1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Reggie Bush

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Jess, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. Jess

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Ratings:
    +471
    Bush, Saints expected to part ways - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

    This intrigues me. Not as a main running back (I'm totally happy with Grant/Starks going into this season), but as something else. Brandon Jackson's probably gone, Reggie Bush is a dynamite pass catching running back. He'd be awesome on 3rd downs.

    And he's a dynamite kick returner.

    I KNOW HE WILL PROBABLY COST TOO MUCH... but what if he doesn't? What if he's reasonably priced? I'd be interested.

    Now you guys blast me for even mentioning a running back.
     
  2. Rodgers2Finley4TDs

    Rodgers2Finley4TDs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    Ratings:
    +16
    I love Reggie Bush. I'd love to see a RB on this team that is a huge receiving threat/x-factor. It has to be at the right price though. Ted is really picky so I highly doubt this will happen. But us packer fans can dream.
     
  3. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,050
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    not someone I would bring in. well... maybe for cheap.
     
  4. DTown SBrown

    DTown SBrown Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    274
    Ratings:
    +48
    non issue. He will want too much. I know that your post said "what if", but there is no "what if". He is a solid performer and if the Saints cut him, will go through waivers (if waivers still exist tomorrow). If he fell to us at 32 in the order, we would have to pay him $11,ooo,ooo per year for his contract. If he makes it to FA, he will ask for even more.

    He is above average, but the question isnt a "hypothetical". Its a pipe dream. It would be another thing if he was a player on the market ala' a Julius Peppers who would be in his : A) Prime B) Best at his position or near the top, C) an absolute NEED for us.

    He is none of those. Bush has always been over-hyped and has always under-preformed (at the pro level).

    Think of it this way: If he was worth the money he wants, the SAINTS would pay it to him. They instead chose to NOT pay him his price, and traded BACK into the first round, giving up future picks, just to make sure that, at the least, they had the leverage NOT to pay him. So basically, at best, we automatically overpay for a player that his own team doesnt see the value of what we would pay in him. He is still under contract. He is NOT a FREE AGENT. The Saints regret the contract they gave him and he is about to get CUT. Not only that, but he will ask for FREE AGENT $$$ when it happens, b/c he thinks he is still at USC and the best player at his position. He is not.

    He will ask too much, for too little, and we dont have the need at RB that would justify HALF of what he will be asking. Let him go to the Raiders.
     
  5. TheGiftedApe

    TheGiftedApe TheGiftedApe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    572
    Ratings:
    +77
    I'd rather pick up ryan williams in the draft, but if reggie would come for cheap, which he wont why not.
     
  6. Powarun

    Powarun Big Bay Blues fan

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,022
    Ratings:
    +416
    I would like to see it, he would remind me of Ahman Green, plus we know McCarthy wants to have a ground game, Grant, Starks, and Bush, maybe even Kuhn would probably be an arsenal that teams would have to think about besides A-Rod and his team of recievers.
     
  7. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,034
    Ratings:
    +1,395
    well seeing as he would end up being a kick returner he would too expensive
     
  8. lambeaulambo

    lambeaulambo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    537
    Ratings:
    +180
    This intrigues me. Something tells me he may be a good fit if ryan grant loses a step, but thats a tough call. The pack needs a PR and KR, and Bush fits that bill, and Brandon Jackson is not reggie bush. The most interesting thing is why wouldnt Bush want to be a packer? I think he'd be game for playing in green bay. The cash issue is paramount here, as I think he'll demand a pretty costly salary.
    I just want to understand WHY a running back isnt a Packer need...If they had a young two headed tandem, youd have Starks and Bush. I like the sound of that compared to what I have seen with Ryan Grant.
    I know its a stretch but I think the pack may want to give this one a look. This guy has shown explosive ability when healthy. But the big question is at what cost.
     
  9. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,034
    Ratings:
    +1,395
    kuhn is our power for 3 yards back, grant and starks are our 1-2 punch for normal running plays
     
  10. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    So... You like the sound of Bush and a guy that hasn't played a full season compared to Starks and a guy who put up consistent 1200 yard seasons before he got hurt?

    Let me ask you: Who won the Super Bowl this past season?

    What kind of running game did they have all season?

    I rest my case. Running back is NOT a huge need for us. Our needs, in order are:

    1) O-Line- Addressed a bit with the Sherrod pick. I think one more guy would be good.
    2) Cornerback- Huge dropoff after Williams, Woodson and Shields.
    3) Outside Linebacker- The guys we have could develop into studs. Looks promising.
    4) Defensive End- I no longer expect Jolly back, which crushes the depth a bit since we'll lose Jenkins to free agency. We made do last year, but adding an extra body would be beneficial.
    5) Receiver- Not sure what Swain will become, but Driver is getting older and Jones will leave in FA. We do get Finley back, but for how long is anyone's guess.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. 7thFloorRA

    7thFloorRA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,889
    Ratings:
    +832
    No. He is to fumbly on the returns.
     
