Most likely too expensive and too much of a reduced role to ever see Bush here, but I'd love him as a Seahawk. He'd be a great flat/safety valve for Wilson. He'd add depth to RB and as a possible 4/5th WR. And, he's still a homerun threat.

As long as he gets to do the pretty stuff, he's really good. He did look a little soft running between the tackles.

I wonder how he would be as a slot receiver. that would be a fun mismatch.

That's my thinking, read-option, slot, flanker type. He thrived in New Orleans in that role.

I have said this for months now and Chip Kelly to Eagles make it fit even better

Keep Vick, sign Bush, sign Vince Young, trade for Tebow (7th rounder)

You add a few others like Dixon that will come free, pick up Collin Klein in the draft (6th rounder) - he can play TE when not in wildcate / read-option formation

Then run up tempo constant pressure - would be fun as heck to watch and with the number of bodies that can switch positions you can have all of them on the team, several for cheap and have backup "bodies" when one goes down

mikeak wrote:I have said this for months now and Chip Kelly to Eagles make it fit even better

Keep Vick, sign Bush, sign Vince Young, trade for Tebow (7th rounder)

You add a few others like Dixon that will come free, pick up Collin Klein in the draft (6th rounder) - he can play TE when not in wildcate / read-option formation

Then run up tempo constant pressure - would be fun as heck to watch and with the number of bodies that can switch positions you can have all of them on the team, several for cheap and have backup "bodies" when one goes down

I was more thinking of Bush being an occasional changeup to Lynch in the zone read, and a possible 2nd slot option.

Meh. Overrated. I wouldn't shun the guy if he came in at a bargain price but he seems to be the polar opposite of what we want in our players, physically.

SmokinHawk wrote:Meh. Overrated. I wouldn't shun the guy if he came in at a bargain price but he seems to be the polar opposite of what we want in our players, physically.

Opposite meaning, he'd skew the WR height up?

Who overrates him? The Saints dont win a Super Bowl without him, IMO.

mikeak wrote:I have said this for months now and Chip Kelly to Eagles make it fit even better

Keep Vick, sign Bush, sign Vince Young, trade for Tebow (7th rounder)

You add a few others like Dixon that will come free, pick up Collin Klein in the draft (6th rounder) - he can play TE when not in wildcate / read-option formation

Then run up tempo constant pressure - would be fun as heck to watch and with the number of bodies that can switch positions you can have all of them on the team, several for cheap and have backup "bodies" when one goes down

Are you serious? lol.

pehawk wrote:
Who overrates him? The Saints dont win a Super Bowl without him, IMO.

Super Bowl Stats:

5 carries, 25 yards, 5.0 yards/carry, 0 touchdowns
4 receptions, 38 yards, 9.5 yards/catch, 0 touchdowns
1 punt return, 4 yards

During the season he averaged 27.9 yards a game and only had 5 tds during the regular season.

knownone wrote:

mikeak wrote:I have said this for months now and Chip Kelly to Eagles make it fit even better

Keep Vick, sign Bush, sign Vince Young, trade for Tebow (7th rounder)

You add a few others like Dixon that will come free, pick up Collin Klein in the draft (6th rounder) - he can play TE when not in wildcate / read-option formation

Then run up tempo constant pressure - would be fun as heck to watch and with the number of bodies that can switch positions you can have all of them on the team, several for cheap and have backup "bodies" when one goes down

Are you serious? lol.

Sorry to clarify -- not for the Seahawks. No way not with that setup. This would be for the Eagles. With Chip and Vick on the roster I think it would be a blast and could work taking the Oregon style to the NFL but need multiple layers of plays and bodies

EDIT: add Dixon forgot I had him on my original list

For the Seahawks - speedy RB for receptions / read options very interesting hadn't even thought of him for our team

Basis4day wrote:

pehawk wrote:
Who overrates him? The Saints dont win a Super Bowl without him, IMO.

Super Bowl Stats:

5 carries, 25 yards, 5.0 yards/carry, 0 touchdowns
4 receptions, 38 yards, 9.5 yards/catch, 0 touchdowns
1 punt return, 4 yards

During the season he averaged 27.9 yards a game and only had 5 tds during the regular season.

