McFadden or Bush???

[jaman4]

Well McFadden has the potential to be a feature #1 back, and Bush just doesn't seem to have the size to carry a full load season after season.

Wouldn't mind having either though, kinda like asking a guy to pick between supermodels, really doesn't matter which one, lol.

Im not sure how you mean Mcfadden has better size and more potential to be a full time back. Mcfadden is 6'2 210 lbs, while Bush is 6'0 205 lbs. Not much difference there. People just like to spout that about because Bush is such an explosive player in the passing game, and has never HAD to carry 25+ times. Bush averaged nearly 5 yards per carry over the 2nd half of last season when he finally realized he couldnt take everything to the outside like he had in college. He had a 2nd half of the season that had him catch 42 passes for 430 yards, 350 yards on the ground on 4.8 ypc, and had 8 TDs in those 8 games. That's nearly 800 yards from scrimmage, and 6.7 yards gained per touch. Pretty damn good for a rookie i would say.... And i agree with you on the supermodels comparison. Id take Mcfadden or Bush any day (im still pining that we passed on Steven Jackson though :bang2: )

 

[BourbonBalz]

at 206 lbs no he cant.

I seem to remember a certain # 22 that was a fairly good 3 down back for us for quite a few years. His weight? 208 to 209 lbs. Yes, he's shorter than McFadden, but still not a bruiser. Tony Dorsett weighed about 190 lbs. and he also fared pretty well, although that was quite some time ago. Bush just has never shown that he's an every down back, primarily because he's never had to. Still, I'd like to know he can carry the load before taking him over McFadden.

 

[BourbonBalz]

By the way, I just checked several websites and they have McFadden listed at 215-216 lbs. Nice size for a RB in my opinion.