Ping: Reggie Bush

[KevinNU7]

Remember that cute thing you could do against Pac-10 defense where you'd go to the line of scrimage on a screen or sweep and then cut back a few yards and reverse fields?

That doesn't work in the NFL

[rkmsuf]

Remember that cute thing you could do against Pac-10 defense where you'd go to the line of scrimage on a screen or sweep and then cut back a few yards and reverse fields?

That doesn't work in the NFL


LOL

[bhlloy]

Well, he did it in week one of the preseason for 44 and he's got a YPC of 5.4 in the preseason, so I think he's doing OK without your advice :)

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, the only highlight of him I saw this preseason was him doing exactly that. What's the point?

[KevinNU7]

Well, he did it in week one of the preseason for 44 and he's got a YPC of 5.4 in the preseason, so I think he's doing OK without your advice :)
Clearly you missed his last game. Those plays can pay off huge but probably 95% of the time they are a loss in the NFL.

[bhlloy]

You are correct, I didn't see his last game. He still had a better YPC than Deuce though....

[Eaglesfan27]

It never worked for Barry either...





I'm sure Reggie will be just fine in the NFL.

[rkmsuf]

Clearly you missed his last game. Those plays can pay off huge but probably 95% of the time they are a loss in the NFL.

Sean Payton is dumb.

[cthomer5000]

Was he on the pre-season all-pro team?

[TroyF]

It never worked for Barry either...





I'm sure Reggie will be just fine in the NFL.

Or Marcus Allen in the Super Bowl.

[Doug5984]

You're prolly right, he will lose yards on those plays some, most of the time her will get minimal yardage...but if he can just break one for 50+ yards every other week...I'm going to be one VERY happy saints fan.

[cthomer5000]

You're prolly right, he will lose yards on those plays some, most of the time her will get minimal yardage...but if he can just break one for 50+ yards every other week...I'm going to be one VERY happy saints fan.

I love how there is nothing about winning games in there.

*OOHHH... a pretty run!!!***

[rkmsuf]

I love how there is nothing about winning games in there.

*OOHHH... a pretty run!!!***

sportscenter, bitch.

[jbmagic]

Well, he did it in week one of the preseason for 44 and he's got a YPC of 5.4 in the preseason, so I think he's doing OK without your advice :)

Take out the 44 yards and what will his YPC be in preseason?

[Northwood_DK]

Take out the 44 yards and what will his YPC be in preseason?

3.22

[Ksyrup]

This is basically begging for a discussion of whether a team is as good off with a Barry Sanders- type player as it would appear. If you take all of Barry's 50+ yard runs out, I'm sure his average per carry is for shit, and much worse than the average RB. But then again, he did have all of those huge runs, a number of them for TDs.

They've still got McAllister, right? Basically, the Saints could be the actual test tube experiment for whether a solid but not flashy RB is actually more effective than the big play, boom-or-bust RB.

[VPI97]

3.22
SUPERSTAR!!!!

[rkmsuf]

SUPERSTAR!!!!

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1498/ssqs8.png

[LloydLungs]

Not that exhibition stats mean much anyway, but most guys' stats would look pretty bad if you took out their big plays. Regardless, Bush isn't going to have any room to run this year behind the Saints' horrendous O-line. Hopefully he'll break a few on his own. If he and Brees manage to avoid getting killed I'll consider the season a success.

[TroyF]

This is basically begging for a discussion of whether a team is as good off with a Barry Sanders- type player as it would appear. If you take all of Barry's 50+ yard runs out, I'm sure his average per carry is for shit, and much worse than the average RB. But then again, he did have all of those huge runs, a number of them for TDs.

They've still got McAllister, right? Basically, the Saints could be the actual test tube experiment for whether a solid but not flashy RB is actually more effective than the big play, boom-or-bust RB.


Sadly, that's what Deuce is as well. A series of 1 or 2 yard gains and then a twelve yarder.

Personally I like the Emmitt Smith, Terrell Davis, or Corey Dillon guy myself. I hate the boom/bust runners like Sanders. I shouldn't say that. I should say I LOVE watching them and HATE it if they are on my team.

