashers (which it has consistently been full of but I digress), but seriously? How about how big he came up against the Cardinals in the Divisional Game? Reggie Bush has definitely underperformed in regards to where he was selected in the draft, but people making him out to be just some bum with no talent is asinine. He creates incredible match-up problems for opposing defenses and plays a vital role into how Sean Payton likes to run the offense.

He's not a bum, but he's not even close justifying his pick and never will be. He's not even a reliable starter for crying out loud.

nofalcons10
02-16-2011, 08:53 AM
Reggie bush caught 90 passes as a rookie and was our jermichael finely-type threat threat that year. If we had the pick to make again that year i would do it again in a heartbeat, but bush's numbers have declined each year since 2006 and i think that he can be replaced with a guy like randall cobb or kealoa pilares as an underneath pass-catcher.

The saints missed chris ivory more than reggie bush and pierre thomas last year so expect them to take a running back high in the draft. We can bring in almost anybody to catch screens and short passes but we need a durable running back to place us back in the top #10 in rushing again and to make brees better at play-action like he was in 2009.

nofalcons10
02-16-2011, 09:13 AM
The jury is still out on whether or not Gholston is a bust as a full-time 4-3 DE, right nix?

;-)

I for one can't wait until the jets cut him loose.

Sniper
02-16-2011, 09:17 AM
Reggie bush caught 90 passes as a rookie and was our jermichael finely-type threat threat that year..

How can you compare a RB to a TE? That doesn't make any sense.

nofalcons10
02-16-2011, 09:25 AM
How can you compare a RB to a TE? That doesn't make any sense.

intermediate receiving threat, perhaps...

before we ever got shockey, reggie bush and billy miller were the only guys that brees had to throw to underneath.

Scott Wright
02-16-2011, 09:26 AM
If Reggie Bush was on the open market he'd have a line of teams waiting to sign him.

thebow305
02-16-2011, 09:30 AM
Brady Quinn and Jimmy Clausen

This. I'm still dumbfounded that Scott had Clausen ranked ahead of Bradford for the entire process and never wavered.

bitonti
02-16-2011, 09:33 AM
the draft is real easy with the benefit of hindsight.

PossibleCabbage
02-16-2011, 09:44 AM
If Reggie Bush was on the open market he'd have a line of teams waiting to sign him.

We may get to find out, if free agency starts in a few months.

Scott Wright
02-16-2011, 10:01 AM
This. I'm still dumbfounded that Scott had Clausen ranked ahead of Bradford for the entire process and never wavered.

A big part of that was my being conservative.

Obviously there were questions about Bradford transitioning to a pro style offense, but I always felt he was smart enough and capable of doing it. However, the health issues worried me and still do. Multiple injuries to a throwing shoulder and has already had it surgically repaired... Right now it looks like Bradford is going to have a great career but it is only one year. We'll see if he can stay healthy over the long-haul. I still have my doubts. I'm not giving up on Clausen by any stretch either. Go look at John Elway's stats as a rookie. 47% completion percentage, 7 TD's to 14 INT's, 55 QB Rating, etc. I'm not saying Clausen is going to be Elway, but that is a prime example of how patience is needed with young quarterbacks no matter how good they are.

MaxV
02-16-2011, 10:19 AM
If Reggie Bush was on the open market he'd have a line of teams waiting to sign him.

Scott,

The one thing about that draft that puzzled me then, and it still does, was the big rating difference between Reggie Bush and Maurice Jones-Drew. And clearly, you weren't the only one with that opinion. I believe that every NFL team passed on MJD at least once.

Both were explosive in college. But MJD was always better at breaking tackles then Bush. Bush might be taller, but he is build like a WR, while MJD is a tank.

I've stated before that draft that MJD was VERY underrated and that height wasn't an advantage for a RB.

Iamcanadian
02-16-2011, 10:39 AM
Scott,

The one thing about that draft that puzzled me then, and it still does, was the big rating difference between Reggie Bush and Maurice Jones-Drew. And clearly, you weren't the only one with that opinion. I believe that every NFL team passed on MJD at least once.

Both were explosive in college. But MJD was always better at breaking tackles then Bush. Bush might be taller, but he is build like a WR, while MJD is a tank.

I've stated before that draft that MJD was VERY underrated and that height wasn't an advantage for a RB.

MJD had a poor senior year and that is why he slipped in the draft. If I remember right and its has been awhile, but I seem to remember that his YPC was average at best for a college RB. There was no way his college career indicated the talent he had.

yourfavestoner
02-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Swore I was going to stop posting at work but...

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7146/bushp.png

Reggie Bush is exactly who I thought he'd be in the NFL, too. A wide receiver playing tailback, outperformed by people drafted much later, and unable to stay on the field. His production could be replaced or even exceeded by a fourth round back like Darren Sproles.



Good God you were sucking down the USC Kool-Aid. Winston Justice might be the best of the group.

And I gladly fought it every step of the way. None of the skill position players (sans Steve Smith) on that team had translatable NFL skills. Like I've said before, Bush and Leinart should hand their Heisman trophies back to that godly offensive line - three of which who became very solid-to-good NFL starters (Baker, Justice, and Kalil). They absolutely gashed defensive fronts in the Wack-10.


I don't mean to pick on Scott because we all have had our fair share of both misses and good calls. Trying to rationalize Reggie Bush as a good draft pick, deserving of the hype, and saying that other stupid teams giving him a fat contract justifies him being a good player is just unacceptable, though.

Truth be told, he's lucky he went to the Saints because he won a Superbowl there and got thrown a bunch of dumpoff passes his rookie year so people keep trying to make excuses for him and call him a successful pick. It makes me want to break things.

Iamcanadian
02-16-2011, 11:55 AM
I don't think Reggie Bush is mediocre...

In fact, Bush is one of the two or three best at what he does. Also, a lot of what Bush provides doesn't necessarily show up in stat sheets. The Saints entire offense is different when he's out.

I totally agree, Reggie Bush creates tremendous open space for New Orleans other receivers and really makes their offense tick.

Vox Populi
02-16-2011, 12:02 PM
The best Reggie Bush has been was the start of the '08 season before he got injured. But even then, most of his damage was in the return game. He had 3 return touchdowns through 6 games and was averaging 26.9 yards per punt return. Rushing, he had 2 touchdowns, averaged 3.06 yards per run on 78 attempts. Receiving he was solid with 8.8 yards per catch on 41 receptions and 2 touchdowns

Through 6 games he managed 7 touchdowns and 869 All purpose yards on 129 touches. Thats the kind of stuff we all expected out of Bush but outside of that 6 game stretch his entire career has been injury riddled and ordinary. I'll agree that he does keep defenses honest, but for that to be the most dangerous thing about your #2 overall pick its leaving a lot to be desired. I like Reggie, and hope he can be more consistent and healthy because he can be an explosive and exciting player at times, but right now I can't disagree that he has been a disappointment.

I don't consider him a bust, that word gets thrown around way too lightly, it puts Bush on the same level as Troy Williamson in one word which isn't at all true. He does contribute a solid amount to the Saints team and hasn't been a liability for them or set their franchise back at all. Who should they have picked? The average A.J. Hawk who has lived up to his draft slot as much as Bush has? They weren't going to take a QB, they weren't going to reach for Vernon Davis or Michael Huff, they weren't going to take D'Brick with a great LT on their roster already. Bush was the right pick at the time as far as I'm concerned and unless you go all the way into the deep past 20s in round one and further back in the draft, the only guys that they might trade Bush for right now are Ngata, Greenway and Tamba Hali.

Bush hasn't lived up to his hype, he is a solid contributor, not worth the #2 pick in hindsight, but still is worth more to the Saints than anyone else they might have considered for the pick. Disappointment, but not a bust at all. If you want to go with some real hardcore hindsight he should have been used the same way the Vikings use Percy Harvin from the get go.

PossibleCabbage
02-16-2011, 12:27 PM
I don't think it's right to call Bush a "bust" since he's still a valued contributor to the team that drafted him, but I do think it's fair to call him a "colossal disappointment so far" considering that people were throwing around Gale Sayers and Marshall Faulk comparisons before the draft.

The whole first round of that draft, though, was a minefield. Ridiculously hyped at a lot of glamorous positions, and the best player in the whole draft by far turns out to be a defensive tackle taken at #12 while none of the first round quarterbacks will be with the team who drafted him within 4 years of the draft.

I mean, I don't mean to rip on Scott for overrating Bush... virtually everybody overrated Bush.

ninerfan
02-16-2011, 12:29 PM
A big part of that was my being conservative.

Obviously there were questions about Bradford transitioning to a pro style offense, but I always felt he was smart enough and capable of doing it. However, the health issues worried me and still do. Multiple injuries to a throwing shoulder and has already had it surgically repaired... Right now it looks like Bradford is going to have a great career but it is only one year. We'll see if he can stay healthy over the long-haul. I still have my doubts. I'm not giving up on Clausen by any stretch either. Go look at John Elway's stats as a rookie. 47% completion percentage, 7 TD's to 14 INT's, 55 QB Rating, etc. I'm not saying Clausen is going to be Elway, but that is a prime example of how patience is needed with young quarterbacks no matter how good they are.

OK Scott pls explain the man crush on Brady Quinn

eaglesalltheway
02-16-2011, 12:42 PM
should i kiss your feet now? or should i just assume that you not only can't speak english, but that you also have a loose handle on the truth?

This post has so much win, I remember wuite a few people on here who didn't like Gholston. At all.

brat316
02-16-2011, 01:01 PM
hmmmm interesting.

SickwithIt1010
02-16-2011, 01:09 PM
Im just getting annoyed of all you guys bashing Scott or anyone for that matter for having Reggie high on his board..

...EVERYONE DID. Everyone expected Bush to be one of the, if not the top pick. Everyone expected him to be a game changer in the NFL.

Now that Im done with that, I didnt like how high he had Clausen rated, I remember telling people he would be nothing more than a back up in the NFL. He just didnt have the maturity in my eyes. He was really robotic, i didnt think he played the position smoothly. I didnt like his arm and just didnt like his attitude at all.

wonderbredd24
02-16-2011, 01:16 PM
Im just getting annoyed of all you guys bashing Scott or anyone for that matter for having Reggie high on his board..

...EVERYONE DID. Everyone expected Bush to be one of the, if not the top pick. Everyone expected him to be a game changer in the NFL.
Which is perfectly fine. I bought into the idea that he could be this generation's Gale Sayers, but he hasn't been. I'm not totally convinced he doesn't have the ability to still do it, but he just has not demonstrated that he has the heart. He's a ridiculously overpaid, glorified Eric Metcalf and given the choice between the two, I'll take Eric Metcalf in his prime over Bush. The idea that just flabbergasts me is that he was only expected to be a 3rd down back and all that other crap, but that somehow that warranted being the #1 guy on his board.

If the Saints could go back and redo the pick, the list of players that they would take instead of Bush is a long and distinguished one. Bush wouldn't even be the first running back. He has not warranted the pick or anywhere close to it and unless he severely restructures his contract, that long list of teams that want to sign Bush will have their shot when he is released.

SickwithIt1010
02-16-2011, 01:24 PM
Which is perfectly fine. I bought into the idea that he could be this generation's Gale Sayers, but he hasn't been. I'm not totally convinced he doesn't have the ability to still do it, but he just has not demonstrated that he has the heart. He's a ridiculously overpaid, glorified Eric Metcalf and given the choice between the two, I'll take Eric Metcalf in his prime over Bush. The idea that just flabbergasts me is that he was only expected to be a 3rd down back and all that other crap, but that somehow that warranted being the #1 guy on his board.

If the Saints could go back and redo the pick, the list of players that they would take instead of Bush is a long and distinguished one. Bush wouldn't even be the first running back. He has not warranted the pick or anywhere close to it and unless he severely restructures his contract, that long list of teams that want to sign Bush will have their shot when he is released.

He wont be released. As mediocre as he has been, he is still a player that forces you to gameplan around. There is not a single play in a football game where defenses dont have to know where Reggie is. If Sean Payton has anything to say about it, Reggie will be a Saint for a while, because he is a weapon you can use in so many different ways....has he been dominant? No, but you better know where he is or he will **** you up.

PossibleCabbage
02-16-2011, 01:43 PM
Im just getting annoyed of all you guys bashing Scott or anyone for that matter for having Reggie high on his board.

Scott doesn't deserve any criticism for having Reggie Bush high on his board, everybody did.

Scott deserves some criticism for coming in here in 2011 and saying "he turned out to be just like I thought he would" when his own scouting report of Bush said things like "similar to Marshall Faulk and maybe even better."

Everybody was wrong about how good Bush would be, including Scott. We all just need to own up to it.

BuddyCHRIST
02-16-2011, 02:15 PM
Scott doesn't deserve any criticism for having Reggie Bush high on his board, everybody did.

Scott deserves some criticism for coming in here in 2011 and saying "he turned out to be just like I thought he would" when his own scouting report of Bush said things like "similar to Marshall Faulk and maybe even better."

Everybody was wrong about how good Bush would be, including Scott. We all just need to own up to it.

