Before the 2006 NFL Draft, there was a scout who said that if Reggie Bush failed as a pro football player, it would be because there was something wrong with the NFL.Two years into Bush's career - since he's likely done for the season - it isn't looking particularly good. Bush has only rushed for 1146 yards through two years at 3.7 yards per rush. I should, however, also mention that he has 1159 yards receiving in those two years, which means he's not one dimensional. But his tendency to drop passes, along with being fumble-prone (7 times this year), is discouraging.
Even teammates are starting to sour on him a bit, as was made clear by AOL Fanhouse. The easy answer is that Bush needs to concentrate more, work harder, etc., etc. The more truthful answer is that he needed Deuce McAllister healthy to help him carry the load.
But there may also be another answer as to why he's struggling. And that is that there may actually be a problem with the NFL.
Bush is most often compared to Gale Sayers, who had a brief, but brilliant, NFL career. Sayers, like Bush, is 6-feet tall, and played at approximately the same weight as Bush currently does - 200 lbs. The problem for Bush, however, is that the NFL he plays in is not the same NFL that Sayers played in.
When Gale Sayers played pro football (1965-1971), there wasn't a single 300-lb. lineman in the game. In 1990, there were 39 players who weighed 300 lbs. or more. Today, there are over 300 guys in the league who tilt the scales at 300 lbs. or more. And not only that, they're faster and stronger than they used to be. Plus, Gale Sayers never had to face a guy clogging the running lanes like Broncos D-Tackle Sam Adams, who is politely listed at 350-lbs.
And it's not just guys that are over 300-lbs. that are a problem. It's also linebackers who weigh 240 lbs. or more and have ridiculous speed.
Shawne Merriman is listed at 6-4, 272-lbs. and supposedly runs the 40 in 4.6. The average linebacker in the NFL right now according to the Elias Sports Bureau weighs 242-lbs. Dick Butkus (1965-1973), one of the greatest linebackers in NFL history and considered an absolute monster in his day, was 6-3, 244-lbs., which would make him an average sized linebacker in today's NFL.
The truth is that everyone who plays in the NFL is a physical freak to some degree, since that's what the job demands. It's always been that way. But, over time, people who play in the NFL have become more than just physical freaks, they've become pharmalogically modified freaks.
Zach Thomas of the Dolphins is, by all accounts, a very small linebacker by NFL standards. He's 5-11, 230 lbs. Meaning he outweighs me by more than 60-lbs. even though we're the same height. But those extra 60-lbs. aren't fat. They're primarily muscle. Needless to say, that's unnatural.
We've seen guys like Merriman, Julius Peppers, Rodney Harrison, and countless other individuals receive suspensions for either steroids or HGH or God only knows what. We've also seen guys like Brian Urlacher morph from a college safety into a 258-lb. linebacker at the pro level. This kind of pharmalogical modification isn't the exception anymore - it's basically the rule.
And that, frankly, is what Reggie Bush is up against. An NFL that is no longer dominated by those with sheer talent, but by those with sheer talent who also have chemicals coursing through their veins.
While Tiki Barber and Barry Sanders both excelled in the NFL as small backs, they were shorter than Bush (Sanders: 5-8, Barber: 5-10) and weighed slightly more than he did (Sanders: 203, Barber: 205). They also not so surprisingly retired early to avoid the physical toll of playing in a juiced-up league. Bush may ultimately have to become a receiver in the mold of Wes Welker if he wants to have a significant impact in the pros.
But what's clear is that Bush would have been an every-down back in the days of Gale Sayers. In today's NFL, he can't be that, and it isn't his fault.
He was just born 40 years later than he should have been.
-WCK
25 comments:
But what's clear is that Bush would have been an every-down back in the days of Gale Sayers. In today's NFL, he can't be that, and it isn't his fault.
It's odd, I can really relate to this. People tell me all the time that if I took special education, I could have been the valedictorian...
enjoyed the post..good points
Very interesting post. I agree that the strength and speed of the average player makes life difficult for Bush right now, though I would argue that big linemen don't have much to do with it. Linemen are big on both sides of the ball.
And as for the "pharmalogical modification" (nice phrase, btw) -- how can you be so sure that everyone's using? I'm not disagreeing so much as questioning how we can logically make the jump from learning that Merriman used to assuming that all linebackers and linemen do as well.
Regardless, interesting post for sure. Had never considered that there might be something "wrong" with the NFL so as to make Reggie Bush's life miserable.
Wow, you are really small. 170 lbs? You're built like a 12 year-old vegetarian. I dont think you can relate your weight as a professional blogger to that of a professional athelete and suggest steroid use.
Offensive lineman are much bigger and faster now as well. As are receivers and fullbacks. The whole game is bigger and faster. Reggie Bush just tries to do too much. And he is also being asked to do much more now than he did in college. Such as being a feature back, which he was not in college. He had Lendale White to take a lot of the load.
You forgot to add the disclaimer: "Coupled with the fact that Bush played in the hideously overrated PAC-10 which has turned out a bunch of purse-carrying, panty-wearing, booty-boys in the last ten years, because the PAC-10 sucks."
Just saying.
My modeling contract doesn't pay if I go over 175, so I gotta stay lean and mean.
Those who would excuse all of the huge, strong people playing pro football need to explain where they were hiding for the past 50 years. Does anyone think that the teams of the past would have past over such guys because they were too big or too fast? Or do people think that we are in the midst of an evolutionary escalation to produce such people. Or perhaps specific Creationism to benefit the NFL? Good diet and health care can only produce so much. The simple fact is, as Injury Rate has pointed, that we are in the midst of rampant "pharmacological modification." You can get fat by eating a lot of fast food. But to add 50-100 lbs of muscle and run a 4.6 40, you need to live better chemically.