Bush is an interesting case though. He may be boom/bust, but he is also going to be one hell of a receiving threat, something Barry wasn't. Still, give me the 4 yard plugger who breaks off the occasional huge gain over the other type.

[rkmsuf]

On the topics of backs, anyone else see Brandon Jacobs last night? I can't remember a guy that was more impossible to tackle in a game. Guy was pumped and jacked in that game.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This is basically begging for a discussion of whether a team is as good off with a Barry Sanders- type player as it would appear. If you take all of Barry's 50+ yard runs out, I'm sure his average per carry is for shit, and much worse than the average RB. But then again, he did have all of those huge runs, a number of them for TDs.

There is no discussion.

Barry Sanders played for the Lions for 10 years. In those 10 years, the Lions' record was: 78-82 (.4875)

The Lions went to the playoffs 5 times in that span and actually won a playoff game.

The five years prior to Barry: 24-54 (.300)

The five years after Barry:27-53 (.3375)

In those 10 years (5 before and 5 after) the Lions went to the playoffs only once and lost.

Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into those win/loss records other than Barry Sanders, but I think it does a good job of proving on thing: You're better off with a Barry Sanders.

[rkmsuf]

There is no discussion.

Barry Sanders played for the Lions for 10 years. In those 10 years, the Lions' record was: 78-82 (.4875)

The Lions went to the playoffs 5 times in that span and actually won a playoff game.

The five years prior to Barry: 24-54 (.300)

The five years after Barry:27-53 (.3375)

In those 10 years (5 before and 5 after) the Lions went to the playoffs only once and lost.

Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into those win/loss records other than Barry Sanders, but I think it does a good job of proving on thing: You're better off with a Barry Sanders.

All I really remember from those teams is that I would continually get upset when they would not let Sanders run near the goal line.

[Ksyrup]

There is no discussion.

Barry Sanders played for the Lions for 10 years. In those 10 years, the Lions' record was: 78-82 (.4875)

The Lions went to the playoffs 5 times in that span and actually won a playoff game.

The five years prior to Barry: 24-54 (.300)

The five years after Barry:27-53 (.3375)

In those 10 years (5 before and 5 after) the Lions went to the playoffs only once and lost.

Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into those win/loss records other than Barry Sanders, but I think it does a good job of proving on thing: You're better off with a Barry Sanders.

But that' s a comparison of Barry Sanders versus crappola. Replace him (theoretical, I know) with Emmitt Smith (or even someone a notch below him), and I wonder if the Lions would have been more successful?

In theory, I buy the argument that more consistent (3-4 yards every play, few long runs) RBs are better for the consistency of the offense. I'm just not sure anyone has ever been able to prove it (or even studied it?).

[stevew]

The Steelers made a shift from the 4 yard consistant back to to the deep threat last season, and I think it worked out very well :).

But honestly I'd prefer a much more straightline 4-8 yard runner to a guy like Parker who gets big chunks, and then 2 per. Edgerrin James is probably the prototypical 4-9 yard per back, and he's been very sucessful.

[JS19]

On the topics of backs, anyone else see Brandon Jacobs last night? I can't remember a guy that was more impossible to tackle in a game. Guy was pumped and jacked in that game.

Didn't catch the game but the guy is a monster, or looks like one anyway. At the start of last yr he did the same thing, looked like he was gonna be an amazing short yardage type back bc it seemed like he can just plow over anyone, but he really didn't get the job done towards the end. I may be a bit bias here since im a Giants fan, but he looks like he can turn in to a pretty solid back and be a nice surprise for the team.

[MrBigglesworth]

There is no discussion.

Barry Sanders played for the Lions for 10 years. In those 10 years, the Lions' record was: 78-82 (.4875)

The Lions went to the playoffs 5 times in that span and actually won a playoff game.

The five years prior to Barry: 24-54 (.300)

The five years after Barry:27-53 (.3375)

In those 10 years (5 before and 5 after) the Lions went to the playoffs only once and lost.

