Darren Sproles vs. Reggie Bush: Who's the superior weapon?
 

Last season, 12 running backs rushed for 600-plus yards while also tallying at least 40 receptions. That list not only includes premier runners like Arian Foster, Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice and LeSean McCoy, but also features two of the NFL's most dynamic multipurpose playmakers: Darren Sproles and Reggie Bush.

Darren Sproles vs. Reggie Bush: Who's the superior weapon? - NFL.com

Weapon?

Sproles. Hands down.

What we see Sproles do after he gets the ball is everything we wanted Reggie to do.

Spoles ROLLS! .. Nothing against Reggie, I don't want to bash him. Just leave it at that.

Sproles!

I'm not going into why...

Sproles 1st year with the Saints he breaks the NFL all-purpose yardage record.

Bush's 1st year with the Saints.... (what did he do?)

Another Reggie thread? LMAO!

SPROLES!

Reggie had 1 solid season with the Saints. He needed a change of venue to get him off the IR list so he could play some football.

What happened to the RB that got all the yards he ever wanted?

He set the all time NFL record for all purpose yards!

No comparison. Reggie is a #2 pick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We got screwed until we traded him and got Sproles.

He eventually broke something :)

Face it. The Saints rarely have good fortune with first round draft picks.

May need to begin following the Bellicheck draft Philosophy.

Reggie Bush who?

More dumbassedness.

Sheesh!

Sproles. Hands down.

I think Reggie is great and I wish him nothing but success in the rest of his career. I root for him when I see the Dolphins play.

But that being said...

Sproles... and in my mind, it's not even close.

Last season Sproles came in and filled Reggie's role. There wasn't an offseason to prepare Sproles or to come up with plays designed for his talents, he had to fit into the position built for Reggie. Not only did he do it, he did it better than Reggie ever did. Sproles is the running back we always wanted Reggie to be.

I will say it like I said where you lifted this post from. Reggie was not good when he was here and made of glass. He had all the potential in the world but never did anything that would make me believe he had any impact on the outcome of any game. Sproles has done more in one year than Reggie did in 6 years and he did it in SD too. Sproles is what Reggie was supposed to be. Yea Reggie had a good year in Miami, but that was his first and it was only solid. Sproles was putting up solid numbers in SD too. Anybody who would argue on the side of Reggie in this argument is like a Falcons fan who still cannot let go of Vick.

Edit
Just goes to show you how the philosophy on two different boards can be at such opposite ends of the spectrum. On that other board almost all said Reggie. I love how the posters here are so down to earth and seem to look at things from a realistic point of view. Another reason why I love this place.

Reggie gained mind boggling yardage, he must of had 1800+ yards each season.

Horizontally.

highlight of the article;

"Bush, in particular, is an outstanding perimeter runner"

Sproles is a god and should not be compared to lesser mortals.

And in reverse.

no, it's perimeter running!

Bush was the king of the perimeters.......he knew where the sideline was and always made sure he headed straight for it, always 1 yard shy of a first down

Sproles is a beast, reggie can't touch him

It's kinda' funny, both guys had probably their best seasons last year after moving on from the team that originally drafted them, so a change of scenery definitely benefited both players.

Bush, to me, was always potential unrealized and a poor-man's Barry Sanders in New Orleans ... he covered a lot of ground sideline-to-sideline like Barry, but without the forward progress or the touchdowns ... he only started half the time due to injury also, eh? I used to hear more about him dating a Kardashian then his game.

Sproles may not have Reggie's numbers or pizzazz, but his first year numbers in NO compare to Bush's production and he's more of what I want a RB to be.

Advantage: New Orleans/Darren Sproles.

Sproles performed at a high level in SD too. Reggie didn't begin to do much of anything while he was here except stay injured. I would love to see these numbers you speak of that Bush has. He may have had the chance to have great numbers if he had been on the field, but he couldn't stay on the field and to me that trumps everything else. Durability is as important as athleticism and skill, and that is where Sproles has Bush beat hands down.

Rushing- I'll take Sproles
Receiving - Sproles
Kick Returns - Sproles
Punt returns - Sproles

40 yard dash in shorts - Gotta go with Bush.

Sproles didn't have Reggie's numbers? Is this guy misreading the statistics because crack coated pubic hair are covering his eyes?

Why was this even published? Are people that desperate?

Reggie Bush NFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Darren Sproles NFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Durability ... that's where we agree and it's a big part of what I meant when I said Sproles is more of what I want from a running back and why I gave the advantage to New Orleans/Sproles ... 3-4 ypc, first downs/touchdowns when you need 'em, good hands out-of-the-backfield, good pass protection as needed and durability, that's all I ask and dream for ... you got to remember, I follow a club that insanely keeps parading Kevin Smith out as a starting NFL running back, knowingly drafted a RB with a severe history of concussions and drafted another RB who immediately tore an Achilles and has an alcohol/drug problem ... <sigh> ... no, I understand the importance of durability ... I live and die RB durability, :).

In terms of Bush's numbers, I was referring more to his first two or three seasons with the Saints, and more specifically, last season with Miami ... he had 1,000 rush/pass yds in those seasons (or close to it) ... last year in Miami he had over 1,000yds rushing, something Sproles has never done. Also, Bush's numbers with the Saints beat Sproles' numbers with the Chargers pretty much across the board and in every category ... but, I am not so naive to think this necessarily makes Bush the better back and that there aren't other factors to consider.

