Players that Scott Wright Overrated

[Scott Wright]

If Reggie Bush was on the open market he'd have a line of teams waiting to sign him.

[thebow305]

Originally Posted by Captain Canuck

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]

the draft is real easy with the benefit of hindsight.

[PossibleCabbage]

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

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]

Originally Posted by thebow305

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]

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

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]

Originally Posted by MaxV

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]

Swore I was going to stop posting at work but...

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.

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

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]

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

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]

Originally Posted by njx9

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]

hmmmm interesting.

[SickwithIt1010]

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]

Originally Posted by SickwithIt1010

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]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

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]

Originally Posted by SickwithIt1010

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]

Originally Posted by PossibleCabbage

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]

Originally Posted by SickwithIt1010

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]

I remember people saying Maurice Jones-Drew was a poor mans Reggie Bush when he was drafted LoL!

[BigBanger]

Originally Posted by SickwithIt1010

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).

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

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]

Originally Posted by Ghost of Juice

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]

I think Scott had Claussen and Bradford confused.

[marshfield]

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

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!