Note: To all of you Bush Haters... (2 Viewers)

[byrdzilla]

threads like these will disappear at about 3 pm sunday

 

[CHI-TOWNSAINT]

I agree with most of you from both sides of the fence. Bush will not become the elite back "WE" all were hoping for when we drafted him. I don't even feel he will reach B. Westbrrok status in his career.

Bush will be a decent RB with outstanding pass-catching ability. He will make people miss in the open field, but will never be a traditional RB.

As long as we have Bush on this team, we will need a "REAL" running back in that backfield with him. Which is what a slew of teams are doing now anyway.

Its just a shame that Bush is being paid to be elite, and is performing average at best, and will not ever reach elite status. By elite, I mean Marshall Faulk, BArry Sanders, Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, Emmitt Smith, Eric Dickerson, Tony Dorsette or Marcus Allen. So, in that frame of mind, he is not even close to being elite.

His career will be injury riddled, likely each and every year. While he will win games for us and will lose a few also, I will venture to say his impact will be more positive than negative.

This my friends is money not very well spent. But, whats done is done, we just have to live with it. We have all overspent before and survived, so will the Saints.

And before one of you clowns start passing judgement on me for my opinion. I am a diehard as the next, so don't even go there with the fairweather cr@p.

For the record, I am a season ticket holder of 14 years, I don't think I can count on my two hands how many home games I have missed, including when we were homeless. I travel to TB, ATL, almost every year and every now and then we go to Charlotte.

And as far as people booing, I have done it, and recently. Its all part of the game. If I were the only person booing when RB fumbled last game, I must be the loudest booer in the world, because it echoed in the Lodge section.

If you don't mind, please expand on the highlighted statement. When has Bush cost us a game? I don't recall any.

 

[beezm]

Why did this thread have to get bumped again for today, I was hoping it'd find its way down the list !

 

[TurkeyOTooley]

I'm sorry, but if you boo any player on our team you're a fairweather fan. They're our Saints. We're supposed to support them. It's true that you pay to go to the game, and have the right to act however you want...but that doesn't make you a good fan.

Wrong.

True fans come in all shapes and sizes. Devoted fans express their support for their team in a variety of ways. Many of the "haters" people like to call out have probably given a tremendous amount of thought and spent incredible amounts of time arguing over ultimately insignificant things. It takes a certain level of devotion to be passionate about your team to the extent of posting on a message board.

Also, it takes a certain level of passion in the "hater" fan to share unpopular opinions and swim upstream. Human beings are like sheep and we all want to be well thought of by others. So who is the bigger fan: the guy/girl that questions the status quo in the face of opposition or the guy / girl that toes the company line?

It is a silly question, really, because the answer is neither. We all bring something to the table.

What reward do the Bush "lovers" get for holding on to a discredited opinion?
What reward do the Bush "haters" get for beating a dead horse?

Nothing really, except an outlet for expression. Some people on both sides are just holding on to say "I told you so", while others just like spirited debate.

A fairweather fan is one who switches allegiances all the time. It is the typical Cowboy fan. They follow after success and don't understand struggle. A fan is knowledgeable and devoted to their team especially when they are losing. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of Bush "haters" have been Saints fans for a long time. You can't confuse being critical of players as being a fairweather fan. To some the team's performance takes precedence over the success, or lack thereof, of an individual player.

In other words, a Saints fan cannot be a fairweather fan.

If you are a Saints fan, then you are a good fan.

(It is some kind of universal law.)

 

[CP3_504_MVP]

If you don't mind, please expand on the highlighted statement. When has Bush cost us a game? I don't recall any.

The vikings games last season...we would've won if he had that 3rd PR TD!!!

Serious though he has cost us a few games the one that sticks out in my head now is the one against tampa from 07

 

[NPs6724]

Serious though he has cost us a few games the one that sticks out in my head now is the one against tampa from 07

I would place equal blame Payton for the playcall and Jammal Brown for getting pushed back 5 yards for that Tampa loss as well.

 

[Danchrism]

<blink>CAUTION: WORDS!!!!!</blink>​

I'm just going to lay it out there:

I like Reggie Bush, but in 2006 I didn't feel he was a first-round grade. I had questions about him, ranging from his build to the types of plays on which he made his highlights. I'd watch those '04-'05 USC features, and I'd see two distinct things: 1) holes big enough and sustained enough for Reggie to go get his car and drive through and 2) players that looked like they were running in slow motion - on both teams. And USC was touted as a team with great team speed. Yet, somehow I knew that such superior speed would be negated at the NFL level. With the exception of open-field breakaways, players almost never use their top speed.

