Eric Metcalf (1 Viewer)

[rlemieux]

I have seen a lot of people start to compare Reggie to Eric Metcalf (5'10 190lbs). I don't remember him in college but I do remember he was highly regarded coming out and was a high 1st round pick. He was a tweener between RB/WR, much like Reggie.

How do you feel about this comparison, is it a fair one?

Also, if Reggie's career (statistically) were to end up like Metcalf's how would you grade Reggie's pick. He spent 6 years in Cleveland. His best rushing yardage year was his rookie season, 187 carries/633 yards/6TD's. His best receiving year was the year he left Cleveland, 104 catches/1189 yards/8TD's.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MetcEr00.htm

Almost forgot, he was a pretty good return man also.

 

[Danchrism]

I like the comparison (I would; afterall, I'm the main one throwing it out). Metcalf was {mod edit - language not suitable} at Texas. Wasn't a first round pick for nothin'. Cleveland saw him as a guy who worked better in open space, and had good enough hands to warrant lining up in the slot or out wide on occasion. Figured there'd be no point in trying to force him to be a rusher just because that's how he'd been defined up into his professional days. I see a lot of the same in Reggie. Say what I may about him taking handoffs, but he's done well receiving the ball. I think a fulltime switch there will help him to refine the craft, while (hopefully) not losing what made him such a special player up to this point.

You can shake and jitterbug off a pass reception because you've already gotten the ball ~8-12 yards upfield. Taking handoffs whilst lined up 7 yards behind center doesn't leave that same allowance.

 

[Mamba]

I think the comparison to Eric Metcalf is probably more accurate than any other comparison out there (Sanders, Sayers, Faulk). Metcalf was no slouch, but he definitely did most of his damage as a WR (particularly with Atlanta). If Reggie turns out to be like Metcalf, I for one wouldn't be too disappointed. However, I think as a #2 pick, Bush's production should surpass Metcalf's (and I think he's got the talent to do it).

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I made the comparison on the board back before we ever thought we would have a shot at him and nothing I've seen has changed my mind.

 

[Nonreg]

ive never seen "eric metcalf" play.

but as stats show, and what people above say, he wasn't much of a rushing RB. thats not a bad thing.

reggie bush, and im sure eric metcalf was a awesome player, but the problem comes when you need a RB that can pound the ball. does this mean we are going to have to have 2 RB's his entire career?

 

[rlemieux]

ive never seen "eric metcalf" play.

but as stats show, and what people above say, he wasn't much of a rushing RB. thats not a bad thing.

reggie bush, and im sure eric metcalf was a awesome player, but the problem comes when you need a RB that can pound the ball. does this mean we are going to have to have 2 RB's his entire career?

Deuce is signed thru 2012.... And until Reggie shows differently, he may always have to have a back like Deuce around (he had it in college) to share carries with. Hopefully he turns into an all around back (Tiki Barber like), but right now I am leaning more towards complement and pass catcher.

 

[Nonreg]

Deuce is signed thru 2012.... And until Reggie shows differently, he may always have to have a back like Deuce around (he had it in college) to share carries with. Hopefully he turns into an all around back (Tiki Barber like), but right now I am leaning more towards complement and pass catcher.

its not a bad thing.

reggie lights up the game at any position he plays, including RB. he draws so much attention it opens up holes for other people.

 

[Hookem Horns]

Eric Metcalf is by far the best comparison to Reggie Bush. I am a UT fan and remember Metcalf well. As an x-Oilers fan I remember him well in Cleveland since we were in the same division.

The Metcalf comparison was the one I was using before the draft as a reason for us (Texans) not to take him. I was using that comparison as an argument against other Texan fans that were swearing he was going to be the next Barry Sanders, etc.

Metcalf was a guy that wasn't an NFL everydown back. He was great coming out of the backfield, used in the slot as a receiver, and was an excellent return guy. Metcalf was a great addition to the Browns but they still had to have a typical running back as they did in Ernest Bynar, etc.

IMO, Metcalf like Bush is a great comodity to have but wasn't worth the #1 overall pick and certainly not the guy you are going to build your franchise around, especially one as bad as the Texans.

