I’m glad someone else finally said it. If I say it, it sounds like I’m being a homer because I’m a huge Bears fan. I just couldn’t believe his name wasn’t getting mentioned along with all of these other RB greats being brought up.
I just started reading “Payton” last night. But the best book about Payton, by far, is “Never Die Easy”. I would highly recommend that book to anyone, not just Bears or even football fans. Great insights on life, in general.
/Walter Payton hijack
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Yes, all were very good but none of them received 1/4 of the hype and publicity Bush has received, and Bush didn’t even lead his own team in rushing TD’s. EVERYONE knows Bush. He’s a household name. Bush is being hyped like that first “Batman” movie. If you don’t remember, it was rediculous, it was everywhere, you couldn’t get away from it…then the movie bombed. Hollywood, baby. Don’t think Bush hasn’t benefitted from the Hollywood media.
[/quote]
Uh, the first Batman movie made over $250 million, and is the 32nd highest grossing movie of all time at the box office. That’s an interesting definition of “bombed”.
[quote]Pete F wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Yes, all were very good but none of them received 1/4 of the hype and publicity Bush has received, and Bush didn’t even lead his own team in rushing TD’s. EVERYONE knows Bush. He’s a household name. Bush is being hyped like that first “Batman” movie. If you don’t remember, it was rediculous, it was everywhere, you couldn’t get away from it…then the movie bombed. Hollywood, baby. Don’t think Bush hasn’t benefitted from the Hollywood media.
Uh, the first Batman movie made over $250 million, and is the 32nd highest grossing movie of all time at the box office. That’s an interesting definition of “bombed”.
[/quote]
Yes, it bombed. The hype was so intense, practically everyone went to see it the first week. I remember seeing lines wrap around the theatre to get in. That’s why marketing hype is so important. Cram as many people in as soon as possible before they realize it sucks and before Siskel and Ebert can review it. That was the first mega-hyped movie. Largely regarded as a horrible movie.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Pete F wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Yes, all were very good but none of them received 1/4 of the hype and publicity Bush has received, and Bush didn’t even lead his own team in rushing TD’s. EVERYONE knows Bush. He’s a household name. Bush is being hyped like that first “Batman” movie. If you don’t remember, it was rediculous, it was everywhere, you couldn’t get away from it…then the movie bombed. Hollywood, baby. Don’t think Bush hasn’t benefitted from the Hollywood media.
Uh, the first Batman movie made over $250 million, and is the 32nd highest grossing movie of all time at the box office. That’s an interesting definition of “bombed”.
Yes, it bombed. The hype was so intense, practically everyone went to see it the first week. I remember seeing lines wrap around the theatre to get in. That’s why marketing hype is so important. Cram as many people in as soon as possible before they realize it sucks and before Siskel and Ebert can review it. That was the first mega-hyped movie. Largely regarded as a horrible movie.
[/quote]
I could give a shit if S&E don’t like a movie! A movie ain’t no bomb if it grosses that kind of cash. I’d rather watch Batman than Chariots of Fire.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Yes, all were very good but none of them received 1/4 of the hype and publicity Bush has received, and Bush didn’t even lead his own team in rushing TD’s. EVERYONE knows Bush. He’s a household name. Bush is being hyped like that first “Batman” movie. If you don’t remember, it was rediculous, it was everywhere, you couldn’t get away from it…then the movie bombed. Hollywood, baby. Don’t think Bush hasn’t benefitted from the Hollywood media.
[/quote]
You’re an idiot. There’s this thing called “short-yardage backs” that teams use. Nobody says that Barry Sanders sucked because he got pulled at the goalline sometimes and he didn’t always lead his team in rushing TD’s.
Has Bush benefited from the Hollywood media? Sure, in terms of endorsements and contracts and publicity. Did the media help him run for 160 yards on (get this) 15 carries against Notre Dame.
Interesting stat about Bush: the one game in his college career that he got over 20 carries, he proceeded to rush for 294 yards…
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Yes, all were very good but none of them received 1/4 of the hype and publicity Bush has received, and Bush didn’t even lead his own team in rushing TD’s. EVERYONE knows Bush. He’s a household name. Bush is being hyped like that first “Batman” movie. If you don’t remember, it was rediculous, it was everywhere, you couldn’t get away from it…then the movie bombed. Hollywood, baby. Don’t think Bush hasn’t benefitted from the Hollywood media.
