Bush may not be #1 pick

[Verdict]

Bush may be the best player available in this draft, but it is hard to envision him as the overall #1. I have a feeling that the Texans might get to trade down one spot and still get Bush at #2.

The running back position is not a position of longevity in the NFL, so it is really hard to pull the trigger and take one as the overall #1 unless he is just going to dominate the NFL.

 

[TheHustler]

Well, if you "have a feeling", I'm convinced.

And why would anyone trade up to one knowing full well that the Texans would take bush at #1 or #2 (in your scenario). Either way, the player they want is available.

 

[Q_the_man]

that means NO trade from 2 to 1 in this trade down, I wonder what the Saints would have to give up, knowing that the player they want would be their at 2. Maybe a 1st next year

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would not take Bush #1 over all. Is he a great player? Absolutly, he is, no question but I just don't believe that a RB should be the #1 guy overall. To much investment in a position that has an extremely high casualty rate.

 

[TheHustler]

that means NO trade from 2 to 1 in this trade down, I wonder what the Saints would have to give up, knowing that the player they want would be their at 2. Maybe a 1st next year

Yep. Scenario 1: Texans take Bush, NO gets the guy they want.

Scenario 2: NO trades up to #1. NO gets the guy they want. Texans take Bush.

So they will trade up to take the same player.... hm...........

 

[JonJon]

I am not trying to be rude, but where is the logic in the Texans trading down to #2 just to draft Bush one spot later? What would New Orleans hope to gain by moving up to the #1 spot and still getting the same player, assuming they are not taking Bush? Wouldn't they in essence be losing out? Please explain if I misunderstood your theory.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am not trying to be rude, but where is the logic in the Texans trading down to #2 just to draft Bush one spot later? What would New Orleans hope to gain by moving up to the #1 spot and still getting the same player, assuming they are not taking Bush? Wouldn't they in essence be losing out? Please explain if I misunderstood your theory.

I think the only way this would work out is if the Jets traded up to get into a position to take a QB. Otherwise, no guarantee that Bush would be there if Texas really wanted that player. To me, I would trade with the Jets, let them take whomever and pick D"Brickshaw at 4. How could you go wrong if you were able to pull that kind of trade off?

 

[DBoys]

Bush may be the best player available in this draft, but it is hard to envision him as the overall #1. I have a feeling that the Texans might get to trade down one spot and still get Bush at #2.

The running back position is not a position of longevity in the NFL, so it is really hard to pull the trigger and take one as the overall #1 unless he is just going to dominate the NFL.

Good post

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Well, if you "have a feeling", I'm convinced.

And why would anyone trade up to one knowing full well that the Texans would take bush at #1 or #2 (in your scenario). Either way, the player they want is available.

My thoughts exactly.......Bush will be #1 to Texans

 

[AbeBeta]

How exactly do you trade down 1 spot?

Really the Saints have all the leverage here.

 

[bbgun]

If you believe Bush is the best fit for your offense-starved team, you don't pass on him because he might be "difficult to sign." Worry about that crap later.

 

[Chief]

There have been one-spot trades before.

Houston could be entertaining trade offers from two teams, and play one against the other. New Orleans would move up to keep Houston from trading with someone else who also wants their guy.

Having said that, I wouldn't dare pass on Reggie Bush if I was Houston.

 

[adbutcher]

I would not take Bush #1 over all. Is he a great player? Absolutly, he is, no question but I just don't believe that a RB should be the #1 guy overall. To much investment in a position that has an extremely high casualty rate.

If I were a GM I would reserve the number one spot for impact Defensive lineman and QB(s).

 

[Doomsday101]

I would not take Bush #1 over all. Is he a great player? Absolutly, he is, no question but I just don't believe that a RB should be the #1 guy overall. To much investment in a position that has an extremely high casualty rate.

Worked out very nice for Dallas when we gave up picks and players to Seattle for Tony Dorsett. I think it depends on how high a team is on that player in the case of TD Dallas really liked him and in the end it turned out great for Dallas

 

[AbeBeta]

There have been one-spot trades before.

Houston could be entertaining trade offers from two teams, and play one against the other. New Orleans would move up to keep Houston from trading with someone else who also wants their guy.

Sure -- but you generally don't get a great deal -- especially when the other team knows you are going to get the guy you really want anyway.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Worked out very nice for Dallas when we gave up picks and players to Seattle for Tony Dorsett. I think it depends on how high a team is on that player in the case of TD Dallas really liked him and in the end it turned out great for Dallas

I agree and disagree. TD was a great player for us but when we traded for TD, we had a Hall of Fame QB and a team that was missing very little. Also, the dynamics of taking a playar #1 over all in those days was far less prohibative. If you missed on a player in those days, even on the number one player, it was not a situation that impacted your club for year to come. Today, because of the financial investment the number 1 over all pick represents, it is exactly that. Also consider, in the 70s, a team could win a superbowl with a star RB. In todays game, defense can not dictate to the passing game. RBs are no longer as important to offenses because the modern passing game has opened up the game too much. The investment of a RB 1st over all does not have the same impact in todays game as it did in years past. Lastly, while I agree with you that TD was a great RB, once Roger hung em up for good, how many championships did TD lead us to? Even then, the investment into a RB was not nearly as influencial to a teams overall success as was a quality QB. The NFL is a QB league. Always has been and always will be. I just do not see the value in it.

 

[Doomsday101]

I agree with some of your comments but I disagree about the importance of having a great RB. The NFL may promote the passing game more these days with the rules but teams going to SB and winning SB have a solid running game. While some things have changed over the years the importance of a RB in my opinion is still critical.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with some of your comments but I disagree about the importance of having a great RB. The NFL may promote the passing game more these days with the rules but teams going to SB and winning SB have a solid running game. While some things have changed over the years the importance of a RB in my opinion is still critical.

But the Texans already have this in place. I would never say that a RB is not vital in any championship team. Having said that, weight the financial burden, if you will, of taking a RB with the first overall pick in the draft against a DE who could be the next Reggie White or an OT who could be the next Munoz, especially when you already have a top 10 NFL RB on the roster. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Doomsday101]

In regards to the Texans I think they are better off trading the overall #1 to get extra picks they have many problems and Bush will not solve that. But in general teams that can run the ball and play defense have the better chance of winning it all. I'm not seeing pass happy teams winning championship. The only one I can think of in recent times has been the Rams but they also had Faulk on that team in his prime and was always a threat to go the distance. Last Pitt won the whole thing and led the league in rushing attempts. I still feel teams who can run and control the clock will have a better chance of going all the way.

 

[RealCowboyfan]

Let's just say he last until the 4th and we got the 4th... Do we draft him or trade out of the pick or draft him and trade him?