Sproles may not necessarily be the better RB, but he is a better fit for New Orleans then Bush and if you compare his first season numbers in New Orleans to Bush's five seasons with the Saints, they compare favorably, and as you pointed out, his durability puts him over the top. This is what the Saints need, a reliable/durable running game to compliment the passing game, not overshadow it. Sproles provides that, Bush didn't. Bush, however, did show in Miami that when he gets the carries, he'll get the yardage ... it's just debatable whether he'll be able to do it for any length of time.

When I saw both backs had arguably their career best career seasons upon changing teams, it makes me think perhaps they didn't necessarily fit their teams' offensive scheme more then one is necessarily better then the other, though Bush's stats certainly are better then Sproles' ... but, Sproles is certainly the better RB for New Orleans, :mrgreen:.

Rushing average
Reggie - 4.3 per carry
Sproles -5.2 per carry

Receiving Average
Reggie - 7.2 per rec
Sproles -9.1 per rec

Punt Return Average
Reggie - 7.9 per return
Sproles -8.6 per return

Why is this even a debate?

Really guy? 'crack coated pubic hair covering his eyes', I expect that kind of garbage on a Detroit board or an Atlanta board, but not on B&G. You disappoint me ... the stats I'm reading are posted in my reply to 'the Dude' ... feel free to analyze them yourself.

Rushing average ... number of carries figures into this, Bush consistenly had more carries per season and thus his APC will be lower ... you conveniently left out # of touchdowns also.

Receiving average ... again, you're not looking at number of receptions, if I catch 1 pass for 70yds and you catch 3 passes of 75yds, 20yds and 10yds, who has the better receiving average? Where's the YPG stat on both these guys?

Punt Return average ... touche', I guess ... apples & oranges, don't care about punt returns, I'm focusing on the run game.

Why is it a debate? ... probably because it's the offseason, bountygate is winding down & Drew has signed ... it's really not, in every post I chose Sproles over Bush, IDK why it's being perceived I'm backing Reggie Bush so much ... the mere fact he dated Kim Kardashian and I was subjected to seeing the camera pan over to her during a few games is enough to nauseate me & turn me against Reggie forever ... I was just pointing out that both backs experienced the best seasons of their career after leaving their respective teams and the change of scenery obviously did them some good ... it's one of those intangibles I like to focus on and whereas Bush may statistically be the better back, he's not the best back for New Orleans ... Sproles is, but that's not to say Bush isn't productive somewhere else, because he is ... in Miami.

Advantage: still New Orleans/Sproles.

Now get off me.

Darren is superior, and Reggie knows it.

Darren rolls and Reggie blows.

It'll be interesting to compare these two in a couple of years. I will say this right now: don't know about the Fin's fans, but we Who Dats sure aren't feelin' cheated by this particular exchange.

Sorry SloMo, I mistakenly thought you were quoting the article written, not giving your opinion. And, btw, I was agreeing with you that Sproles is superior, it should not be an issue, and someone getting paid to write such drivel had the metaphorical visual distortion.

Hilarious!!!!!!

Sproles, hands down, without a question.

Sproles = Weapon.

Bush - tool

I would rather have someone that actually gets yards all year round than a guy who may have a higher "rushing average" for 8 games. This is about real production not stats. Stats do not matter one bit it just gives nerds something to argue about when they are wrong. Winning and producing is what counts not stats.

It's alright, :lol: ... I went back and looked and saw the blogger was bald, so I didn't know what to think, :lol: ... I knew we were agreeing on Sproles being the better back and the one New Orleans would rather have ... I'm not trying to yank chains by suggesting there's an argument for Bush, it's just an interesting debate, all considered ... I wish the Lions had these kind of running back problems/debates, :lol:.

... and I absolutely agreed with you and supported Sproles over Bush for this reason, but it can't be denied Bush starting 15 games for MIA and gaining 1000+ yds isn't production and he was on the Saints 2009 roster as far as the 'winning' thing goes ... I honestly think Bush is the better individual back (when healthy), not because I'm a stats nerd arguing because I'm wrong, but because the stats jump out at you ... Sproles basically contributes the same production as Bush did in NO, which is an improvement over his SD numbers, and is more durable, while Bush went on to MIA and had his most productive season ever ... it's just the way NO/MIA use their RB's and it's win/win for both teams they each got a running back that fits so well into their offensive schemes.

I'm not arguing, just saying I see the how some people would say Bush is the superior weapon, which he may be in MIA, but not in NO.

He learned from Aaron Brooks. Yeah, I just went there.

I am ready to find a different punt and kick returner, though.

Alaska

I would agree that on the surface it would appear that this is not even a debate...Sproles hands down. However, if I speculate...

Reggie was so good coming out of college. It's like someone said, "Sproles did everything we expected Reggie to do!" Is it possible, though, that Reggie has been heavily accounted for ever since he came into the league?

Is it possible that with everybody paying so much attention to Reggie, other players were allowed to flourish, like Colston as an example. To take it a step further, is it really stretching to say that once people started paying attention to the other guys after Reggie left that they were able to do some of the things they always wanted to do with Reggie but couldn't because they were paying so much attention to him being on the field.

I think that another poster said that we might have a clearer view a couple of years later, but since RB's have such a short career expectancy...we just may never know.

Reggie didn't get near the attention many claim he did.

It sure seemed like there was...especially his rookie year. He got banged up a lot, too. I'm not arguing, but I am only trying to account for why he wasn't able to do the things he did in college with such frequency.

I know that your first response is that people are a lot faster in the NFL, but others have met the challenge and continued to excel in the pros.

I am only wondering out loud because it is curious that someone who had such success in college would struggle so in the pros.