He was injured ALOT that year.

But, I was kind of talking about the divisional game against the Cardinals. Look it up, I'll wait.

I'd take Sproles over Bush.

knownone wrote:I'd take Sproles over Bush.

So would I.

He can still be a homerun along the edges though. And, play 3 different positions.

It's not like I want to build the team around him. But, he'd be DAMN nice as the saftey option in the flat.

pehawk wrote:

Basis4day wrote:

pehawk wrote:
Who overrates him? The Saints dont win a Super Bowl without him, IMO.

Super Bowl Stats:

5 carries, 25 yards, 5.0 yards/carry, 0 touchdowns
4 receptions, 38 yards, 9.5 yards/catch, 0 touchdowns
1 punt return, 4 yards

During the season he averaged 27.9 yards a game and only had 5 tds during the regular season.

He was injured ALOT that year.

But, I was kind of talking about the divisional game against the Cardinals. Look it up, I'll wait.

Um... the Saints were up 35-14 going into the 2nd half with 1 td by Bush on a 46 yard run (Saints 3rd TD of the game in the first quarter). He got a 2nd td on a punt return in the third. Saints won 45 to 14.

Bush had 5 total carries for 84 yards. take away his two td's and the saints still win 31-14. The cards didn't score in the 2nd half.

Not really sure what your point is. He played well, but it wasn't why they won the game.

Maybe I'm reading the situation wrong, but don't the old USC coaches (Carroll and Sark in particular) have some pretty bad feelings toward Bush for how he handled that whole situation a few years ago?

I know Sark is on record as having said this: "He had a chance to apologize, look like the good guy," Sarkisian told ESPN's Shelley Smith. "But in giving it back and not apologizing, he just looks like an idiot again."

Also, I remember Carroll saying something like he wanted Bush to give him closure on the whole ordeal, but he never heard from him after everything happened with the NCAA.

Doesn't seem like Bush is exactly the guy Carroll's going to go out on the limb for at this point.

Well, what was your point in joining this thread? It wasn't to actually add your thoughts on "would Bush be a cool change of pace guy on the Hawks", was it? What was YOUR point?

He also had a go ahead TD against Vikes, right?

And, Bush being lined up was something the defense had to account for. Be it slot or RB. His effect on THAT team cant truly be reflected in the stat sheet.

He's not that anymore, but he's still valuable.

Do you state opinions, or just nitpick? Does DTexhawk know you stole his gimmick then?

I've actually been thinking about Bush for a while. I think he'd be a great addition.
Could pair with Lynch very well as a change of pace, KR/PR, basically use him like Percy Harvin.

The problem is his contract. I'd be willing to give him a nice payday, but nothing close to top RB money.

Also, Leon Washington is still playing at an elite level.

It's not likely, but perhaps more likely than Mike Wallace, Revis, ect..

I'd be "highly interested" if the price was right. He'd make the offense even better. Tough call.

So with wanting Wallace, Revis, Knox and Bush are we advertising for Dr. Andrews?

chris98251 wrote:So with wanting Wallace, Revis, Knox and Bush are we advertising for Dr. Andrews?

I heard the Tanzanians aren't paying the advert bills. Maybe Andrews head would look nice there?

I don't think Bush is where they will go for one reason, he is a bit soft. He had a couple of good games early on in the new ZBS Miami installed, but zone runners get hit a lot. Bush was bouncing everything to the outside by the end of the year.

I love the idea of Bush as a slot mismatch, but I don't think Pete likes his guys that specialized. Both our backs can pass block, and both play third downs. If Pete loved to specialize, Washington would be a third down back a lot more. I'm nitpicking schematic issues I don't like now, I would prefer some guys who can win man matchups rather than a team full of zone beaters, but that idea precludes much versatility.

pehawk wrote:Well, what was your point in joining this thread? It wasn't to actually add your thoughts on "would Bush be a cool change of pace guy on the Hawks", was it? What was YOUR point?

He also had a go ahead TD against Vikes, right?

And, Bush being lined up was something the defense had to account for. Be it slot or RB. His effect on THAT team cant truly be reflected in the stat sheet.

He's not that anymore, but he's still valuable.

