A no Peyton thread...are two Bush in the backfield better than one?

Been on the M Bush bandwagon for years now. He'd be a great fit for us at a solid price.

If that doesn't work out, I think Tolbert would be a lesser version of him.

we already have a bush we don't need another one.

j/k. i like 'em. go get 'em.

I've always been a fan of the bigger Bush.

If you can get this Bush to cram it up the gut, while still having the little Bush to help keep yourself flexible, it ends in a double happy ending for us.

"Samphin wrote:

I've always been a fan of the bigger Bush.

If you can get this Bush to cram it up the gut, while still having the little Bush to help keep yourself flexible, it ends in a double happy ending for us.

The little Bush does most of the catching so the bigger Bush can pound away.

The "big" Bush is more than able to pickup the blitz and catch the ball out of the backfield too. Definitely make sure he doesn't have to handle the full load though.

"Machiavelli wrote:

The "big" Bush is more than able to pickup the blitz and catch the ball out of the backfield too. Definitely make sure he doesn't have to handle the full load though.

That he does. I'd like to see us put him and Reggie on the field at the same time quite a bit.

Certainly would solve any goal-line issues w/Mike as well.

A Peyton in hand beats two in the bush...

Personally I don't like bushes but hey to each his own...

"Jcouch1021 wrote:

Personally I don't like bushes but hey to each his own...

...too much information

and daniel thomas ?

Damn it, all the good innuendos are already taken.

He'd be a great add but financially I'm not sure if it would be a wise move. I'm not sure how much money he'll be getting in free agency.

Reggie is a Bush, Michael is a Shrub.

"Al13 wrote:

and daniel thomas ?

"Aqua4Ever04 wrote:

I think they have that role reserved for Daniel Thomas. The guy I want is Robert Turbin from Utah State in the middle rounds to be our goal line thumper.

Daniel Thomas doesn't deserve that role, imo.

I'd be extremely worried if he's still the #2 RB going into the season behind Reggie.

"Aqua4Ever04 wrote:

Hey I didn't like it when we picked him and I still don't like him. He looked good against Houston and Cleveland, but that was about it. But they invested a lot in to him so we're probably stuck using him as the #2.

I hope not. Considering he and Reggie are both delicate, that'd be a mistake.

I remember the good ole' days when more Bush was a good thing. Nowadays you're seeing less and less Bush. Personally, I think a little Bush is better than no Bush at all. But, too much Bush, is well...just not as appealing as it once was.

"slickj101 wrote:

I hope not. Considering he and Reggie are both delicate, that'd be a mistake.

i cant think of a pair of RB' s on a team were both make like 5 million a year, thats a waste of money for 1 resource, i cant think of any team that has a situation like this, the 2nd guy is almost a guy still in his rookie deal or a cheap veteran, maybe the giants , but i cant think of any team that has so much money tied into 2 RB's

"Jcouch1021 wrote:

Personally I don't like bushes but hey to each his own...

Welcome back Jake LOL.

At this point I think M Bush would be a huge upgrade over Thomas. As well as Reggie did last season he still is not a third down between the tackles goal line kind of RB. Yes he proved he could run between the tackles, but I would rather have 245ld Bush doing that job.

Daniel Thomas couldn't block the sun last season, at this point he is a liability and needs to be traded or cut.

The real question is how much would we have to pay for all of the Bush? I'm ok with paying for a little Bush but I don't want to overpay.. What if one of them is worn out? :tongue2:

Especially when we have a set amount of money in our pocket... We don't wanna fall in love with the bush now. That's just a rookie mistake... You admire it then you go home and try to tear that free bush up...