This, I'm not knocking Bush as a prospect because I loved him too and was amped when the Saints got him. But to act like he hasn't been a disappointment at number 2 overall and the huge money he's been paid is insane. People compared him to Marshall Faulk, he hasn't even been near Eric Metcalf.

And as a Saints fan the Reggie Bush opens up their offense talk is so overrated. The Saints offense is at their best when they actually run the ball with some consistency, we get into problem when we abandon the running game and force Brees to throw it 50 times every game.

The key part in the Saints run to the superbowl was Pierre Thomas. With a team actually having to respect the running game it opens up Brees downfield throwing way more than Bush catching dump offs for 5 yards.

yourfavestoner
02-16-2011, 02:18 PM
He wont be released. As mediocre as he has been, he is still a player that forces you to gameplan around. There is not a single play in a football game where defenses dont have to know where Reggie is. If Sean Payton has anything to say about it, Reggie will be a Saint for a while, because he is a weapon you can use in so many different ways....has he been dominant? No, but you better know where he is or he will **** you up.

Get real. Why pay $10 million for a scatback who does not even play. There are a ton of guys in this current draft class who can easily replace what Bush currently brings to the Saints offense - which is being the NFL's highest paid decoy.

Bush doesn't really open up the Saints offense because of any inherently dominant skillset he possesses. It's solely because Sean Payton has designed his entire offense around the safety being accountable for a runningback in coverage. When that doesn't happen, the offense becomes much more inefficient. He's an integral to the structure of the offense, but he absolutely can be replaced and upgraded.

Also, nobody is bashing Scott for being high on Bush. People are calling him out on saying that Bush turned out exactly as he expected he would. It's disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst.

Ghost of Juice
02-16-2011, 02:48 PM
I remember people saying Maurice Jones-Drew was a poor mans Reggie Bush when he was drafted LoL!

BigBanger
02-16-2011, 03:03 PM
Im just getting annoyed of all you guys bashing Scott or anyone for that matter for having Reggie high on his board..

...EVERYONE DID. Everyone expected Bush to be one of the, if not the top pick. Everyone expected him to be a game changer in the NFL.

Now that Im done with that, I didnt like how high he had Clausen rated, I remember telling people he would be nothing more than a back up in the NFL. He just didnt have the maturity in my eyes. He was really robotic, i didnt think he played the position smoothly. I didnt like his arm and just didnt like his attitude at all.

No one is saying Scott is a doofus for having Bush that high, I did too, everybody did. I think most people are admitting that we were wrong about Bush. Scott is trying to defend the rating and say he's exactly the player he envisioned. If you envisioned this type of career, it makes ZERO sense to call him the best player in his draft. When I think about the best players in the draft, I expect them to have the best careers. I don't expect them to be a backup RB and exceeded by several players at his own position. Bush was supposed to be a Pro Bowl player, that Marshall Faulk type RB. Bush had concerns, and most people saw his concerns... size, toughness between the tackles, vision, patience, durability... but when you saw him scoring from his own 20 time-and-time again, it was hard to ignore those flashy highlights and game breaking dynamics. His question marks were huge question marks for a RB to have. HUGE. I said, even at that time, if I'm drafting a pure RB with the patience, vision, toughness between the tackles and instincts for carrying the ball in a workhorse capacity, then I'm taking DeAngelo Williams over any RB in the class (I said that on a message and got flamed). But I still thought Bush was the better overall player (and he's not).

If Reggie Bush was on the open market he'd have a line of teams waiting to sign him.
So what? Comments likes this are purposeless. You can't admit you were wrong? Watch how easy it is... I was wrong about Reggie Bush. Now you say it. I was also wrong about Sam Bradford. See how easy that is?

MaxV
02-16-2011, 03:06 PM
I remember people saying Maurice Jones-Drew was a poor mans Reggie Bush when he was drafted LoL!

Actually, believe it or not, there were people on this board that compared him to Darren Sproles.

There were a lot of heated arguments about MJD around that draft year.

armageddon
02-16-2011, 04:07 PM
I think Scott had Claussen and Bradford confused.

marshfield
02-16-2011, 06:11 PM
If Reggie Bush was on the open market he'd have a line of teams waiting to sign him.

Really? This is your comment?

Stay classy Scott!

SenorGato
02-16-2011, 06:18 PM
HA...I called bs on Reggie Bush before the Texans did...for the right reasons too...not tough or decisive enough as a runner....Weirdly enough I have hopes for his future...he's young for a guy who has been in the league for 5 years and if his injuries have cost him some athleticism he's still a better athlete than most...hopefully he used his rehab time to get NFL juiced.

BeerBaron
02-16-2011, 06:27 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/BeerBaron/BradyQuinn.jpg

Scott...buddy....that one is going to be hard to live down I'm sorry to say.

RealityCheck
02-16-2011, 06:32 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/BeerBaron/BradyQuinn.jpg

Scott...buddy....that one is going to be hard to live down I'm sorry to say.
At least he had him over Russell.

General Zod
02-16-2011, 06:33 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/BeerBaron/BradyQuinn.jpg

Scott...buddy....that one is going to be hard to live down I'm sorry to say.

Especially when you look at the names around it(minus Russell of course).

BeerBaron
02-16-2011, 06:35 PM
At least he had him over Russell.

The one saving grace, lol.

PossibleCabbage
02-16-2011, 07:27 PM
The one saving grace, lol.

I'm not actually sure if you can say that Jamarcus Russell has had a worse NFL career than Brady Quinn. I mean, it's like comparing which of two fires is hotter, but it's hardly a Manning/Leaf situation.

NotRickJames
02-17-2011, 12:58 AM
I'm not actually sure if you can say that Jamarcus Russell has had a worse NFL career than Brady Quinn. I mean, it's like comparing which of two fires is hotter, but it's hardly a Manning/Leaf situation.

At least Quinn is still on an NFL roster. Can't say the same for the Walrus.

I was low on Russell and didn't want to draft him. I wanted Quinn though, so I can't be too proud.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2011, 01:17 AM
I'm not giving up on Clausen by any stretch either. Go look at John Elway's stats as a rookie. 47% completion percentage, 7 TD's to 14 INT's, 55 QB Rating, etc.
You should.

I don't need to look at Elway's stats, I can watch his tape. Elway, even as rookie, showed a decent amount of poise and ability. Clausen shows nothing. He looks terrified, his arm looks like ****, his decision-making is terrible. He's awful. The only glimmer of hope is the same statistical abnormality occurring twice, but any objective analysis shoots a hole in that pretty quickly.

NotRickJames
02-17-2011, 01:23 AM
I'm not giving up on Clausen by any stretch either.

Nor should you.

TACKLE
02-17-2011, 01:32 AM
Nor should you.

He really should. In addition to what BF51 stated above, he showed no promise, has below average tools and couldn't lead a flock of sheep let alone a group of 53 grown men.

Razor
02-17-2011, 03:52 AM
I'm not giving up on Clausen by any stretch either. Go look at John Elway's stats as a rookie. 47% completion percentage, 7 TD's to 14 INT's, 55 QB Rating, etc. I'm not saying Clausen is going to be Elway, but that is a prime example of how patience is needed with young quarterbacks no matter how good they are.

This is why I'm surprised you didn't give the Panthers AJ Green. I think he's the best player in the draft and I can see from our rankings that you do too. I can see the argument you're using, but Smith is getting old and can't stand Clausen (it probably goes both ways). Gettis was a nice surprise last year and LaFell looks like a possession receiver and the NFL. Clausen needs a receiver he can trust. I can't think of a better pick than AJ Green to get the offense going. They can still get a pretty good DT in the third round with the depth there this year, but they can't get a player like Green there.

the_dark_knight
02-17-2011, 07:57 AM
He wont be released. As mediocre as he has been, he is still a player that forces you to gameplan around. There is not a single play in a football game where defenses dont have to know where Reggie is. If Sean Payton has anything to say about it, Reggie will be a Saint for a while, because he is a weapon you can use in so many different ways....has he been dominant? No, but you better know where he is or he will **** you up.

So did Samkon Gado in Green Bay...

Reggie Bust is not good as a running back, in fact, he's awful at running back. But the reason he doesn't play WR is he can't run the routes on a consistent basis. Nor does he have the hands for some of the things required for a WR.

Reggie Bush benefits from playing for one of the most creative offensive playcallers in the NFL finding spots for literally everyone, not just Reggie Bust.

If he becomes a free agent people will want him to be a Darren Sproles type player, which is exactly all he is.

Is he a bad player? No, but he's no where near a top 10 pick, not even top 15, but I'd still grade him in the late first round because as a return guy he can take it to the house. Much like Devin Hester would be worth a first round pick strictly as a return man, but I put a high value on Special Teams too.

The obvious one is Brady Quinn which has been hit on a lot, but there's an even bigger whiff out there imo.

Jimmy Williams...didn't even last 3 years in the league. We were all excited about him down here in Atlanta and he just completely blew it.

the_dark_knight
02-17-2011, 08:34 AM
that's solely because josh mcdaniels is an idiot. it's one of the things i expect john fox to fix shortly. at this point, it's entirely possible that brady quinn is the single worst quarterback on a roster in any major football league.

But...biceps...flowing...golden...hair...

Black Bolt
02-17-2011, 09:09 AM
should i kiss your feet now? or should i just assume that you not only can't speak english, but that you also have a loose handle on the truth?

I don't know genius, should I assume your shift button is broken? I thought mods were supposed to deter trolls, not imitate them.

Black Bolt
02-17-2011, 09:16 AM
Exactly. He's not that player and that's the point.

bigbluedefense
02-17-2011, 09:18 AM
A lot of people missed on Brady Quinn. It happens.

Black Bolt
02-17-2011, 09:19 AM
At least he had him over Russell.

Who says he's better than Russell? Unlike Russell, Quinn isn't on drugs.......other than Myoplex.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2011, 10:14 AM
A lot of people missed on Brady Quinn. It happens.

I was really, really high on both of them, so it's a double fail for me.

ElectricEye
02-17-2011, 10:24 AM
A lot of people missed on Brady Quinn. It happens.

No it doesn't. According to some people here they're never wrong about anything ever.

bigbluedefense
02-17-2011, 10:27 AM
No it doesn't. According to some people here they're never wrong about anything ever.

Yeah. Lots of revisionist history going on in this thread.

I was really, really high on both of them, so it's a double fail for me.

I loved Quinn and hated Russell. I fell for the "Charlie Weis coached him he's the next Tom Brady zomg Notre Dame fighting Irish!" crap.

I made sure I didn't fall for it again with Clausen.

wonderbredd24
02-17-2011, 10:28 AM
A lot of people missed on Brady Quinn. It happens.
Indeed. It is not like he's saying that Brady Quinn turned into the player he envisioned before the draft.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2011, 10:43 AM
Yeah. Lots of revisionist history going on in this thread.



I loved Quinn and hated Russell. I fell for the "Charlie Weis coached him he's the next Tom Brady zomg Notre Dame fighting Irish!" crap.

I made sure I didn't fall for it again with Clausen.

A lot of my reasoning for liking Quinn was centered, too, around how terrible the Irish would be if he wasn't their quarterback. With Jamarcus, I fell in love with his tools. Then again, I very rarely factor personality/character/etc into my rankings because I acknowledge that I don't have nearly enough information to be able pass judgment.

It's similar with Ryan Mallett. Even though I've brought up Mallett's alleged cocaine incident, I still acknowledge that I don't have nearly enough information to have it change my opinion of him as a player. Same goes for Newton. I really don't have any idea what he did, and I'm not going to get the chance to sit down and talk to him. So how can I let it affect how I view him as a football player?

Then again, there are some guys that just come off as douches and you know they'll never be able to lead a group of men. Jimmy Clausen is one of those guys. Matt Leinart was another. Truth be told, I made my final decision on Leinart after the "Bush Push" against Notre Dame. That play told me everything I needed to know about him.

TACKLE
02-17-2011, 10:48 AM
Truth be told, I made my final decision on Leinart after the "Bush Push" against Notre Dame. That play told me everything I needed to know about him.

That's interesting. Why?

yourfavestoner
02-17-2011, 11:06 AM
That's interesting. Why?

The game was on the line, and he only had to go about six inches on a QB sneak to win the game. He wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. I know, I know, he drove them down there. But if it weren't for Bush, he would have just gotten stonewalled and fell to the ground on that last play.

ElectricEye
02-17-2011, 11:21 AM
That's still one of the better college football games I've ever seen. That USC team played in some epics.

MI_Buckeye
02-17-2011, 12:55 PM
I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.

OH COME ON!!!!

You do not rank a guy No. 1 overall and expect him to be a slightly above average change-of-pace back. If you really did not think he was going to be an elite starting running back and still put him No. 1, it makes me think you are way too susceptible to peer pressure.

Mind you, I am not trying to be snarky. We were all wrong about Bush. I remember when I was ranking my top 100 for that draft, I had Bush No. 6, one spot lower than Deangelo Williams, which means I was WAY lower on Reggie than most others, and I still admit he is nowhere near the player I thought he would be.

Sniper
02-17-2011, 01:01 PM
OH COME ON!!!!

You do not rank a guy No. 1 overall and expect him to be a slightly above average change-of-pace back. If you really did not think he was going to be an elite starting running back and still put him No. 1, it makes me think you are way too susceptible to peer pressure.