You guys on the other hand already have a great back in Deuce so your team could afford to have Bush. If the Saints start using Bush the way the Browns used Metcalf you will get good use out of him. But if they try to use him as a true running back I don't see him being successful in the NFL.

 

[Danchrism]

A little more about Eric Metcalf:

Single digit stud at Texas (wore #2). Considered an electrifying player who had to the house potential on every touch at the collegiate level. Two guys named Sanders went before him in '89. Biggest rushing season was as a rookie, when Kevin Mack got hurt (in this season, he averaged 3/4 ypc after the main guy went down, yet was the team's leading rusher - doesn't that sound like it has potential?). Speaking of Kevin Mack, he almost exclusively played with bruising RBs (Mack, Tommy Vardell, Craig Heyward). Adjusted for 96 games, averaged 54 catches per season his first six seasons. After 6 years of relatively moribound running (despite his rushing prowess at Texas), Atlanta took a flyer on him as a WR. Averaged 79 catches a season in those 2 years.

Retired with a career 3.8 ypc, but caught over 500 balls in essentially 9 1/2 seasons.

 

[Great Dane]

I remember Metcalf in college and thought "he was the real deal". I saw him more as return man and option WR. He was too skinny to be an effecient back. So I do not like the comparison (although one can argue for it) with Bush, who I feel is stronger and more in the Marshall Faulk style.

If Bush ends up as Metcalf he will never get us a SB nor get in the hall of fame. I want both!!!

 

[Bishop]

Eric Metcalf is by far the best comparison to Reggie Bush. I am a UT fan and remember Metcalf well. As an x-Oilers fan I remember him well in Cleveland since we were in the same division.

The Metcalf comparison was the one I was using before the draft as a reason for us (Texans) not to take him. I was using that comparison as an argument against other Texan fans that were swearing he was going to be the next Barry Sanders, etc.

Metcalf was a guy that wasn't an NFL everydown back. He was great coming out of the backfield, used in the slot as a receiver, and was an excellent return guy. Metcalf was a great addition to the Browns but they still had to have a typical running back as they did in Ernest Bynar, etc.

IMO, Metcalf like Bush is a great comodity to have but wasn't worth the #1 overall pick and certainly not the guy you are going to build your franchise around, especially one as bad as the Texans.

You guys on the other hand already have a great back in Deuce so your team could afford to have Bush. If the Saints start using Bush the way the Browns used Metcalf you will get good use out of him. But if they try to use him as a true running back I don't see him being successful in the NFL.

Thanks. I didn't think the type of use we may get out of Bush justified our #2, and I'm dreading Deuce going out for an extended period. I think some here set expectations too high. Bush wasn't supposed to be Sanders. He was supposed to be something Sanders & Faulk never were. He was supposed to be 14 points every game.

I'm sure he will adjust to the pro game in time, but I can relate to being one of the few voices of dissent. I recall seeing a great run in preseason..

 

[Rickysmyhero]

I have been saying he is a Metcalf/Kevin Faulk hybrid...

 

[meily]

I can see the comparison, I can also see the comparison to Faulk, but I think Bush is stronger than Metcalf but I also think as long as we have Bush we will need a 215-220pd back to back him up...which isnt a bad thing it makes the offense more versatile, I think he and Metcalf are simular but I dont think Bush will end up a full time wide reciever,simply because he doesnt want to (he's said it many times, last time when he was on fox during the bye week) he will work hard to be a runningback with recieving skills...but, Faulk, Sander, Sayers, Metcalf, Westbrook, Tiki he has comparisons to all of them, but he's none of them, He's Reggie Bush, in his first year and is 21yrs old, we dont know what were gonna get outa this guy yet, he could be a 1500yrd rusher next year.

 

[Bishop]

I have been saying he is a Metcalf/Kevin Faulk hybrid...

Yeah, you did. I think some of us are upset about the prospect of that being all Bush turns out to be, when we were blasted for wanting Brick or Hawk, plus another #1 and 3rd rounder.

We just want to see some sort of sign to encourage us about Bush's development as an RB. We've seen it by this point of many other 1st round RB rookie seasons.

 

[boutte]

I'd rather he was more like Terry (Eric's dad) Metcalf. Terry was a great back. One the most versatile and underated players I ever watched.