Do you state opinions, or just nitpick? Does DTexhawk know you stole his gimmick then?

No. Bush is not a good decision. You asked me to fact check and I did. Sorry you didn't care for the truth. Sounds to me like you're attacking the poster and not the post.

Scottemojo wrote:I don't think Bush is where they will go for one reason, he is a bit soft. He had a couple of good games early on in the new ZBS Miami installed, but zone runners get hit a lot. Bush was bouncing everything to the outside by the end of the year.

I love the idea of Bush as a slot mismatch, but I don't think Pete likes his guys that specialized. Both our backs can pass block, and both play third downs. If Pete loved to specialize, Washington would be a third down back a lot more. I'm nitpicking schematic issues I don't like now, I would prefer some guys who can win man matchups rather than a team full of zone beaters, but that idea precludes much versatility.

Makes all sorts of sense. He is soft, but sometimes I think it's because he tries SO hard to be a between the tackles guy. I think if Reggie would ever accept the fact (and maybe going over 1,000 FINALLY allows that) he could be a Pete type, because he could line up at RB, and motion somewhere else. Especially with Wilson and Bush in a Zone Read formation - with the option to motion Bush out.

I know you LOVE the idea of Trayvon in the 1st, he could maybe do the same thing.

Basis4day wrote:

pehawk wrote:Well, what was your point in joining this thread? It wasn't to actually add your thoughts on "would Bush be a cool change of pace guy on the Hawks", was it? What was YOUR point?

He also had a go ahead TD against Vikes, right?

And, Bush being lined up was something the defense had to account for. Be it slot or RB. His effect on THAT team cant truly be reflected in the stat sheet.

He's not that anymore, but he's still valuable.

Do you state opinions, or just nitpick? Does DTexhawk know you stole his gimmick then?

No. Bush is not a good decision. You asked me to fact check and I did. Sorry you didn't care for the truth. Sounds to me like you're attacking the poster and not the post.

No, what was your point with your original post in the thread. Bash Bush's fit on the Seahawks all you want, because I'm dumb, but state an opinion.

We don't use Leon Washington that much, Turbin is on the rise and looking capable of taking over for Lynch when Lynch parts ways with the Hawks via retirement, free agency or trade. I think Robert Turbin and Doug Martin are very similar and I think his numbers would've been comparable to Martin's if he was starting in Tampa Bay, instead of backing up Lynch in Seattle. Really no need to bring in a 3rd down back that's rarely going to be used, when we have a young versatile every-down back sitting behind Lynch. Also... Reggie Bush is a soft NFL running back in my opinion. How many times a game do you see him going out because he tweaked this or bumped that on a play? I'd prefer to not see us spend money on Reggie Bush.

firebee wrote:We don't use Leon Washington that much, Turbin is on the rise and looking capable of taking over for Lynch when Lynch parts ways with the Hawks via retirement, free agency or trade. I think Robert Turbin and Doug Martin are very similar and I think his numbers would've been comparable to Martin's if he was starting in Tampa Bay, instead of backing up Lynch in Seattle. Really no need to bring in a 3rd down back that's rarely going to be used, when we have a young versatile every-down back sitting behind Lynch. Also... Reggie Bush is a soft NFL running back in my opinion. How many times a game do you see him going out because he tweaked this or bumped that on a play? I'd prefer to not see us spend money on Reggie Bush.

All valid. And, I wouldn't want them to pay him much. So, it's all kind of fantasy (I have fantasies about Reggie Bush, so what?) at this point. Bush would have to take a paycut and convert to a Harvin type, because like you, I like dont want to take away from Turbin.

I do think this offense needs a Cribbs/Harvin/E Metcalf/Sproles/Bush type.

pehawk wrote:

firebee wrote:We don't use Leon Washington that much, Turbin is on the rise and looking capable of taking over for Lynch when Lynch parts ways with the Hawks via retirement, free agency or trade. I think Robert Turbin and Doug Martin are very similar and I think his numbers would've been comparable to Martin's if he was starting in Tampa Bay, instead of backing up Lynch in Seattle. Really no need to bring in a 3rd down back that's rarely going to be used, when we have a young versatile every-down back sitting behind Lynch. Also... Reggie Bush is a soft NFL running back in my opinion. How many times a game do you see him going out because he tweaked this or bumped that on a play? I'd prefer to not see us spend money on Reggie Bush.