This.

As yfs posted earlier,

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7146/bushp.png

It's hard to say that you didn't expect Bush to be a superstar after the glowing things on this report, the elite grade and the No. 1 overall spot. For the record, I fully expected Reggie to be a Hall of Famer, but it's clear that he hasn't panned out as expected.

On the flip side, he's one of my top-five favorite college players of all-time, including Michigan players.

ElectricEye
02-17-2011, 01:12 PM
I still find it to be pretty inexplicable that Bush has been as meh as he has been. I can understand him not being good in the NFL for some reason, but to be as complete a non-factor as he is the majority of the time when he was amazing in college is puzzling.

PossibleCabbage
02-17-2011, 01:14 PM
I still find it to be pretty inexplicable that Bush has been as meh as he has been. I can understand him not being good in the NFL for some reason, but to be as complete a non-factor as he is the majority of the time when he was amazing in college is puzzling.

Maybe he's just happy that he's got (lots and lots of) money now, and doesn't care as much as he used to? It happens sometimes to 25 year olds who come into a lot of money.

BuddyCHRIST
02-17-2011, 01:38 PM
The game was on the line, and he only had to go about six inches on a QB sneak to win the game. He wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. I know, I know, he drove them down there. But if it weren't for Bush, he would have just gotten stonewalled and fell to the ground on that last play.

Thats a big reach, he audibled and made a huge throw on 4th down to even get them down there. And on the play to win the game he took the ball in his hands and tried to make the play himself. A QB sneak is 99% about the OLine push anyways, no way on earth can you knock him for Bush pushing him (which may or may not have actually affected him scoring).

BeerBaron
02-17-2011, 01:59 PM
I still find it to be pretty inexplicable that Bush has been as meh as he has been. I can understand him not being good in the NFL for some reason, but to be as complete a non-factor as he is the majority of the time when he was amazing in college is puzzling.

This is why I feel as though he's a pretty major bust. Even as a pure 3rd down back (I prefer using the term passing situations back because in today's NFL, they don't just get used on 3rd downs...anywho) he hasn't been as good as others who had far less expectations upon them.

If you ask a group of well informed NFL followers who they'd rather have: Danny Woodhead or Reggie Bush...I think they'd take Woodhead.

CheechHarvin12
02-17-2011, 02:26 PM
Just out of curiousity, I looked up Bush's career stats so far.
In 5 years,
524 car, 2090 yds, 17 tds rushing (4.0 ypc...Ick)
294 rec, 2142 yds, 12 tds receiving(7.3 ypc...ok)
92 returns, 720 yds, 4 tds (7.8 per, pretty good...I threw his one KR)

Overall, 4952 total offense, 33 tds.

Just for comparison, Deangelo Williams has 4329 total offense, 35 tds over that time.

Obviously, Bush was (and is) overrated by many, but maybe half the issue is that he needs to be categorized as a RB or WR or 3rd down RB or punt returner, when in reality, he is really just an ok rb + ok WR + good PR, which adds up to something more than each individually. I think what was overrated is how his skill set would translate to the nfl, not the skill set itself necessarily. If we look back at that draft, I think you still take him where he was taken for the chance/upside that he would be as dominant in the pros as he was in college. There really wasn't much question at the time as to his worth as a top 5 type of guy at worst. Hindsight is 20-20, for sure, and he obviously could have been better. If only he never got with a Khadashian....

Ghost of Juice
02-17-2011, 05:29 PM
It didn't hurt that he had Drew Brees as his QB and Deangelo Williams had s**t
Also I'm sure kim kardashian was the reason for him being a disappointment.

Docta
02-17-2011, 08:14 PM
Scott how did you miss so badly in 2008 with Danny Woodhead and BenJarvus Green-Ellis? 30 and 32 in the RBs. Come on it was clear as day that they were going to be stars ;)
Woodhead is only a star in the Patriots offense. He wouldn't fit in on most teams. That's why the Jets waived him.

BeerBaron
02-17-2011, 08:31 PM
Woodhead is only a star in the Patriots offense. He wouldn't fit in on most teams. That's why the Jets waived him.

This gentleman here is the reason why the Jets waived Woodhead.

http://usc.ocregister.com/files/2011/01/Joe-McKnight-AP.jpg

Halsey
02-17-2011, 08:34 PM
I just want to add that I don't feel LaVar Arrington's inability to live up to huge expectations was totally about injuries. He didn't have the best attitude in the world. Maybe I expected too much of him in the NFL, but I thought he could have been much better than he was.

gpngc
02-17-2011, 08:52 PM
The Saints definitely coached Bush to be the type of player that he is.

They discourage him to run inside because they have cost-effective alternatives (Thomas, Ivory) to take that beating.

And it's been successful (in terms of winning). He's also a factor when he doesn't touch the ball (you have to gameplan on him and account for the edges when he's on the field) and makes a difference in field position. I think his overall impact is greater than the stats suggest.

BeerBaron
02-17-2011, 08:54 PM
The Saints definitely coached Bush to be the type of player that he is.

They discourage him to run inside because they have cost-effective alternatives (Thomas, Ivory) to take that beating.

And it's been successful (in terms of winning). He's also a factor when he doesn't touch the ball (you have to gameplan on him and account for the edges when he's on the field) and makes a difference in field position. I think his overall impact is greater than the stats suggest.

Still not worth the 2nd overall pick of the draft.

Caulibflower
02-17-2011, 09:48 PM
When you add his stats together, he averages about 70 yards per game, rushing and receiving. That's really not bad. 4 career PR touchdowns is about what people expected him to have at this point in his career. But, ultimately, Reggie Bush was drafted to be a big-play guy, and that's what he isn't. He has a serious lack of long runs in his career. He only has 10 runs over twenty yards in is career. That's an average of two per year. It takes him, statistically, 52 runs before he breaks a 20-yarder. And in his career, he only has two runs over 40 yards. DeAngelo Williams was brought up, so I'll compare the two: Williams has 36 runs of over 20 yards on 841 carries. That's a big run every 23 carries. And when you think about it, Reggie Bush has been playing in a wide-open, explosive offense with Drew Brees and his receivers scaring secondaries, while the best Williams has had was Jake Delhomme. You can look at receiving ability, too; they both have the same career yards-per-catch, but again, Williams has been almost three times as likely to take a reception over twenty yards as Reggie does.

Reggie Bush was drafted to be a big-play player. Not just a chain-mover. And regardless of what you think of his value to the Saints offense, the fact remains that he is hasn't proven to be an explosive player. He's a fast player, an agile player, he's hard to tackle, but he's an inefficient runner who dances too much and consequently loses a lot of yards he could've gotten if he would simply plant his foot and get another couple. It's as though he's trying to get the huge play without anyone touching him every time he gets the ball, and the defenders use that to their advantage. For where he was drafted and what was expected of him, he's a bust.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2011, 09:50 PM
I just want to add that I don't feel LaVar Arrington's inability to live up to huge expectations was totally about injuries. He didn't have the best attitude in the world. Maybe I expected too much of him in the NFL, but I thought he could have been much better than he was.

Arrington's problem was that he tried to freelance like Lawrence Taylor without being as good as Lawrence Taylor.

A Perfect Score
02-17-2011, 09:51 PM
I just want to add that I don't feel LaVar Arrington's inability to live up to huge expectations was totally about injuries. He didn't have the best attitude in the world. Maybe I expected too much of him in the NFL, but I thought he could have been much better than he was.

I think people forget that for a time, LaVar Arrington was absolutely dominant. He had a habit of freelancing, but the guy was one of the premier LBers in the game during his heydey. In fact, outside of Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher and Derrick Brooks, you probably could have made a case for Arrington being one of the best LBs in the league.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2011, 09:55 PM
Now that I think about it, there are a lot of similarities between Arrington and LT. Both were picked second overall. They have similar skillsets. They have similar styles of play. And they both had their careers ended by achilles tendon injuries.

Part of the problem with Arrington, too, is that he never really got used properly. The only coach that ever let him just bumrush the **** out of the quarterback on every play (let him line up with his hand on the ground a lot, too) was Marvin Lewis - and he was there for only one season IIRC.

So yeah. Arrington is basically a homeless man's LT.

wonderbredd24
02-17-2011, 10:01 PM
I think people forget that for a time, LaVar Arrington was absolutely dominant. He had a habit of freelancing, but the guy was one of the premier LBers in the game during his heydey. In fact, outside of Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher and Derrick Brooks, you probably could have made a case for Arrington being one of the best LBs in the league.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I watched him get steamrolled by Dorsey Levens.

He was never that good. For all of the plays he made, he took himself out of twice as many because he was such a moron. I am sure you can put together a pretty nice Arrington highlight film, but he was a absolute bum on the coaches tape.

descendency
02-17-2011, 10:44 PM
Ricky Sapp. The guy obviously can't play football. I can't say it was only Scott, but Sapp sucks. (and i protested anyone who even sniffed Sapp to the Patriots)

Arrington is basically a homeless man's LT.

LMAO. YFS is one of DCs best posters.


edit: weighing in on Reggie Bush. I heard someone I respect quite a bit say that he was a 10 play a game kind of guy (in the time when everyone still believed in franchise running backs) and I dropped Bush into the late part of the first round. Then again, I thought LenWhale White was a better back. . . :/

WCH
02-17-2011, 11:31 PM
Also I'm sure kim kardashian was the reason for him being a disappointment.

This makes as much sense as anything else.

And I remember Metcalf. Good comparison for Bush, but Metcalf was a better receiver.

DcmRulz
02-18-2011, 01:06 AM
I'm proud of the fact that I remember liking Deangelo Williams better than reggie bush in 06 and thinking that Brady Quinn sucked. (my logic being that i disregarded receiving yards at the time and i didn't really see it in Quinn)

I also hated Adrian Peterson to the vikings because he was too injury-prone and that Taylor had >1000 yards, and Loving Jamarcus Russell. oh well.

billsfootball15
02-18-2011, 01:21 AM
listen, we can all say what we want about the Bush thing, and Ive read everything so far and we can say all we want, but theres one thing that matters…he contributed (small or large role is up to you to decide, but nontheless still had a role) in the helping the Saints win the Super Bowl. Thats all that matters, he was there and he played a part, he doesn't have to be Barry Sanders and in fact he isn't because his team won a championship, something Barry regardless of how good he was could never do. Would the Saints do the pick over again? I think they would say no because they are content with the threat Bush provides and he now has a ring to show for it.

FUNBUNCHER
02-18-2011, 06:46 AM
Arrington's problem was that he tried to freelance like Lawrence Taylor without being as good as Lawrence Taylor.
LA was a supersixed 43 weakside rush 'backer. When he arrived in D.C., they put him on the strongside over the TE and made him cover and set the edge on run plays.
He was solid doing this but that's not why he was drafted 2nd overall.

IF, if Arrington had been played on the weakside his entire career in D.C. had been told to attack the backfield, he would have been a perennial all pro.

D coordinators in Washington for some reason were reluctant to move him around consistently and give him favorable blitz matchups.

I do agree however that Arrington thought he could play Lawrence Taylor's game and free lance whenever and he simply did not have that level of football instincts. Maybe a handful of players in the NFL ever have, Polamalu and Ed Reed being two of them.

I wouldn't call him a flat out bust, almost every year he was the SKins best defender, but I will admit he fell far short of expectations.

About Reggie Bush, I thought he was supposed to be Marshall Faulk 2.0.

He's not even close to that level and I think it has more to do with than just injuries.

I still question his vision and pure running instincts. Being able to make a player miss is not the same as recognizing running lanes just before they open up, reading his blockers and being able to hit cutbacks.

I think Reggie runs a little scared/out of control in the NFL and that's part of the reason he's not the 'back he was in college.

Who thinks Bush will EVER rush for 1000 yards in a season, or catch 85 balls and/or 800 yards???

He's beyond a disappointment and IMO no one saw it coming.

Caulibflower
02-18-2011, 07:03 AM
Who thinks Bush will EVER rush for 1000 yards in a season, or catch 85 balls and/or 800 yards???

He's beyond a disappointment and IMO no one saw it coming.

Well, he did catch 88 for 742 his rookie season, but he hasn't come close to that since. That was pretty effective play. But he's regressed since then, and overall just been remarkably bad at taking handoffs. With the exception of 2009, he's been consistently below average in yards per carry.

CheechHarvin12
02-18-2011, 08:02 AM
That's maybe the biggest disappointment with Bush...His catches have gone down consistently every year. Some of that is injury, for sure, but that has kept him from an even bigger impact than he has had. If he had kept catches up in the range of the 88 he had year one, things would seem different, most likely. I do remember certain draftniks just before the draft saying that Reggie Bush could have been a late first round pick as just a WR....maybe if he had been used as such from day one, he might have put up better numbers.

PossibleCabbage
02-18-2011, 09:38 AM
listen, we can all say what we want about the Bush thing, and Ive read everything so far and we can say all we want, but theres one thing that matters…he contributed (small or large role is up to you to decide, but nontheless still had a role) in the helping the Saints win the Super Bowl. Thats all that matters, he was there and he played a part, he doesn't have to be Barry Sanders and in fact he isn't because his team won a championship, something Barry regardless of how good he was could never do. Would the Saints do the pick over again? I think they would say no because they are content with the threat Bush provides and he now has a ring to show for it.

