| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bonanza23
Joined: 10 Nov 2008
Posts: 5413
|
 Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Oh and back on topic. I personally think Weeden will be just fine as an NFL QB. Go look back in the Browns' forum, many liked him pre-draft. I'm quoted as saying the only thing I didn't like about him was his age. In fact I watched Ok St games to watch Blackmon and came away very impressed with Weeden.
_________________
Thanks to ReggieCamp on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mitchconnor
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 1006
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PowerElite wrote: | | Bush was the better prospect. How do I know for sure? I wasn't even following the draft that year and I was still hit repeatedly through the media about how great and once in a lifetime of a prospect Reggie Bush was. Reggie Bush wasn't even thought of as a true running back. He was suppose to be one of the greatest "weapons" ever. He was suppose to revolutionize the NFL. |
I'm always curious when I read statements like this. Why didn't you follow the draft that year?
You can't grade a prospect based on the amount of media hype he receives. News outlets speculated that not only was Bush the surefire #1, bad teams were intentionally losing just to draft him. Does anyone here think that was really happening? I remember plenty of informed people questioning whether Bush was even the best RB in the class. He was a very good prospect to be sure. But even at the time, with tv hosts and radio callers wailing about how unthinkable Houston's decision was, I suspected most teams would have done the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31526
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Bonanza23 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | | Bush was the better prospect. How do I know for sure? I wasn't even following the draft that year and I was still hit repeatedly through the media about how great and once in a lifetime of a prospect Reggie Bush was. Reggie Bush wasn't even thought of as a true running back. He was suppose to be one of the greatest "weapons" ever. He was suppose to revolutionize the NFL. This all sounds insane now, but this is what I was hearing through the media while not following the draft like I have the past 3 years. Richardson received no hype anywhere close to Bush. Richardson is ultimately described as a "workhorse three down back." There is nothing revolutionary about that. I believe people now with retrospect want to grade Reggie Bush "by the book" and just critique his running back potential while throwing out of the window his "revolutionary" projection as a weapon. That's not right IMO even though this ultimately is the way all prospects should be evaluated. Bush was just a special case and he proved why there shouldn't be any special cases. |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
If Bush and Richardson came out in the same draft I'd take Richardson. I personally didn't like Bush coming out except as a hybrid weapon, not as a running back. He reminded me of Eric Metcalf.
So many of you guys get soooo caught up in media hype and stats. Some really need to watch for themselves as to whether they like a prospect or not. |
Honestly, I'd take Bush. Hindsight is 20/20 but while I'd certainly have my doubts about Bush's ability to be your bell-cow HB but I'd take him to put him in a 1-2 punch with a power HB with the plan to game-plan around his receiving ability.
As impressive as T-Rich is, it's hard to pass on a guy like Bush who looks to have the ability to create a whole new dynamic to the game. After seeing what a terror Marshall Faulk could be because no one could match-up to him, I'd take Bush in hopes he'd be the same type of threat. I mean if you think he's the next Lenny Moore, he'd obviously be worth the pick.
Obviously, looking back, that wouldn't have panned out but that's the rub with taking a shot on a guy who is cut from a different cloth than the norm.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bonanza23
Joined: 10 Nov 2008
Posts: 5413
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | Bonanza23 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | | Bush was the better prospect. How do I know for sure? I wasn't even following the draft that year and I was still hit repeatedly through the media about how great and once in a lifetime of a prospect Reggie Bush was. Reggie Bush wasn't even thought of as a true running back. He was suppose to be one of the greatest "weapons" ever. He was suppose to revolutionize the NFL. This all sounds insane now, but this is what I was hearing through the media while not following the draft like I have the past 3 years. Richardson received no hype anywhere close to Bush. Richardson is ultimately described as a "workhorse three down back." There is nothing revolutionary about that. I believe people now with retrospect want to grade Reggie Bush "by the book" and just critique his running back potential while throwing out of the window his "revolutionary" projection as a weapon. That's not right IMO even though this ultimately is the way all prospects should be evaluated. Bush was just a special case and he proved why there shouldn't be any special cases. |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
If Bush and Richardson came out in the same draft I'd take Richardson. I personally didn't like Bush coming out except as a hybrid weapon, not as a running back. He reminded me of Eric Metcalf.