All valid. And, I wouldn't want them to pay him much. So, it's all kind of fantasy (I have fantasies about Reggie Bush, so what?) at this point. Bush would have to take a paycut and convert to a Harvin type, because like you, I like dont want to take away from Turbin.

I do think this offense needs a Cribbs/Harvin/E Metcalf/Sproles/Bush type.

I absolutely agree with that sentiment. Of wanting that kinda "waterbug" type maybe be in the backfield for some option stuff, some reverses, work a bit out of the slot, fast, maybe return some kicks - I feel ya, because why not.

I'd kick the tires with the new Chiefs and Raiders regimes about Dexter McCluster and Jacoby Ford, and yes, the new Browns group about Cribbs. Are Edelman or Woodhead those guys? their FAs bu you worry about guys being system guys from NE.

In the draft, beyond obviously Austin, Marquise Goodwin is intriguing, Andre Debose too, Sam McGuffie as well.

pehawk wrote:

Basis4day wrote:

pehawk wrote:Well, what was your point in joining this thread? It wasn't to actually add your thoughts on "would Bush be a cool change of pace guy on the Hawks", was it? What was YOUR point?

He also had a go ahead TD against Vikes, right?

And, Bush being lined up was something the defense had to account for. Be it slot or RB. His effect on THAT team cant truly be reflected in the stat sheet.

He's not that anymore, but he's still valuable.

Do you state opinions, or just nitpick? Does DTexhawk know you stole his gimmick then?

No. Bush is not a good decision. You asked me to fact check and I did. Sorry you didn't care for the truth. Sounds to me like you're attacking the poster and not the post.

No, what was your point with your original post in the thread. Bash Bush's fit on the Seahawks all you want, because I'm dumb, but state an opinion.

My opinion is you're not correct in your assessment of Bush, which IMO was pretty clear from the beginning.

First allow me to summarize my opinion of your stated reasons for wanting Bush:

He was a non-factor in the Saints' Superbowl, was injured most of the regular season, had a great game but not relevant to the outcome of the Saints-Cardinals, scored a go ahead TD in the playoffs against the Vikes (Which the Vikes came back and tied, Saints won in overtime on a kick). We already have a Golden Tate, which offers all of your desires in a Percy Harvin type player. Especially if we seek to upgrade at WR in FA or the draft.

He hasn't lived up to his draft standing and does not offer a clear upgrade over any of OUR running backs and i don't feel that losing depth at any other position is reason enough to go after Reggie Bush. His injury history is a huge concern. Many of our younger players are due for a big contract because of achievement and our FO should seek to pay players that have already achieved in our system.

DT, WR and depth at all other positions. Those are our needs, not Reggie Bush.

My reasons are more selfish. Quite simply, I don't want Reggie anywhere near Pete. That's a media circus best avoided. Also, I can't forgive Reggie yet for his selfish actions that are still hurting USC, and for which he's never owned up or apologized. And therefore I don't want him on any team I follow.

sc85sis wrote:My reasons are more selfish. Quite simply, I don't want Reggie anywhere near Pete. That's a media circus best avoided. Also, I can't forgive Reggie yet for his selfish actions that are still hurting USC, and for which he's never owned up or apologized. And therefore I don't want him on any team I follow.

Totally fair and respectable, actually. We all have our players we loathe - mine is Peyton. Even more after acting too good for the Seahawks.

pehawk wrote:

sc85sis wrote:My reasons are more selfish. Quite simply, I don't want Reggie anywhere near Pete. That's a media circus best avoided. Also, I can't forgive Reggie yet for his selfish actions that are still hurting USC, and for which he's never owned up or apologized. And therefore I don't want him on any team I follow.

Totally fair and respectable, actually. We all have our players we loathe - mine is Peyton. Even more after acting too good for the Seahawks.

It's not that I loathe him. It's more like disappointment . I wish I could cheer for him like I used to.

NO.

We could used Leon Washington in that capacity but don't.

Bush wouldn't be productive in our offense just like Leon isn't.

PASS