Justin Harrell contributed to the Packers recent superbowl season, are we to conclude that he is therefore not a bust?

Winning a superbowl does not absolve everybody on the roster.

Ghost of Juice
02-18-2011, 01:29 PM
listen, we can all say what we want about the Bush thing, and Ive read everything so far and we can say all we want, but theres one thing that matters…he contributed (small or large role is up to you to decide, but nontheless still had a role) in the helping the Saints win the Super Bowl. Thats all that matters, he was there and he played a part, he doesn't have to be Barry Sanders and in fact he isn't because his team won a championship, something Barry regardless of how good he was could never do. Would the Saints do the pick over again? I think they would say no because they are content with the threat Bush provides and he now has a ring to show for it.

So you're saying if the saints could redo their number 2 overall pick knowing what they know about the players in that draft they would still take bush? Because that would be crazy of them to do that and pass on a player like Haloti Ngata or MJD.

yourfavestoner
02-18-2011, 03:37 PM
So you're saying if the saints could redo their number 2 overall pick knowing what they know about the players in that draft they would still take bush? Because that would be crazy of them to do that and pass on a player like Haloti Ngata or MJD.

I love your username so ******* much.

J-Mike88
02-19-2011, 06:25 PM
I remember thinking Brady Quinn was the next Tom Brady. I don't think I ever was THAT wrong about a qb prospect ever.
In your defense, and Scott's, I truly believe that had Quinn gone to the right situation, he could have turned into a good NFL QB by now, and I hate Notre Dame and never liked Quinn.

Sometimes a QB can be on a dead team and look crappy for years.... see Steve Young in Tampa, Kurt Warner in New York off the top of my head. Doesn't mean they were bad QBs.

I wonder if there's a situation for Quinn out there right now. Matt Leinart too.
He actually looked decent his rookie year, I clearly remember, despite that less-than-strong southpaw arm.

MidwayMonster31
02-19-2011, 06:29 PM
I think Denny Green getting fired really screwed Leinart. He was drafted for a west coast offense and looked pretty solid as a rookie. Wisenhunt wanted a different offense and Leinart couldn't cut it afterwards.

Brent
02-19-2011, 06:36 PM
I think Denny Green getting fired really screwed Leinart. He was drafted for a west coast offense and looked pretty solid as a rookie. Wisenhunt wanted a different offense and Leinart couldn't cut it afterwards.
I am still curious how things would have turned out had the Titans taken Leinart. I wonder if having Norm Chow as his OC would have made things different.

ElectricEye
02-19-2011, 07:08 PM
It could. Little things like that, especially at the start of guys careers can make or break them. Leinart's problem has always been his dedication to the game and not being a douche bag, so it might not have mattered much.

TACKLE
02-19-2011, 07:12 PM
It could. Little things like that, especially at the start of guys careers can make or break them. Leinart's problem has always been his dedication to the game and not being a douche bag, so it might not have mattered much.

Obviously this is hindsight, but he was a below average/marginal physical talent who lacked mental toughness and a strong work ethic. He couldn't get it done with Fitz and Boldin so I doubt he could of gotten it done with the poor WR core Tennessee had. Leinart just wasn't very good. I doubt he would of had much success regardless of where he went.

katnip
02-19-2011, 07:47 PM
About Reggie Bush - I don't think he's a major bust. But I saw it coming, him not being a good even dominant NFL RB.

One thing that helped me with that was, when he wanted his USC #5 in the NFL

SRK85
02-19-2011, 11:13 PM
Lol at the Bush bashing. Come on he was a one dimensional player, pure speed. He could never compete on the NFL level at the ability everyone expected him to. In fact I was happy to see the Texans pass on him.

J-Mike88
02-20-2011, 01:28 PM
I think Denny Green getting fired really screwed Leinart. He was drafted for a west coast offense and looked pretty solid as a rookie. Wisenhunt wanted a different offense and Leinart couldn't cut it afterwards.
Good points. I know Leinart is a prick and not rocket-armed or anything, and I don't like him either, but other jerks and other QBs with minimal arms have succeeded just fine in the NFL.

I think losing the Sherriff did hurt Matt Leinart. Still, I have no sympathy for the idiot because he should have come out after his junior year.

Also, I continue to LOL at the Reggie Bush-bashers!
Every single other team would secretly love to have a weapon like Bush, even if he's not a 250-carry guy.

PossibleCabbage
02-20-2011, 02:03 PM
Every single other team would secretly love to have a weapon like Bush, even if he's not a 250-carry guy.

Every team in the league would like to have a kicker who makes 65% of his kicks from 50+, doesn't mean you should pick that guy in the first round.

J255979-11nine
02-20-2011, 02:18 PM
Every team in the league would like to have a kicker who makes 65% of his kicks from 50+, doesn't mean you should pick that guy in the first round.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/tx_janikowski.jpg

J-Mike88
02-20-2011, 02:26 PM
Right, neither the Saints or Raiders (SeBas) seem to regret their pick.

PossibleCabbage
02-20-2011, 02:37 PM
Right, neither the Saints or Raiders (SeBas) seem to regret their pick.

Just because you don't regret a pick, doesn't mean that a player is a disappointment. If you gave the Saints the chance to redo the 2006 draft with perfect knowledge of the future as it unfolded when they took Bush, I really doubt that they would take him again at #2.

Bust? No. Bush is a useful player. Disappointing and seriously overrated as a prospect by almost everybody in the business? Absolutely.

"Is useful" and "other teams would like him" are a useful test for evaluating whether a prospect lived up to expectations, but it's far from definitive. How many teams, seriously, do you think would have taken Bush if they held the #2 pick and could see how things turned out in our timeline?

flave1969
02-20-2011, 03:04 PM
So as far as I can see in 6 pages of thread, folks have managed to pick out about 5 - 10 players tops. Out of the 1000 plus players picked in the life of this board it is pretty good.

PossibleCabbage
02-20-2011, 03:10 PM
So as far as I can see in 6 pages of thread, folks have managed to pick out about 5 - 10 players tops. Out of the 1000 plus players picked in the life of this board it is pretty good.

I don't think anybody is really all that interested in doing an exhaustive list, to be honest.

I mean, does anybody really care that Scott had Kellen Winslow Jr., Roy Williams, Robert Gallery, Reggie Williams, Mike Williams, and DeAngelo Hall in his top 10 in 2004? None of those guys worked out for the team that drafted him.

That Aaron Gibson (ranked #9 in 1999)? Hell of a (five-year) career. Maybe he's good in Arena Ball, but back then this site used to be called NFLdraftcountdown.com and not AFLdraftcountdown.com.

Everybody misses on guys like this all the time. It's no big deal.

J-Mike88
02-20-2011, 03:59 PM
based on what, exactly?
What?
The Raiders don't regret picking SeBas obviously, and the Saints have made sure they have kept Bush now thru 4 years when real busts are sent packing well before then.
Again, LOL at anyone who calls Reggie Bush a bust.
I can find many many #2 picks over the past 2 decades who's body of work makes Bush's body of work thru 4-years look HOF worthy.

A Perfect Score
02-20-2011, 04:21 PM
What?
The Raiders don't regret picking SeBas obviously, and the Saints have made sure they have kept Bush now thru 4 years when real busts are sent packing well before then.
Again, LOL at anyone who calls Reggie Bush a bust.
I can find many many #2 picks over the past 2 decades who's body of work makes Bush's body of work thru 4-years look HOF worthy.

So you don't think the Raiders regret passing on Chad Pennington, Keith Bullock or Shaun Alexander for a kicker?

CashmoneyDrew
02-20-2011, 04:33 PM
So you don't think the Raiders regret passing on Chad Pennington, Keith Bulluck or Shaun Alexander for a kicker?

The misspelling of this name has haunted me for years. It even happened in local papers for some obscene reason so I can't get mad at you too much.

bearsfan_51
02-20-2011, 05:05 PM
So you don't think the Raiders regret passing on Chad Pennington, Keith Bullock or Shaun Alexander for a kicker?
By that logic, 98% of all draft picks are dissapointments.

RealityCheck
02-20-2011, 07:59 PM
So you don't think the Raiders regret passing on Chad Pennington, Keith Bullock or Shaun Alexander for a kicker?
Bulluck and Alexander yeah, but Janikowski is one of the greatest kickers of the decade and Pennington, well, was Pennington.

J-Mike88
02-20-2011, 08:14 PM
By that logic, 98% of all draft picks are dissapointments.
Exactly.
And the Saints and Raiders would not have worked hard to keep those players around this long if they regretted taking the player, regardless of the spot they took him.

Let's not try and re-invent logic here.

J-Mike88
02-20-2011, 08:16 PM
Bulluck and Alexander yeah, but Janikowski is one of the greatest kickers of the decade and Pennington, well, was Pennington.
Alexander on the Raiders those years might have just been a Thomas Jones or Cedric Benson or Timmy Biakabatuka.
Meanwhile, the Raiders keep paying SeBas and he's about as good as ever while Alexander is long gone.

San Diego Chicken
02-20-2011, 08:30 PM
It's very fair to call Bush a disappointment, but bust is a pretty big stretch. There's still hardly anyone, if there even is anyone, who possess his combination of skills in the return game, hands, route running, and blitz pickup. Saying things like Danny Woodhead or Darren Sproles can duplicate those skills just isn't right. Woodhead isn't a factor in the return game and Sproles does not catch the ball or run routes as well as Bush can.

Now there are obvious holes in his game, he's an inconsistent runner #1. Obviously he is a dissapointment there, at USC he was able to breeze through giant holes created by an elite offensive line that just don't exist in the NFL. The space is much tighter and Bush has trouble breaking arm tackles inside of the hole. #2, Bush is injury prone. Nuff said there, he's not on the field enough.

If there were a re-do of the 2006 draft Bush would not go #2, but he would go in the first round (likely back half of the first round) in my opinion. I'm going to go to stats to back this up:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2006/draft.htm

If we're simply limiting it to offensive skill players, Bush ranks in the top 10 of his draft class in rushing yards, rushing touchdowns, receptions, receiving yards and receiving touchdowns. Fair here to say that Bush is one of the top handful of RB's or WR's in the 2006 draft.

Now if we're talking about all players in that draft class I'm going to go with a more advanced stat, weighted career approx. value, where Bush ranks #17 among all players in his draft class.

I really think I'm going to be flamed for using this stat so here's a disclaimer, by no means am I saying Bush is better than every player he's ranked higher than in this category. Take it as a general ranking to gauge approximately what level of player Bush is. I can already hear the teeth gnashing and the grumblings but at least it's something.

Half of the problem with Bush is his perception in the media and the level of attention he gets which understandably gets under the skin of many folks here. The other major thing is he was drafted #2 overall which is a very difficult draft position to live up to, especially according to the weighted AV. If you cycle through the past drafts and index the classes by AV, the hall of fame and perennial pro bowlers float right to the top of the list So the expectation is that someone drafted as the #1 or #2 pick is expected to be a hall of fame or borderline hall of fame player. I don't think I need to underscore how difficult that is to live up to.

There are lots of in depth discussions about AV on football reference.com, and like I said it's far from an end all be all. However, it's a pretty useful tool, especially to gauge the strength of draft classes. (For example, 1992 was a horrible draft class according to the AV - Jimmy Smith is the highest ranked player from that draft and he has no chance at the HOF)

Just some thoughts and I can't wait to hear some feedback especially from some of the vehemently anti-Bush crowd.

yourfavestoner
02-20-2011, 11:06 PM
Exactly.
And the Saints and Raiders would not have worked hard to keep those players around this long if they regretted taking the player, regardless of the spot they took him.

Let's not try and re-invent logic here.

Huh? The major question of New Orleans' offseason is whether they're going to bring him back at the exorbitant $12 million pricetag he carries into this next season.

J-Mike88
02-21-2011, 07:52 AM
Huh? The major question of New Orleans' offseason is whether they're going to bring him back at the exorbitant $12 million pricetag he carries into this next season.
Right, this will be his 5th year.
They 100% want him back, as Green Bay wants AJ Hawk back 100% but he has a ridiculously high $ on the books for 011, but you're talking about silly cap #'s..... not busts.

People love to throw the word "bust" around these days. Guys like Bush may not have lived up to some people's unrealistic expectations, but he's certainly no bust. He's exactly who Scott said he was and he's been good enough that the Saints definitely want to keep him.

J-Mike88
02-21-2011, 08:06 AM
Exactly.
And the Saints and Raiders would not have worked hard to keep those players around this long if they regretted taking the player, regardless of the spot they took him.

Let's not try and re-invent logic here.
yes, let me know when you actually have some vague clue what 'logic' is. or when you can actually defend the crap you just said.

unless, of course, you just finished digging yourself a hole and aren't man enough to climb back out of it.
You can fool some people here with your cryptic BS. But you don't fool everyone. Let me dumb it down for you:

Reggie Bush is clearly not a bust. Here are some things that prove he is not a bust:

#1- Many fans on every other NFL team would love to have him on their team.
#2- The Saints want to keep him, and he's entering his 5th year, and they could have parted ways with him by now if he was a bust.
#3- You want to know what a real bust is:
See: Charles Rogers, Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell, Courtney Brown, Akili Smith, Tony Mandarich, Curtis Enis, Lawrence Phillips, Steve Emtman, Andre Ware.

