The Instigator
snelld7
Pro (for)
Tied
44 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Tied
44 Points

Resolved: Reggie Bush has had,on-balance, a successful NFL career.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,312 times Debate No: 7173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (15)

 

snelld7

Pro

I'm going to take the side of the affirmative (saying he has had a successful career). If you think you can beat me in this debate, then go for it!

Generally, aff goes first...but I've decided to let the neg go ahead and start it.
pcmbrown

Con

I negate: Resolved: Reggie Bush has had, on balance, a successful NFL career.
Observations:
"On balance" is irrelevant to this resolution, as we are not comparing relative benefits and harms.
Success is comparative. Therefore, my definition of success hinges upon expectations.
This resolution concerns only Reggie Bush's current career statistics, compared with the career stats of any other player.
Definitions:
Successful: meeting, or exceeding expectations.
NFL career: career football statistics.
I believe the statistic most reflective of expected success is placement in the NFL draft. My opponent may contest this if he wishes. Therefore, Reggie Bush's expected success is comparable to halfbacks with similar draft placement, at number two draft pick.
Actual success is best reflected by yards gained. Again, this may be contested.
Reggie Bush's total career yards are at 3,149. Average career yards of halfbacks taken as a number two draft pick are at 7,814.
Clearly, Reggie Bush has yet to meet or exceed expectations with his career statistics.
Thank you for posting this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
snelld7

Pro

My opponent has made an attempt to skew the word "successful" in his favor and take the words "on-balance" out of the resolution....(crackofdawn_Jr is this what you were talking about?) It's ok though, I'll play in your field.

First off, when i say "on-balance" I mean compared to other players. It has nothing to do with benefits and harms, but it does have something to do with good and bad performances. On-balance was to get you to take a look at career statistics oppose to a certain BAD GAME which would have been the attempt of a true manipulator. So, yes, it is needed.

An as for the successful presentation. Lets take into effect that he's a back-up player (not a starter), the fact that he is NOT yet in his prime, and the fact that he is NOT a true running back.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving onto your first argument....

>>>Actual success is best reflected by yards gained. Again, this may be contested.
Reggie Bush's total career yards are at 3,149. Average career yards of halfbacks taken as a number two draft pick are at 7,814.
Clearly, Reggie Bush has yet to meet or exceed expectations with his career statistics.
Thank you for posting this debate

--The whole problem with this argument is that Reggie Bush is not a true running back. He is an even mix of being a WR and an RB (meaning half and half). You can't apply something like rushing yards, to a slot reciever/ scat back. Simply being because he isn't getting the amount of carries a normal back is getting. His touches are split between recieving and rushes. Where a normal runningback will get attempt around the range of 293-363 rushes, reggie bush is only getting 106 rushes. Now, when this happens, what you must resort to are yards per carry. Let's take adrian peterson for example (arguably the best running back in the league) and LaDainian Tomlinson (the best running back before him). They both averaging 3.8 yards per carry. Reggie bush is averaging 3.7 yards per rush. If he were to get the 293-363 yards per carry that every "true" running back got, then he would have anywhere from 1,084
to 1,343 yards per carry! Which is more than successful. Not to mention, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BACK UP PLAYER!

Being that he isn't a full running back, you must add his rushing yards with his recieving yards (being that they're about evenly split). Doing this, he is at nearly 1 thousand total yards consistantly! In 06' it was at 1307 yards. In 07' it was at 998 yards. And, in 09', with him being injured for multiple games and only playing 10 games (a high school season amount), it was still at 844 yards. This said, do you honestly think averaging 1049 yards per year isn't successful for a hybrid position who isn't even starting?
pcmbrown

Con

1. The "fact" that he is not in his prime is irrelevant, we are considering only career statistics. This concerns only his career thus far, not his level of potential, or quality as a halfback/wide receiver.

2. His back-up status is unimportant. As I have stated, we are utilizing current career statistics, rather than indicators of quality.

3. The statistics I procured are the sum of all yards gained by Reggie Bush. Therefore, your argument against this is irrelevant.

4. You have accepted my definition of success, as well as my measures of expected and actual success. Given that you have failed to refute my point, it stands.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
snelld7

Pro

This is how your definition of success goes.
-meeting, or exceeding expectations

With this understood, what are the expectations of a back up runningback? Surely it isn't to recieve 1049 yards per year is it?

That is successful for a starting runningback, so obviously it CANT be bad for a back up!

>>>1. The "fact" that he is not in his prime is irrelevant, we are considering only career statistics. This concerns only his career thus far, not his level of potential, or quality as a halfback/wide receiver.

What you're doing is comparing statistics in your head to what Reggie Bush's are. But that will never add up because people aren't expected to produce the same numbers once they reach a prime. Hence, it's called your PRIME. Seeing as how success is based on expectations, it is entirely relevan, is it not?

>>>>2. His back-up status is unimportant. As I have stated, we are utilizing current career statistics, rather than indicators of quality.

As I said before, success is based on expectations. Back-ups aren't expected to to get the amount of yards per year that a starter does, yet he still gets them. Once again, it is entirely relevant.

>>>>4. You have accepted my definition of success, as well as my measures of expected and actual success. Given that you have failed to refute my point, it stands.

What point? Have you made one? I've proved how your definition flows to my side, so then what do you stand for? My side? Your stance is to say he hasn't been successful. Mine is to say he has been successful. Seeing as how my ENTIRE "case (if you will)" is against your 1 point of "reggie bush is unsuccessful," how is this not negated?
pcmbrown

Con

First, be it noted that the resolution concerns only Reggie Bush's current career statistics. We are evaluating Reggie as if his career ended at this very moment. Therefore, the fact that he is "not in his prime" is not a concern of this debate.

Success compared to other second-strings is also irrelevant. This debate concerns expectations placed upon a #2 pick in the NFL Draft. My opponent has not challenged this. If anything, second-string status is an indicator of limited success.

Clearly, Reggie has, thus far, failed to acheive the career statistics of those with similar draft position. As my opponent has accepted my definitions, and measures of success, it is clear that Reggie Bush's career statistics are not indicative of "success" as defined.

I urge a vote in the contradiction of this resolution. Thank you for the debate, and thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pcmbrown 5 years ago
pcmbrown
gah ><
Posted by snelld7 5 years ago
snelld7
lol looks like I'm your only loss!!!
Posted by studs-r-us 5 years ago
studs-r-us
yes, his problem was timing. gale sayers-type player in an age when all the defense is just as fast, and reggie cant just out run them like in college. hes still making his niche and i expect him to be a solid, solid player, with multiple pro bowls and all pro selections before he hangs up the spikes
Posted by snelld7 5 years ago
snelld7
He's not really a bust.. people just see him as something he's not. They have a false perception of him. (dont get me wrong TO ME he's the best player in the world), but he's a hybrid position type, and they don't use those often in the pros. He still averages as much as LT and Adrian Peterson per carry... however he only gets a third of their carries so thats why he cant generate the season yardage that they get. And that's what my whole point was in the 2nd round
Posted by studs-r-us 5 years ago
studs-r-us
snelld7-
reggie bush, as much as i hate to say it, has largely been a bust. he showed signs of breaking through until he got injured last year.
as a HUGE usc fan, i really wish the best for him, and i think hes going to have a HUGE breakout year next year (1000+ receiving, 1000+ rushing, and 10+ TDs) but so far hes only fulfilled a TINY portion of his expectations.
Posted by snelld7 5 years ago
snelld7
Oh, and umm.... Ya it's possible to get out of double digits for carries.

(Lets put the setting as a fotball game where the running back is a freshman and it is the first game of the year and this is the first game he EVER plays)

If the ball is placed on the opposite goal line due to a false start penalty when it was suppose to be on the 5. And the true freshman runningback gets a handoff and takes it 100 yards for the touchdown.... He is averaging 1 rush for 100 yards. which = 100 yards per carry!! So, HAH!
Posted by snelld7 5 years ago
snelld7
lol you knew what I meant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
er, to get into, not out of.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"f he were to get the 293-363 yards per carry that every "true" running back got, then he would have anywhere from 1,084
to 1,343 yards per carry!"
I'm not sure you phrased this right. It's theoretically impossible to have more than 99 yards per carry, and as a practical matter not possible to get out of double digits for a significant number of carries ^_^.
Posted by pcmbrown 5 years ago
pcmbrown
ill characterize success as a fulfillment of expectations
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tribefan011 5 years ago
tribefan011
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 5 years ago
Agnostic
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by EmyG 5 years ago
EmyG
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by happypanda 5 years ago
happypanda
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Larsness 5 years ago
Larsness
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by slobodow 5 years ago
slobodow
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by harlequin 5 years ago
harlequin
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 5 years ago
sherlockmethod
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dobsondebator 5 years ago
dobsondebator
snelld7pcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41