Which brings me to my first problem - Reggie as a rusher seems to always want to go top speed, which usually ends with him outrunning play development and right into a defender that either set the edge or read the play. When a guy wants to turn a play designed for 4-8 yards into a play of 40-80 yards, he presses and winds up losing even the original intent of the play. If he takes what's there, good things just might come later (blown defensive assignment, make a good move, etc.) - if he tries to make something be there that isn't, he might run right into a defender's assignment (which could otherwise be wrong).

Let the record show that he doesn't have this problem on pass plays, be it in route-running or protection. He's usually right where he belongs in both instances. I can't remember the last time I saw him blatantly fail to pick up a pass rush, and Brees seems to find him easily on the field when he needs to. I don't have a complaint about him receiving the ball.

Reggie the punt returner is more maddeningly inconsistent. There are times when he simply leaves yards on the field due to indecision - this happened Sunday. He fielded a punt, the blockers cleared the gunner, and he responded to the open field by stepping on the same two spots on the field before getting shoestring tackled by the gunner that got knocked down. There are also returns like the Washington game last year where one guy misses and instincts take over. I'd like to see more of that variety.

Though I'm considered a critic, there are stances I simply won't take: I won't vouch for trading him, I won't vouch for permanently benching him, I won't strongly vouch for making him more of a WR and less of an RB. However, I won't go to great lengths to make sub-standard performances for a player of his position -- running back -- justifiable by any comparison. I can live with 15 carries for 67 yards, 13 carries for 64 yards, 18 runs for 73 yards, etc. I can't live with 14 carries for 27 yards, 15 carries for 34 yards, 6 carries for 5 yards (all six are actual career performances). I will cheer on the former three performances and decry the latter three performances. Seven carries for 14 yards falls in the second category, and category #2 is currently more populous than category #1. We can't undo what's already done but we can hope that the numbers even out a little more.

To be a fair critic of myself, I do discredit his receiving and returning numbers at times (including now). I consider those things sub-primary and using them to justify poor rushing perfomances isn't adequate for me. I respect and will never dispute his receiving skills, and his return skills (including knowing when to let a punt bounce, when to FC, etc.) are steadily improving as he becomes more of a full-time punt returner. In whole, he's performing like the fringe first-day talent I thought he'd be -- only he's getting paid extremely handsomely in the process. Of the players he most reasonably compares to now, only Metcalf was a first-round pick. Of his peers, there aren't any that I can recall.



In the end, though, he's a Saint. We all want all of these guys to do well. And while the critics may be a little favorable of the numbers, it's certainly better than the verbal (and sometimes physical) threats made by those who unabashedly support Reggie. Calling someone a hater or worse, threatening to harm them at a game is not the right response to make to ANY Saints-related discussion. Let's at least try to keep that much focus.

 

[NPs6724]

<blink>CAUTION: WORDS!!!!!</blink>​

I'm just going to lay it out there:

I like Reggie Bush, but in 2006 I didn't feel he was a first-round grade. I had questions about him, ranging from his build to the types of plays on which he made his highlights. I'd watch those '04-'05 USC features, and I'd see two distinct things: 1) holes big enough and sustained enough for Reggie to go get his car and drive through and 2) players that looked like they were running in slow motion - on both teams. And USC was touted as a team with great team speed. Yet, somehow I knew that such superior speed would be negated at the NFL level. With the exception of open-field breakaways, players almost never use their top speed.

Which brings me to my first problem - Reggie as a rusher seems to always want to go top speed, which usually ends with him outrunning play development and right into a defender that either set the edge or read the play. When a guy wants to turn a play designed for 4-8 yards into a play of 40-80 yards, he presses and winds up losing even the original intent of the play. If he takes what's there, good things just might come later (blown defensive assignment, make a good move, etc.) - if he tries to make something be there that isn't, he might run right into a defender's assignment (which could otherwise be wrong).

Let the record show that he doesn't have this problem on pass plays, be it in route-running or protection. He's usually right where he belongs in both instances. I can't remember the last time I saw him blatantly fail to pick up a pass rush, and Brees seems to find him easily on the field when he needs to. I don't have a complaint about him receiving the ball.

