July 20, 2017

Could You Get Excited About Michael Bush?

The rumor mill has spun around the past few days, suggesting that Oakland Raider free agent Michael Bush could end up in Cincinnati soon.

My question is simple: if it happens will you be excited?

And before you answer, consider this. Last season, which was the most Bush has played in his four years, he had 977 yards and seven touchdowns, but he only averaged 3.8 yards per carry. He’s a big back (6-1, 245 pounds) and a fairly good receiver (37 receptions for 418 yards), but he’s not quite the home-run threat you might want for the Bengals offense.

And perhaps more troubling is what it would mean for Cincinnati’s present depth chart. If Bush is signed, you would have to expect a current back to get cut (either Bernard Scott, Brian Leonard, or Cedric Peerman), or the team might look past the position in the draft. Might.

If it were me, I’d rather have a rookie running back with some more explosiveness added to the present rotation. Leonard is a steady special teamer, a perfect third-down back, and could probably do even more if given a larger role in the offense. Scott is a pretty dynamic player, although he’s not built to be an every-down back. And Peerman is a special teams ace, who has shined in preseason action and is an intriguing candidate for more touches. Do you want to kick one of those guys off the roster? I don’t.

Bush’s biggest asset would be his skills on short-yardage plays and in the red zone. The Bengals were rather pitiful in both areas last season, and a big back like Bush should help them to improve in both areas. However, given Bush’s injury history and his increased salary (he’ll likely cost more than what the Bengals would pay a rookie), I can’t get that excited about the thought of him in black and orange.

Sure, he’d fill a need.

But I’d prefer a rookie back with similar measurements, someone who should come cheaper, have more upside, and might keep everyone else on the roster.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe maybe you can convince me otherwise.

So here’s your chance.

Should we be excited about Michael Bush?


  1. Antoniomagon says:

    I’d like say goodbye Benson & Scott and say welcome Bush & Miller/Martin/Wilson/James/Pead. Keep Mr. 3rd down Leonard and cheapest Peerman.

    It does not matter if Bush only averaged 3.8 yards per carry, while he gets first downs. I do not want a +1000 yds RB (Benson) but a first down maker on short-yardage plays and in the red zone.
    Get the explosiveness with the rookie. After 3 years we can say that Scott is not this guy, he does not deserve more opportunities.

  2. WhoDeyVille says:

    I played against Mike Bush in hs and he was a STUD. I dont think he ever got his chance to shine and I would welcome him with open arms in cinci WHO DEY!!!

  3. I’m going to be in a minority here but I’d prefer Tolbert. That dude is a big power back, can double as a full-back and is an outstanding receiver out of the backfield. Additionally, he does a great job in pass pro, and will come relatively cheaply. If we are truly going back-by-committee, he’s a better choice, and can be on the field WITH another back.

    Not that I’m necessarily endorsing it, but we could eliminate Pressley’s roster spot with this signing, opening up other options.

    To me, Tolbert gives us more than Bush, but I’ll take either one.

  4. I still believe that B. Scott has shown to be a good, change of pace, on 1st and 2nd down for a couple of series. B Leonard is always making plays, and has to be in the fold, find a decent back in the mid to late rounds, yes MID to LATE, Pead if he lasts until the 4th would be great. If you have a great offensive and defensive line, you can have OKAY talent look great in the “skill” positions. Use AJ, Jermaine, Shipley and maybe Garcon, that kind of passing attack makes DB’s back up, and you can run. JMO