So where does everyone stand on Michael Bush?

What do you expect from Michael Bush?

  • Starter for 2008 and beyond. Future All Pro.

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • #1 back in a RBBC. Solid, but not the elite back some expect.

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Should be a solid contributor, but likely not starter material.

    Votes: 12 52.2%

  • I don't expect much of anything from him. If he had "it", he would have played this year.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    23
Crow

Crow

This is the way.
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
138,791
Reaction score
149,378
We touch on the subject here and there. Might as well do a poll. Why? It's 2am and I'm not ready for bed.
 
Should we treat this as what we expect, or how we'd procede? I mean, I expect him to be a future #1, but I wouldn't procede that way. I'd bring in some help/resing Fargas to hedge my bets.
 
Crow said:
We touch on the subject here and there. Might as well do a poll. Why? It's 2am and I'm not ready for bed.
Click to expand...

You actually own a bed??? I pictured you falling asleep with your head on the keyboard.
 
Machiavelli said:
Should we treat this as what we expect, or how we'd procede? I mean, I expect him to be a future #1, but I wouldn't procede that way. I'd bring in some help/resing Fargas to hedge my bets.
Click to expand...


Yeah i think Al will show Huggy some loyalty and give him a contract extension... i don't think it's the best option but certainly not the worse... i liked the way Fargas was running in Norv and Shell's offense cause no matter who was blocking up front Young Hugg seemed to make sure he ran with heart and motor.

But Dominic Rhodes proved this year and even Lamont had brief glimpses on early in the season that our blocking scheme can make any running back successful.

I personally wanna see a 2 headed monster of Rhodes and Bush getting the majority of snaps early in on 08. (Rhodes was running unconscious against 2 great defenses when he was no.1 He had both Jacksonville and the Chargers on the backfoot)

But as 2008 goes deeper and deeper into the scheduale i think we can look for either

A) Our season heads south and the right choice is to give Bush more reps then Rhodes and see if he can emerge into something.

or

B) Michael flat out beats Dominic for the job in say week 7 or week 8 and we are all biting our pillows for letting Lane let the man rest in 2007. (But it was the right move resting him in 07, wait till you see this cat run with determination for all the coaches not trusting on his game)

The Biggest reason why this guy is a sleeper was he was a Heisman candidate before he broke his leg. He put up insane numbers at Louisville and had he not had the injury he would have been a 1st day pick somewhere between Adrian Peterson and Marshawn Lynch.
 
That's actually a good question as how you answer it will really dictate what you do with LJ, DR and JF.

From what I understand of his college career the guy was a beast and projected to be a lock first round pick. So it would seem that he has the talent but the question arises concerning his treatment last season.

IMO, if you think Bush is going to be the guy you let Fargas walk and release LJ going with a RB tandem of Rhodes and Bush for 2008. This could complicate matters for 2009 if Rhodes bolts but it may not be that big a deal as the ZBS that they are working with allows for a greater degree of turnover at the RB position traditionally. Conversley you could go with resigning Fargas, keeping Rhodes and Bush. This though would seem to be a waste of a roster spot, especially if we are going to be carrying 2 FBs.

If you think that Bush is not the guy for the future then you release LJ, work hard to resign Fargas and keep Rhodes. One could hope that McFadden falls to us at #4 (I'll go with WCS for the moment) and let Fargas go but that would be risky IMO.

I like the idea of resigning Fargas simply because of his character, heart and how he persevered with the Raiders. That being said that may not be the best move for the Raiders already having Bush and Rhodes under contract for next year.

Personally I say we go with Bush for the future, keep Rhodes, release Jordan and allow Fargas to get a job elsewhere.
 
vespasian said:
If you think that Bush is not the guy for the future then you release LJ, work hard to resign Fargas and keep Rhodes. One could hope that McFadden falls to us at #4 (I'll go with WCS for the moment)
Click to expand...

Dude ever heard of a jinx!

Worst Case Scenario is if we had kept Art Shell and were flipping with the Miami Flippers!

I don't like the way McFadden runs... he looks like a Heroin Addict who's stolen a old ladies purse and is already calling his dealer before his counted the contents of the pensioner purse.

Actually i just dont like the way he runs cause he looks like he has a hunchback too.
 
I'm troubled that Bush wasn't able to hit the foild in '07. This broken leg thing has been lingering (allegedly) and something seems wrong. Could it be that in spite of all he practice field coach talk that Bush just isn't the real deal? Frankly I have no idea.

So yeah (e) have no clue.
 