Granted, there are a lot of factors that go into those win/loss records other than Barry Sanders, but I think it does a good job of proving on thing: You're better off with a Barry Sanders.
If you are a crappy team like the Lions (who was their QB then? Rodney Peete? Who were their receivers? Linemen?) you are better off with a guy that can break one. If you are a good team with a passing threat, you can march down the field with a 4-8 guy and score (Emmit with Dallas, Dillon with NE, James with Indy were mentioned). Lions would have one negative run or a penalty and their drive would be over.

[Honolulu_Blue]

But that' s a comparison of Barry Sanders versus crappola. Replace him (theoretical, I know) with Emmitt Smith (or even someone a notch below him), and I wonder if the Lions would have been more successful?

In theory, I buy the argument that more consistent (3-4 yards every play, few long runs) RBs are better for the consistency of the offense. I'm just not sure anyone has ever been able to prove it (or even studied it?).

Well, the guy who replaced Barry Sanders (starting in 2000) was James Stewart and he's sort of the proto-typical 3-4 yards every play type back. That didn't work very well for the Lions. James Stewart, however, is closer to "crappola" than he is Emmitt Smith.

All that said, using the Lions as a yardstick for anything in the NFL is bound to create poor results. They are an outlier, pure and simple.

[Deattribution]

Also some people seem to be forgetting Reggie Bush isn't Barry Sanders.

Can we atleast let the guy get through a season or two before people start calling him Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers and Barry Sanders combined?

[Wolfpack]

Also some people seem to be forgetting Reggie Bush isn't Barry Sanders.

Can we atleast let the guy get through a season or two before people start calling him Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers and Barry Sanders combined?

You may need to let ESPN know about this....

[Julio Riddols]

On the topics of backs, anyone else see Brandon Jacobs last night? I can't remember a guy that was more impossible to tackle in a game. Guy was pumped and jacked in that game.

I was once Pumpjacked at the local BP. This crazy dude with a camera ran up behind me and just started blithering about how his name was Pumpy Tudors and how that was an acronym for something way deeper than anything could ever truly understand, so he was a trancendant human being and deserved to pump first..

I couldn't argue with that, because it just sort of seemed believable.. So overall, it was a pretty pleasant pumpjacking, I guess. No biggie.

But yeah.. Brandon Jacobs.. He SHOULD be a monster.. He keeps flashing, but I want to see him start when Barber starts going downhill.

Definitely built like a beast of a man though.

Hunk o' man meat...

[TroyF]

Also some people seem to be forgetting Reggie Bush isn't Barry Sanders.

Can we atleast let the guy get through a season or two before people start calling him Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers and Barry Sanders combined?

It always amuses me when people do this.

He's a rookie. All we have to go buy are comparisons to similar players. The most similar rookie I've seen to Bush is Faulk. Doesn't mean Bush is Faulk yet, doesn't mean he ever will be. But that's the comparison point and there is nothing wrong with saying it.

As for his style, at this point Bush is more the Boom/Bust Barry Sanders type than the consistent 4 to 6 yard type. Maybe that'll change But there is nothing wrong with comparing him to Sanders or Quentin Griffin. It's just an opinion about the type of player someone thinks he will be.

[Doug5984]

I love how there is nothing about winning games in there.

*OOHHH... a pretty run!!!***


Yeah, winning games would be great- but I am realistic when looking at this season. Our defense is horrible, our O-line is horrible, and we have 1 reciever with any real experience. Its going to be a long season, so a few great plays will make the season bearable (sp?).

[sony]

Remember that cute thing you could do against Pac-10 defense where you'd go to the line of scrimage on a screen or sweep and then cut back a few yards and reverse fields?

That doesn't work in the NFL

Hater detected.

Don't you have anything else better to do than critique a talented young man?

You're such a genius. The o-line Reggie had at USC was better than what he has to work with now in the Saints. I bet you couldn`t wait for him to run for loss yards.

Did you dance when Derrick Johnson tackled him yesterday?

[IMetTrentGreen]

reggie bush is nothing like marshall faulk, aside from being a recieving threat, and even then he has a wr skillset more than a rb skillset. if faulk played for usc last year, he would've run for 7,000 yards.

