Reggie Bush-RB- Saints Jan. 7 - 12:50 am et Saints GM Mickey Loomis revealed Tuesday that Reggie Bush recently had microfracture surgery on his left knee. The Saints initially called the surgery a simple scope, but it was much more serious and deals a blow to Bush's long-term outlook. While Loomis claims Bush will be ready by June minicamps, that's far from certain. Athletes that need microfracture typically are nearing a bone-on-bone condition due to a lack of cartilage in a joint. The procedure doesn't always fix the problem. This is the third operation on Bush's left knee in the last two years, which is a very negative sign for a player that relies so much on cutting ability and speed. Source: New Orleans Times-Picayune
Bush is about as productive as our own 4th round pick Leon Washington. But as the #2 overall, Bush agreed to a six-year contract that could pay him up to $62 million -- with $26.3 million guaranteed. Leon's entire 4 year contract is $2.04 million.
...it's dumb, because Bush got injured? Reggie Bush has a Heisman...he's the better player. Leon Washington probably wasn't even nominated for the Wendy's High School Heisman. It sucks that Bush has been injured. Bush is a better receiver than a running back, but he's helped that team out more than he's hurt them. The same can be said about Leon.
If Leon had been used more in the Jets offense, I'm sure he'd have equal or superior numbers to Bush. Bush was the focal point of the Saints gameplan every week and Leon was an afterthought for the Jets. Yet the two players have very similar productivity at this point in their careers.
The larger point I was raising with this thread is that RB are notorious for getting injured in the NFL, much more so than any other position. Signing one to a large guaranteed contract means you are committing a big portion of your salary cap to a guy now sitting on your bench when his knee gets blown out. And equal RB productivity can be found at much lower rounds in the draft (or even undrafted). Consider just the last few years as an example. Ronnie Brown, Carnell Williams and Reggie Bush were all top 5 picks (meaning huge guaranteed contracts) who went on IR with knee injuries. But low round guys like Marion Barber, Brandon Jacobs (both 4th rounders) and UDFA Willie Parker have been star players. I think the data clearly support the idea that top pick RB are a poor choice due to their large guaranteed contracts and their higher than average injury risk. It's a much better idea to build out a good OL and just use low round picks for your RB. The Giants and Steelers have used that philosophy successfully for years. And they are two of the best running teams in the NFL.
Basically what you're saying is that every player selected in the top ten is a risk...because they might get injured. Your "data" just says when a running back is picked in the top ten, he MIGHT get injured. Have you ever heard of LaDainian Tomlinson, Ricky Williams, Fred Taylor, Edgerrin James, or Adrian Peterson? These guys are all top ten picks, and they've all suffered some sort of injury -- they are still, or were at one time, some of the best backs in the game. Football is a violent game - any player at any time can have a season or even a career ending injury. Every draft pick comes with a risk, you just have to hope the player selected stays healthy and earns his money. Oh yeah - Ronnie Brown had a pretty good career so far. He's not the OUTSTANDING player that Miami hoped for, but Brown has been good. Cadillac's injury was just unlucky - he looked like he'd be a good back in the NFL -- hopefully he'll bounce back. If a running back like Adrian Peterson is available at your pick in the top five or top ten -- you basically HAVE to draft him. It's BPA in the top 10.
Counter Argument This is why you draft a RB in the Top 10 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW5WQ5Uykjc&feature=related]Adrian Peterson[/youtube]
If you havent noticed by now once you win the heisman trophy your nfl career is doomed from day one....
None of them have super bowl rings. You can find capable starting running backs anywhere in the draft, there is no reason to spend a first round pick on one unless your team is pretty set and can afford that luxury. The Vikings have the best running back in the game and they couldn't get out of the first round of the playoffs, an all-pro running back is nice to have, but it's not necessary. Peterson's career will be over in a few more years after the Vikings run him into the ground.