Now, don't come back with more childish name-calling and insults. If you still can't see the difference between Reggie Bush's career and those guys in category #3, then nobody here can help you. Again, I think I made that simple and clear enough, there should be no argument here that Reggie Bush is not a bust, and he is who we thought he would be, as Scott said himself.

J-Mike88
02-21-2011, 08:12 AM
I don't count Reggie Bush as a bust either.
That's the bottom line right there.

/ReggieBush is a best talk. It's nonsense.

And Scott, you're not the only one who didn't have Cortland Finnegan rated as draft-worthy. No worries.

FUNBUNCHER
02-21-2011, 09:41 AM
Semantics.

Bush is a contributor and had better real value at the end of the first round.
However being selected #2, with comparisons to Barry Sanders/Gayle Sayers/Marshall Faulk, there's nothing else to call Reggie except a bust.

Being a bust doesn't mean you aren't an effective football player in spots throughout your career; Desmond Howard almost single handedly won a SB for GB as a returner and LB Aundray Bruce had a 9 year career despite never living up to his hype as the 1/1 in 1988 and the expectation he would be the next LT.

Reggie Bush in many ways reminds me a lot of Desmond Howard, electrifying college player without a position in the pros who's game doesn't translate well in the NFL.

You can't be called a genuine 'bust' IMO unless you were a top 20 pick, otherwise you were just a prospect who didn't pan out.

PossibleCabbage
02-21-2011, 09:56 AM
That's the bottom line right there.

/ReggieBush is a best talk. It's nonsense.

Irony: Claiming that somebody is the infallible arbiter of truth as a means of argument in a thread devoted to pointing out that person's past errors.

jth1331
02-21-2011, 10:31 AM
Bulluck and Alexander yeah, but Janikowski is one of the greatest kickers of the decade and Pennington, well, was Pennington.

One of the greatest kickers of the decade?
2 seasons his field goal % was BELOW 70%!
5 total seasons his field goal % was BELOW 80%!
Just this past season he finished 23rd in field goal %.

2009 - 5th
2008 - 26th
2007 - 30th
2006 - 31st
2005 - 32nd
2004 - 4th
2003 - 6th
2002 - 15th
2001 - 10th
2000 - 27th

6 years he has finished in the bottom of the league in field goal percentage. I'm amazed he's still on the Raiders to be honest with those 3 straight years finishing as one of the worst kickers in the league.

Dagagad
02-21-2011, 10:36 AM
There needs to be some consensus on what 'bust' actually means. You can't just say that player B who was picked later is better so player A is a bust.

Maybe compare him to RBs historically taken in the top 5 in the last 20 years. How does he size up against them?

Bush is a unique talent and subjectively I think he is more of a mid round one talent to late mid round but I don't have any data to back that up.

jth1331
02-21-2011, 10:40 AM
I'd classify Bush as a bust for where he was taken, but as a player he's been pretty solid production wise. Not worth his contract though, and where he was taken. At pick 2 for a RB, you want a 1800+ total rushing/receiving at minimum with 15+ rush/rec TD's IMO.

PossibleCabbage
02-21-2011, 11:20 AM
I'll propose the following compromise:
If the Saints cut Reggie Bush this offseason, or pay him the egregious $12m salary he's due but cut bait after the 2011 season then he is a bust.

If the Saints extend Bush and Bush remains the same calibre of player he is now, then he is merely a disappointment.

Dagagad
02-21-2011, 11:40 AM
I'd classify Bush as a bust for where he was taken, but as a player he's been pretty solid production wise. Not worth his contract though, and where he was taken. At pick 2 for a RB, you want a 1800+ total rushing/receiving at minimum with 15+ rush/rec TD's IMO.

But do running backs picked that high typically produce like that? Its possible we are overrating how well a guy picked at that spot typically does. If Bush is just average for a guy that high, is he a bust? Its a tricky subject.

One thing I do hate is the 'if the saints could go back in time' argument. Sure, they might pick someone else. Bush gets picked at the top of the second, is motivated to make a big contract and absolutely kills it. There are way too many variables in these things and probably a lot of luck.

hockey619
02-21-2011, 11:42 AM
Right, this will be his 5th year.
They 100% want him back, as Green Bay wants AJ Hawk back 100% but he has a ridiculously high $ on the books for 011, but you're talking about silly cap #'s..... not busts. Who the hell wouldnt want a decent, role playing contributor at a reasonable price? thats what both those guys are. Just because the team wants them back doesnt mean theyve lived up to their billing. Theyre not 'out of the league' bad, but neither is great.

People love to throw the word "bust" around these days. Guys like Bush may not have lived up to some people's unrealistic expectations, but he's certainly no bust. He's exactly who Scott said he was and he's been good enough that the Saints definitely want to keep him.

Scott said he was the second coming of marshall faulk. Bush has not been even close to faulk. Faulk is a hof'er. bush is a poor runningback, a decent reciever (who drops a lot more balls than youre admitting), and a solid if inconsistent return man who's also very injury prone and has missed a lot of games. In what way has he lived up to his draft status?

J-Mike88
02-21-2011, 12:54 PM
Scott said he was the second coming of marshall faulk. Bush has not been even close to faulk. Faulk is a hof'er. bush is a poor runningback, a decent reciever (who drops a lot more balls than youre admitting), and a solid if inconsistent return man who's also very injury prone and has missed a lot of games. In what way has he lived up to his draft status?
Scott said in this thread he is not a bust.

Reggie Bush has stuck with the Saints as long as Faulk did with the team that drafted him give-or-take. Same with Jerome Bettis and his draft team the Rams.

I have no loyalty to the Saints and don't like USC, but I can't understand why some people hate on Reggie Bush so badly... yet if they were honest with us, they'd admit they'd take them on their team in a heartbeat of the contract was right.

J-Mike88
02-21-2011, 12:59 PM
If Reggie Bush was on the open market he'd have a line of teams waiting to sign him.
Fact. But the Bush-haters will conveniently ignore this.....

A Perfect Score
02-21-2011, 01:01 PM
Fact. But the Bush-haters will conveniently ignore this.....

Thats because it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. Bush's value on the open market is absolutely a non-factor here. The real question is how many teams would draft Reggie Bush #2 overall knowing that this is the type of player he'd turn into? The answer is 0.

Saints-Tigers
02-21-2011, 01:02 PM
I could still see him playing like Faulk, health permitting. You'll need a dominant O-line, or at least something like the 09 Saints, but he could get those big ypc numbers, and receiving isn't a problem, that's all about play calling.

Over the past few years, Reggie has looked like a different runner when healthy, not Barry Sanders or Jim Brown, but definitely high caliber, but DAMN he always breaks on punt returns(either TDs, or his legs!!) =/

I still think the difference between guys like Felix Jones/Reggie, and someone like Chris Johnson/Jamal Charles is the consistency and confidence they were able to build by being healthy enough to sustain high carries.

Reggie might need a change of scenery, and a year of good health, but he's still got a size/speed combo that is very very rare, and he's a very intelligent and hard working guy, it's hard to see him not having successful years when he's healthy, but it's hard to build a gameplan around someone that misses so many games.

I hope he does break out for us, but even when he's a role player, I'm still happy he is here.

The beginning of 08, the end of 09 and the post season, and training camp and preseason of '10, Reggie looks like a more powerful and decisive runner than 07 or so, but he seems like he's pressing because his plays are limited, and his injuries keep knocking him two steps back.


Like I said though, I'd love to have Ngata, but I definitely don't hate having Reggie, and he's saved us quite a few times, and won a share of games for us in his time here. He's a solid and dynamic player who is knocking on the door of a breakout, and he's a captain and team leader, so we ain't mad :)

I can see why people would write him off and say he's a bust, and i know people that aren't as close to the situation think I'm just being a homer, but I still see too many flashes of dominance here and there to overlook it.

But yea, like APS said, no one in there right mind takes him at 2, because you can take Ngata or Mario Williams given a redo.

Saints-Tigers
02-21-2011, 01:04 PM
Bulluck and Alexander yeah, but Janikowski is one of the greatest kickers of the decade and Pennington, well, was Pennington.

Lol, wut.

Pennington is an outstanding QB, I'd draft him over Janikowski just to be a QB coach, lol.

San Diego Chicken
02-21-2011, 02:32 PM
Thats because it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. Bush's value on the open market is absolutely a non-factor here. The real question is how many teams would draft Reggie Bush #2 overall knowing that this is the type of player he'd turn into? The answer is 0.

While true, there are many recent #2 picks that you can say the same for. In fact, there have only been 3 #2 overall picks that lived up to their draft position in the last ten years or so - Suh, Calvin Johnson, and Julius Peppers. It's too harsh to say if the #2 overall doesn't develop into a franchise caliber player then he is a bust.

fear the elf
02-21-2011, 02:47 PM
but it's cool.

You're not even tearing my **** apart and this still gets under my skin. You're too good at what you do sir. lol

hockey619
02-21-2011, 02:55 PM
Scott said in this thread he is not a bust.

.....this is relevant how? And i didnt say he's a bust, just a dissappointment. hes not nearly the runner youd expect from a #2 pick running back. hes been outplayed by no name RB's on his own team.

Reggie Bush has stuck with the Saints as long as Faulk did with the team that drafted him give-or-take. Same with Jerome Bettis and his draft team the Rams.

? what are you trying to say with this? that because he stuck with the team that long he must be good? or because faulk and reggie both stayed on their first teams for the same amount of time scott was right in saying they were the same?

Because i dont think scott was saying bush's career path would be the same as faulk, but that his talent and impact level would be. Which it has not, thus why he was wrong.

I have no loyalty to the Saints and don't like USC, but I can't understand why some people hate on Reggie Bush so badly... yet if they were honest with us, they'd admit they'd take them on their team in a heartbeat if the contract was right.

and neither do i in any way. I dont hate bush at all. But you are overrating him.

Bolded: so if the price were right youd take him?
would the contract of a number two overall pick be worth it? because thats what everyone is arguing, that hes not worth that pick and therefore a dissappointment.

FUNBUNCHER
02-21-2011, 02:57 PM
Every team in the league of course would have room on their roster for Reggie Bush because of his versatility.

But NO team in the NFL would draft him again in the top 30. 70% of the time he was a decoy for the Saints, that was his primary impact for Payton's offense.

There are different levels of bust, IMO. There are the alltime busts like Jemarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf, and there are those guys drafted with the expectation they would be multiple pro bowl selections, when instead they are merely serviceable, sometimes effective NFL subs/starters.



Based on expectations, Lavar Arrington was a bust, but still a very good pro most of his career, ( but never better than Bulluck or Urlacher, the two LBs picked after him), and rarely the offensive destroying, weapon-of-mass-destruction he was touted to be.
His teammate, Courtney Brown, was an alltime bust, because of injuries.

That said, I still believe Bush could have his best football ahead of him and may experience a comeback late in his career.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2011, 02:59 PM
But NO team in the NFL would draft him again in the top 30.
I'm quite certain that a lot of teams would.

If you think that about 30% of 1st round picks give you absolutely nothing, Bush would be a very solid pick in the late 1st.

PossibleCabbage
02-21-2011, 02:59 PM
The important thing is even if teams line up to sign Bush if he hits the open market, the only team who would pay him $12,000,000 for next year is the Saints.

J-Mike88
02-21-2011, 08:25 PM
Right, so Bush doesn't deserve $12 mil, nobody would argue that outside of his agent and some family members.

But that doesn't make him a bust or even close to it.

And bearsfan 51 is right. If a Bear & Packer fan agree 100% on something unrelated to either club, you really should realize you're misremembering what Bush has done and meant to his club. It must be the name "" that just brings the hate from certain people.

VoteLynnSwan
02-21-2011, 08:37 PM
because that's certianly proof ******* positive. *eyeroll*

learn 2 facts.

the burden of proof is on the reader of the post njx... you of all people should know that.

LonghornsLegend
02-21-2011, 08:55 PM
LOL@Reggie Bush not being a bust.


The same guy who has yet to reach 600 rushing yards in any season? The same guy who has proved injury prone the last 4 seasons and not durable enough to finish a season? The same guy who hasn't learned to run between the tackles yet? The same guy who has been consistently outplayed and outproduced by two UDFA's Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory?



Nobody hates Reggie Bush, that's a lame excuse for people who can't come up with enough reasons for why he was worth the #2 overall pick in the draft. I keep hearing some of the same excuses as to why Marcus Spears was never a bust. Just because you stick with the team you drafted, and contributed, doesn't mean your not a bust. Paging Barbie Carpenter anyone?



Bush can't even avg 4 ypc, can you imagine if someone had told you this before he was drafted? The big play Reggie Bush who is compared to Marshall Faulk and Gale Sayers.


I guess I'm the only one who notices his sharp decline in production since he came into the league? You need to scheme to put him in the right place to be productive, he's not a focal point of the offense. Do you think anyone is taking him over Deangelo Williams?



