Skip to main content

An obvious choice

After seeing tonight's Denver Broncos-Houston Texans game, I'd like to revisit a piece of everyone-saw-it-coming conventional wisdom: namely, how dumb were the Texans to take Mario Williams over Reggie Bush?

Remember, this question was settled for all time last year, when Bush led his New Orleans Saints to the playoffs, while Williams' foibles left the Texans on the couch for the postseason. At least that's the story I remember. But it was really settled the year before that, when both were in college, and when Bush, a.k.a. The Next Gale Sayers, became the highest-paid amateur athlete ever.

Just one problem. Williams has been way better than Bush this year.

I don't mean to bash Bush for his knee injury, which may or may not keep him out for the rest of the year, even though when analyzing someone's worthiness as a No. 1 overall pick I think it would be fair to do so. Let's look at just the stats, instead.

Williams had three-and-a-half sacks tonight to bring him to 13 on the year, good for second in the NFL. That's very good. Bush, meanwhile, has 157 carries for 581 yards and four touchdowns this year. That's a 3.7 per-carry average, which sounds bad for Bush, but actually represents an improvement over last year. He also has 73 catches for 417 yards (a 5.3 average, down from 8.4 a season ago) and two more touchdowns. And he's fumbled the ball a Tiki Barber-like seven times.

Even his game-by-game rushing totals don't provide much room for optimism. Against Seattle in week six, Bush ran for 97 yards. Against Jacksonville in week nine, he ran for 72. Those were his best outings all year, though he also had a few games in the 60s. Despite the hype, Bush has yet to prove himself as a featured running back in the NFL.

I really don't hate Reggie Bush or anything, but I just hope you remember this example the next time someone judges a career path so early.

To be fair to myself, I never said the Texans should take Reggie Bush. Instead I called on them to draft Vince Young, who, like Bush, has had a statistical nightmare of a season. Bush has zero hundred-yard rushing games; Young has no games with a passer rating of 100. (To be fair, his 99.9 against Houston was pretty close.) Young's completed 62 percent of his passes—more than ten points higher than last year—but still throws mostly short, and has 7 touchdowns against 16 picks. Maybe it's impressive just that he's still playing, given the Madden curse.

I believe in Young's potential, and I'd still take him over Williams in a heartbeat. But it's too early to be too sure.

Comments

blaine said…
I never understood all the hype around Bush either. I also thought Young should have been the easy choice for the Texans, after all, who beat who in the Rose Bowl?

I'm tired of people saying that "he just isn't that kind of back" in defense of him not being able to carry the load of a featured back. Well, why not? Is he too small? What about MJD? He's only 5-7. Reggie Bush is 6-0. I think the problem is his mentality. He's not tough enough to be a featured back in NFL.
Mike said…
The annoying part is how everyone ignores Bush's weaknesses for some reason, but rarely gives Young or Williams the same break. I mean, Bush was splitting time in college. Granted, he can be really explosive and a game-changer (he had that 513-yard game (!!!) against Fresno State), and he's very versatile, but is that enough to make him a No. 1 pick if he can't carry the load the rest of the game? Plus he's playing running back, a position where injuries happen all the time...I don't know, he's awesome, but the love affair surrounding him the last few years has been a little ridiculous.

Popular posts from this blog

National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!

If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place! Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother. Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven...

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview : Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note. Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them. As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why? "Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway. Humble...

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...