Reggie the punt returner is more maddeningly inconsistent. There are times when he simply leaves yards on the field due to indecision - this happened Sunday. He fielded a punt, the blockers cleared the gunner, and he responded to the open field by stepping on the same two spots on the field before getting shoestring tackled by the gunner that got knocked down. There are also returns like the Washington game last year where one guy misses and instincts take over. I'd like to see more of that variety.

Though I'm considered a critic, there are stances I simply won't take: I won't vouch for trading him, I won't vouch for permanently benching him, I won't strongly vouch for making him more of a WR and less of an RB. However, I won't go to great lengths to make sub-standard performances for a player of his position -- running back -- justifiable by any comparison. I can live with 15 carries for 67 yards, 13 carries for 64 yards, 18 runs for 73 yards, etc. I can't live with 14 carries for 27 yards, 15 carries for 34 yards, 6 carries for 5 yards (all six are actual career performances). I will cheer on the former three performances and decry the latter three performances. Seven carries for 14 yards falls in the second category, and category #2 is currently more populous than category #1. We can't undo what's already done but we can hope that the numbers even out a little more.

To be a fair critic of myself, I do discredit his receiving and returning numbers at times (including now). I consider those things sub-primary and using them to justify poor rushing perfomances isn't adequate for me. I respect and will never dispute his receiving skills, and his return skills (including knowing when to let a punt bounce, when to FC, etc.) are steadily improving as he becomes more of a full-time punt returner. In whole, he's performing like the fringe first-day talent I thought he'd be -- only he's getting paid extremely handsomely in the process. Of the players he most reasonably compares to now, only Metcalf was a first-round pick. Of his peers, there aren't any that I can recall.



In the end, though, he's a Saint. We all want all of these guys to do well. And while the critics may be a little favorable of the numbers, it's certainly better than the verbal (and sometimes physical) threats made by those who unabashedly support Reggie. Calling someone a hater or worse, threatening to harm them at a game is not the right response to make to ANY Saints-related discussion. Let's at least try to keep that much focus.

Perfectly reasonable. I too feel the same way most of the time. I would still like to see more emphasis on him as a RB for at least a couple games and let him play his way into or out of more carries because he's never been "the guy" at RB, but then I also don't want that to lead to losses so it's a balancing act in the end.

But in the end, I'm okay with him averaging 3.8 per carry if he produces as a receiver. What makes him effective as a receiver is not knowing whether it's a run or a pass so he can get matched up on a LB. The difference between 4.0 and 3.8 over 15 carries is a measly 3 yards and I don't really care if he gets his yards on the ground or through the air. As long as he helps move the chains and doesn't kill drives, I'm okay with it.

 

[staciepete]

If you don't mind, please expand on the highlighted statement. When has Bush cost us a game? I don't recall any.

Expand??? Ok, what he does in a few games will cause us to have fewer points that the opposing team...................

 

[Galbreath34]

"Costing us a game" usually means some error that directly translates to losing. For instance, in the last two games Jake Delhomme has cost Carolina the game by turning the ball over consistently. I think Chi-town has a point, I can't recall any egregious errors by Bush ever costing us a game. If you want to say Ellis, Grant and Smith cost us a game by not getting pressure, I think you'll have everyone wondering how you define that. If you say Jason David got beat 4 times in one on one coverage everyone will know what you mean. So what can you think of along the David/Delhomme lines that would merit saying Reggie cost us a game? Or did you just mean by not gaining 200 yards and getting 4 TDs he "cost" us the the game?

 

[DeuceMcAllisterFan]

Mark my words.. Reggie Bush is going to have a great game against the Eagles. Do you think he isnt aware that fantasy players are benching him? Do you think he isnt mad at himself for being sloppy with the ball last week? Do you think he doesnt know that people are suggesting Bell replace him on the depth chart? Do you think he doesnt have a personal brand of contempt for the Eagles because of the devastating hit he took (the hit he's tired of hearing about)?

Reggie does know these things and to him they are reasons to prove himself once again. Im not saying that Bell isnt good, or that Reggie is better. Im saying that Reggie has tons of heart and that THIS game against the Eagles will be a big one for him. I believe when its all said and done Reggie will have proved his naysayers wrong and be in possession of another game ball.

I predict over 100 combined yards and no fumbles

I hope so. I'm starting him over Bell. =)

 

[TBryant]

Today is his day of redemtion! Lite em up 25