Jump to content

Bush is not a premiere running back!


ThunderCookie
 Share

Recommended Posts

They should just give up on the experiment. Bush is a Devin Hester type player. He is a special teams player and a 3rd slot WR in the Wes Welker / Harry Douglas mold. He is not a premier running back.... **** he isnt even a good backup running back. He is probably the highest drafted special teams player ever though, and the highest paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should just give up on the experiment. Bush is a Devin Hester type player. He is a special teams player and a 3rd slot WR in the Wes Welker / Harry Douglas mold. He is not a premier running back.... **** he isnt even a good backup running back. He is probably the highest drafted special teams player ever though, and the highest paid.

Experiment! So then judging by last nights game, should the Vikings give up on Peterson? Even thought he had no where to run. What you saw Peterson go through is what Bush faces most of the time he lines up in the back field. But when day light is there' like what Peterson see's most of the time, he takes advantage of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should just give up on the experiment. Bush is a Devin Hester type player. He is a special teams player and a 3rd slot WR in the Wes Welker / Harry Douglas mold. He is not a premier running back.... **** he isnt even a good backup running back. He is probably the highest drafted special teams player ever though, and the highest paid.

I've been preaching this all along...I call him the Desmond Howard of the #2 overall pick Howard was #4 overall! I guess people are starting to see what I've been preaching!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush = PR

Bust < RB! :lol:

I feel like a US soldier arguing for the Germans, but...

In less than three full years, Bush does own the Saints record for pr td's. I also think he is way above average receiver, especially out of the backfield. He can be dangerous as a runner when gets space.

On the flip side, neither Norwood or Bush could have done what Turner did on Sunday. 3 plays to get 10 yards, everyone knows you get the rock, and the whole game riding on your back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experiment! So then judging by last nights game, should the Vikings give up on Peterson? Even thought he had no where to run. What you saw Peterson go through is what Bush faces most of the time he lines up in the back field. But when day light is there' like what Peterson see's most of the time, he takes advantage of it.

When Bush can line up on 3rd and 2 and run between the tackles for a first down, then you can think about putting him in the same sentence with AP. And even then, you should simply think about it and not do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like a US soldier arguing for the Germans, but...

In less than three full years, Bush does own the Saints record for pr td's. I also think he is way above average receiver, especially out of the backfield. He can be dangerous as a runner when gets space.

On the flip side, neither Norwood or Bush could have done what Turner did on Sunday. 3 plays to get 10 yards, everyone knows you get the rock, and the whole game riding on your back.

Hence, Bush the return man, Bust not a RB!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You REALLY need to add disclaimers to these comments that you're talking to Dynasty Boy and nolafan33, so that those of us that understand the game don't take offense .....

That's a sensible point of view and true. Those two will argue to death that Bust the RB can run the ball between the tackles or with the game on the line!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You REALLY need to add disclaimers to these comments that you're talking to Dynasty Boy and nolafan33, so that those of us that understand the game don't take offense .....

Maybe it should just be understood there is a long list of Saints fans who are are here to talk football and are far more reasonable and realistic than most and that is why I prefer to post in RC.

If I start listing them in every post, then you know Dago is gonna ask me to take a shower with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I've been saying all along.....Bush not a RB, a weapon.

Hey Jatchis, how bout that officiating? How you like me now? <_<

I like you just fine, man. I really do. I like your enthusiasm for the team, et al.

But I'm sorry ..... your dynasty comments are gonna haunt you for a while. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im glad some saints fans are at least in touch with reality, there are some crazy ones on this board. Bush can not run between the tackles, and shouldnt. He is, however, one heck of a weapon when it comes to the passing game, and he is on the level of Hester in the return game. Use him to his strengths, enough of the between the tackles for -2 yard crap. Or continue it when you play us... thats cool with me :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im glad some saints fans are at least in touch with reality, there are some crazy ones on this board. Bush can not run between the tackles, and shouldnt. He is, however, one heck of a weapon when it comes to the passing game, and he is on the level of Hester in the return game. Use him to his strengths, enough of the between the tackles for -2 yard crap. Or continue it when you play us... thats cool with me :P

I don't mind Bush sharing the RB duties with a workhorse(Deuce)

He is all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, something about Brees and a top dynamic offense(when not turning the ball over) makes me think that way.

You really must not undertand the meaning of a Dynasty. Having a top offense for a few years is NOT a dynasty. A dynasty is a franchise that dominates in nearly all phases of the game, on both sides of the ball, for YEARS at the highest level. Think Patriots in the 2000s, Bills of the early 90s (even though they didnt win one, going to the SB 4 times in a row is definitely a qualifier), Steelers of the 70s, etc. For you, or any team of this decade besides the Patriots to claim anything close to a Dynasty is an insult.

People still talk about the 70's steelers 30-35 years later. Is anyone going to be talking about any team besides the patriots of 2005-2010 in 20-30 years? No....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really must not undertand the meaning of a Dynasty. Having a top offense for a few years is NOT a dynasty. A dynasty is a franchise that dominates in nearly all phases of the game, on both sides of the ball, for YEARS at the highest level. Think Patriots in the 2000s, Bills of the early 90s (even though they didnt win one, going to the SB 4 times in a row is definitely a qualifier), Steelers of the 70s, etc. For you, or any team of this decade besides the Patriots to claim anything close to a Dynasty is an insult.

People still talk about the 70's steelers 30-35 years later. Is anyone going to be talking about any team besides the patriots of 2005-2010 in 20-30 years? No....

Dude, I know, but one can dream right? And yeah, I do think Patriots of 2000s when I look at some aspects of this Saints team.

One can dream and not be totally out the box. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...