ESPN: Stats say Saints better without Reggie Bush | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

ESPN: Stats say Saints better without Reggie Bush

ckparrothead

ckparrothead

Premium Member
Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
52,592
Reaction score
7,256
Location
Tampa, FL
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post/_/id/22849/stats-say-saints-better-without-bush

But some of the numbers that were passed along to me suggest the Saints can be just as good -- or better -- without Bush. They already have been.

Since joining the team in 2006, Bush missed 20 games. In those games, the Saints went 13-7. That’s a .650 winning percentage. In games Bush played, the Saints went 36-24 (.600).

But we have much more than that. In games with Bush since 2006, the Saints averaged 25.9 points. Without him, they averaged 29.8. In games Bush played, the Saints averaged 377.4 yards per game. When he didn’t play, they averaged 419.8.

The Saints completed 66.5 percent of their passes when Bush played. When he didn’t, they completed 67.6.
Click to expand...
 
The fact that CK is openly quoting ESPN is a sign of the apocalypse. RUN!
 
Even if the Saints were better without him it does not mean he cant help Miami..Miami has been lacking speed..The front office goes out and gets speed..Not saying the guy is superman but give them some credit..They got a good player who is going to help us big time..He needs to stay healthy thats for sure. But if he is used right than his presence will not always show up on a stat sheet. I wanna win, I dont want or need rushing titles or records..Reggie can help us win..When he was with the Saints they won..You can say Drew Breese had the most to do with that..Yea thats fair but give Reggie some credit..
 
What are the stats of the other running backs he played with in games he played as well as games he didn't? Did the Saints have to throw more b/c he was out? It's a bit more deep than just making a blanket statement using a few stats to back up your (article writer's) opinion.
 
Interesting but it's not like the difference between the two is a mile wide. He wasn't my first choice but he's a high enough calibre player in the league that he deserves our respect and our patience to see how the new system works with him in it.
 
gregorygrant83 said:
Ck do you know the strength of schedule in the 20 games without Bush?
Click to expand...

I'll meet you halfway. I'll list the teams (and years) that constituted those 20 games, and you can look up their defensive point rankings. Deal?

Atlanta (2007)
Arizona (2007)
Philadelphia (2007)
Chicago (2007)
San Diego (2008)
Atlanta (2008)
Kansas City (2008)
Green Bay (2008)
Detroit (2008)
Carolina (2008)
Tampa Bay (2009)
New England (2009)
Atlanta (2010)
Carolina (2010)
Arizona (2010)
Tampa Bay (2010)
Cleveland (2010)
Pittsburgh (2010)
Carolina (2010)
Seattle (2010)
 
You gotta think that some of those times where he didnt play was because the Saints figured they didnt need him because it was a weak opp.
 
Could it be argued that Bush was taking touches away from a very talented receiving corps and QB? Without him, there were less screens, pitches, reverses, etc. and more Brees looking downfield?
 
Bush is no more, and no less an added weapon for whomever is the starting QB, use him the right way, Miami will benifit, and fans will love him.
 
Tunaphish429 said:
You gotta think that some of those times where he didnt play was because the Saints figured they didnt need him because it was a weak opp.
Click to expand...

Wow. There's wishful thinking and then there's this....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom