Bush being resigned will be undoubtedly up to bush. He's got the ego and name recognition to want big money even after what I would call a "solid" year.

 

I agree, he is one of our few playmakers, has done some of the same things he did in his breakout year last year and figures to come in at a modest deal.

 

I don't see us re-signing Bush for cap reasons. IMO we'll look to add a bargain guy or two from the draft/FA and let them battle it out with Miller and Thomas in camp.

 

They can simply do better than Reggie Bush.

 

Anyone you'd like to see them get, Alen?

 

Causes too many drives to stall, while helping too few others to advance.

And his play "in space," while thought to be something special, is actually no better than that of the average running back IMO. It's a complete myth.

You'd like to think his leadership is so great, but the way he plays runs counter to that, where he very often does what's not in the team's best interests.

 

Free agency wise, not so much. I don't think there's a ball-carrier available that fits what one looks for in a zone stretch scheme other than Justin Forsett, who is really better served as a third down back than a runner. In the draft, the best stretch runner is really Andre Ellington. He's got the dynamic ability to keep wide and turn the corner on outside zone and jet as well as possessing the instincts to find the cutback lane on the inside zone. However, as typical of young runners, you worry about his pass pro. If you're looking for a late back, I think D.J. Harper of Boise State is a better runner than given credit for. Albeit his medical history is not quite as clean as you'd like, he is a three down talent that you can probably get very late. And then there's also Vanderbilt's Zac Stacy, although he has also had some knocks.

 

I think you're basing your claim on one play. He is good in space.

 

I'm not saying he's not good in space; I'm saying he's no better than the average running back when it comes to the sum total of what he does in that area. For every move he makes to juke some guy out of his jockstrap, he misses an opening in space or fails to make a defender miss in the open field when it appears he should be able to. The occasional "wow" makes his overall ability in space seem special, whereas I suspect if you looked at it objectively, factoring in both the good and the bad, it wouldn't be any better than average.

At this point Reggie Bush should be relegated to a Leon Washington-type role in the NFL IMO, including kick returns. His vision is just very, very poor IMO.

 

I think improvisement is a strength of his and is superior to that of an average runner. It's truly the one thing he can hang his hat on. However, the issue that has plagued him in the professional playing field is that his close space vision (for lack of a better term) has prevented him from using his open field vision. It's largely why he's not cut out to be a zone runner and when one considers his past medical concerns prior to becoming a Dolphin, it's another reason why he wasn't a great downhill back, thus struggling to find success overall early in his career.

 

That was the vision I was talking about above. It's very poor IMO.

And his decision-making is poor as well. When it's third or fourth down and you need one to three yards for a first down, you go with the high-probability play of following your blocking, rather than trying to improvise.

There is a mental process that needs to occur in those situations, where prior to the play, you tell yourself the situation and what the team needs to accomplish, and you overrule your instinct to do what may come more naturally to you. That process doesn't occur with him, and it hurts the team repeatedly.

And when you're trying to lead a team, you need to engage in that mental process and do what's best for your team, rather than being what appears to be "self-absorbed" and doing just what comes naturally to you.

Whatever leadership he exudes elsewhere, and there is some, is all but canceled out by those instances IMO, because they reflect too much "me" and too little "team," in critical situations for the team. It's sort of an immature, selfish approach to playing the game that isn't characteristic of the true team leader. To some extent it makes him appear to be a "little kid" among men out there, and little kids can't really lead men.

 

I'd love to get Ball out of Wisc. Kid is a beast.

 

If you graphed out Reggie Bush's results per carry, you'd end up with really weird results. He's getting one of the highest percentages of his yardage(39.1%) off of runs of 15+ yards, and he's one of the most "stuffed", if not the most on an per attempt basis.

I think that's simply not sustainable. The long runs are nice but we'd be much better off with someone getting 3-5 to reliably every down regardless.

 

As much as I like him, I believe the team needs to let him walk. I am very interested to see what this team has in Miller, I think we have hit a homer run with that kid.

 

And you saw the problem with that Sunday, where the long run he had resulted in only three points. Unless those long runs are resulting in touchdowns a la Chris Johnson, they don't compensate for the drives that are stalled by the stuffed runs, especially with a rookie QB who needs his running game to put him in favorable down-and-distance situations.

