mattb47 wrote:I like how you ignored the other 8 guys i put out there that aren't 221 lbs. What I was trying to say, was that the guys I posted here weren't the same weight when they came into the NFL as they are now. Bush is a similar build to all these backs and some are obviously going to be a bit heavier than others, everyone's body is different. Some people are going to have the same kind of power at different weights than others. But to say there's no comparison is blindly believing what you already think about Bush. You can't ignore the very close similarities in size (i'm not just talking about height and weight either, but to their acutal build similarities) to guys like Barber, Faulk, Priest, Portis, Jones, and Dunn.
If you would've actually read my initial response to your post, my major issue was that you compared Bush to LT in size. Comparing him to someone shorter who is 15 lbs heavier is not accurate by any means, but certainly not as outlandish, but still off. Personally, I dont see how you can even lump all these guys in as the same kind of RB. Dunn and Priest couldn't be much more different. The knock against Bush is that he may not be a complete RB, an inside runner, which several of these guys have shown the capacity to be.
If you're talking about running style, I could definitely agree Bush compares favorably to several of the guys you mentioned. But that would be changing your argument. Guys that are shorter, but even heavier, are not the same size as other guys. Please, explain to me, if you can, how a 5 foot 9 man, and a 6 foot tall man, both weighing 213 are of similar size? One is obviously leaner, the other obviously significantly stockier. Or how a 5 foot 9 inch, 180 lb man is the same size as a 5 foot 9, 213 lb man? That's 33 extra pounds of muscle at the same height. You'd see the difference very clearly.
Its one thing to say "If he adds 10 pounds, his size won't be a problem," and compare him to some 210-215 lb RBs. But that wasn't your argument.