In theory, I buy the argument that more consistent (3-4 yards every play, few long runs) RBs are better for the consistency of the offense. I'm just not sure anyone has ever been able to prove it (or even studied it?).

someone did, but for the life of me i can't remember who. the conclusion was that 3 yards and a cloud of dust won out.

it makes sense when you think about your team trying to convert 3rd and 6s instead of 3rd and 3s, with all the losses he would take. thats why guys like brad johnson could play until they're 50, understanding football theory and avoiding mistakes is still a great way to win football games.

[Doug5984]

Well after 1 game I have to say I am impressed, he didn't make any huge plays but he looked great. He was always aware of the first down, and proved very valuable as a reciever, and teamed up with Duece the running game was great.

[Easy Mac]

25 touches, 141 yards.

[stevew]

25 touches, 141 yards.

Vs the Browns.

[albionmoonlight]

To all critics:

Can we all just work on the assumption that whatever Reggie Bush does, it won't be perfect. That is to say, there will be something to make it short of perfect. That is to say, that every 98 yard run can be dismissed and shat upon because it is not a 99 yard run. That is to say that almost all of his 99 yard runs can be shat upon because they will not be against the best defense in the NFL. And that all of his 99 yard runs against the best defense in the NFL can be shat upon because they were not against the '85 Bears.

Indeed, let us all assume (since it is clearly true) that Reggie Bush is the worst athlete since that Boy in the Bubble,1 and that nothing he has done, is doing, or will do has any bearing on this uncontroverted truth.

So, all of that assumed, can we just watch what he does this year and evaluate his performance based on how he performs?




1See, if you have not, that movie with John Travolta and Mike Brady. Preferably while drunk.

[molson]

Reggie Bush is going to have a lot of games where if you take away his 72, 61, 28, 34, and 17 yard runs, his average will be under 4 ypc.

[miami_fan]

To all critics:

Can we all just work on the assumption that whatever Reggie Bush does, it won't be perfect. That is to say, there will be something to make it short of perfect. That is to say, that every 98 yard run can be dismissed and shat upon because it is not a 99 yard run. That is to say that almost all of his 99 yard runs can be shat upon because they will not be against the best defense in the NFL. And that all of his 99 yard runs against the best defense in the NFL can be shat upon because they were not against the '85 Bears.

Indeed, let us all assume (since it is clearly true) that Reggie Bush is the worst athlete since that Boy in the Bubble,1 and that nothing he has done, is doing, or will do has any bearing on this uncontroverted truth.

So, all of that assumed, can we just watch what he does this year and evaluate his performance based on how he performs?




1See, if you have not, that movie with John Travolta and Mike Brady. Preferably while drunk.


NO! He has been overhyped by everyone and their brother and he must pay the price for it!;)

[st.cronin]

Reggie Bush is going to have a lot of games where if you take away his 72, 61, 28, 34, and 17 yard runs, his average will be under 4 ypc.

Yes, and similiarly, if you took away my house's roof, foundation, and walls it would be much less valuable.

[stevew]

Reggie Bush is going to have a lot of games where if you take away his 72, 61, 28, 34, and 17 yard runs, his average will be under 4 ypc.

Who cares?

[molson]

Who cares?

It's retarded when people subtract a guy's best runs and then recalculate their YPC. But the Bush haters will do it. (is all I'm saying)

[watravaler]

It's retarded when people subtract a guy's best runs and then recalculate their YPC. But the Bush haters will do it. (is all I'm saying)

The outliers are what make a RB like Bush special.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Vs the Browns.

Last time I checked, however, the Browns were still part of the NFL.

[Joe]

Last time I checked, however, the Browns were still part of the NFL.

technically

[Glengoyne]

Reggie Bush is going to have a lot of games where if you take away his 72, 61, 28, 34, and 17 yard runs, his average will be under 4 ypc.

Hey. He's no Barry Sanders!

[Logan]

Yes, and similiarly, if you took away my house's roof, foundation, and walls it would be much less valuable.

Hahaha....

It's a-fuckin-mazing how some people feel the need to shit all over the year's hot prospects for no reason at all. Albion's post hit the nail squarely on the head.