Why the Texans would be stupid to draft Bush instead of Young
JS Gilbert
January 28, 2006
I've heard many reasons for and against the Texans picking Vince.
Some say Bush should be chosen by the Texans because it will help give Carr more time to throw, since teams will have to respect the threat of Reggie. Well, I just don't think that's the case -- much of Bush's offensive success at USC had to do with the fact that:
(a) most of the defenses Bush had big games against were NOT very fast (i.e. Fresno State, UCLA, Notre Dame [look what Ted Ginn Jr. did to Notre Dame]),
(b) USC's o-line was top-notch and gave Bush wide-open holes, and (c) Matt Leinart was there, freezing LBs and DBs with his looks and play-fakes, with the o-line also giving him tons of time to deliver perfect balls to Reggie.
I just don't think that a team like the Texans, who can't block for Bush like USC did, who can't give Carr time to throw it to Bush, has any business wasting a top-round pick on a guy who has not shown the ability to carry 30-40 times per game and run between the tackles, and who has not demonstrated that he can work all his same magic consistently against a defense that's of NFL speed.
Sure, if you're Minnesota or Miami or Oakland and you're looking to add that guy who's going to put you over the top, that Deion Sanders who will complement your power-running with some flash, then Bush is good for you. But if you're the Texans, you need a leader, someone who can evade a pass rush and still get the ball away, someone like Vince. Then trade Carr for a decent receiving/blocking TE like Eric Johnson or for some other o-line help.
If Bush was really as good as some people are acting like, why'd he have so many sub-100-yard rushing games? Why'd he average so far below his normal numbers against teams like Texas? Why'd he score 0 offensive touchdowns in 3 of his regular-season games? Why wasn't he in the ball-game on 4th-and-2??? Forgive me for being skeptical of his Highness, but I just think Reggie Bush wouldn't have looked so special without being on a team with coaches that let him play 3 different positions because they had enough talent to where if he got hurt it wouldn't end their season. (Most teams don't put their star back on kick return, but then again, most teams don't also have LenDale White, who in my book would be a better pick for Houston than Reggie, given the choice between the two.)
Plus, the Texans have a pretty meager fan-base in Texas so far, in part because of the stupid mascot (the "Texans"?? stupidest team name ever) and they will lose a lot more fans if they choose Bush. Just because his name is "Bush" doesn't mean people in Texas will like him. The Bears are even more popular in Texas right now than the Texans, since Chicago drafted Cedric Benson. Maybe the Texans want all the Californians who have moved to Texas as fans?
THE ARGUMENT FOR VINCE
Now Vince Young is who Houston should draft, and not because he's a Texas hero (although, suddenly gaining everyone in Texas as a fan would be a good perk). All those, especially in the media, who don't believe in Vince Young, who keep comparing him to other black QBs in the NFL like Vick and Cunningham (as if, just because he's black, that makes any difference), don't see the point. They don't understand who Vince Young is, what he does for a team:
(a) he forces defenses not to blitz as much, because if you blitz he will pick it up and beat you with a quick throw on the run (or scramble if your defense allows it), since he can see over everyone with his incredible vision (being 6'5"),
(b) he opens up the play-action running game by forcing defenses to key LBs on him: is Vince keeping? is he handing it off? is he throwing?
(c) he adds the deep ball threat due to his arm strength, accuracy, and mobility, and (d) he is a proven leader and winner, and a smart decision-maker, not just a flashy athlete with a lot of hype.
People who didn't vote for him in the Heisman race kept looking for reasons why he wasn't as good as he really is, and they ignored how he forced defenses to change their schemes in ways that allowed other Texas players to score, even if Vince didn't look as good against those teams because they were focused on stopping him. People made the mistake of thinking that Texas's offense is just Vince Young only, because if you don't manage to stop him, then that's what appears to be the case. But teams that did manage to stop his running, were beaten by his passing and the running of Texas's tailbacks (who had less defenders keying on them because those guys were worried about Vince).
