re: What's is the difference since bush has been back?

As running back, Bush has not measured up to expectations. He isn't a run between the tackle guy. That's why his carries, even when healthy, is limited. My guess is that Payton only gives him handoffs is in order to show the opposing defense something different & to keep them honest.


As much as I respect the offensive mind that Payton possesses & his knack for play calling, he's using Bush the wrong way. All those screens are usually doomed before Brees even throws the ball in Bush's direction due to all the attention he gets.


Payton needs to use Bush the way Minnesota uses Percy Harvin. Let him split more time in the slot with Lance Moore & let him attack the player defending with his speed & quickness. Stop allowing him to be sitting duck catching those short passes which usually produce 0 or negative yards. Truly I think Sean Payton is beginning to notice this & will make some adjustments with the way he uses Bush in the offense.

As far as the eye test, it tells me that Bush is not a "true" running back. My eyes also tell me that he has a great pair of hands & picks up more yards when catches passes in stride going down the field. I feel that he isn't being used correctly. I feel if he used correctly that the Saints offense will benefit from Bush's talent that made him the a #2 pick in the draft.

The only difference since Bush has come back is more negative plays.

quote:

---

you do realize the same could be said if were talking of PT technically.

---

Not really.

In his last two games back, Pierre has averaged:

3.83 yards per touch.

Bush?

3.72 yards per touch. (back multiple games)

Realize how many 3rd and shorts that PT had to come in for, particularly against the Ravens.

These are two games back from likely torn ankle ligaments which are much harder to come back from then a simple broken bone. If you've ever had both injuries you'll realize that.

In the Ravens game, Bush had 7 catches for 37 yards. +38 of those yards came on four plays of the last drive going into the half. The rest of the game Reggie outside of that drive, Reggie had 7 touches (4 rushes and 3 receptions) for a net -5 yards.

So, outside of the hurry up drive at the half, he was just plain bad.

quote:

---

Shane4689
What's is the difference since bush has been back?
I mean, has anyone notice any increase in the "distraction factor" that the analysis talk about? Has our offense been less obvious or readable? I think not.

---

The same difference right after he was injured.


When bush got injured , the offense struggled to adjust but eventually adapted . When he was back the same thing happened
Bush is 2nd most imp player on the roster second to brees IMO

quote:

---

The same difference right after he was injured.


When bush got injured , the offense struggled to adjust but eventually adapted .

---

the offense struggled before bush got hurt. we barely beat a terrible minnesota team and san fran.

quote:

---

These are two games back from likely torn ankle ligaments which are much harder to come back from then a simple broken bone. If you've ever had both injuries you'll realize that.

---

you're incorrect. he didn't clean break the bone, it was fractured. a clean break would've been much better for Bush, however, that's not what he was diagnosed with.

for a running back, either of those injuries takes roughly the same amount of time to come back from, and...in actuality, considering Reggie's supposed bone density and structure compared to PT's (i'm just guessing here), PT should've been able to come back quicker than Bush.

It's not a question of whether one has personally had the injury, it's a question of the individual patient's healing ability and osteo-makeup to determine the proper severity of the injury at hand.