You’re an idiot. There’s this thing called “short-yardage backs” that teams use. Nobody says that Barry Sanders sucked because he got pulled at the goalline sometimes and he didn’t always lead his team in rushing TD’s.
Has Bush benefited from the Hollywood media? Sure, in terms of endorsements and contracts and publicity. Did the media help him run for 160 yards on (get this) 15 carries against Notre Dame.
Interesting stat about Bush: the one game in his college career that he got over 20 carries, he proceeded to rush for 294 yards…
[/quote]
No need for name calling. I just pointed out that he didn’t lead his own team in rushing TD’s and he didn’t lead the PAC-10 in rushing yards. He is a fantastic player, but he has certainly been over-hyped to the point where he better lead the league in rushing as a rookie or people will start to complain. Playing in LA also helped with his (and Leinhart) hype. Jerome Harrison at Wash. St. led the PAC-10 in rushing, ran for 147 against USC and 260 against UCLA (averaged over 7 yards per carry in both games). Not a PEEP about that guy from the media.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Pete F wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Yes, all were very good but none of them received 1/4 of the hype and publicity Bush has received, and Bush didn’t even lead his own team in rushing TD’s. EVERYONE knows Bush. He’s a household name. Bush is being hyped like that first “Batman” movie. If you don’t remember, it was rediculous, it was everywhere, you couldn’t get away from it…then the movie bombed. Hollywood, baby. Don’t think Bush hasn’t benefitted from the Hollywood media.
Uh, the first Batman movie made over $250 million, and is the 32nd highest grossing movie of all time at the box office. That’s an interesting definition of “bombed”.
Yes, it bombed. The hype was so intense, practically everyone went to see it the first week. I remember seeing lines wrap around the theatre to get in. That’s why marketing hype is so important. Cram as many people in as soon as possible before they realize it sucks and before Siskel and Ebert can review it. That was the first mega-hyped movie. Largely regarded as a horrible movie.
[/quote]
Why can’t you just admit that you are wrong? www.metacritic.com, basically a summation of major reviews, has it at 66 (most major reviewers reviewed it positively).
Roger Ebert can suck my balls too, he is a fucking horrible reviewer yet he gets publicity because he generally reviews blockbusters well (this being a strange exception). Read one of his reviews; they generally contain about two sentences of actual “review”, then about a page of movie summarizing. If you’ve seen the movie, you know the plot, and if you haven’t do you really want to know it? I bet they take him about 5 minutes to write.
[quote]vbm537 wrote:
This is the second time since hes been out of college that he has been accused of taking money while in college. Most of it is comming from the agencies he decided not to work with.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Pete F wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Yes, all were very good but none of them received 1/4 of the hype and publicity Bush has received, and Bush didn’t even lead his own team in rushing TD’s. EVERYONE knows Bush. He’s a household name. Bush is being hyped like that first “Batman” movie. If you don’t remember, it was rediculous, it was everywhere, you couldn’t get away from it…then the movie bombed. Hollywood, baby. Don’t think Bush hasn’t benefitted from the Hollywood media.
Uh, the first Batman movie made over $250 million, and is the 32nd highest grossing movie of all time at the box office. That’s an interesting definition of “bombed”.
Yes, it bombed. The hype was so intense, practically everyone went to see it the first week. I remember seeing lines wrap around the theatre to get in. That’s why marketing hype is so important. Cram as many people in as soon as possible before they realize it sucks and before Siskel and Ebert can review it. That was the first mega-hyped movie. Largely regarded as a horrible movie.
Why can’t you just admit that you are wrong? www.metacritic.com, basically a summation of major reviews, has it at 66 (most major reviewers reviewed it positively).
Roger Ebert can suck my balls too, he is a fucking horrible reviewer yet he gets publicity because he generally reviews blockbusters well (this being a strange exception). Read one of his reviews; they generally contain about two sentences of actual “review”, then about a page of movie summarizing. If you’ve seen the movie, you know the plot, and if you haven’t do you really want to know it? I bet they take him about 5 minutes to write.[/quote]
Yes, it was the #1 movie of that year. Perhaps bombed was not a good choice of words. How about “horrible”. Do you think it was not over-hyped? Maybe that recent movie with Ben Affleck and J-Lo would be a better example. You couldn’t get away from the publicity, propaganda, and hype of that movie with the supposed marriage and all that. That movie was a HUGE, TREMENDOUS flop.