Plus, Vince is the kind of guy who, like Tom Brady, is a fierce competitor and a TOUGH resilient athlete. He is a big strong guy who will get hit and then come back and throw the game-winning TD. He gets the eye of the tiger in the 4th quarter, and bounces back from throwing an INT by coming back to win games. If I'm the Texans, and I want to start winning NOW, Vince is the guy, because he doesn't need as much protection as a slower QB like Carr.
Vince will turn what would've been a sack into a 20-yard gain, and at the end of that run he will get out of bounds instead of taking a big hit. Reggie Bush is not going to do that for you. He will get swallowed up at the line of scrimmage, and the QB won't have time to get the ball to him down-field. On the rare occasion Bush breaks the corner, or is left wide open on a quick slant or shovel pass, he can have a decent gain -- but so can many guys. If the Texans draft him, just watch -- it will be a disaster, although no one will be in the stadium to see it.
I might agree about Bush, if Reggie were the same guy in real life as he is in EA Sports' NCAA 06 Football on XBOX/PS2. In the video game, he's unstoppable and would basically be the greatest player of all time. Unfortunately, in real life, Bush is not a guy who is going to come into the worst team in the NFL and suddenly they start winning games. He doesn't run a 3.9-second 40-yard-dash nor does he break 5 tackles against an NFL-caliber defense on every play. He's 210 pounds, and he's human.
Vince Young on the other hand, is much better than the EA Sports version of him. He's much faster, a much more accurate passer, and simply adds an extra dimension to the game that completely changes what a defense has to scheme for. I get the impression that many of the Heisman voters were voting for the video game Reggie Bush and voting against the video game Vince Young.
In real life, however, there's no other QB like Vince Young; Michael Vick is not even close, but Marcus Vick is not even in the same league (although, remember all those people who thought Marcus was better than Vince just because Marcus' throwing motion looks more traditional). Vince is more like John Elway combined with Eric Metcalf, but is the size of an LB or speed-rusher. Forget about his "weird" throwing motion -- you don't hold it against baseball players if they swing the bat funky, do you? Some people just can't believe that Vince is really as good as he is.
The question those naysayers should ask themselves is: why do you find it so hard to accept who Vince Young is, that he is for real? Because it seems so unbelievable? Because there is no guy in history that he compares to, no paradigm in your mind you can fit him into? Were those two Rose Bowls not enough? What more evidence do you need?
AGAINST THE VINCE NAYSAYERS
There seems to be several main reasons people don't believe in Vince:
(a) subconsciously or consciously, they just can't accept the idea of a black, dual-threat QB being as accurate and smart of a QB and field-general as a traditional drop-back guy -- they think there's no way he could be better than Michael Vick as a passer, there's no way he could be a smart QB who recognizes schemes, picks up blitzes, and delivers as accurate balls as white guys like Brady;
(b) they think that his throwing motion looks weird, even though you never hear these same guys complain about batters in the MLB who have weird-looking swings, even though he led the league in passing efficiency;
(c) they over-emphasize any mistakes he's made, bad quarters or halves he's had, and ignore many of the difficult, spectacular, across-the-body-while-running-the-other-way-with-a-blitzer-in-your-face passes he's completed -- any good thing he did is a fluke, any mistake was how he really is (the opposite logic is typically what they apply for Reggie Bush of course).
So naysayers: try to imagine you are a defensive coordinator facing a QB like Vince. You realize that the reason he's so efficient is because he spreads it around to an average of SEVEN different receivers per game (Texas has 7 receivers with more than 12 catches on the year). He doesn't make stupid throws into coverage, and most of his INTs came early in the year because of receivers making mistakes (you would constantly see him schooling them after INTs or incompletions those plays).
You know if you blitz him, most of the time he'll pick it up and beat you with a quick toss or a run. You know that you'll have to keep your safeties back deep because he is as good as anyone with the deep ball. In fact, his high efficiency rating was mainly due to two factors: his skill with the long ball, and because if nobody is open it generally means, since Texas uses a spread shotgun with 3-wide and a receiving TE and RB, that he can gain at least 5 yards with his legs without even getting touched (instead of throwing the ball away or worse).
