Is it safe to call Reggie Bush a bust?

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by Joecool:
He's not a bust but I think it's also safe to say what else he isn't that he was said to be coming out of college: Gale Sayers.

Also, if he's a bust, then I think all Alex Smith supporters have become ostriches with their heads in the dirt never ever seeing this thread.

If Bush is a bust, we need to invent a new word to describe what Alex Smith is.

If Bush put up the same numbers as a 9er and Frank Gore put up the same numbers as a Saint. This board would think Reggie Bush was 10x better. His injuries would be used as an excuse. Him sharing carries would be used as an excuse. Since the shoes aren't on the other foot. HERE WE ARE!

Bush's best year: 565 rushing averaging 3.6 per carry and 700+ (8.4 per catch).

Gore's best year: 1695 rushing (5.4 per carry) 485 receiving (8 ypc)

You can look at the BEST YEARS all you want. Add them all up and you get.

Gore 99 yards pg, 26 td's in 59 games
Bush 83 yards pg, 24 td's in 38 games


I'm not trying to compare Gore and Bush head to head. As they are two totally different kind of players.

All I was saying at 1st was. How can Gore be top 10 (in 9er land). Yet Bush is a bust? When total yards per game aren't too far off. But Bush has 2 less td's in a season and a 1/3 less games.

my 2nd argument was just showing the homerism on this site. Anyone who doesn't think this board would say Bush was better than Gore if teams were changed and production was the same. Is probably a homer like i'm talking about.

Originally posted by frankie:

Originally posted by Daniel2778:
all i know is that when he played against us, he killed us.

And I believe it happened to be his break first break out game! Wasn't that before we got willis. The 2nd time he was pretty much kept under wraps by willis.

Yes his big game was in 2006 before Willis. However his 2nd game (07). He managed 113 total yards. Last year he only got 38.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by Joecool:
He's not a bust but I think it's also safe to say what else he isn't that he was said to be coming out of college: Gale Sayers.

Also, if he's a bust, then I think all Alex Smith supporters have become ostriches with their heads in the dirt never ever seeing this thread.

If Bush is a bust, we need to invent a new word to describe what Alex Smith is.

If Bush put up the same numbers as a 9er and Frank Gore put up the same numbers as a Saint. This board would think Reggie Bush was 10x better. His injuries would be used as an excuse. Him sharing carries would be used as an excuse. Since the shoes aren't on the other foot. HERE WE ARE!

Bush's best year: 565 rushing averaging 3.6 per carry and 700+ (8.4 per catch).

Gore's best year: 1695 rushing (5.4 per carry) 485 receiving (8 ypc)

You can look at the BEST YEARS all you want. Add them all up and you get.

Gore 99 yards pg, 26 td's in 59 games
Bush 83 yards pg, 24 td's in 38 games


I'm not trying to compare Gore and Bush head to head. As they are two totally different kind of players.

All I was saying at 1st was. How can Gore be top 10 (in 9er land). Yet Bush is a bust? When total yards per game aren't too far off. But Bush has 2 less td's in a season and a 1/3 less games.

my 2nd argument was just showing the homerism on this site. Anyone who doesn't think this board would say Bush was better than Gore if teams were changed and production was the same. Is probably a homer like i'm talking about.

I see what you are saying but now let's do switch the teams and have Gore on a team with a 3000+ yard passing attack and Bush, the primary option on a team with no QB or WRs.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by Joecool:
He's not a bust but I think it's also safe to say what else he isn't that he was said to be coming out of college: Gale Sayers.

Also, if he's a bust, then I think all Alex Smith supporters have become ostriches with their heads in the dirt never ever seeing this thread.

If Bush is a bust, we need to invent a new word to describe what Alex Smith is.

If Bush put up the same numbers as a 9er and Frank Gore put up the same numbers as a Saint. This board would think Reggie Bush was 10x better. His injuries would be used as an excuse. Him sharing carries would be used as an excuse. Since the shoes aren't on the other foot. HERE WE ARE!

Bush's best year: 565 rushing averaging 3.6 per carry and 700+ (8.4 per catch).

