A Reggie Bush Rant

The original title was "A Quick Reggie Bush Rant" but after seeing how much I've typed, I had to delete the 'quick' part.

Much has been made this year about the New Orleans offense. This year the Saints rank 18th in points per game. Right below the Joe Flacco led Ravens and right above the Ryan Fitzpatrick led Bills. With Drew Brees and the wide out talent this team has, how the hell are they only 18th?

Well, ESPN has the answer- the lack of Reggie Bush. They claim because Reggie Bush is such an explosive talent that defenses have to account for him whenever he's on the field. But with him out due to injury, defenses can focus more on Brees, send more guys back in coverage which messes up Drew Brees. To help ESPN prove their point, they show one play in which Reggie Bush is in the game and how the defense is set up and reacts. Then they cut right to another play a few weeks later (sans Bush) and the opposing team has a better defense for the Saints. Two plays to prove their point.

My reaction:
WHAT!? REGGIE BUSH IS NOT A GOOD FOOTBALL PLAYER. THIS LOGIC DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. THIS IS BY THE FAR ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS NFL ANALYSTS HAVE SAID! THIS ANGERS ME GREATLY. WHY ARE WE YELLING?

I will concede a few things. 1) Reggie Bush does have great athleticism and talent. 2) On any given play, Bush does have the capability to take the ball and score a touchdown. 3) Reggie Bush was healthy in the year and now he's injured. 4) He was a great college running back.

Now here's my retort. First, on any given play, ANY skill player has the potential to score a long touchdown. Thomas Jones proved that last weekend with a 70 yard run. Matt Forte has this ability. But who cares, they are still an NFL offensive player. I'm pretty sure teams aren't shaking in the boots whenever Matt Forte has the ball. Yet he still has this amazing ability to be awesome in open space.

The main thing that ESPN is overlooking is that the Saints BEST running back- Pierre Thomas- is also injured. Both Bush and Thomas are out leaving the Brandon Jackson-esque Chris Ivory in to play. And even comparing Ivory to Jackson is an insult to Jackson.

The same two shots ESPN uses for Bush- I bet they could also use for Pierre Thomas. Plus, I'm pretty sure the rest of the league has caught up with Reggie Bush. They are fully aware after that four plus years, he doesn't nearly produce the same as when he was in college. I'm pretty sure that when a team is looking at film, they notice Pierre Thomas is the better running back. Throughout Thomas' entire career in NO, he has proven to be the better running back.

I agree that not having a legitimate running game does hurt Drew Brees and his ability to score points. I agree the lack of a running threat not only hurt play action plays (and let's be honest, the only reason teams run nowadays is to set up the play action) but the overall passing offense. But Reggie Bush alone does not constitute a legitimate running game.

And by the way, it's not like Reggie Bush has been the picture of health in his NFL career. He started, 8, 10, 8, 9 games respectively and he's only played in all 16 games once- his rookie year. The Saints have played without Reggie Bush before and yet still have had a prolific offense.

I still think ESPN has it in their heads that Reggie Bush is still the Heisman talent he was while at USC. During Bush's final year, ESPN jerked off to Reggie like what Kim used to do. (I apologize for the lewd and vulgar). But that praise should have declined at this point in Bush's career.

ESPN's logic just does not add up. The have a premise: Reggie Bush is injured and not playing. This is true. They have a conclusion: The Saints are not scoring that many points. This is also true. But to say Statement A is the reason for Statement B is the quintessential logical fallacy. I agree Reggie Bush is a lot better than any back the Saints can currently start, but I refuse to believe that he alone is the reason for the Saints mediocre offensive play.