pehawk wrote: Basis4day wrote:
pehawk wrote:Well, what was your point in joining this thread? It wasn't to actually add your thoughts on "would Bush be a cool change of pace guy on the Hawks", was it? What was YOUR point?
He also had a go ahead TD against Vikes, right?
And, Bush being lined up was something the defense had to account for. Be it slot or RB. His effect on THAT team cant truly be reflected in the stat sheet.
He's not that anymore, but he's still valuable.
Do you state opinions, or just nitpick? Does DTexhawk know you stole his gimmick then?
No. Bush is not a good decision. You asked me to fact check and I did. Sorry you didn't care for the truth. Sounds to me like you're attacking the poster and not the post.
No, what was your point with your original post in the thread. Bash Bush's fit on the Seahawks all you want, because I'm dumb, but state an opinion.
My opinion is you're not correct in your assessment of Bush, which IMO was pretty clear from the beginning.
First allow me to summarize my opinion of your stated reasons for wanting Bush:
He was a non-factor in the Saints' Superbowl, was injured most of the regular season, had a great game but not relevant to the outcome of the Saints-Cardinals, scored a go ahead TD in the playoffs against the Vikes (Which the Vikes came back and tied, Saints won in overtime on a kick). We already have a Golden Tate, which offers all of your desires in a Percy Harvin type player. Especially if we seek to upgrade at WR in FA or the draft.
He hasn't lived up to his draft standing and does not offer a clear upgrade over any of OUR running backs and i don't feel that losing depth at any other position is reason enough to go after Reggie Bush. His injury history is a huge concern. Many of our younger players are due for a big contract because of achievement and our FO should seek to pay players that have already achieved in our system.
DT, WR and depth at all other positions. Those are our needs, not Reggie Bush.