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

Five mini-columns

In this in-between time at the start of football and late-but-not-that-late in the everlasting baseball season, there's not any one topic that stands out, so I thought I'd give you my well thought out opinions on five things in sports (originally ten, but I let No. 3 run so long that I thought I'd cut it short (having now finished this, I realize the word short is out of place here)). This probably means I'll have nothing to write about for weeks, so enjoy. Keep in mind that a) I came up with this list at 2 a.m. this morning (I couldn't sleep and I'm not kidding; you have no idea the kind of pressure that comes with running this website) and b) I'm still not making any money off this, so if it makes no sense, blame yourself (which, interestingly enough, also makes no sense). And we're off! 1) Maurice Clarett vs. Ohio State: Before you skip down to No. 2, which I would certainly do in your position, hear me out. There is actually a little timeliness to t...

And now that it’s gone, it’s like it wasn’t there at all

I never thought this blog would last longer than Jay Cutler's career with the Denver Broncos. He was a talented young prospect so good that the Broncos, a powerhouse organization only one game removed from the Super Bowl the season before, traded up to get him—or, in other words, a player whose upside was so huge, the team sacrificed its present to get his future. And now? He's gone . How did it come to this? * * * Often I'll play devil's advocate with a move like this; you know, I'll try and explain how it makes sense from the other side of the table. Today, during the most disastrous Broncos offseason in memory—and the draft hasn't even happened yet, so settle in—I just don't have it in me. I don't think move is really defensible from a football standpoint. But what the heck: as the article above says, the Broncos are sending Cutler and a fifth-round draft pick this month to the Chicago Bears for quarterback Kyle Orton, Chicago's first-rounder in t...

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...