Gore's best year: 1695 rushing (5.4 per carry) 485 receiving (8 ypc)

You can look at the BEST YEARS all you want. Add them all up and you get.

Gore 99 yards pg, 26 td's in 59 games
Bush 83 yards pg, 24 td's in 38 games


I'm not trying to compare Gore and Bush head to head. As they are two totally different kind of players.

All I was saying at 1st was. How can Gore be top 10 (in 9er land). Yet Bush is a bust? When total yards per game aren't too far off. But Bush has 2 less td's in a season and a 1/3 less games.

my 2nd argument was just showing the homerism on this site. Anyone who doesn't think this board would say Bush was better than Gore if teams were changed and production was the same. Is probably a homer like i'm talking about.

I see what you are saying but now let's do switch the teams and have Gore on a team with a 3000+ yard passing attack and Bush, the primary option on a team with no QB or WRs.

IMO yards would look relatively the same as it does now. Bush may actually close the gap with more receiving yards as he wouldn't be in a platoon or atleast not as much of one as he is in now. Gore would be in a platoon type situation he hasn't been in before. As for TD's Gore would almost positively score more than he has.


With all this said , it doesn't change the fact if all things are the same homers would be saying Bush is better than Gore. I Only say this because you never really gave a reason as to the point of them switching teams. So I only assume it was for the argument I made. Which my argument was more of the stats actually put up and the uniform they wear making a difference. More so than hypothetical production.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by frankie:

Originally posted by Daniel2778:
all i know is that when he played against us, he killed us.

And I believe it happened to be his break first break out game! Wasn't that before we got willis. The 2nd time he was pretty much kept under wraps by willis.

Yes his big game was in 2006 before Willis. However his 2nd game (07). He managed 113 total yards. Last year he only got 38.

Yeah the first game against us and the last are the ones I remember, at least stand out to me. When he tore us up everyone was saying we shoulda traded up for em ha ha! Then willis shut em done. And the talks of bush being a bust was a flowing ha ha
2 funny

not necessarily a bust. but not as big as once thought.

I just realized he seemed to just, vanish at some point in the last year or so..

Mike Bell leading that team in rushing yardage even with Bush starting..

looking at his stats his best season was like 581 yards, and this baffles me even more, his career long play from scrimmage is 43 yards? really?! when does the bust tag start to get handed out to #2 overall picked running backs who have yet to even sniff 1000 yards in 3 NFL seasons?

the 43 yard thing still mind f**ks me...ultra "fast and elusive" reggie bush hasnt even taken one to the house from his side of the field..

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/thread.php?num=125834&highlight=bush

there was a discussion about this a couple months ago and a lot of people say that since he's still a weapon and can be dangerous he's not a bust

however, i agree with you that he could be considered one

he got drafted to be a running back, he was hyped up to be the next barry sanders. i don't disagree that if the ball is passed to him things can happen, but has he shown to be worth the 2nd overall pick? i say no, and that's why i say he's a bust, but not a complete bust, if you get where i'm going with that

Originally posted by teeohh:
there was a discussion about this a couple months ago and a lot of people say that since he's still a weapon and can be dangerous he's not a bust

however, i agree with you that he could be considered one

he got drafted to be a running back, he was hyped up to be the next barry sanders. i don't disagree that if the ball is passed to him things can happen, but has he shown to be worth the 2nd overall pick? i say no, and that's why i say he's a bust, but not a complete bust, if you get where i'm going with that

He'd be a complete bust if Drew Brees wasn't on that team.

I have a friend here who is a Saint's fan and among them, it's almost unanimous that Bush is a bust.

I'll take their word for it.

His biggest gripe was Bush's injury history. Supposedly he never played a full season at USC either and cannot run between the tackles to save his life.

He came with a lot of hype that he was never going to meet.

-9fA

he's a great playmaker. brees' offense is stacked with weapons and his preference is through the air to a colston or another wide receiver so he really doesn't get to many touches a game. he's not a complete RB, but he can also line up at WR and return punts

still dont regret buying his jersey

and to think my dumbass was wanting us to trade up from 6 to draft him 2nd overall wouldnt mind having bush on the team but not for the money hes making

Houston Texans... you chose wisely.