- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Reggie Bush vs. Kevin faulk
Posted on 8/15/19 at 7:13 pm to Goldrush25
Posted on 8/15/19 at 7:13 pm to Goldrush25
I see the world through purple and gold glasses. Wonder what Reggie's stats would have been if he had played in the SEC? And USC cheated when he was there so none of his stats count! 
This post was edited on 8/15/19 at 7:15 pm
0
Posted on 8/15/19 at 7:18 pm to 32tigers
You should feel like an idiot if you are debating someone that Kevin Faulk is better than Reggie bush.
Posted on 8/15/19 at 9:22 pm to 32tigers
If Kevin Faulk played with that USC team...All Eyez on 3 Heismans
Posted on 8/15/19 at 10:42 pm to 32tigers
I think Faulk was the better college back. He was amazing in a run oriented conference and at a different time.
Faulk was really special. He could do it all and was very explosive in college even as a returner. Show him some highlights of Faulk.
But Bush won the Heisman vs a 3rd team All American. No way a die hard SC fan will ever be convinced.
Faulk was really special. He could do it all and was very explosive in college even as a returner. Show him some highlights of Faulk.
But Bush won the Heisman vs a 3rd team All American. No way a die hard SC fan will ever be convinced.
This post was edited on 8/15/19 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 8/15/19 at 11:11 pm to mdomingue
quote:
I was considering a > 10% difference as not close.
I appreciate the response and that you quantify it but 10% of what? There are 1700+ NFL players LSU was 2nd and USC 4th. 51 to 44 isn’t a small difference but I’m not sure I’d call it “not close”.
quote:
The all time number has little relevance for the state or comparison of the current programs in college
I understand but the statement was they produced more NFL players and we’re not talking about a program like Army that’s been irrelevant for 60 years
They were a dominant program not that long ago and been pretty consistently in the top 5 or so in number of NFL players the last decadePosted on 8/15/19 at 11:33 pm to 32tigers
On the second half of the argument --
USC got a lot of attention because of their skill-position players, but most of them were very overrated and flopped in the NFL. Examples include Matt Leinart, Lendale White, "Big Mike" Williams, Dwayne Jarrett, and Dominique Byrd.
Even Reggie Bush, I would argue, underperformed relative to his draft position. Sure, he was a good NFL back -- most effective as a third down back and had a couple decent years as a featured back. But he wasn't worth a first round pick. In today's NFL, there is almost 0% chance Bush gets drafted in the first round because guys like him simply aren't worth the money or the pick.
Now, plenty of USC guys did very well in the NFL. Most of them were their OL, DL, and LB. Some of those guys were very underrated and went on to be pro bowlers and such. But those are not the guys who grabbed all the attention.
USC got a lot of attention because of their skill-position players, but most of them were very overrated and flopped in the NFL. Examples include Matt Leinart, Lendale White, "Big Mike" Williams, Dwayne Jarrett, and Dominique Byrd.
Even Reggie Bush, I would argue, underperformed relative to his draft position. Sure, he was a good NFL back -- most effective as a third down back and had a couple decent years as a featured back. But he wasn't worth a first round pick. In today's NFL, there is almost 0% chance Bush gets drafted in the first round because guys like him simply aren't worth the money or the pick.
Now, plenty of USC guys did very well in the NFL. Most of them were their OL, DL, and LB. Some of those guys were very underrated and went on to be pro bowlers and such. But those are not the guys who grabbed all the attention.
Posted on 8/16/19 at 7:22 am to TxTiger82
quote:
In today's NFL, there is almost 0% chance Bush gets drafted in the first round because guys like him simply aren't worth the money or the pick.
with his production in college he goes in the first round 100 out of 100 times.
This post was edited on 8/16/19 at 7:23 am
Posted on 8/16/19 at 7:46 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
with his production in college he goes in the first round 100 out of 100 times.
Not so sure. No one had ever seen a skill set like Reggie had so he was unique at the time in that aspect. Of course we know now that skill set doesn't translate as well as first thought in the NFL. Others since Reggie have confirmed that. Tavon Austin, Noel Devine, Deanthony Thomas, Dexter McCluster. All had similar skill sets since (maybe not as talented) and also didn't translate well.
Players like this can contribute but they aren't worth super high picks. If it was a situation where he was the first player with that type of talent then yes. But that isn't the case anymore.
Still college and pros Reggie was a better than Faulk if you can't admit that you are no doubt wearing purple and gold glasses
Posted on 8/16/19 at 7:58 am to Lester Earl
quote:
Make your case otherwise
Well, you haven’t made much of a case, but I will. Reggie Bush was a hugely overrated player. He got his notoriety by being great in space on a great college team that played weak teams all season. In the pros he continuously disappointed.
Faulk and Bush were similar in abilities. What made Faulk better was that he was more substance while Bush was more style. This is probably why Pete Carroll had him on the bench for Lendale White for the single most important play of the season - the play on which a championship rode.
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:18 am to mindbreaker
quote:
ot so sure. No one had ever seen a skill set like Reggie had so he was unique at the time in that aspect. Of course we know now that skill set doesn't translate as well as first thought in the NFL. Others since Reggie have confirmed that.
Players like this can contribute but they aren't worth super high picks. If it was a situation where he was the first player with that type of talent then yes. But that isn't the case anymore.