You get only so many chances to possess the ball per game. You can't have a running back whose style contributes to so many ended drives and punts. Hell, a guy who averages only three yards per carry, but gets those yards reliably, puts you in a very manageable 3rd and 4 if you give him the ball on first and second down and he does his average. Bush is liable to put you in a 3rd and 14, and his long runs don't compensate for that, because they far more often than not don't result in points in and of themselves.

 

That assumes that the blocking is there to get 3-5 reliably on every down. It's not. If it was, you'd never need to pass and would be pretty stupid to ever do it. Just 3.5 on every down gets you a first down every single time. But nobody does that that because that doesn't exist. Never has and never will. Even the very best backs of all time get stuffed and not just occasionally. Adrian Peterson and Arian Foster have been stuffed more than any other backs in the league this year. And you can't compare Bush's stuffs figures to DThomas because they are called on for different types of plays in different types of situations.

 

So, nobody thinks our horrible offensive line has anything to do with Bush's regression? He's making "poor" reads because there are no "good" reads when there's nothing more than a brick wall in front of you. He has no choice but to try and bounce it to the edge because 9 times out of 10 there are no interior holes to run through. Our line can't even hold their ground, no less move the LOS and create space for a back.

 

Did you see the play Rich Gannon highlighted on TV Sunday and said, "there -- that's the hole you hit." That play was typical of Bush. Another typical of Bush Sunday was the 3rd and 3 where the fullback is leading up the middle, and he bounces it outside for no gain, leading to a punt.

Of course there's no guarantee he would've picked up the first down following the fullback, but again, when you're facing the prospect of having to punt if you don't convert, you go with the high probability play, which is where the blocking is targeted, rather than improvising and trying to do everything yourself. Let the TEAM get the first down, and do your part as a teammate, rather than taking the ME approach by doing your own agenda.

 

I suspect the problem with Bush is that he doesn't have anywhere near the percentage of mid-range runs those players do, because his short-area vision is so poor, and he's so prone to improvising and missing out on those kinds of runs (i.e., the one Rich Gannon highlighted Sunday).

With Bush it's feast or famine, far more often famine, and with players like Peterson and Foster, there is also lots of feast and famine, but a whole lot more regular, satisfying meals in there, too.

 

It was early this season, but I started seeing some disturbing things, hesitation, questionable vision, and an unaggressive nature, and I had to separate my feelings for how much I respect his work ethic.

Those things have continued..

I think our QB would thrive off a downhill run game, a trading skillset, an overall player...run, catch, block, smart, good decision maker..Step Taylor, Montee ball would look real nice in our uniform, maybe see if Chris ivory is available.

Don't want to build a scheme around this much unpredictability..

 

I think Bush has three "traits?" that hurt him. Questionable pass pro, tendency to put the ball on the ground and a tendency towards negative plays. Those negatives are weighed against his big play ability and a fantastic work ethic. I think he's been consistent enough in terms of avoiding injury that I'm not going to continue questioning his durability. But the other limitations are big enough that I'm not willing to pay top dollar. IMO it will all come down to what he demands and whether it matches what we offer (assuming Philbin wants him back). He may also be our most marketable name. It may not matter on the pure football side, but it may be a factor on the business side.

 

I really appreciate and like what Reggie has done on the field and off the field for the team. That said, I'd rather keep the $$$, re-invest it elsewhere, and head into 2013-14 with Thomas, Miller, and Gray all while knowing Thigpen is insurance for backfield work.

 

But, I have seen him on those occasions when he tries to bounce outside lose key yardage instead of making any positive yardage. There have been too many times I have seen him bounce looking for the long, spectacular run rather than work his way for the 3-4 yards needed to sustain the drive. Good Tough Inside runners don't always get those yards, for sure. But you never get those yards going sideways. Very rarely do you see Bush press the hole and the blocking. But, quite a few times I have seen either Thomas or Miller break inside through a seam and get 5-8 yards. That on first down, rather than a -3 because the RB gets swamped trying to get around the corner, is the way you win football games.

