I was wondering why most of you guys that say Michael Bush will never survive in the NFL because running backs that height never do well (6-3) are the same people that think Tony Hunt is the perfect answer to our prayers, where he is 6-2.
Michael Bush doesn't run very hard for a big guy. I know from watching a few games of Louisville. It's very well-known that he isn't a tough runner. A 6-3 guy may have trouble in the NFL. Bush is known to run too upright. Plus, he has weight problems and is already 250. A RB with weight problems, thats horrible.
I know, but how does the hight thing differ from him to Tony Hunt. I realize Hunt runs more powerful and not as much of a speed back, but you say "A 6-3 guy may have trouble in the NFL", so why is it that all of the people that say that, think that Hunt will be able to survive easily, when he is 1 inch shorter. I am not saying you think like that, but some people do. Why?
1 inch makes a bit more of difference than you think. Hunt won't survive easily... RBs are desirable between 5-10,5-11 and 6-0. Taller running backs tend to run more upright, which is definately no good. Tony Hunt runs lower and harder and so does Adrian Peterson (Both are 6-2). I've been able to see plenty of Penn State games because I live in PA, so I've seen Tony Hunt run regularly and I think he'll be a very nice powerback that will end up in Pittsburgh or Philly (Mark it down). Michael Bush is only 1 inch taller, but he has more of an upright running style and doesn't run as hard as a back of his size should. This is why he is doubted a little more than a lot of people.
IMO height has nothing to do with vulnerabilty of a rb. its how the kid runs. too up right. a few years back, one of my favorite players, walter reyes /rb/ syracuse was about 5-10. but he ran so upright it was almost funny looking. i dont want to look up the stats but im sure he was second in a lot of rushing stats behind jim brown. he didnt even sniff the draft because of how he ran.
Agreed. And the difference is Bush runs way too high. If you read the weaknesses in the NFL DC profile, Bush runs too high and doesn't have very much power for his size, does not have breakaway speed, is a decent pass catcher, and is not very elusive. So wait - what exactly does he have going for himself? That just listed 4 possible ways a HB can be a weapon, and Bush lacks all 4.
Did you know that Michael Bush: - Has had weight issues and is already a load - Is too tall - Runs like a little scatback - Runs too upright - Has only played one full season - Is coming off a major injury - Doesn't run NEAR as hard as a 6-3 250 should - Has high bust potential as a result That's why I don't want him. Mark it down somewhere now, Michael Bush will not be a good, probably not decent, NFL back and won't last as a starter. Oh and I agree with the posts above, height is less important as long as the back runs lower and less upright... Nice call.
JFIPA, dude, i was obviously joking, I just insulted myself the way I typed that post, and do you really think I'd use something like Michael Bush owns all when I'm making a serious argument
its called sarcasm bruh, I like the guy, and feel that we should take him if availabe (#37) and I think he is better than what the vast majority of you guys give him credit for
No, your not OBVIOUSLY joking. You always say stupid shit like that. Don't say you were CLEARLY joking...
Ok, but that's not why. Is it his power, speed, vision, or what? Also, I apologize for not picking up on your sarcasm well, a little difficult to do most of the time on the internet. :breakdance: