Larry Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 The thread about the people who're becoming UFAs this year made me think this might be the time to get some opinions: Should we be trying to extend Westbrook's contract now? Seems to me, every argument that says "we don't need him, he's not that good" also says "we can get him cheap". I suppose it depends on whether you think he's going to have a contract year this year. If he's not our #1 reciever <FONT COLOR="Yellow">at the end of this year</FONT c>, then he'll be a guy who'se had one good year in 7, and we'll be able to either cut him or keep him for cheap. But if you think he'll have a great year, then we might be better off extending him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought we reworked his contract to decrease the cap hit, add more insentives, and extend it one extra year... Maybe Buddha or another of the cap guru's can confirm or correct me on this? Either way, making a big commitment to MW now may not be a good idea... lets see if he can make it though 8-10 games first. [ by Blade on August 05, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 I don't recall that Blade. You may be thinking of Davis for whom that was definitely done. My thoughts on Westy are that he needs to show us that he is 100% healthy, and that his physical abilities are where they were before his knee was reconstructed. That may happen by the end of camp; it may happen by the end of September; it may never happen. If and when it does happen, I say sign him to an extension of 3-4 years and keep him here. We need him because he has tools that Gardner doesn't have, which is speed and athleticism (e.g. jumping ability). ------------------ "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 Westbrook (and his agent) have to know there's NO WAY Washington, or any other team, would take such a chance at this time. If he has a big year, shows no sign of his past injuries and continues to mature there could be a place for him. I've gone on record more than once about how tired I am of waiting for him to arrive, but I'm not completely negative toward him. I am pulling for the guy and I would love to see him step up and stay healthy. [ by Brave on August 05, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 NFLPA.org shows this as Westbrook's last season, so apparently he dropped down to the minimum in exchange for the chance to earn more than his previous base of $1.7 million through incentives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 I'd like to think that Westbroke will finally grow up with Marty being the coach, that he'll be healthy this season since I think we only have two games on old school fake turf. Dallas and N.O. Philly has gone to that different stuff the seahawks had last year. I am hoping that by week 8 Mike is playing well, he gets the contract extension for another 3 years. A boy can dream of Westbrook and Gardner being huge dominating WR's. ------------------ Bufford T Justice- Inventor of the Todd Husak "Future Starter" logo.... with the help of Blade <IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ranks/husak2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash1-sm.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 Worst case scenario: Westbrook delivers bigtime this year. I mean, BIG TIME. We don't extend his contract during the season, and in the offseason we lose him to the damn Eagles, who have more cap room. He becomes McNabb's go to guy, and play a large part in the increased potency of their offense, becoming a thorn in our side for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markrc99 Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 i know,i know...i'll say it for y'all.."mark,why even bother to express an opinion that's cap related? man,forget the freakin' hammer lane,you've drifted down off of the travel lane & onto the rumble strip!! worse bud,you're obviously unaware of it!!".....ok,although that may be true,can someone help me out with the relevance,cause i'm not gettin' it!? ok,i'm one of the people who'd be against investing too much into m.westbrook. i don't make the rules,i just know that a team can't have 2 #1's..i mean,you should be able to have a joe montana & a steve young on the bench but usually,it doesn't work out. some may say,the cap won't allow it,but to me,it's more about egos than anything else. westbrook's made the argument that his utilization(or lack there of) as being one of the main problems he's had. maybe so,but if westbrook gets 80,90 or even 100 recpts,is rod gardner suppose to except the role of a complement WR,when he's said to possess the abilities of a #1WR himself? a role,much like m.irvin,that westbrook rejected himself. why is it excuseable for westbrook to not respond to being part of a balanced attack and now expect that from rod gardner? don't get me wrong,these players should do whatever the coaches need from them. furthermore,if rod gardner doesn't possess the ability to be anything more than a complement rec'r,then we messed up the draft big-time! if we feature them both,then SD might wet the bed. to me,i don't care if westbrook rakes in 100 balls this season,we never allocate money for future productivity with him again. EVER! and i don't see him signing that type of contract w/o 1st testing his market value. you get a guy who,in his mind should be the focus of the offense & have him on the back side of the play too many times in a row and the 1st thing that goes is his intensity..madden tells us every week:1 good QB + another good QB = no QBS...?..that's messed up!! dunno me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 hmmm.... what is a #1 receiver anyway? Is it the guy who catches the 8 yard outs and keeps the chains moving? Is it the guy who's willing to curl into the linebacker zone and mix it up with those guys in order to get LB on WR coverage and the chance of a good play? Or is it the speed guy who gives the free safety fits, drags half the D backs deep with him, but maybe only makes 4 catches per game? Consider The Posse. Who was #1? Clark, Monk, or Sanders? Or is it just the wrong question to ask? It seems to me that #1, #2 etc., doesn't really work, and what you need is complementary receivers. And in that scenario the concept of who's #1 is kinda meaningless. If you have two guys that can burn it deep, but can't cut and handle traffic, then you don't have a complete receiving squad. Likewise, if all you have is big guys, but no real speed, then again you don't have a good unit. To me, the best WR combo I ever saw was The Posse. Sanders had deep speed, Clark had moves, was fearless, and was a warrior, Monk was psoession machine, and like Elvin Hayes, he had a move that was almost unstoppable. If you have guys that complement each other, and there's no reason why Westbrook and Gardner (along with Lockett and McCants) shouldn't, then I think they would be happy playing together. In 1999, even Brad was able to get both Connell and Westbrook 60 receptions apiece. There's no reason that George couldn't find MW and RG for the same, and still give Alexander and Lockett their touches. If Theisman could get the ball to the Smurfs, and still give the TE's their touches, and Rypien could keep the Posse happy, then I think that Raye and George should be able to spread the ball around to our receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins57 Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 Westbrook did restructure but he pretty much turned his base salary into bonus and we did not add a year, which I wish we would have. I would love to see Mike back at the right price. I think Mike "grew" up 2 years ago he has proven to me his head is in it now and his only real problem is if he can stay healthy Hail Skins [ by Skins57 on August 05, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 A simple answer (to me anyway). If Westbrook looks to be giving the skins his second "for real" season, about midway through you start negotiations. Or maybe near the end. You don't HAVE to wait till he's a free agent to make him some offers since he's on the team. Of course if he's having a monster season, his dirt bag, er I mean his agent will refuse to look at a contract offer. Something else to consider. Lockett is on contract for a couple of season. Then there's Gardner, whose play will seriously affect Westbrook's status. As will the development of McCants. And if Latif Grim or Skaggs impresses the coaches enough to make the team or go on the practice squad, it could affect the skins decision on what is an acceptable (or unacceptable) demand from westbrook and his agent. Let's face it, any demands at or even close to a Moss contract is ludicrous even with a good season. But you know agents with WR's are going to try it. God help the teams mixed in with next meshawn negotiations.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RF4L Posted August 5, 2001 Share Posted August 5, 2001 Did everyone see the picture of Michael that Skins57 posted? Nuff said. The SOB looks like the hulk's big brother. Please Michael, let this be your year. If he lives up to his "potential", don't worry, the Skins will lock him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.