My greatest fear has been realized . . .

papz · 09-22-2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by caddieman

I think the loss of Bush hurts you more than you might think. Do you have someone that can take the place of Bush and get the same amount of production?...........No. So therefore your O is less productive. Its got to be. Now is it a big drop off?.....No. But to say that there will be no down side is just silly.

In games missed by Bush the last 3 years combined(12 total), we've averaged 33.3 points per game. That isn't a small sample size. There should be little if any drop off in offensive production with Bush injured. When one guy goes down, we've done an excellent job over the years getting production from some where else.

caddieman · 09-22-2010, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by papz

In games missed by Bush the last 3 years combined(12 total), we've averaged 33.3 points per game. That isn't a small sample size. There should be little if any drop off in offensive production with Bush injured. When one guy goes down, we've done an excellent job over the years getting production from some where else.

Then you should cut him it you don't need him........................Right? lol!

caddieman · 09-22-2010, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by strato

Why would cut a superbowl winning RB...lol..oh you wouldnt know..candicane

You are asking the wrong Guy. Ask your buddy who said that you guys are the same with Bush as without him! LOL.

papz · 09-22-2010, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by caddieman

Then you should cut him it you don't need him........................Right? lol!

I didn't say any where we didn't need him. He adds an extra dynamic to our offense... which is quite valuable. However, we have zero issues with putting up points with him out for extended amounts of time... which is a fact.

You are asking the wrong Guy. Ask your buddy who said that you guys are the same with Bush as without him! LOL.

Once again, you're pulling words out your backside. We aren't the same without Bush... obviously our offense changes without him in there as certain plays won't be called anymore. With that said, we have zero issues of replacing his production else where on the roster as we've done with stars on our team in the past. When Colston went down, Lance Moore stepped up. When Bush goes down, Mike Bell and Pierre Thomas brought their game to a different level. When Jamal Brown got hurt, Bushrod stepped in and we won a Superbowl.

We're a talented team with a great system. When one player goes down, we tinker a couple of things and we're still a well oiled offensive machine. FACT. While Bush will be missed as DC's always had to account for him, we've shown in the past on numerous occasions that we can more than survive a month and whatever without him.

Please don't let all this overwhelm you.

09-22-2010, 12:58 PM	#1
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,794	Originally Posted by caddieman I think the loss of Bush hurts you more than you might think. Do you have someone that can take the place of Bush and get the same amount of production?...........No. So therefore your O is less productive. Its got to be. Now is it a big drop off?.....No. But to say that there will be no down side is just silly. In games missed by Bush the last 3 years combined(12 total), we've averaged 33.3 points per game. That isn't a small sample size. There should be little if any drop off in offensive production with Bush injured. When one guy goes down, we've done an excellent job over the years getting production from some where else.

09-22-2010, 01:02 PM	#2
caddieman 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 450	Originally Posted by papz In games missed by Bush the last 3 years combined(12 total), we've averaged 33.3 points per game. That isn't a small sample size. There should be little if any drop off in offensive production with Bush injured. When one guy goes down, we've done an excellent job over the years getting production from some where else. Then you should cut him it you don't need him........................Right? lol!
caddieman 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 450

09-22-2010, 01:15 PM	#3
caddieman 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 450	Originally Posted by strato Why would cut a superbowl winning RB...lol..oh you wouldnt know..candicane You are asking the wrong Guy. Ask your buddy who said that you guys are the same with Bush as without him! LOL.
caddieman 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 450

09-22-2010, 01:26 PM	#4
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,794	Originally Posted by caddieman Then you should cut him it you don't need him........................Right? lol! I didn't say any where we didn't need him. He adds an extra dynamic to our offense... which is quite valuable. However, we have zero issues with putting up points with him out for extended amounts of time... which is a fact. You are asking the wrong Guy. Ask your buddy who said that you guys are the same with Bush as without him! LOL. Once again, you're pulling words out your backside. We aren't the same without Bush... obviously our offense changes without him in there as certain plays won't be called anymore. With that said, we have zero issues of replacing his production else where on the roster as we've done with stars on our team in the past. When Colston went down, Lance Moore stepped up. When Bush goes down, Mike Bell and Pierre Thomas brought their game to a different level. When Jamal Brown got hurt, Bushrod stepped in and we won a Superbowl. We're a talented team with a great system. When one player goes down, we tinker a couple of things and we're still a well oiled offensive machine. FACT. While Bush will be missed as DC's always had to account for him, we've shown in the past on numerous occasions that we can more than survive a month and whatever without him. Please don't let all this overwhelm you.
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way.