  12. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,670
    Ratings:
    +2,970
    Jackson injury problems???
    Avg of 3.8 rushing, 8.4 receiving

    Bush's injury problems???
    Avg of 4.0 rushing, 6.9 receiving

    Bush is a big name, that about only reason I can think anyone would want him
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    beautiful comparison, Bush is all name and no substance.
     
  14. Jess

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Ratings:
    +471
    Where did I mention injury problems with Jackson anywhere?

    Also, Bush has 3 seasons of more than 50 receptions. 88 in his rookie year, 72 the next. He brings flexibility, because you can line him up at receiver on plays and you can put him in the backfield. And he brings explosive play ability (4 career punt return touchdowns).

    He's not great, but if Jackson were to leave and Bush was willing to come here for a reasonable price (which I really doubt would happen, but we're playing what if here), I can't see why it would be a bad thing.
     
  15. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,670
    Ratings:
    +2,970
    You didnt mention injuries, I did...Compare the two..Bush is injury prone and I dont want him...He was on ir two times? and out 6 weeks last year

    I would replant Bush somewhere else, not in GB keep Jackson here...And if we dont keep Jackson here, I still dont want Bush even if vet min contract
     
  16. lambeaulambo

    lambeaulambo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    537
    Ratings:
    +180
    Let me ask you: Who won the Super Bowl this past season?

    What kind of running game did they have all season?

    I rest my case. Running back is NOT a huge need for us.



    how many times has ryan grant got the packers to the super bowl? none
    think about how potent the packers would be WITH a running game. The Offense needs to be more balanced. AGAIN SpartaChris - youre like shooting fish in a barrel. Rest your case for what? the same as Grant, Nothing.
     
  17. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Packers had the rushing leader in the playoffs in Starks.
    In the playoffs, we ran the ball well.

    In the regular season, we didn't, and that almost cost us, as we barely made the playoffs.

    I do agree that the running game isn't a priority, but to say we don't need a running game to win another SB is moronic.
    IMHO we don't need a dominant running game, but we won't get anywhere with that anemic we showed after we lost Grant and Starks wasn't ready.
     
  18. Incubes12

    Incubes12 Bay Harbor Butcher?

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,758
    Ratings:
    +317
    The simple fact is this: as "anemic" as our run game was, this season undoubtedly proved that it is possible to make the playoffs an win a SB without even a serviceable rushing attack, but that's not to say it wouldn't be a lot easier on our coaches, qb, wr's, and OL (and us as fans) if we had someone consistent in the backfield.

    With that said, we still haven't seen enough of Starks to really know what he's got or how durable he is. Seeing as we really dont have any other glaring needs, I don't see why we can't focus on WR, RB, and CB in the rounds to come, aiming for someone with return specialties.

    Edit: as I was typing this, I forgot the thread was about Bush. Given the fact that were in the process of a draft, why not just draft someone that won't have the pricetag of a first rounder?
     
  19. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    But, in the playoffs, we did have a very good running game! That's my point!

    Regarding Bush, he's not a great blocker, so he wouldn't fit what we ask of our 3rd down back. Rather keep Jackson.
     
  20. Incubes12

    Incubes12 Bay Harbor Butcher?

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,758
    Ratings:
    +317
    Right, I'm saying were really only able to say that: 1. We can make the playoffs without a very good running game and 2. A running game absolutely helps win super bowls. No one can really say that we can win a SB without a running game, based on our team this year, and likewise, no one can say that it was really necessary because we don't know what it would've been like had we not gotten Starks back just in time.

    Were not disagreeing, I'm just summarizing what I've gleaned from this thread and trying to say that were not so desperate that we need to go spending big bucks for Bush, but at the same time were not in such a great position that RB is a position we can ignore. We really don't have any glaring needs, and our team is pretty deep at most positions (we had a lot of damn injuries this year). So why not address the positions where were good, but could be better with a solid draft selection, like at RB and WR? Or draft positions where we have some guys getting up there in age, like CB? All 3 are positions where players could also fill the need o a return specialist as well.
     
  21. PackMan13x

    PackMan13x Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    297
    Ratings:
    +114
    Reggie Bush is a BIG TIME playmaker when healthy. Why are some of you saying you wouldn't want him at minimum contract? That's plain dumb. With the weapons already in place, I could only imagine a talent like Bush going in motion and catching balls out of the backfield. If they leave him open, game over. If they cover him, game over elsewhere. I LOVE the idea.
     
  22. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Because he's been in the league since 2006 and hasn't done anything significant...

    And to play in our scheme, the RB has to be able to block. He doesn't block very well.
     
  23. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Oh, when you put it like that, I agree 100%, specially with the first paragraph.
     
  24. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,670
    Ratings:
    +2,970
    WHEN is key word...

    He has never played a whole season other then rookie year..Injury prone...

    On grass he isnt as good as on turf...Packers play on grass

    Tell me....If he is such a play maker why wont NO keep him?

    And yeah I am dumb...I dont want him at min contract... I rather have Jackson
     
  25. GBPack2010

    GBPack2010 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Ratings:
    +67
    He's an injury prone player and can be distracted aka Kim Kardashian. All I gotta say.
     

Share This Page