So many of you guys get soooo caught up in media hype and stats. Some really need to watch for themselves as to whether they like a prospect or not. |
Honestly, I'd take Bush. Hindsight is 20/20 but while I'd certainly have my doubts about Bush's ability to be your bell-cow HB but I'd take him to put him in a 1-2 punch with a power HB with the plan to game-plan around his receiving ability.
As impressive as T-Rich is, it's hard to pass on a guy like Bush who looks to have the ability to create a whole new dynamic to the game. After seeing what a terror Marshall Faulk could be because no one could match-up to him, I'd take Bush in hopes he'd be the same type of threat. I mean if you think he's the next Lenny Moore, he'd obviously be worth the pick.
Obviously, looking back, that wouldn't have panned out but that's the rub with taking a shot on a guy who is cut from a different cloth than the norm. |
Yeah see, I just never saw him as a Faulk type player. I personally thought he was over-rated when he came out. I know I was in the minority.
_________________
Thanks to ReggieCamp on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31526
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Bonanza23 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | Bonanza23 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | | Bush was the better prospect. How do I know for sure? I wasn't even following the draft that year and I was still hit repeatedly through the media about how great and once in a lifetime of a prospect Reggie Bush was. Reggie Bush wasn't even thought of as a true running back. He was suppose to be one of the greatest "weapons" ever. He was suppose to revolutionize the NFL. This all sounds insane now, but this is what I was hearing through the media while not following the draft like I have the past 3 years. Richardson received no hype anywhere close to Bush. Richardson is ultimately described as a "workhorse three down back." There is nothing revolutionary about that. I believe people now with retrospect want to grade Reggie Bush "by the book" and just critique his running back potential while throwing out of the window his "revolutionary" projection as a weapon. That's not right IMO even though this ultimately is the way all prospects should be evaluated. Bush was just a special case and he proved why there shouldn't be any special cases. |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
If Bush and Richardson came out in the same draft I'd take Richardson. I personally didn't like Bush coming out except as a hybrid weapon, not as a running back. He reminded me of Eric Metcalf.
So many of you guys get soooo caught up in media hype and stats. Some really need to watch for themselves as to whether they like a prospect or not. |
Honestly, I'd take Bush. Hindsight is 20/20 but while I'd certainly have my doubts about Bush's ability to be your bell-cow HB but I'd take him to put him in a 1-2 punch with a power HB with the plan to game-plan around his receiving ability.
As impressive as T-Rich is, it's hard to pass on a guy like Bush who looks to have the ability to create a whole new dynamic to the game. After seeing what a terror Marshall Faulk could be because no one could match-up to him, I'd take Bush in hopes he'd be the same type of threat. I mean if you think he's the next Lenny Moore, he'd obviously be worth the pick.
Obviously, looking back, that wouldn't have panned out but that's the rub with taking a shot on a guy who is cut from a different cloth than the norm. |
Yeah see, I just never saw him as a Faulk type player. I personally thought he was over-rated when he came out. I know I was in the minority. |
I didn't really follow the draft closely enough back then so I guess I shouldn't definitively say I'd take Bush. I don't know. But I think I probably would have knowing how I look at players. But then again, I might have had an issue with his inability to run between the tackles and has lack of power. I don't know.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThorntonMelon
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 690
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
I pointed to 7 prospects, including Bush, that were all rated similarly to Richardson. Only 1 of those prospects turned into the kind of impact player that people just assume that Richardson will turn out to be. That was my point, not to directly compare Richardson to Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31526
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ThorntonMelon wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
I pointed to 7 prospects, including Bush, that were all rated similarly to Richardson. Only 1 of those prospects turned into the kind of impact player that people just assume that Richardson will turn out to be. That was my point, not to directly compare Richardson to Bush. |
People don't assume Richardson will be. They watched Richardson and judged him to be. None of those 7 players has any bearing on the player that Richardson will or won't be.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThorntonMelon
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 690
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | ThorntonMelon wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
I pointed to 7 prospects, including Bush, that were all rated similarly to Richardson. Only 1 of those prospects turned into the kind of impact player that people just assume that Richardson will turn out to be. That was my point, not to directly compare Richardson to Bush. |
People don't assume Richardson will be. They watched Richardson and judged him to be. None of those 7 players has any bearing on the player that Richardson will or won't be. |
They don't? If only 14% of top-10 RBs in the past 10 years end up producing at an elite level it doesnt make you question the wisdom of drafting a RB in the top-10? I think it's pretty relevant.
