Ireland and Reggie's agent start very preliminary discussions about contract.

Probably but that wouldn't stop me from making a move I feel is best for the team.

 

I think the money that will be invested in Bush will be better spent on another position. Running backs are easy to replace so I don't see the need to extend Bush.

 

The "Madden" approach.

 

More like the logical approach.

 

Precisely. All logic, no emotion. In other words, "Madden."

 

LOL. Ok.

 

I realize that. He's a very good back. But, it's not that hard to find good production from that position.

The money spent on him could be spent on a player at a position that is harder to find. And could have more impact.

 

This. Running back is historically fungible, due in part to the position's low average career games played. Very rarely is a running back worth the money they receive, certainly not worth the opportunity cost of not paying another player on the squad.

It's very difficult to justify allocating high amounts of resources to a position that doesn't affect winning very much.

 

And at the root of any disagreement between this position and one advocating for his signing, as it pertains to Reggie Bush specifically and not the running back position in general, would be a philosophical difference about the importance of player leadership and team culture.

In other words, some people believe those variables are important enough to pay for despite the fact that they'd be generated by someone at a position of less relative, physical value, whereas others believe they aren't as important.