jeez i didn't realize he had 1200 yards. I think you're right
Printable View
jeez i didn't realize he had 1200 yards. I think you're right
Patriots DE Marquise Hill has been found dead in Lake Pontchartrain.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2884762
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriMaTe
He probably would have had more had the Eagles run the ball before Mcnabb got hurt. Actually, had we run the ball and teams not just tee'ed off on Mcnabb all season, he may not have gotten hurt, and the season might have gone a little better. Also, our defense spent more time on the field than most teams, and it killed our run defense by wearing them out. Thats why we lost o the siants in the playoffs IMO. If Reid has half a brain and look at the patenr of our winning streaks and lossing streaks from last year, we will have a balanced offense. Use Shawn Andrews as a battering ram and just run behind him all game.
Bummer. Sounded like a good fellow, and killed while jet skiing on Memorial Day. wth?Quote:
Originally Posted by monroeski
grats on 5k monroeski!
I think Bush is the real deal as well. Its going to be much harder this year since teams will have a year of tape on him, but I think he's going to be good for a long time.
i've only seen highlights--do you guys think he's sort of like a Thurman Thomas type pass catching rb, but with more athleticism?
I'd say more like marshall faulk.
yea, but a bit smaller and maybe quicker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidmoose171
cough cough cough... holy s*** cough... you didn't just say that, did YOU?
Faulk cannot be compared, he is a legend... put SDSU on the map, Bush can only pray to smell faulk's excrement let alone be like him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox
lol, ouch. Otoh, Bush stands a very good chance of becoming a better 'analyst' than Faulk is after his career is over.:p
They are comparable running backs. Same style of game.
You can compare styles all you want. He didn't say he was the same level of player, just that they have similar styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox
Bush has yet to prove anything, let alone that he can run like, move like, play like Faulk at the NFL level... not saying he won't, just saying it doesn't look like he will.
Again, you're looking at it as a comparison between two specific players rather than a comparison of styles. There are probably a dozen or more RBs in the NFL who have the same style as Faulk. That's not to say they're remotely as good, it's just saying that their MO is similar, and that's all we're saying; that Bush's style is similar to Faulk's.Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox
Over the "long haul", Bush hasn't proven anything. That being said, he does have one season under his belt... and a pretty good season at that. And not just that, but he split playing time with another pretty good back in his own right... McAllister.Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox
If Bush were the "feature back" where he played 90% of the snaps, his numbers would have even been higher.
And I think that he'd have the durability for it. Sometimes too much gets made about size. None of Thurman Thomas, Emmitt Smith, or Barry Sanders were very big backs. All around 200lbs... that's it. I don't know for sure, but think that Bush could handle the workload.
And I agree... Bush has a VERY similar style to Faulk. And while he doesn't have the numbers that Faulk had (obviously), he does have the potential to produce them I think.
None of this will be written in stone for at least a few more years... but my money is on him being a very good back.