It was bad enough that all these naysayers happened to also be the Heisman voters this year, although I think Vince proved every last one of them wrong in the Rose Bowl (and anyone who thinks Bush still deserved the Heisman is just in denial, because all the evidence for why Vince should've won it was there before the Rose Bowl, it's just that these naysayers found all sorts of reasons to ignore his achievements and focus on the couple of bad quarters he had, while they didn't care about all the games Reggie didn't score in).
It will be even worse, at least for the Texans, if they fall victim to the same false thinking about Vince and the same hype surrounding Reggie Bush. I just don't understand how you can sit there on the radio and say "Bush might be one of those rare talents that only comes along once per generation," while on the other hand, Vince Young is an even rarer talent, the first QB to ever throw for 3000 yards and rush for 1000 in NCAA history; an athlete Matt Leinart called "freakish" due to his immense size and shifty running; while a passer and comeback-king drawing comparisons to Elway and Staubach; and a classy guy who affects all those around him in a positive way, from the head coach to the fans.
I even heard a naysayer compare his attitude to Terrell Owens! Preposterous! Vince is a class act. I think he rightfully scorned Bush winning the Heisman, because Vince really did deserve it, and despite his vernacular (hey, he's from Texas) he's an intelligent guy who surely realized Bush only won because of the L.A.-centric nature of the media in this country, and the way that USC had become the media and video-game industry's imaginary "best team ever." Hey, it got the Rose Bowl a high TV rating... must've worked.
I think I'll just let it end at that. If the Texans do draft Bush, though, then I'll enjoy another round of Vince's naysayers being proven wrong. Also as a Cowboys fan, I could care less if Houston shoots themselves in the foot, although it's kind of sad to think of any Texas team passing up such a great opportunity. I suppose it will be sweetly ironic though to see Reggie Bush wearing a helmet with some horns on it, getting dropped for a loss play after play.
Some say Bush should be chosen by the Texans because it will help give Carr more time to throw, since teams will have to respect the threat of Reggie. Well, I just don't think that's the case -- much of Bush's offensive success at USC had to do with the fact that:
(a) most of the defenses Bush had big games against were NOT very fast (i.e. Fresno State, UCLA, Notre Dame [look what Ted Ginn Jr. did to Notre Dame]),
(b) USC's o-line was top-notch and gave Bush wide-open holes, and (c) Matt Leinart was there, freezing LBs and DBs with his looks and play-fakes, with the o-line also giving him tons of time to deliver perfect balls to Reggie.
I just don't think that a team like the Texans, who can't block for Bush like USC did, who can't give Carr time to throw it to Bush, has any business wasting a top-round pick on a guy who has not shown the ability to carry 30-40 times per game and run between the tackles, and who has not demonstrated that he can work all his same magic consistently against a defense that's of NFL speed.
Sure, if you're Minnesota or Miami or Oakland and you're looking to add that guy who's going to put you over the top, that Deion Sanders who will complement your power-running with some flash, then Bush is good for you. But if you're the Texans, you need a leader, someone who can evade a pass rush and still get the ball away, someone like Vince. Then trade Carr for a decent receiving/blocking TE like Eric Johnson or for some other o-line help.
If Bush was really as good as some people are acting like, why'd he have so many sub-100-yard rushing games? Why'd he average so far below his normal numbers against teams like Texas? Why'd he score 0 offensive touchdowns in 3 of his regular-season games? Why wasn't he in the ball-game on 4th-and-2??? Forgive me for being skeptical of his Highness, but I just think Reggie Bush wouldn't have looked so special without being on a team with coaches that let him play 3 different positions because they had enough talent to where if he got hurt it wouldn't end their season. (Most teams don't put their star back on kick return, but then again, most teams don't also have LenDale White, who in my book would be a better pick for Houston than Reggie, given the choice between the two.)