Bush was a key cog in their SB run, he's certainly useful to the Saints and helps open things up for players, but it's laughable to me people think he's not a bust because the Saints still have use for him.



You would have to combine all of his totals for the last 3 seasons combined for him to be worth a damn. He's not supposed to be a small portion of the offense who has a few gadget plays, the #2 pick is supposed to carry an offense similiar to Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson. Not sure why this is hard for some people to understand.

RealityCheck
02-21-2011, 09:22 PM
Lol, wut.

Pennington is an outstanding QB, I'd draft him over Janikowski just to be a QB coach, lol.
Outstanding injuries you mean.

asdf1223
02-21-2011, 10:53 PM
I think Football outsiders gave the best stat here
Since the Saints drafted Bush in 2006, they've averaged 26.5 points per game while Bush is in the lineup. Bush has missed 18 games through injury; in those 18 games, New Orleans averaged 28.9 points, nearly 2.5 points more per game.
This is crude since this doesn't take in to account opponents or Bush's individual contribution but this Saints need Bush to have an explosive offence thing is a bad myth.

Saints-Tigers
02-21-2011, 11:10 PM
Reggie runs fine between the tackles when we hold our ground, he's not going to slam his way into a back of a pile and get 4 yards per carry from nothing, but if the hole opens up, he's dangerous.

Again with the "outproduced by two UDFAs" thing, like Thomas and Ivory aren't better than most tandems.

It's still false too, Reggie's YPC over the past two years is higher than both of them, even with the injuries, and his touchdown rate has always been higher.

But still, Ivory and Pierre Thomas are outstanding runners, I dunno why they are used as detriments, the only negative you can say about either of them is that Ivory knows nothing about hte passing game, and they both get hurt almost as much as Reggie does. Ivory in particular has the tools to be a special runner, have you watched this guy lately? He's a size/speed nightmare, and is flat out nasty.

Like I said in the first like, he won't produce at all in the running game unless you have a decent line, but if you are opening up running lanes and getting him into the second level and letting him do what he does best, make people miss, he'll be highly highly productive as a runner.

Guess it just depends what you like, if the line isn't opening up gaps, and we need 3-4 yards, Thomas is definitely going to be a better option, he can break tackles before he even gains steam, and he'll drag out extra yards. But if your line does the job and gets the guys to the second level, Reggie is a better runner after that. He really doesn't have the leg drive to take something from nothing, but once he gets his steam built up, his momentum carries him through arm tackles, and he's way more than strong enough to lay the hammer on DBs.

I think 09 showed the type of scheme he should be in for the best results(running wise), and that's a pure power scheme, without all the fancy stuff Sean Payton used to try to do.

I don't have a stat, but I bet Bush's YPC on toss plays is much much much worse than when he lines up directly behind the fullback and an extra blocker is brought in, and they just run him right between the guard and tackle.

As for the stat where we score more points with Bush, that might be true, but I feel like we get way more aggressive without Bush and we lose our safe play, and are forced off the field more often, and forced into more turnovers, and we end up trying to play catch up. When Reggie and Pierre are both their, we might score less points, but it's because we run, and we used our little 6-7 yard RB throw underneath that is nearly automatic.


Still want to see him utilized more as a downfield receiver, we never run him downfield because we always want him there to play it safe if Brees gets in trouble, but the few times he's gone downfield that I can remember, he always makes a play.

Do it more, at least let him run a fly pattern, haha.

LonghornsLegend
02-22-2011, 12:49 AM
Again with the "outproduced by two UDFAs" thing, like Thomas and Ivory aren't better than most tandems.


I still fail to see how that has anything to do with the point. Saints used the #2 overall pick on Bush yet found two Undrafted RB's who are more complete and more productive RB's then he is.



It's still false too, Reggie's YPC over the past two years is higher than both of them, even with the injuries, and his touchdown rate has always been higher.




Let me guess, your going to ignore the fact that he ran the ball 36 times in 2010, and 70 in 2009? I guess we should marvel at the fact that he finally had a decent YPC with so few carries.





But still, Ivory and Pierre Thomas are outstanding runners, I dunno why they are used as detriments, the only negative you can say about either of them is that Ivory knows nothing about hte passing game, and they both get hurt almost as much as Reggie does. Ivory in particular has the tools to be a special runner, have you watched this guy lately? He's a size/speed nightmare, and is flat out nasty.


They are brought up to prove mostly how it's possible for a RB to be productive in NO. Pierre ran for over 600 yards twice and averaged 4.8 YPC or better 3 seasons. Ivory had a better season running the ball this year then Bush ever will. These guys run behind the exact same line that your going out of your way to make excuses for as to why Bush can't suceed. Sure are alot of excuses for such a high draft pick.




I don't think Bush is a terrible player what so ever, but why all the excuses? His rushing totals have been pathetic since he became a pro, he's an excellent weapon out of the backfield catching the ball no doubt, but if NO knew this is what they were gonna get they would have passed.



You can get a guy like Reggie Bush all through the draft, Dexter McCluster isn't much different. His receptions are the 1 thing you can point out and say "look how many passes he caught he's productive" but in reality when your in an offense that has Drew Brees throwing nearly 700 times, and nearly every one of those passes are in the backfield, I'm really not seeing what here is to get excited about other then the punt returns.

PossibleCabbage
02-22-2011, 02:37 AM
Let me guess, your going to ignore the fact that he ran the ball 36 times in 2010, and 70 in 2009? I guess we should marvel at the fact that he finally had a decent YPC with so few carries.

Yards per carry is easily one of the most misleading stats in football, especially with low numbers of carries. A guy carries 12 times for 1 yard each over the course of a game, and then in the fourth quarter he breaks a 68 yard TD run. 6.15 yards per carry! Amazing!

It's one of those stats that's really only useful for telling us who isn't very good at running the ball, rather than who is.

Saints-Tigers
02-22-2011, 02:51 AM
I'm just basing it on the fact that he's a different runner than he was in pre 2008, I mean, it's not like people here would realize that because they don't really watch us play. It's not just his numbers, he just looks different, the numbers just back it up.

Haven't seen any evidence that more carries will lower Reggie's YPC at this point, he just will get broken.

I didn't realize that YPC is only usable when it's poor though, my mistake. Honestly, I see too many guys have crap games running the ball and get 20+ carries before they break off a 40 yarder and then it makes them look like they dominated. Guys that get 5 carries have much less time to establish any rhythm.

Everytime someone doesn't dump on a player, it's excuses. The dude ran like crap for a long time, but healthy over the last few seasons, he's run the ball well, amount of carries be damned.

Believe it or not, it's ok to say a guy has had a disappointing career but has been producing on his touches recently.

PossibleCabbage
02-22-2011, 03:20 AM
YPC isn't a bad stat per se, it's just potentially a very misleading stat with low sample size.

I mean, for example, prior to the long touchdown run, in the playoff game against the Saints Marshawn Lynch was held to a somewhat pedestrian 3.55 YPC. After he scampers 67 yards, he shot up to 6.9 YPC. Did he have a great day? No... he a decent day, but he also hada great run.

If you look at a guy and he's got like 300 carries and he has like a 4.8 YPC, he's probably pretty good. If you look at a guy and he's got 50 carries, it's really impossible to tell anything from his YPC unless the YPC tally is pretty low. For a guy with 50 carries, two 60 yard TD runs which may have more to do with defensive incompetence than anything else can take a guy from a poor ~2 YPC to north of 4 YPC.

YPG is probably more meaningful than YPC for guys who don't get many touches. At least then it helps to indicate playmakers.

Basileus777
02-22-2011, 03:46 AM
Any stat can be misleading with small sample sizes, YPC is hardly unique in that.

J-Mike88
02-22-2011, 08:47 AM
LOL@Reggie Bush not being a bust.


Nobody hates Reggie Bush, that's a.....


Bush was a key cog in their SB run, he's certainly useful to the Saints and helps open things up for players, but....
-Actually, plenty of people seem to hate Reggie Bush, as posts about him have demonstrated here many times. It appears that next to Tebow, there isn't a more polarizing player in the NFL in terms of threads on sites like this.

And this part you wrote yourself is contradictory to your Bush is a Bust label: "Bush was a key cog in their SB run, he's certainly useful to the Saints and helps open things up for players..."

That's not a description of "a bust".
Now look, he may have under-achieved for being such a highly-touted, and #2 overall pick.

But what Bush has done and meant to that team is not indicative of "a bust".

And it wasn't just the one Super Bowl, key cog.
He also helped lead them to an NFC Championship game his rookie season, where they lost at Chicago. He caught 88 passes, and rushed for 6 TDs that year. Not great, but obviously not "bust" statistics.

Big difference between "bust" and "not-up-to-some people's-expectations."

hockey619
02-22-2011, 08:49 AM
I'm just basing it on the fact that he's a different runner than he was in pre 2008, I mean, it's not like people here would realize that because they don't really watch us play. It's not just his numbers, he just looks different, the numbers just back it up.

well hes getting less carries and the team has been better because of it (see guy above who posted ppg with/without bush). And the guy's numbers and role in the offense has decreased every year hes been there. so to me it looks like the coaches realize hes overrated too and doesnt bring the explosiveness theyd hoped for.

Haven't seen any evidence that more carries will lower Reggie's YPC at this point, he just will get broken.

i dont see any that his YPC would stay the same with more carries either. though i do see some that if you increase his carries he'll get killed and not be on the field. still not really worth the number 2 overall pick. Thats what everyone is arguing, not sure why this is still a discussion. Its pretty clear he hasnt lived up to 'the next marshall faulk' billing scott gave him. which is what we're arguing.

I didn't realize that YPC is only usable when it's poor though, my mistake. Honestly, I see too many guys have crap games running the ball and get 20+ carries before they break off a 40 yarder and then it makes them look like they dominated. Guys that get 5 carries have much less time to establish any rhythm.

hes supposed to be this big explosive weapon. the other guys in his backfield have more big plays than he does. not exactly how the #2 overall pick is supposed to work.

Everytime someone doesn't dump on a player, it's excuses. The dude ran like crap for a long time, but healthy over the last few seasons, he's run the ball well, amount of carries be damned.

its easy to run well when he gets a few touches and hes done, doesnt have to worry about wear and tear huh? also, as i said before, the dude drops a whole lot more passes than anyone wants to admit. his hands are very inconsistent.

Believe it or not, it's ok to say a guy has had a disappointing career but has been producing on his touches recently.

Exactly! he hasnt lived up to the number 2 overall pick. Hes a serviceable player, but not the superstar youd expect from the 2nd pick. thats the whole point.

Right, so Bush doesn't deserve $12 mil, nobody would argue that outside of his agent and some family members.

good. so hes not worth big time money like, say, a great #2 pick should make?

But that doesn't make him a bust or even close to it.

And bearsfan 51 is right. If a Bear & Packer fan agree 100% on something unrelated to either club, you really should realize you're misremembering what Bush has done and meant to his club. It must be the name "" that just brings the hate from certain people.

Ive never called him a bust. I said he's a dissappointment and wasnt worth he #2 pick.

bears/packers fans agreeing is 100% irrelevant.

when hes been out, the team hasnt missed a beat (actually been better according to the numbers), so i dont think im 'misremembering' anything.

i really dont get whats so hard to understand about this, he without a doubt hasnt lived up to Scott's expectations. He said he'd be the next marshall faulk. he hasnt been close to that, hes been very mediocre. not what you hope for at #2.

J-Mike88
02-22-2011, 08:58 AM
#1- bears/packers fans agreeing is 100% irrelevant.

#2- when hes been out, the team hasnt missed a beat (actually been better according to the numbers), so i dont think im 'misremembering' anything.

#3- i really dont get whats so hard to understand about this, he without a doubt hasnt lived up to Scott's expectations. He said he'd be the next marshall faulk. he hasnt been close to that, hes been very mediocre. not what you hope for at #2.
#1- Curse you. Bears & Packer fans agreeing on something like this is always relevant.

#2- That's another misleading statistic. Here's what's more meaningful than some game stats: the 2 seasons that bush played the most (16 games in 2006 & 14 in 2009), the Saints advanced to the NFC Championship game and the Super Bowl. Coincidence? Ask Sean Payton, Drew Brees, and Marques Colston. And ask every defensive coordinator who gameplans against them. You might see Colston left wide open sometimes, or Pierre Thomas, but no defenses ever leave Bush unaccounted for.

#3- Scott says Bush has been who he thought he would be. Who are to argue what his thoughts were?

hockey619
02-22-2011, 09:06 AM
#2- That's another misleading statistic. Here's what's more meaningful than some game stats: the 2 seasons that bush played the most (16 games in 2006 & 14 in 2009), the Saints advanced to the NFC Championship game and the Super Bowl. Coincidence? Ask Sean Payton, Drew Brees, and Marques Colston. And ask every defensive coordinator who gameplans against them. You might see Colston left wide open sometimes, or Pierre Thomas, but no defenses ever leave Bush unaccounted for. good point. but doesnt mean he was worth the top pick. and the issues on defense might have had something to do with those down years.

#3- Scott says Bush has been who he thought he would be. Who are to argue what his thoughts were?