I can't say I know enough right now, I mean he never hit the field...........I hope he blows up never year and is the RB we have always wanted......
Ask us this after this upcoming season. I will hope that help us sort it out. This offseason I am worried, I don't want to pay Fargas a ton of money because He can't stay healthy. If we dump Jordon and keep Rhoades it could be nice to see Rhoades and Bush if he is ready to go. I think we should sign Fargas to a two year deal. That way we can evaluate Rhoades and Fargas and Bush......
 
I answered the question in terms of what I expect from him in 2008. I don't think he'll be the starter, especially considering we're likely to either re-sign Fargas or, if not, sit pretty for picking McFadden. But I do think he'll be a contributor and I am thinking that if he's 100% Oakland has the potential for a pretty sick running game next year.
 
Raider Nation said:
I answered the question in terms of what I expect from him in 2008. I don't think he'll be the starter, especially considering we're likely to either re-sign Fargas or, if not, sit pretty for picking McFadden. But I do think he'll be a contributor and I am thinking that if he's 100% Oakland has the potential for a pretty sick running game next year.
Click to expand...

If we draft MCFadden, then we should keep Rhodes and trade both Fargas and Jordan

Rhodes
Bush
McFadden

Rhodes is the more proven powerback we have, he and Bush with a healthy dose of a speed HB in McFadden
 
After finally placing Bush on IR last year Kiffin told him "he would be in competition for the starting tailback spot next season". To me this means we have some fairly high expectations for the kid despite what will amount to a two-year departure from any live action on his part. I think we resign Fargas, Jordan splits via free agency and Rhodes follows suit. We draft McFadden and he ends up the starter due to pressure from Al to get our prized posession in the lineup. We'd be seriously stacked ar RB if this comes to pass.
 
I loved the use of a 4th round pick on him, but I am a little nervous about his size and running style, which I wouldn't describe as "bruising".

If we can get Brandon Jacobs-like production, swell, but jacoibs is faster, and gets a lot of boo-boos.

I am not optimistic, but I also have no idea how he'd fit into the scheme.
 
I don't have a clue how valuable he'll be. However, if he can't push Fargas (or whoever) for the starting job next year my opinion of him would be pretty low.
 
SoCalRaider said:
I don't like the choices...

(e) No Clue...
Click to expand...


What he said....

As frustrating as it was not seeing him, we knew when we took him that 2007 was going to basically be a red shirt year and we were going to err on the side of caution... It would have been nice to see him get a few carries there at the end, but apparently we couldn't cut LaMont in fear that he would lead the Chiefs to, errr, 6 wins now could we? :shakehead:


IMO, we should approach this as whatever we get from Bush should be gravy instead of relying on him to be the answer... Even if he is back to 100% physically, is he going to be back 100% mentally or always have that fear of something similar happening?... Put that together with Rhodes being almost 30 and the prospect of committing starters money to Fargas and all his injury ghosts, and you have a pretty good argument to grab the first true potential superstar back we've had since Bo got his hip taken out if we're indeed in the position to do so...

If it's true that this blocking system makes average backs good, imagine what it will do with a great talent with home run abilities?... A one two punch of McFadden and Bush? I think Clay Davis from The Wire PUTS IT BEST
 
Kiffin did mention that his weight was an issue at some point. Not sure why being that he had nothing else to do but work out at the facility all season... but perhaps Bush's conditioning was the reason he was never activated.

Who knows.
 
CrossBones said:
Mass is not optimistic? We're fucked. :D
Click to expand...

Ha, I know, I know.

But I am a big believer that NFL running backs that offer long term success tend to fit into a similar body size. 5'10"--6'1", 210--230 pounds. Or somewhere around there. Low to the ground, not a lot to hit, and thick. Better short than tall.

That's why the upright Adrain Peterson made me nervous, and why the high-waisted McFadden makes me wonder. My worries about Peterson seem a little unfounded right now, but at the same time, he DID get hurt this past season. More than once, IIRC. Wouldn't surprise me if Marshawn has a longer, better career, who isn't close to the same talent, but will probably take less hard shots.

Bush presents a different set of concerns for me. These monster backs, it seems like the set of circumstances they are in needs to be a certain way in order for them to succeed. When KC had Word and Okoye, the offense focused on the running game wearing down the defense, and those teams ween't built for comebacks. Maybe that was a byproduct of crappy QB play, but they always seemed one-dimensional.

And those big backs always seem to boom or bust. I'd like to figure a way to research the history of big backs, but dunno how I'd do it.

Or maybe I'm just still smarting from the Nick Bell draft pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top