Plus, the Texans have a pretty meager fan-base in Texas so far, in part because of the stupid mascot (the "Texans"?? stupidest team name ever) and they will lose a lot more fans if they choose Bush. Just because his name is "Bush" doesn't mean people in Texas will like him. The Bears are even more popular in Texas right now than the Texans, since Chicago drafted Cedric Benson. Maybe the Texans want all the Californians who have moved to Texas as fans?
THE ARGUMENT FOR VINCE
Now Vince Young is who Houston should draft, and not because he's a Texas hero (although, suddenly gaining everyone in Texas as a fan would be a good perk). All those, especially in the media, who don't believe in Vince Young, who keep comparing him to other black QBs in the NFL like Vick and Cunningham (as if, just because he's black, that makes any difference), don't see the point. They don't understand who Vince Young is, what he does for a team:
(a) he forces defenses not to blitz as much, because if you blitz he will pick it up and beat you with a quick throw on the run (or scramble if your defense allows it), since he can see over everyone with his incredible vision (being 6'5"),
(b) he opens up the play-action running game by forcing defenses to key LBs on him: is Vince keeping? is he handing it off? is he throwing?
(c) he adds the deep ball threat due to his arm strength, accuracy, and mobility, and (d) he is a proven leader and winner, and a smart decision-maker, not just a flashy athlete with a lot of hype.
People who didn't vote for him in the Heisman race kept looking for reasons why he wasn't as good as he really is, and they ignored how he forced defenses to change their schemes in ways that allowed other Texas players to score, even if Vince didn't look as good against those teams because they were focused on stopping him. People made the mistake of thinking that Texas's offense is just Vince Young only, because if you don't manage to stop him, then that's what appears to be the case. But teams that did manage to stop his running, were beaten by his passing and the running of Texas's tailbacks (who had less defenders keying on them because those guys were worried about Vince).
Plus, Vince is the kind of guy who, like Tom Brady, is a fierce competitor and a TOUGH resilient athlete. He is a big strong guy who will get hit and then come back and throw the game-winning TD. He gets the eye of the tiger in the 4th quarter, and bounces back from throwing an INT by coming back to win games. If I'm the Texans, and I want to start winning NOW, Vince is the guy, because he doesn't need as much protection as a slower QB like Carr.
Vince will turn what would've been a sack into a 20-yard gain, and at the end of that run he will get out of bounds instead of taking a big hit. Reggie Bush is not going to do that for you. He will get swallowed up at the line of scrimmage, and the QB won't have time to get the ball to him down-field. On the rare occasion Bush breaks the corner, or is left wide open on a quick slant or shovel pass, he can have a decent gain -- but so can many guys. If the Texans draft him, just watch -- it will be a disaster, although no one will be in the stadium to see it.
I might agree about Bush, if Reggie were the same guy in real life as he is in EA Sports' NCAA 06 Football on XBOX/PS2. In the video game, he's unstoppable and would basically be the greatest player of all time. Unfortunately, in real life, Bush is not a guy who is going to come into the worst team in the NFL and suddenly they start winning games. He doesn't run a 3.9-second 40-yard-dash nor does he break 5 tackles against an NFL-caliber defense on every play. He's 210 pounds, and he's human.
Vince Young on the other hand, is much better than the EA Sports version of him. He's much faster, a much more accurate passer, and simply adds an extra dimension to the game that completely changes what a defense has to scheme for. I get the impression that many of the Heisman voters were voting for the video game Reggie Bush and voting against the video game Vince Young.
In real life, however, there's no other QB like Vince Young; Michael Vick is not even close, but Marcus Vick is not even in the same league (although, remember all those people who thought Marcus was better than Vince just because Marcus' throwing motion looks more traditional). Vince is more like John Elway combined with Eric Metcalf, but is the size of an LB or speed-rusher. Forget about his "weird" throwing motion -- you don't hold it against baseball players if they swing the bat funky, do you? Some people just can't believe that Vince is really as good as he is.