As yfs posted earlier

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7146/bushp.png


.........because he posted his thoughts on bush, thats why i know them.

he called him the next marshall faulk, an elite prospect, and top 3 overall pick. he envisioned a much better player than what weve gotten.

Saints-Tigers
02-22-2011, 10:18 AM
Reggie's ability to run the ball now has about 0 to do with the amount of carries he takes.

It's a pretty stupid argument right now, Reggie's carries as a rookie weren't bad because he got a lot of them, they were bad because he was trying to do way too much and was getting himself in trouble and missing easy gains.

He's a totally different runner now, and no one wants to give him credit for that, other than saying "ONLY CUZ HE GOT LESS CARRIES".

J-Mike is partially right, people do refuse to give Reggie any credit once they have formed an opinion.

And my point isn't that he isn't disappointing, it's more against hte ZOMG CANT RUN BETWEEN TACKLEZZZZ, which shows clearly someone isn't watching.

yourfavestoner
02-22-2011, 10:46 AM
Reggie's ability to run the ball now has about 0 to do with the amount of carries he takes.

It's a pretty stupid argument right now, Reggie's carries as a rookie weren't bad because he got a lot of them, they were bad because he was trying to do way too much and was getting himself in trouble and missing easy gains.

He's a totally different runner now, and no one wants to give him credit for that, other than saying "ONLY CUZ HE GOT LESS CARRIES".

J-Mike is partially right, people do refuse to give Reggie any credit once they have formed an opinion.

And my point isn't that he isn't disappointing, it's more against hte ZOMG CANT RUN BETWEEN TACKLEZZZZ, which shows clearly someone isn't watching.

I dunno if you remember or not, but we actually had that conversation on here after the week one game against Minny. Even though he only got a couple of carries, I said he looked much more decisive as a runner, was actually breaking through arm tackles, and may have been ready to turn the corner.

And then he went and broke his leg the next week.

BigBanger
02-22-2011, 11:08 AM
I wonder how many more pages it will take for you morons to keep talking in circles, saying the same ******* thing over and over.


Anyway, Rey Maualuga to answer the topic. I believe Scott had him ranked 17th, or at least that's what he bragged about in a thread I made that bashed Rey Rey for being the worst of the USC trio of LBs, and an early second rounder.

hockey619
02-22-2011, 11:16 AM
Reggie's ability to run the ball now has about 0 to do with the amount of carries he takes.

I disagree. Running the ball less means he has more energy and more to prove with his few carries. I think it also gives him more of a willingness to run hard, as he hasnt taken a hard hit yet. The more hard hits a guy like reggie takes, the less he wants to take him. I just think it works a bit better for him psychologically. Still, coming out he was expected to get more carries (not a lot but more than he is now) and be much more effective breaking big plays, which he also hasnt done (remember that first run in his first preseason game? damn he looks like hes lost so much confidence since then).

It's a pretty stupid argument right now, Reggie's carries as a rookie weren't bad because he got a lot of them, they were bad because he was trying to do way too much and was getting himself in trouble and missing easy gains.

agreed. i think the difference between him in college and him now is that he added upper body strength to prove to people he was strong enough to handle carries, rather than embracing his role as a matchup problem and using his speed and cutting. not really relevant but something ive thought about him since he got to the league.

He's a totally different runner now, and no one wants to give him credit for that, other than saying "ONLY CUZ HE GOT LESS CARRIES".

he is. my bad for not giving props. he definitely looked much more decisive in that season opening game, and much more willing to put his head down and just take what was there and take some contact. that said, i still didnt think he looked all that special, certainly not even close to pre draft hype special. which is the point of this whole thread. [EDIT: and yfs beat me to it. damnit.]

J-Mike is partially right, people do refuse to give Reggie any credit once they have formed an opinion.

Have you read all of his arguments? Hes defending scott, who while i love the guy, said reggie has turned out exactly like he thought he would, which as proven time and time and time again by a number of people is incorrect. Bush has not lived up to what scott thought he'd be.

And my point isn't that he isn't disappointing, it's more against hte ZOMG CANT RUN BETWEEN TACKLEZZZZ, which shows clearly someone isn't watching.

no, he really cant. but at least now hes showing that hes much more willing to try it and not as scared of contact. but hes still not effective there. not that he needs to be though.

LonghornsLegend
02-22-2011, 11:21 AM
I didn't realize that YPC is only usable when it's poor though, my mistake.


Now where did anyone say that? YPC is usuable when you at least have a decent amount of carries. I don't consider 70 carries in a season a "decent" amount.




#3- Scott says Bush has been who he thought he would be. Who are to argue what his thoughts were?


J-Mike what is your infatuation with "well Scott thinks it so there is no chance it's wrong, it's Scott"!!1!1!! I'm not sure why you continually bring him up, like that's the be all end all.


What point are you trying to make by constantly bringing Scott up?

J52
02-22-2011, 11:39 AM
You people are really special. This argument has degraded to nothing but a semantical debate over the term "bust" rather then talking about players.

Who cares what arbitrary value you give the term "bust." Reggie Bush's expectations were x and he fell short of them, but he still is a solid player.

Can't believe this has six pages of "that's not what bust means."

J-Mike88
02-22-2011, 12:07 PM
You people are really special. This argument has degraded to nothing but a semantical debate over the term "bust" rather then talking about players.

Who cares what arbitrary value you give the term "bust." Reggie Bush's expectations were x and he fell short of them, but he still is a solid player.

Can't believe this has six pages of "that's not what bust means."
Exactly. Reggie should have his own thread debating all this... who chose to make this thread about Bush?

I want to know what Scott's pre-draft thoughts were on Nick Collins and Greg Jennings, as well as Clay Matthews.

None of us here ever saw Collins or Jennings play in college, probably the same case with James Jones.

What I notice about everyone who gives their opinions before a draft, they are sure to cover themselves on each side, just like the weathermen who say partly sunny with a chance at isolated showers.

Scott and the others always put positives and weaknesses and mention something that will cover them if they succeed, or if they fail.

I'd like to see them add a category that says my career prediction for this player:

yourfavestoner
02-22-2011, 02:10 PM
The six page Bush diatribe solely blossomed from the ******** emanating from this statement:

I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Anyone who thought he was going to be an elite starting running back was kidding themselves. Bush is and always was a versatile, all-around threat best suited for a third down role.

LonghornsLegend
02-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Which is funny because even with Scott's comments it sounds like revisionist history. It's not like his scouting report said something along the lines of "excellent role player but not suited to be an elite starting RB". Kinda hard to say he is likely to end up better then Marshall Faulk, then later say you were kidding yourself if you thought he was gonna be an elite starting RB.

Saints-Tigers
02-22-2011, 02:24 PM
Yea, anyone saying they think Reggie has lived up to what they thought, is probably full of ****, I don't remember many, if any detractors.

That's kinda lame Scott.

I still think he can be an elite player with good health, he'll never be Barry Sanders with Marshall Faulk's receiving like some people wanted to say.

Either way, he's a dissappointment that I'll be thrilled to have back next year, and I still think his best football is ahead of him, and even if he keeps getting hurt, you can almost count on him winning you a game or two when he has one of those "moments".

I almost feel like he will fluke into at least 1-2 healthy years. The guy hasn't played a full healthy season since his rookie year(hell, even then, he tweaked his ankle early, but it wasn't TOO bad), he's either come into the season hurt, got hurt pretty significantly in the middle, or ended on IR, it's kind of a shame =/.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-22-2011, 03:10 PM
I was labeled a Reggie Bush hater prior to the draft, but only because I said woah there, hold up tiger, when people said he was the next Marshall Faulk. That's all it took. People here looked at his FLOOR as a rich man's Brian Westbrook. Even if we ignore the "rich man's" part, it shows that the sentiment of most people on here was that he would be a dominant NFL player, and he simply is NOT. Whether that's a bust or not, I don't care to argue. But he is NOT a dominant NFL player by any stretch. He's a good player, but he's not great. And S-T, I really don't think his numbers would hold up with more carries. Maybe he really has turned a corner, but I don't know if that would continue if he had to take the grind of 12-15 carries per game, which isn't even a lot. He's underperformed this "hater"'s expectations, because although I never thought he'd be Faulk, I thought he'd be Westbrook more or less.

A lot of teams would want Bush, yes, I want the Broncos to get him too at a reasonable price. That doesn't mean anything though. Broncos need returners and playmakers in a big way, plus having a guy like Bush out of the backfield could help Tebow. I think the Saints should restructure depending on the new cap situation, because in a cap situation he is nowhere near worth $12M or whatever. They could probly get him for half that. And they should agree to that, because Reggie Bush is good for the Saints, and the Saints are good for Reggie Bush.

bearsfan_51
02-22-2011, 03:16 PM
Can't believe this has six pages of "that's not what bust means."
http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/79df85c1_65c3_3ca0.jpg

Saints-Tigers
02-22-2011, 03:49 PM
Reggie isn't getting 12 million, and he doesn't feel he deserves that much, that really isn't an issue.

"Saints running back Reggie Bush indicated Tuesday that he's willing to renegotiate his $11.8 million 2011 base salary to stay with the Saints. "I'm open to whatever is going to help me stay here," Bush said"

Bush is due about $11.8 million next season – the final year of his current contract – and figures there's little chance the Saints will bring him back at that price.

"Common sense would tell you probably not," Bush said


I have no evidence that Bush would be able to sustain high yards per carry with a high amount of carries, his number of high carries is limited.

He hasn't had 15+ carries since early in 2008, they all came in 2006 and 2007, but even still, he averaged 4.2 yards per carry on those 140 carries, and he's pretty clearly a better runner now than he was in 2007, and the Saints can open up holes better too.

Hell, I'm not even sure more carries will get him hurt, I'm pretty sure all of his injuries have come on punt returns, I remember at least 3 significant injuries on punt returns.

I know his 09 numbers can be easily skewed, and a small amount of carries can be spiked by one or two big runs, but it's not like he padded his numbers on a few big runs over his 70 carries, even you take out the 55 yarder he had, he still averaged 4.9 yards per carry, with only two carries over 20 yards. That's pretty good consistency for a guy who was so damn inconsistent early on, that's a huge improvement. He was gashing people in that 5-20 yard area every game, and deserved more carries than he got.

He's definitely improved a lot since his first two seasons, and I don't think enough people want to give him credit for that because his body hasn't held up enough for him to sustain bigger carries, and that's totally fair, but even outside of the numbers, you can just see he's a clearly improved player.

yourfavestoner
02-22-2011, 04:13 PM
FWIW:

Jennings (10th rated WR)
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/622/jenningsb.png

Collins (19th rated CB)
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6847/collins.png

To be fair, WR and DB are the two hardest position groups to scout for the average fan since you rarely see them in the play. You need coaches tape to scout them properly.

draftguru151
02-22-2011, 04:32 PM
PL loved Jennings so I think he might have seen him play once. I'm sure he was the only one though!

Caulibflower
02-22-2011, 04:39 PM
"Jennings is not much a a deep threat and won't stretch the field."

...Whoops.

P-L
02-22-2011, 04:54 PM
not that i expect you to ever answer a direct question or admit that you made something up to make yourself sound smart, but do you honestly think no one ever saw a western michigan game? do you ever think before hitting submit reply?
Yeah, it's not like one of the Head Moderators here attended four WMU games during Jennings' senior season and wore a Greg Jennings WMU sig for months leading up to the draft...

ElectricEye
02-22-2011, 07:39 PM
I LOVED Jennings and wanted the Patriots to pick him. Didn't think he would drafted as high as he was though. Defiantly saw him play multiple times in college his Junior and Senior seasons and was very impressed. I thought Jamarko Simmons was going to be something too. Was wrong on that one haha.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-22-2011, 09:03 PM
FWIW:

Jennings (10th rated WR)
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/622/jenningsb.png

Collins (19th rated CB)
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6847/collins.png

To be fair, WR and DB are the two hardest position groups to scout for the average fan since you rarely see them in the play. You need coaches tape to scout them properly.

My Greg Jennings scouting report from that year:

Strengths: He puts da team on his back do.

Weaknesses: Occasionally breaks his leg.

J-Mike88
02-22-2011, 10:01 PM
"Jennings is not much a a deep threat and won't stretch the field."

...Whoops.
"Can make his mark as a #3 or possession receiver in the NFL"

MidwayMonster31
02-23-2011, 01:18 AM
Nobody was arguing about Nick Collins' physical abilities, but it did take him a while to turn into an effective starting safety. That scouting report wasn't that far off. A lot of it comes down to the coaching they get.

jnew76
02-23-2011, 01:30 AM
My Greg Jennings scouting report from that year:

Strengths: He puts da team on his back do.

Weaknesses: Occasionally breaks his leg.

Damn... This made my drink come out my nose.

GB12
02-23-2011, 01:38 AM
Scott's strengths for Jennings were dead on. The rest, not so much, but if you stop reading after the strengths he looks like a genius.

Nobody was arguing about Nick Collins' physical abilities, but it did take him a while to turn into an effective starting safety. That scouting report wasn't that far off. A lot of it comes down to the coaching they get.