People watched Reggie Bush, and Cadillac and Benson and Adrian Peterson etc. etc. and judged them to be elite RB prospects and they were wrong 86% of the time. So maybe there is a problem with the way these guys are being evaluated. For whatever reason teams have been wrong the vast majority of the time when drafting RBs in the top-10 in recent years. And that's where it has bearing on Richardson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31526
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ThorntonMelon wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | ThorntonMelon wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
I pointed to 7 prospects, including Bush, that were all rated similarly to Richardson. Only 1 of those prospects turned into the kind of impact player that people just assume that Richardson will turn out to be. That was my point, not to directly compare Richardson to Bush. |
People don't assume Richardson will be. They watched Richardson and judged him to be. None of those 7 players has any bearing on the player that Richardson will or won't be. |
They don't? If only 14% of top-10 RBs in the past 10 years end up producing at an elite level it doesnt make you question the wisdom of drafting a RB in the top-10? I think it's pretty relevant. |
I don't. It's the same type of argument as "I wouldn't draft so and so because of the college they went to".
None of those HBs were Richardson so none of them have any sort of affect on how I view him.
| Quote: | | People watched Reggie Bush, and Cadillac and Benson and Adrian Peterson etc. etc. and judged them to be elite RB prospects and they were wrong 86% of the time. So maybe there is a problem with the way these guys are being evaluated. For whatever reason teams have been wrong the vast majority of the time when drafting RBs in the top-10 in recent years. And that's where it has bearing on Richardson. |
I do not care. Wasn't me who made those choices. Knocking Richardson because he was drafted in the top 10 is...well...I don't want to be insulting.
So basically, by your logic, if the success rate for HBs drafted in the 20 to 32 range was 55% over the last 10 years, Richardson would be a better HB prospect if he was drafted at #24 rather than #4? Or is it that Richardson would just magically pan out better?
Now, if you were to make the argument that Richardson is in a situation where he won't succeed, go for it. Just don't tell me that he won't be successful because of where he was drafted.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawgpoun8017
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 9113
Location: Waterloo,NY
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ThorntonMelon wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | ThorntonMelon wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
I pointed to 7 prospects, including Bush, that were all rated similarly to Richardson. Only 1 of those prospects turned into the kind of impact player that people just assume that Richardson will turn out to be. That was my point, not to directly compare Richardson to Bush. |
People don't assume Richardson will be. They watched Richardson and judged him to be. None of those 7 players has any bearing on the player that Richardson will or won't be. |
They don't? If only 14% of top-10 RBs in the past 10 years end up producing at an elite level it doesnt make you question the wisdom of drafting a RB in the top-10? I think it's pretty relevant.
People watched Reggie Bush, and Cadillac and Benson and Adrian Peterson etc. etc. and judged them to be elite RB prospects and they were wrong 86% of the time. So maybe there is a problem with the way these guys are being evaluated. For whatever reason teams have been wrong the vast majority of the time when drafting RBs in the top-10 in recent years. And that's where it has bearing on Richardson. |
you really cant put caddy into that catagory becasue honestly we dont know what he could have done had he not gotten hurt. he was off to a good start to his career before he got hurt. you could argue that McFadden absolutely makes a difference in his teams play. their offense is not anywhere near as good without him in the lineup. I have said I never thoguht Reggie Bush was going to be an elite RB in the NFL. Richardson offers you much more as a RB than Bush does, he ha no doubts about running between the tackles, he has speed to run outside, he is a good pass blocker, he can catch the ball out of the backfield. honestly the only aspect of being a running back that Bush has on Richardson is his speed and his agility
_________________
2013 Joe Blackburn HOF Award Recipient
"Every man dies, not every man really lives."
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
onejayhawk
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 5052
Location: Waco, Tx
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I dont see how a thread about Cleveland's oldest rookie got to be about RBs, but I'll play.