Umm…are we still talking about running backs?
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Yes, it bombed. The hype was so intense, practically everyone went to see it the first week. I remember seeing lines wrap around the theatre to get in. That’s why marketing hype is so important. Cram as many people in as soon as possible before they realize it sucks and before Siskel and Ebert can review it. That was the first mega-hyped movie. Largely regarded as a horrible movie.
[/quote]
Way to go on the Siskel and Ebert call considering Siskel died in 1999. It’s Ebert and Roeper now. Well, not really because I think Ebert is still in the hospital.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
No need for name calling. I just pointed out that he didn’t lead his own team in rushing TD’s and he didn’t lead the PAC-10 in rushing yards. He is a fantastic player, but he has certainly been over-hyped to the point where he better lead the league in rushing as a rookie or people will start to complain. Playing in LA also helped with his (and Leinhart) hype. Jerome Harrison at Wash. St. led the PAC-10 in rushing, ran for 147 against USC and 260 against UCLA (averaged over 7 yards per carry in both games). Not a PEEP about that guy from the media.
[/quote]
Fair nuff…
I think just think the difference with Bush is the sheer amount of big plays he makes and how he’s a threat to score at any time in the game. Jerome Harrison’s a nice back who had a productive career, but there’s a reason that Bush should’ve been the #1 pick.
On the topic of bush and running backs, I was really hoping the redskins would have held on to our Canadian running back Jesse Lumsden. It was unfair that he wasn’t drafted last year, the man averaged 227 rushing yards per game, and 10.2 yards per carry at McMaster up here int he great white north. Even if you guys do say “oh its canadian university football”, come on, those numbers are sick. Ronnie brown posted a what, 4.44 in the 40 at the combine last year, lumsden posted a 4.46 and a 4.49, at 6’2 and 226 pounds. Thats pretty dam quick for a big guy. Yet he went undrafter, because he was from Canada, and for other unknown reasons.
I did a search for this guys numbers to see if his strength matched his hype and all I can say is WOW!
5’11 205
4.33 40
225 X 25 reps
475 bench max
600+ squat max
385 power clean (might be most impressive of all)
41" vertical jump
11’ broad jump
Saints rookie running back Reggie Bush has touched the ball 127 times from scrimmage, but produced just 519 yards and no touchdowns. That’s 4.1 yards per touch on 81 carries (for 207 yards, 2.6 average), and 46 catches (for 312 yards, 6.8 average). His longest rush is for 18 yards, and his longest reception for 32. He hasn’t quite yet redefined offensive football in the NFL.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I did a search for this guys numbers to see if his strength matched his hype and all I can say is WOW!
5’11 205
4.33 40
225 X 25 reps
475 bench max
600+ squat max
385 power clean (might be most impressive of all)
41" vertical jump
11’ broad jump
[/quote]
Where’d you find those? They are incorrect.
Reggie’s bench max was 405. Don’t know his squat numbers, but I seriously doubt he could squat over 500 pounds. I also beleive his 385 power clean is incorrect. The vertical and broad jump are probably accurate.
[quote]Tryfon wrote:
he’s looks awesome but does anyone know what his workout looks like?[/quote]
I bet he works out at least three hours a day in the off-season. Each day probably has at least an hour of weights (lots of big lifts, like Oly, squat, bench), some form of sprint or running conditioning, some kind of GPP (med ball circuits, football conditioning type drills), and some kind of football technique work (pass catching, etc.).
After that, he probably has a good deal of recovery work, like stretching, whirlpools, soft-tissue work, etc.
That’s on top of probably being able to eat great all the time with a personal nutritionist or something.
I mean, I know he really is a physical specimen, but there are a lot more of people who could have amazing physiques if they could somehow get paid to do nothing but get their bodies in the best physical shape. Of course we wouldn’t all have the unique athletic combination of speed, explosiveness and mental ability needed to excel at a sport, but we could look as good physically at least.
I saw the 225 bench by bush, looks like he was like a 375lbs bencher maybe 405lb.
On the power clean, its just hard to believe 385. 285 is definately believable.
The 40 yard, the vert, and the broad jump are believable.