I concur... Unless there is a back as dynamic as Walter Payton, or Barrie Sanders, then I will never pull the trigger on runningback. I played runningback/corner in high school, and was all conference in both. The one position I clearly favored more, and at times would ask to start SOLELY was cornerback. You need a certain body structure to play runningback. Your body cannot be pure muscle. You need to be incredibly conditioned, have balance, quick feet, and massive tolerance for pain. After the second half I found myself exhausted and fatigued, due to the majority of draw and gut plays I would be asked to run. If I could describe my play, it would be fashioned ala Leon Washington, dynamic in open space, but unless theres a BIG GAP in the line, average at best. The Jets need a safety. Can we say Taylor Mays?
there used to be a standard amongst NFL teams approaching the draft.....never ever ever pick a RB, WR, DB, and/or interior lineman - both offensive and defensive in the top 5. even today some teams are hesitant about picking a WR, CB, and interior off lineman in the top 10. defensive tackles are usually in demand so they go top 10 these days and running backs are now being taken in the top 10 by some teams, which IMO, is NOT good philosophy. if its my team - a top ten pick almost always has to come from QB, LB, DE, OT. thats it. if not - i am out of the spot. reminds me of another "rule" - never ever ever ever pick a kicker on day one..... we know who violated that one, don't we. jil
So what a couple of you are saying is that it actually might HURT us to draft a RB in the first round? Look around the league...look at the top RBs...majority are first rounders. I used to be all behind this theory too, but theres a difference. It's not hard to get a running GAME going. With that all you need is solid RB talent (easy to find) and a kickass O-line. But to make people fear your running game, get yourself a high end RB. Maybe you can strike gold like the Giants with Jacobs if you're willing to put the time and effort in. Considering the way our fans act, time isn't something I'd ask of Jets fans.
AP is running behind one of, if not the best O-Line in the league as far as run blocking is concerned. Any average running back could have a field day behind those guys. IMO AP's biggest asset is that he's able to run away from all of the DB's once the O-Line gets him to the second level. Dude's definitely a beast, he doesn't waste great blocks by his line, once he gets past the front 7 its over. Some running backs just don't have that natural ability to make the most of their opportunities, that's why you take RB's high in the draft. That being said I'd still take a dominant O-line with an average running back over an average O-line with a dominant running back any day. I've always been a big proponent of building the lines so my opinion may be a little skewed but that's how I've always seen it. If you want a truly dominant team your gonna have to have talent all around....but having great D and O-lines will always keep you in the game. Just look at the Giants.....nothing amazing as far as skill positions go on either side of the ball, but they're strong in the trenches.
I'm glad this thread has generated some interest and discussion. It makes the message board more fun when topics like this get debated. Note that the title says "top 10" not "the first round". The very top picks have extraordinary contracts and carry the highest risk. When an injury occurs to these guys, a lot of cap space is then not being used. Later picks (especially those at the end of the 1st round) carry a lot less financial risk and opportunity cost. DeAngelo Williams and Joseph Addai were good risks in 2006 as the 27th and 30th picks. Though I do believe the later you draft a RB the better value you'll get out of him. Denver has churned out one no-name 1000 yard RB after another for years. Also note my statement is not just based on one player or one year. It is based on reviewing drafts over the last 10+ years. This season it was McFadden and Mendenhall who played poorly or went on IR due to injury. For 2006 it was Bush and Maroney. 2005 was Brown, Williams & Benson who missed significant time due to injury. 2004 it was Stephan Jackson and Kevin Jones. And on and on. RB get seriously hurt more than most other postions. Which isn't surprising since they are taking big hits almost every play.
And for those of you who say the best counter argument is Adrian Peterson, consider his backup. Chester Taylor was a nobody late 6th round pick out of college. Yet he ran for 1200 yards his first year in Minnesota (before Peterson got there). When Peterson arrived Taylor was still able to average 5.4 YPC during the season with 7 TD's (some of which occurred when Peterson was injured and couldn't play for several games). Now everyone knows AP is a special player. But what does it say that even a pedestrian back can run for so many yards or such a high YPC ? Maybe the Vikings OL is so solid that anybody can run behind it. And if that's true, why pay Peterson 40M? Same thing happened in New Orleans when Reggie Bush and his fat contract went down. Pierre Thomas averaged 4.8 YPC as his replacement. Thomas was undrafted in 2007 so he's playing for the minimum contract right now. Talk about great value! Sure I love to see AP rip off a big run or Bush return a punt for a TD. But their productivity is in no way commensurate with their salaries. Especially considering that their replacements are playing for chicken feed right now and doing nearly as well if not better.