He was an effective starting safety as a rookie.

yourfavestoner
03-02-2011, 05:26 PM
Right, this will be his 5th year.
They 100% want him back, as Green Bay wants AJ Hawk back 100% but he has a ridiculously high $ on the books for 011, but you're talking about silly cap #'s..... not busts.

People love to throw the word "bust" around these days. Guys like Bush may not have lived up to some people's unrealistic expectations, but he's certainly no bust. He's exactly who Scott said he was and he's been good enough that the Saints definitely want to keep him.

Well, AJ Hawk just got cut today. Wompwompwomp.

PossibleCabbage
03-02-2011, 06:14 PM
Well, AJ Hawk just got cut today. Wompwompwomp.

Wouldn't be surprised if Bush gets cut tomorrow. It depends on "at what point Bush's ridiculous 2011 escalator will become guaranteed" more than anything else.

Packers are still looking to resign Hawk, they just cut him to avoid being on the hook for $10.5m once the league starts. For high picks signed to six year contracts, generally the sixth year serves as a sort of proxy for free agency where a team can "resign" the player for roughly the cost of a high priced free agent for a year or cut him and make him an actual free agent.

Nebula
03-02-2011, 09:08 PM
Shame AJ Hawk became such an average player. I wonder what were some of his negatives Scott had in his scouting reports that made him underachieve in Green Bay

PossibleCabbage
03-02-2011, 09:33 PM
Here's Scott's scouting report on Hawk. It's not too far off of what happened. Just "impact", "playmaker", "good in coverage", and "good at shedding blocks" were absent.

http://i51.tinypic.com/286qyyu.jpg

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-02-2011, 09:44 PM
I don't think it's fair to call Scott out for missing on someone EVERYONE missed on. AJ Hawk was far from polarizing.

GB12
03-02-2011, 09:51 PM
It's not like he's bad either. He hasn't lived up to the 5th pick, that's for sure, but he'd still start on most teams. There are so very many players he, and everyone else, have gotten more wrong than Hawk.

yourfavestoner
03-02-2011, 10:19 PM
It's not like he's bad either. He hasn't lived up to the 5th pick, that's for sure, but he'd still start on most teams. There are so very many players he, and everyone else, have gotten more wrong than Hawk.

For the record, I wasn't calling out Scott, but rather J-Mike.

PossibleCabbage
03-02-2011, 10:20 PM
I don't think it's fair to call Scott out for missing on someone EVERYONE missed on. AJ Hawk was far from polarizing.

No, Hawk ended up a lot of what people thought he would: safe and unspectacular. He wasn't cut because he was playing bad, he was cut because the sixth year of his rookie contract was never intended to served out (this is common for high picks).

I just posted the scouting report because someone posted something about wondering about Scott's scouting report on A.J. Scott was pretty close on A.J., but then again so were most people.

ElectricEye
03-02-2011, 10:31 PM
People did not think Hawk was going to safe and unspectacular. They thought he was going to be Patrick Willis.

PossibleCabbage
03-02-2011, 10:40 PM
Oh, and just FYI: Lance Allen at WTMJ out of Milwaukee (one of the Packers flagship radio stations) is reporting that Hawk is flying into Green Bay tomorrow to sign a 5 year contract.

So it was a brief divorce.

Monomach
03-04-2011, 09:19 AM
People did not think Hawk was going to safe and unspectacular. They thought he was going to be Patrick Willis.

This. I remember most people saying that he'd be amazing, myself included.

A Perfect Score
03-04-2011, 09:22 AM
I'll be the first to admit I thought AJ Hawk was going to be amazing. Still one of my favorite linebackers Ive ever scouted. Probably #2 behind Derrick Johnson at Texas.

J-Mike88
03-04-2011, 09:34 AM
Well, AJ Hawk just got cut today. Wompwompwomp.
"Wompwompwomp"

You were saying?

STsACE
03-04-2011, 11:04 AM
Posters want to defend Bush as being a Bust since he's had injury problems and hasn't been able to live up to the hype, yet label Courtney Brown and Tim Couch as complete Busts.

Bull****

Both Brown and Couch played very well when they were healthy, yet were never able to stay healthy and couldn't live up to what they were supposed to be or accomplish because of injuries.

I will give the benefit in saying for what their respective stats were for where they were picked and what they made, yeah, they could be could called Busts. Same goes for Bush: with where he was picked and what he makes, he's a Bust. But, for someone who plays in the NFL, he's been productive when healthy, so weren't Brown and Couch.

There should really be a definition for Busts, as the term is thrown around loosely. Maybe go with:

Bust - underperformer for draft ranking, slotted pick and salary
Injury Bust - career hampered by injury
Epic Bust - unable to accomplish anything and has no excuses

ElectricEye
03-04-2011, 12:47 PM
I'll be the first to admit I thought AJ Hawk was going to be amazing. Still one of my favorite linebackers Ive ever scouted. Probably #2 behind Derrick Johnson at Texas.

Sad how neither of those two has quite lived up to expectations.

ATLDirtyBirds
03-04-2011, 12:51 PM
I'll be the first to admit I thought AJ Hawk was going to be amazing. Still one of my favorite linebackers Ive ever scouted. Probably #2 behind Derrick Johnson at Texas.


I got AJ Hawk right! This thread has given me the idea to start saving a yearly list like Scott so I can see how I hold up over time.

Crickett
03-04-2011, 01:32 PM
People did not think Hawk was going to safe and unspectacular.

The people I talked to did. The way I remember it, the knock on A.J. Hawk going #2 (because the Saints needed linebacker help so badly) was that people didn't think he was going to be a Patrick Willis type player, that he was going to be safe and unspectacular. That he would be a productive player for 10-12 years, but certainly not pro bowl caliber. In the top five, he was the one guy who didn't have the upside, but didn't have the question marks either.

Was Mario Williams a workout warrior?

Could Reggie Bush carry the load as a feature back? (This question was usually answered this way: HERESY, YOU SHALL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE FOR QUESTIONING LORD DUKE REGINALD BUSH!!!! FOR HE IS THE GREATEST RUNNING BACK PROSPECT WHO DOTH EVER LIVED!!!!!)

Would Vince Young be as bad of a pocket passer at the pro level as Michael Vick was (at the time)? Sure he could make plays happen with his feet, but would he be able to effectively read pass coverages?

Was D'Brickashaw Ferguson too small? Could defensive ends overpower him and can he run block? And particularly from the Jets fans I had the misfortune of talking to at the time, how important is it really to draft an offensive lineman this early when you can draft a quarterback with an arm like Jay Cutler did and draft Joe Thomas the next year? The assumption there being that the Jets would have a high enough draft pick the following year that they could draft Joe Thomas.

Legend234
03-04-2011, 02:21 PM
I'm not trying to be mean, but what makes someone good at evaluating these prospects? Very few people go out on a limb and rank a prospect really high who no one else is really talking about or rank a guy way lower than everyone else. Its so hard to say scott is one of the best at evaluating talent or mel kiper or mayock is good. I'm just saying people shouldn't really get on a draft guy for missing on a high profile guy who busted or one who really lived up to the hype. You could say scott had Andre Johnson #1 in 03' and look how good he is. That year he also had Taylor Jacobs above Anquan Boldin. If he had greg jennings as a top 3 receiver in 06' that would show me something.

Sometimes people make bold statements, but not very often. I can remember Mel Kiper guaranteed in 04' that none of the top three qb's would bust. (Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger) but even that isn't that big of a statement.

an interesting thing to see would be to see a list of every draft guru's top 10 players who they guarantee will succeed or top five who they guarantee will bust and compare those.

cajuncorey
03-04-2011, 02:47 PM
i still think jimmy clausen is a top 10 pick

ElectricEye
03-04-2011, 02:57 PM
The people I talked to did. The way I remember it, the knock on A.J. Hawk going #2 (because the Saints needed linebacker help so badly) was that people didn't think he was going to be a Patrick Willis type player, that he was going to be safe and unspectacular. That he would be a productive player for 10-12 years, but certainly not pro bowl caliber. In the top five, he was the one guy who didn't have the upside, but didn't have the question marks either.

Not the way I remember it in my circles at the time. AJ Hawk was electric and athletic in college and figured to be a major force at linebacker. Urlacher caliber player was the label people threw around at the time.

Pil
03-04-2011, 03:06 PM
Pro day or not, when Hawk ran that 4.38 the draftnik community bukkaked.

smittyjs
03-30-2011, 02:42 PM
Smitty had to bump this back up, nearing the draft time
but i'll point out calling Chris Johnson the second coming of Trung Canidate and a poor man's reggie bush.....oh man

and brady quinn is the one player that comes to mind when thinking about players that scott has overrated

bergo23
03-30-2011, 03:12 PM
Accuracy seems to be the big issue for Quinn from getting him another shot...does anybody have Scott's scouting report about accuracy?

The Dude Abides
03-30-2011, 07:42 PM
Posters want to defend Bush as being a Bust since he's had injury problems and hasn't been able to live up to the hype, yet label Courtney Brown and Tim Couch as complete Busts.

Bull****

Both Brown and Couch played very well when they were healthy, yet were never able to stay healthy and couldn't live up to what they were supposed to be or accomplish because of injuries.

I will give the benefit in saying for what their respective stats were for where they were picked and what they made, yeah, they could be could called Busts. Same goes for Bush: with where he was picked and what he makes, he's a Bust. But, for someone who plays in the NFL, he's been productive when healthy, so weren't Brown and Couch.

There should really be a definition for Busts, as the term is thrown around loosely. Maybe go with:

Bust - underperformer for draft ranking, slotted pick and salary
Injury Bust - career hampered by injury
Epic Bust - unable to accomplish anything and has no excuses

I read this BS from the damn mouth breathers at NFLDC every single year since I joined this board in 2004 (I know it doesn't say 2004 anymore, but I got banned). I have been a Browns fan for a long time, I cried when they moved.


I also saw Tim Couch play every game he ever played. He was never ever good. He was, at his very best, BRUTALLY MEDIOCRE. and what were all of these injuries he had? When he broke his thumb in his second year? By the time he blew out his shoulder he had played in 62 NFL games (59 starts) he completed 59.8 percent of his throws and had a 64/67 TD/INT ratio. Of course, we can't forget his amazing 6.5 YPA.

Don't let his 10 4th quarter comebacks fool you. We wouldn't have needed that many if he didn't suck for the first 59 minutes.

cajuncorey
03-31-2011, 03:45 PM
People did not think Hawk was going to safe and unspectacular. They thought he was going to be Patrick Willis.

people were predicting that he was going to be a player drafted a year later?

STsACE
03-31-2011, 04:41 PM
I read this BS from the damn mouth breathers at NFLDC every single year since I joined this board in 2004 (I know it doesn't say 2004 anymore, but I got banned). I have been a Browns fan for a long time, I cried when they moved.


I also saw Tim Couch play every game he ever played. He was never ever good. He was, at his very best, BRUTALLY MEDIOCRE. and what were all of these injuries he had? When he broke his thumb in his second year? By the time he blew out his shoulder he had played in 62 NFL games (59 starts) he completed 59.8 percent of his throws and had a 64/67 TD/INT ratio. Of course, we can't forget his amazing 6.5 YPA.

Don't let his 10 4th quarter comebacks fool you. We wouldn't have needed that many if he didn't suck for the first 59 minutes.

Glad to know he also played the other 21 starter positions and left himself in those situations. Our teams were so devoid of talent, and for being a Browns fan, you should know this. We've sucked badly for the last decade and it can't be just put on one player's shoulder as the reason for why we did suck. We had the wrong personnel, Coaches, GM's, Ballboys, TowelBoys (Saving reservation on new regime until they accomplish otherwise or get sent packing)

To even try to point the finger on one guy, either you lost a job because of him, or he didn't return your sister's calls. Not trying to take a personal punch at ya, just seems your response is centered around not liking the guy and you didn't want to give him a chance.

Did you just not like him or do you believe he wouldn't have improved his stats even if the Organization was able to improve the players around him and he was able to stay healthy?

As rumored, which much of the stuff in the NFL is......Couch was supposedly playing hurt for a couple of years. He just kept taking pain meds (cortizone shots) instead of actually getting his shoulder fixed. (This was rumored by a friend of Couch's, he didn't come out with it and want people to feel sorry for him) Once again rumors. It's all heresay and noone will actually know unless Couch comes out and admits to it publicly the way Bernie admitted his faults and why he has went that route.

But considering the poor attempt of talent was put around him, he did well. He was hit too many times early in his career and could never seem to bounce back, especially after the injuries started to catch up to him.

As a Browns fan, I was happier than a 15 year old who caught his babysitter skinny dipping in the family pool when it was announced we were getting the Browns back. Looking back, we were doomed to be mediocre and less than mediocre for years with how quick we were thrown together.

I'm not fooled by Couch's less than stellar stats. I'm impressed by what he did accomplish with so little. He still has nothing but nice things to say about his time in Cleveland and has never publicly dissed anyone from the organization.

For now, I'm on the side that he was more severely injured than what was known publicly, as he was suspended by the league years ago when he tested positive for PED's and admitted he was prescribed by a doctor, HGH (or something similar, can't remember exactly right now), for something like 2 years to help his shoulder resemble something that actually functioned like a shoulder again.