The question those naysayers should ask themselves is: why do you find it so hard to accept who Vince Young is, that he is for real? Because it seems so unbelievable? Because there is no guy in history that he compares to, no paradigm in your mind you can fit him into? Were those two Rose Bowls not enough? What more evidence do you need?
AGAINST THE VINCE NAYSAYERS
There seems to be several main reasons people don't believe in Vince:
(a) subconsciously or consciously, they just can't accept the idea of a black, dual-threat QB being as accurate and smart of a QB and field-general as a traditional drop-back guy -- they think there's no way he could be better than Michael Vick as a passer, there's no way he could be a smart QB who recognizes schemes, picks up blitzes, and delivers as accurate balls as white guys like Brady;
(b) they think that his throwing motion looks weird, even though you never hear these same guys complain about batters in the MLB who have weird-looking swings, even though he led the league in passing efficiency;
(c) they over-emphasize any mistakes he's made, bad quarters or halves he's had, and ignore many of the difficult, spectacular, across-the-body-while-running-the-other-way-with-a-blitzer-in-your-face passes he's completed -- any good thing he did is a fluke, any mistake was how he really is (the opposite logic is typically what they apply for Reggie Bush of course).
So naysayers: try to imagine you are a defensive coordinator facing a QB like Vince. You realize that the reason he's so efficient is because he spreads it around to an average of SEVEN different receivers per game (Texas has 7 receivers with more than 12 catches on the year). He doesn't make stupid throws into coverage, and most of his INTs came early in the year because of receivers making mistakes (you would constantly see him schooling them after INTs or incompletions those plays).
You know if you blitz him, most of the time he'll pick it up and beat you with a quick toss or a run. You know that you'll have to keep your safeties back deep because he is as good as anyone with the deep ball. In fact, his high efficiency rating was mainly due to two factors: his skill with the long ball, and because if nobody is open it generally means, since Texas uses a spread shotgun with 3-wide and a receiving TE and RB, that he can gain at least 5 yards with his legs without even getting touched (instead of throwing the ball away or worse).
It was bad enough that all these naysayers happened to also be the Heisman voters this year, although I think Vince proved every last one of them wrong in the Rose Bowl (and anyone who thinks Bush still deserved the Heisman is just in denial, because all the evidence for why Vince should've won it was there before the Rose Bowl, it's just that these naysayers found all sorts of reasons to ignore his achievements and focus on the couple of bad quarters he had, while they didn't care about all the games Reggie didn't score in).
It will be even worse, at least for the Texans, if they fall victim to the same false thinking about Vince and the same hype surrounding Reggie Bush. I just don't understand how you can sit there on the radio and say "Bush might be one of those rare talents that only comes along once per generation," while on the other hand, Vince Young is an even rarer talent, the first QB to ever throw for 3000 yards and rush for 1000 in NCAA history; an athlete Matt Leinart called "freakish" due to his immense size and shifty running; while a passer and comeback-king drawing comparisons to Elway and Staubach; and a classy guy who affects all those around him in a positive way, from the head coach to the fans.
I even heard a naysayer compare his attitude to Terrell Owens! Preposterous! Vince is a class act. I think he rightfully scorned Bush winning the Heisman, because Vince really did deserve it, and despite his vernacular (hey, he's from Texas) he's an intelligent guy who surely realized Bush only won because of the L.A.-centric nature of the media in this country, and the way that USC had become the media and video-game industry's imaginary "best team ever." Hey, it got the Rose Bowl a high TV rating... must've worked.
I think I'll just let it end at that. If the Texans do draft Bush, though, then I'll enjoy another round of Vince's naysayers being proven wrong. Also as a Cowboys fan, I could care less if Houston shoots themselves in the foot, although it's kind of sad to think of any Texas team passing up such a great opportunity. I suppose it will be sweetly ironic though to see Reggie Bush wearing a helmet with some horns on it, getting dropped for a loss play after play.
Print
Email