I think you are letting his NFL career cloud your judgement. Christian McCaffery, who idolized Bush, wore #5 because of Bush was the 8th pick in the draft and has been extremely productive in the NFL, him and Kamara are basically what we thought Bush would be and are similar build.
quote:
Tavon Austin, Noel Devine, Deanthony Thomas, Dexter McCluster. All had similar skill sets since (maybe not as talented) and also didn't translate well.
first off Thomas and Austin were WR and none of those guys are remotely close to Bush talent wise and Mcluster and Devin are both smaller, Bush is listed at 6' not 5'8 5'9' just because all are under 200 lbs does not make them the same.This post was edited on 8/16/19 at 8:19 am
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:21 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I appreciate the response and that you quantify it but 10% of what? There are 1700+ NFL players LSU was 2nd and USC 4th. 51 to 44 isn’t a small difference but I’m not sure I’d call it “not close”.
10% difference relative to either teams number was what I was thinking so 7/51 = 13.7% difference. Historically USC has 32.1% more players relative to each other, significantly higher, as you have stated The difference relative total players is probably not significant either way. And I'll admit it, my homerism may be showing a little
Looking at the last ten years drift picks, there is virtually no difference.
quote:
I understand but the statement was they produced more NFL players and we’re not talking about a program like Army that’s been irrelevant for 60 years They were a dominant program not that long ago and been pretty consistently in the top 5 or so in number of NFL players the last decade
Again, my homerism may be showing.
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:22 am to Penrod
quote:
What made Faulk better was that he played for my team
quote:
Faulk and Bush were similar in abilities. What made Faulk better was that he was more substance while Bush was more style. This is probably why Pete Carroll had him on the bench for Lendale White for the single most important play of the season - the play on which a championship rode.
yeah that's probably it and not because White had been gashing Texas all game up the middle since that was, you know, his role
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:27 am to Penrod
quote:
Well, you haven’t made much of a case
Read the thread bub. Everyone else did. It’s not even close
Bush was overrated but still way better than Faulk; so I’m not sure what that makes Kevin
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:28 am to mdomingue
quote:
10% difference relative to either teams number was what I was thinking so 7/51 = 13.7% difference.
that's what i figured, but wanted to confirm. to me that's not what i'd call "not close" but 7 more players isn't an insignificant difference either. Its close enough to not make the historical difference irrelevant clinging to the past
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:29 am to Lester Earl
quote:
Bush was overrated
as pro prospect he was, but not as a college player. He was a beast, so was Faulk but Bush was electric and its not because he played in the Pac 10
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:32 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
that's what i figured, but wanted to confirm. to me that's not what i'd call "not close" but 7 more players isn't an insignificant difference either. Its close enough to not make the historical difference irrelevant clinging to the past
Just let me hang on to my irrational beliefs for a little while man.
Posted on 8/16/19 at 8:36 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I think you are letting his NFL career cloud your judgement. Christian McCaffery, who idolized Bush, wore #5 because of Bush was the 8th pick in the draft and has been extremely productive in the NFL, him and Kamara are basically what we thought Bush would be and are similar build.
I'm not. He may have idolized Bush but he didn't play the same way. The players I mentioned were all known for stopping and starting going sideways and backwards to make people miss as much as going forward. McCaffery and Kamara both are shifty but they shift while running downhill they rarely come to complete stops to try and juke people in a phone booth.
Posted on 8/16/19 at 9:16 am to mindbreaker
quote:
The players I mentioned were all known for stopping and starting going sideways and backwards to make people miss as much as going forward.
What you are doing is a form of confirmation bias. Finding players with vague similarities in style and stature that weren’t nearly as talented and 2 cases didn’t even play the same position and also played in vastly different offenses and had nothing close to the same production or impact, that were never considered first 3 round talents. Bush is disappointing pro career had nothing to do with those guys draft position or NFL careers.
quote:
McCaffery and Kamara both are shifty but they shift while running downhill they rarely come to complete stops to try and juke people in a phone booth.
Well that’s because they are both better but still the are what Bush was supposed to be. CM actually had better college productivity than Bush but AK didn’t do much and was still taken in the 3rd.
Bush ultimately didn’t have the vision he probably relied on his moves too much because he could at lower levels. There werepeople, (on this board I know SFP was one for sure) that were skeptical about Bush at the time but I stand by my statement that someone with his college career gets drafted in the first 100 out of 100 times
This post was edited on 8/16/19 at 9:19 am
Posted on 8/16/19 at 9:18 am to mdomingue
quote:
Just let me hang on to my irrational beliefs for a little while man
Hey man being a homer is fine as long as you admit it
Faulk was a bad arse in college for sure
Posted on 8/16/19 at 10:07 am to 32tigers
Bush was a generational, transcendent talent in college.He was merely good in the pros though.
Faulk was a workhorse in college averaging 1,290 yards form scrimmage with 12 TDs a year. He led the conference in various categories in his 4 years in Baton Rouge.
Here's the difference. If you were coming up with an all time LSU team, Faulk would be on it as the all purpose back. If you were coming up with an all time team for the history of college football, Bush would be considered for the all purpose back spot.
Faulk was a workhorse in college averaging 1,290 yards form scrimmage with 12 TDs a year. He led the conference in various categories in his 4 years in Baton Rouge.
Here's the difference. If you were coming up with an all time LSU team, Faulk would be on it as the all purpose back. If you were coming up with an all time team for the history of college football, Bush would be considered for the all purpose back spot.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News