Players that Scott Wright Overrated

[hockey619]

Originally Posted by J-Mike88

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]

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]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

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]

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]

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.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by J-Mike88

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.

because that's certianly proof ******* positive. *eyeroll*

learn 2 facts.

[VoteLynnSwan]

Originally Posted by njx9

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

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]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

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]

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]

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]

Any stat can be misleading with small sample sizes, YPC is hardly unique in that.

[J-Mike88]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

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]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

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.

Originally Posted by J-Mike88

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]

Originally Posted by hockey619

#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]

Originally Posted by J-Mike88

#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?

Originally Posted by Sniper

As yfs posted earlier

.........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]

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]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

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]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

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?