Reggie Bush, Vince Young, or Mario Williams?

In 2006 when the Houston Texans announced they would not be taking college stars Reggie Bush or Vince Young in the draft and would instead sign Mario Williams. Everyone thought they were nuts. Since that time, Williams has established himself as the most consistent of the three. Many people praised the foresight of the Texans saying they had picked the best player instead of the flashiest player. With Bush about to make his first Super Bowl appearance, I think it's time we reevaluate.

No one can take away the career Williams has managed thus far. In four seasons he has 39.5 sacks and has yet to miss a game. He has become a staple of Houston's defensive line. That's more than you can say of either Bush or Young, whose careers are both marked by inconsistency. Bush has been unable to establish himself as a top running back and follows every great performance with a sloppy one. Young quickly took over as starting quarterback for Tennessee, but eventually lost it to Kerry Collins because of injury and a bizarre mental episode. This season after an 0-6 start, Young took back the team leading them to a final record of 8-8.

Williams certainly has had a more consistent career, but one reason why I would not have taken him is the immediate impact, before the players ever hit the field. Houston was a team going nowhere. The excitement of the new team had worn off and the fans needed a franchise player to reignite the fan base. Young was the perfect choice. Born and raised in Houston and being a leader simply by position, he could have reinvigorated the fan base and the team the moment his name was announced by Roger Goodell. Bush would have had the same affect. Look at what he did for New Orleans. The city needed a player like Bush just as much if not more than Houston after Katrina. Bush hadn't played a single game, but he was all over the city and became an instant fan favorite. Defensive end isn't exactly a flash position and Houston didn't get that from their number one pick.

Many would argue that what matters is on the field and that Houston picked what they needed, not just what was flashy. I certainly understand this position, but Bush and Young have something that Williams does not, post season experience. Young led Tennessee to the playoffs in 2007 and Bush has gone in 2006 and 2009 going at least as far as the NFC Conference Championship game both times. Williams and the Texans have failed thus far to make the playoffs. It would be unfair to blame Houston's inability to make the post season on Williams, but you also can't discount Bush and Young's contributions. As starting quarterback, Young was a big reason his team was in. He won numerous awards in his rookie season and was the catalyst for his team's success in 2007. Bush may not be a consistent starter, but he is the x factor for the Saints. He is the kind of player that will burn you if you don't account for him, the kind of guy that can give you a huge run, catch, or punt return when the rest of your offense is stagnant. Watch highlights of the Saint's playoff game against Arizona. He had 84 yards on 5 carries and a touchdown and a punt return for another touchdown.

What you end up with when you look at it is the Peyton Manning, Tom Brady debate. One is consistently a great player while the other dominates the playoffs. If you could pick one, many would take Manning (aka Williams). But when you reach the playoffs maybe Brady (Bush or Young) is the better choice. It's hard to compare a defensive end to a running back or a quarterback, and I can't argue over Williams' numbers, but Houston's number one pick might not be as smart as many people think.