 

Not really. Through 12 games (and I think Reggie's success rate has probably gone up the last few games), Reggie's rushing success rate was 50.6% as compared to 51.1% for Foster and 52.6% for Peterson. Yeah, they're higher, but not by much, and I think both have better blocking than Reggie has. If a run is not "successful" I wouldn't call it a "satisfying meal."

 

he's not as good as Sproiles, who signed for 4/12 mill.

 

What exactly is a "successful" run, and from where do these stats come?

 

A player who fits that scheme pretty well stands a good chance of being available. His name is Chris Johnson. And I think Miami may be appealing to him as well. Offer him 7M a year and see if he bites.

 

I think the problem with him is mental, in that he thinks he's much better than he really is at this level. He thinks he has the ability to be a top back off of the amount of improvisation he does, and he really doesn't have that ability. And it gets worse as he does better. Notice his goal coming into the season was to lead the league in rushing. He has nowhere near that ability at this level IMO.

Now if he wasn't trying to turn every run into a breakaway, he might actually play with the mentality he would need to be more successful, because I think he would reel off significantly more mid-range runs and be stuffed considerably less. He's trying to do too much out there.

 

Word is he'll be back.

 

Those stats come from: http://www.footballperspective.com/running-back-success-rate/ The stat is explained in the link as follows:

.

 

I really never thought I'd see the day when there'd be so much griping about a back who has averaged 5.0 and 4.5 ypc each of the last two seasons on a team where the backup averages about a yard less per carry.

 

So the stat does nothing to incorporate the harm done by "failures" such as getting thrown for losses? Not achieving "success" as they've defined it doesn't mean a back has necessarily come up just one yard short of it. It could mean he was thrown for a five-yard loss. There is no "subtraction" from their "success meter" that accounts for that harm.

So the upshot is that the 40-some-odd percent of "failures" Bush shares in common with backs like Foster and Peterson could represent for Bush a far greater percentage of comparatively more harmful plays. He may be achieving "success" as they've defined it only marginally less frequently, but the instances in which he "fails" could involve significantly more plays of considerably greater harm.

 

I suspect that if you removed the three longest runs per game for every running back in the league, Bush's YPC would decrease more than that of almost any other starting running back.

That was Disgustipate's point above about how Bush does not reliably get you the little chunks of yardage you need from your running back to stay in manageable down-and-distance situations. Daniel Thomas's YPC may be a yard less, but he's going to far more reliably and consistently get you that 3.5 yards, whereas Bush needs a 50-yard run to atone for what was previously 2.5 YPC on a significant number of carries.

 

It doesn't incorporate the harm done by failures, but your point that I was responding to was that they have a lot more of the satisfying meals, which isn't true. It also isn't really true that he has the negative plays all that much more than Peterson and Foster. Peterson and Foster have been stuffed more often and although at a somewhat lower rate, we are really talking about the difference of a handful of plays per year. It was apparent to me that Reggie was not quite the same for a few weeks after the injury against the Jets. A very large percentage of his stuffs came in those few games. Since then, he hasn't had nearly as many and has been very productive. Other than those 3 games after the Jets injury, Reggie is averaging 5.3 ypc. Put next to his 5.0 ypc last year, the guy is pretty good. But if you don't like hsi style, that's fine. I'm perfectly OK with it, especially on a team that doesn;t have a ton of big play guys.

 

Again, I don't think you can really compare Thomas in that regard because he is asked to do different things on different kinds of plays in different situations. That goes both ways. I don't actually think he is truly 1 ypc worse than Reggie, but I also don't think you can compare his stuff rate on an apples to apples basis. And I like Thomas more than most people around here.

 

I heard a different report. But who knows, it's unlikely a decision has even been made.

Like him alot if it somehow came down to it though.

 

Marcus Lattimore. Even if hes IR'ed for a year. I know special when I see it and that kid has special make up and talent. Buffalo waited a year for willis mcgahee and that worked out just fine. Lattimore in the later mid rounds (4-5) is low risk high reward. Roll with Miller/Thomas/Gray/Thigpen til then and see what you have. RB is an easier position to fill. We invested a 2 in Daniel Thomas and a 4 in Miller and we moved up to get both so we may as well see what we have.

 

Jim Wyatt, I think, reported last night that team officials were expecting to bring him back.