Wait, hold up, this wasn't a joke post? See, I read this like a joke post, but peoples replies seem to counter that, like you were serious about Bush being born in the wrong era. I mean, you can make that excuse for just about anyone playing any sports these days. Take 3rd string Arizona Cardinal running back JJ Arrington, place him in the 60's or 70's, and his speed alone would have him crushing the league. Michael Olowokandi, put him in the same league as Bob Cousy, and he'd really look like he should have been the #1 pick in the draft.
i agree that we cannot compare bush to sayers. honestly, i dont know why anyone would do that. im roughly the same size as bush and i dont think he should be compared to me, unless we're talkin' madden...
many of the rb's that enjoy success in the nfl are at or around bush's height. many of the top name rb's listed at 6 ft weigh in the 220-230 lbs range. clearly bush is not as big as those guys. but there are a couple of rb's an inch or two shorter who weigh roughly the same as bush who are successful in the nfl (westbrook, parker, et. al). so bush's size may not really be the issue.
maybe the issue is the saints. maybe they have not yet found a way to use bush's athleticism to it's full potential. bush is not an everydown back because that may not be his strength. if he was on my team, i would not grind him between the tackles. i would find a better way to use his speed and quickness, but on everydown. the saints may try to use his quickness but they telegraph it when duece pounds for 5/6 yds in 2 downs and bush comes in as a 3rd down specialist. im sorry, but im putting a db in just to spy him!
maybe the answer is to create a position for him. there have been guys that have combined positions (vick was a qb/rb; gates is a te/wr; bush is a rushing wr). maybe the saints should develop an offense that better incorporates all of bush's tools more effectively.
also, we don't make these same points about the new and improved nfl when we look at qb's. no one says eli manning wouldve been a star in his father's day but he's inconsistent today because dt's have better hand eye coordination to bat down his passes. that may or may not be true, but we don't even think about it.
when young qb's struggle (and the best of them have) we chalk it off to making the adjustment from college to the pros, or learning a complex offense. that may be the case with bush. things that came easily to bush in college are probably a challenge now; not because the nfl is bigger and faster than before, but because the nfl is bigger and faster than college.
so i dont think the problem is the nfl. i think the problem is bush's play in the nfl. but we knew that already.
Amen! How about the average height in the NBA? People are either bigger now or these sports are so much more popular that there is a wider range of people interesed than there were 40 years ago.
Bush sucks, Tiki rocked. Thats why he was so much better.
The problem is Reggie Bush.
The problem is Reggie Bush.
Exactly. The kid is vastly overrated, and anyone who watched him in college knows this. Lendale was the whole reason he was able to break those runs to the left and right, because teams were petrified of leaving the middle open. Remember in the national championship, Lendale got them three TD's, Reggie got them a botched lateral...
Reggie is weak, has no vision for hitting the hole, runs out of bounds or falls down alot, drops TONS of passes, fumbles a bunch and has a piss poor yards per carry average. He was not worth a #2 pick.
great post! well reasoned and all that...
this is a bit of a stretch.
Two Dogs
This is my favorite dumb comment about Bush...
"USC's offense only looked good because the Pac-10 either A) sucks or B) sucks at defense."
You are aware that they played teams outside of the Pac-10 (such as say SEC West Champ Arkansas) and destroyed them far worse than any Pac-10 opponent right?
The first time they played Arkansas they scored on 5 of their first 9 plays! And both times they played them the game was over before the half due to the beating Arkansas took.
Because I would hate to think you don't know anything about college football and are just a blind homer.
Just by saying that he has receiving yards, coupled with rushing yards, and using that as justification that he isn't one dimensional isn't sound reasoning - since most of those receiving yards came from passes out in the flats, and those rushing yards came outside the tackles. Reggie Bush doesn't suck because he's too small - he sucks because he's afraid to go inside, and prefers to cut around and prance like a fairy before getting destroyed by those huge lineman. Until he tries lowering his head and hitting the holes, don't make excuses for him.
Reggie Bush is now and always will be a gimmick player- However, put him on a team with an above-average o-line (Vikings) and you'll see much better production. Adrian Peterson is a rare talent, and a star, but that o-line is awesome- witness the mediocre Chester Taylor ripping it up in AP's absence. Look to the o-line, not the d-line for your answers.
Warrick Dunn dawg...
It's surprising to me how little people acknowledge what you just did- the NFL is a league of steroid freaks. You want evidence? Here is all I need,
1.Tagliabue went before congress and argued vehemently against following WADA doping standards.
2.As you show, players are getting bigger and bigger, but the average person in the US has been getting smaller over the same time.
You could have summed your whole blog up with this.Reggie Bush cannot take a hit and takes himself out constantly!If you compare him to an SEC back try to compare him to Darren Mcfadden lolololololoo d-mac is an f'ing Beast PLUS HIS 40 TIMES ARE CONSISTENTLY IN THE 4.2'S..THIS IS WHY REGGIE BUSH SUX BAD!
小米blog 醫療百寶箱 好食報馬仔 環遊世界365天 時尚精神 教育學習大不同 與您分享Google大小事
＊BeaUtY & VogUE情報站＊ 出國通~阿頓blog
馬儒敗's Bookmarks 安安分享少女穿搭術s
美容保養 lesley分享天地
☆房地產資訊佈告欄☆ 小米姐姐 趨勢產業經濟佈告欄 i樂活 論壇 i漂亮 討論區
But what's clear is that Bush would have been an every-down back in the days of Gale Sayers. In today's NFL, he can't be that, and it isn't his fault.
It's odd, I can really relate to this. People tell me all the time that if I took spec
The blog is good one. I like the design of the blog engine.
I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point of knowledge and information.
I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point of knowledge and information.
Post a Comment