Solomom Wilcots argues that Bush was a better draft pick than M. Williams

[N'wahlinsCayenne]

I was listening on Sirius today and a caller called in and said(among other things) that it is "clear to everyone" that Mario Williams has been a better draft pick than Reggie Bush. Wilcots responded by saying that it is NOT clear that Williams was a better pick over Bush. His reasons? One, despite Williams' high sack numbers last season, the Texans, who had a No. 4-rated offense,, still finished 23rd defensively in 2008. He said in order for people to rightfully say that Williams has been a better player, the DE needs to help dramatically improve his team's defense as a whole. On the flip side, Reggie Bush has helped his team to an NFC Championship game and has helped the Saints win far more games than have the Texans. It's all about wins and losses, he said.

Secondly, touchdowns are what win football games and when Bush is on the field, he's a touchdown machine. Conversely, he said, sacks don't win you football games. If you have a chance to get a guy who scores lots of touchdowns, take him over a guy who gets lots of sacks. He also pointed out that after his first season everyone was saying Reggie Bush was the better pick and the only reason why people have changed their minds is because of the fact that Reggie has missed 10 games over the last two seasons.

That last part was a no-brainer, but I was still floored by how unique and interesting this take was on the Bush/Williams debate because I've been one not to argue with someone who would say Williams was a better player so far. And I'm a big-time Saints fan! Adam Schein seemed to be equally floored by Wilcots comments as well and complimented him pretty strongly.

Thoughts?

[Mintal]

Not even worth the comment...

[N'wahlinsCayenne]

Originally Posted by Mintal

Not even worth the comment...

Really? You read my post and you have nothing to say? Do you at least agree that his take is unique?

[panthers55]

Originally Posted by N'wahlinsCayenne

Really? You read my post and you have nothing to say? Do you at least agree that his take is unique?

Solomon's take on things is often unique which usually means he is out in left field. Seems Schein is out there too in right. Of all the guys on Sirius during the day, those two seem to be the most opinioned but the least knowledgeable and accurate. I think that Pat Kirwin and Tim Ryan actually know what they are talking about and if they said it I might give it some credence.

His argument comparing touchdowns to sacks has simple appeal at first but after consideration is flawed logic. They are both important but completely unrelated. Sacks in general aren't as important as touchdowns, but a sack that results in a turnover or stops a big drive by the offense can be more important than a TD particularly if it is a game changer. You would think that someone from New Orleans would understand the value of defense or the lack thereof. Maybe that is why their defense is so sorry and the team can't do better than 8-8 with that big old touchdown machine. No one seems to understand that defense wins games just as much as points. Most winning teams seem to understand that.

I do agree with you on one thing. This whole discussion by dumb and dumber was sure a no-brainer.

As for Bush versus Williams, it is no contest and everyone outside of the state of Louisiana would readily say Williams.

[Delhommey]

Single parenthood can be tough on a woman.

[Skew]

Originally Posted by Mintal

Not even worth the comment...

Personally, I don't care what the talking heads say, good or bad, about any team. Especially, this time of year. That said:

I'll say it for Mintal:

First of all, Wilcots is the retarded child of that network. He's been so wrong so many times on so many different things, I wouldn't go tooting my team's horn if he gave them a complement.

Second, most of these talking heads are paid to talk. They HAVE to say something. I'll ask you one question and want you to answer it fairly.

How many of these talking idiots said the Cards were going to make it to the Superbowl this time last year?

Answer: 0


My advice to you is to take it as a complement if any of these idiots say your team is going to/win the Super Bowl.

But don't go to rival boards and say "Hey, (idiot from sports channel xyz) says our team is going to win the conference, win the division, and win the Super Bowl."

You just look like an idiot when none of that comes true. And then you have to hide from the board you said that on for 6 months.

Just saying.

[Bodybag]

Is there anything worse than being wrong on the internet?

Besides Reggie debates, I mean.

[Skew]

Originally Posted by Bodybag

Is there anything worse than being wrong on the internet?

Besides Reggie debates, I mean.

I don't know, but you are off to a good start.

[DemBirds]

You'd be right not to argue that Williams is the better player. He clearly is. Williams could be one of the all-time greats when his career is done. Bush shouldn't even be considered a starter, in my opinion. There is no question that Bush is a dynamic athlete, but being an athlete and being a football player are different. Williams is a bona fide superstar defensive end. Just because he, as a DE, can't improve the play of the team around him does not make him a less valuable player. Bush came along at the same time as Brees. Brees is the reason for the Saints success. Not Bush.

[N'wahlinsCayenne]

I don't necessarily agree with Wilcots because no one is gonna argue that TD's aren't more important than sacks but a player like Williams is a rarer breed than a player like Bush and you can argue that our offense would have scored tons of points withor without Bush. That being said, we don't reach the NFC Title game in '06 without Bush. I was just just blown away because I'd never heard the Williams/Bush debate approached from that way before and to me it was very interesting.