Would you rather have a 27 year old 6'0" tall 203 lb RB who runs a 4.37 40 and catches the ball extremely well out of the backfield, or....

A 27 year old 6'0" tall 203 lb WR who runs a 4.37 40 and catches the ball extremely well split out wherever we put him?

My point being, we have a logjam at RB already.

Reggie Bush, Lamar Miller, Daniel Thomas, Steve Slaton, Jerome Messam, and Charles Clay. Reggie Bush has had some durability concerns even after playing almost the whole season last year. He proved last year to a certain degree that he could run inside the tackles, but do we really want him to do that to his body? As a 27 year old RB, how many more years does he have? 3 or 4? If we moved him to WR, would he be able to help us for longer? We couldn't possibly keep all those guys if we keep Reggie Bush solely as a RB... but if we moved him to WR, we could keep all 6 of those guys, by keeping 3 HBs, moving Messam to FB, and counting Clay as a TE.

I saw this somewhere, but the Packers' WRs ranged from Randall Cobb(5'10"), Greg Jennings(5'11"), Donald Driver(6'0"), to Jordy Nelson(6'3"). Reggie Bush fits right in at 6'0". Reggie Bush can catch. He is ridiculous with the ball in his hands in space, we all know this. Why wouldn't we just put him out in space all the time and extend his career? Is it a huge projection to think that we could teach him to run routes like a WR? If we put him out as a WR, think of the mayhem we could create.