You cannot get 1/7 success from the top 10 without loading the odds. Brown and Caddy is legitimately considered an injury casualties. AP and DMC are hits. So you are at 2/5 and left with Reggie, Cedric Benson, and Spiller.
Reggie and Spiller are both teams attempting to draft Marshall Faulk, or at least Priest Holmes. Remember that both those guys were given up by their first team. It took D ick Vermiel to put them properly to use. I would love to see what Spiller could do in the Greatest Show on Turf. It is too early to call him a bust.
Cedric Benson and AP are the ones really on point. They are power backs, as is TR. I like TR as a prospect better than AP, but its close. Peterson has better 2nd gear, but has never been a decent receiver. Benson was not a disaster as a RB, but he was a miss at his draft slot. Again, he was not a receiver coming out.
So for RBs of his type, the results are one hit/one miss. In both cases, TR has a receiving dimension the others lack. Of course all this is speculation. Richardson is the ideal type back for a bad team with a decent OL. I think he will be ROY, and the Browns will lose more games because of a rookie QB than because their running game is sub par.
J
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PowerElite
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 7624
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mitchconnor wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | | Bush was the better prospect. How do I know for sure? I wasn't even following the draft that year and I was still hit repeatedly through the media about how great and once in a lifetime of a prospect Reggie Bush was. Reggie Bush wasn't even thought of as a true running back. He was suppose to be one of the greatest "weapons" ever. He was suppose to revolutionize the NFL. |
I suspected most teams would have done the same thing. |
See what you did there? You gave your opinion. We all have opinions, and gauging the larger consensus is all we can do buddy. My statement was reporting the larger consensus. Your attempt to rewrite history is weak. I don't like Reggie Bush, but it is what it is. He was the better NFL prospect at the time, according to consensus. No one on planet Earth would have considered drafting Trent Richardson over Marion Williams. Think about it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mitchconnor
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 1006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PowerElite wrote: | | mitchconnor wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | | Bush was the better prospect. How do I know for sure? I wasn't even following the draft that year and I was still hit repeatedly through the media about how great and once in a lifetime of a prospect Reggie Bush was. Reggie Bush wasn't even thought of as a true running back. He was suppose to be one of the greatest "weapons" ever. He was suppose to revolutionize the NFL. |
I suspected most teams would have done the same thing. |
See what you did there? You gave your opinion. We all have opinions, and gauging the larger consensus is all we can do buddy. My statement was reporting the larger consensus. Your attempt to rewrite history is weak. I don't like Reggie Bush, but it is what it is. He was the better NFL prospect at the time, according to consensus. No one on planet Earth would have considered drafting Trent Richardson over Marion Williams. Think about it. |
Noone's rewriting history here. This was all discussed and debated ad infinitum at the time on these boards. There was a huge consensus among casual fans and tv pundits that Bush was the top prospect. Bush was certainly the popular pick on draft forums like this one, but it was not nearly such a clear consensus. We can only speculate (as I did) as to what the popular opinion in NFL front offices was. The only thing we can be sure of in that regard is that Houston(the team that mattered) preferred Williams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArodFanboy
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 2345
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think something that needs to be mentioned is Cleveland is in a pretty good situation long term with Weeden here thanks to the rookie wage scale. If he sucks, they will be picking highly no matter what more than likely which means plenty of options the next few seasons to take another shot at a QB. I didn't like the choice of him at ALL for the Browns there with the amount of talent they could have used that was still on the board.
As a Packer fan, I wish the Browns the best of luck. (except against any scenario where they play Green Bay.)
_________________
^Kempes on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
onejayhawk
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 5052
Location: Waco, Tx
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ThorntonMelon wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: |
I'm not disagreeing. I had the same experience. My point wasn't that Richardson is a better prospect, it was that pointing to Bush as a reason why Richardson might fail just doesn't hold merit. Richardson's game translates much better to the NFL. |
I pointed to 7 prospects, including Bush, that were all rated similarly to Richardson. Only 1 of those prospects turned into the kind of impact player that people just assume that Richardson will turn out to be. That was my point, not to directly compare Richardson to Bush. |
It was a poor comparison. You did not eliminate very recent picks and injury casualties. There was also disagreement with you putting Run DMC and CBenson in the bust group. A better assessment would be that only one of four uninjured RB has significantly exceeded his draft position.
J
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
