Brave Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 With our WR depth POTENTIALLY improving, would anyone disagree that Westbrook needs his best year this year to even be considered for re-signing next year? In fact, even if he matched his '99 numbers I could envision him holding a ticket out of town. He has more lives than Norv and LeCharls McDaniels had combined and I have grown weary of him. I will pull for him to play well, of course, but after the season I imagine he will go the same route as Tre and Skip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 If he matches 99's numbers and doesn't demand Me shawn money he probably will stay. However with the new Houston franchise with alot of money to throw at free agents it could get interesting ------------------ Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 He is and always has been an enigma. He's among the most physically gifted receivers in the NFL. He's big and tall, has very good upper body strength for a WR, has great jumping ability, has good hands, and has good speed. However, it has taken him awhile to learn to run routes properly, and his injury problems, especially affecting his knees, have definitely hampered his development and the team's confidence in him. Money aside, I think the team will want him back if he matches his '99 numbers. His skills are still there and since '99 from all accounts his head has been there too. The knee injury last year I think derailed him from showing that he's come into his own as a good NFL WR. He's still the clear #1 WR on the team, and rookie WR's like Gardner and McCants usually take at least 2-3 years before they are truly reliable assets for the team. The issue I think if he has a successful year (whatever that means) will more relate to his contract demands than the team's desire to keep him. Westbrook knows that his NFL life-expectancy is short, no matter how successful he is from here on out. He's gonna want "one more big contract" I'd guess. That will be the problem because I don't think the Redskins will want to pay that to a 29 year old WR who has had trouble staying healthy. ------------------ "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...
redman Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 Also, if you notice, his career stats were generally improving all around up until his season ended a year ago: Receiving | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Year TM | G | Rec Yards Y/R TD | +----------+------------------+ | 1995 was | 11 | 34 522 15.4 1 | | 1996 was | 11 | 34 505 14.9 1 | | 1997 was | 13 | 34 559 16.4 3 | | 1998 was | 11 | 44 736 16.7 6 | | 1999 was | 16 | 65 1191 18.3 9 | | 2000 was | 2 | 9 103 11.4 0 | +----------+------------------+ | TOTAL | 64 | 220 3616 16.4 20 | +----------+----------------+ ------------------ "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor [ by redman on June 29, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted June 29, 2001 Author Share Posted June 29, 2001 I don't know, guys. I look at him the same way I looked at Tre. It's hard to let someone with that talent and potential go, but when you've only had ONE good year out of six ... he's gotta go. His stats may have been slowly improving, but at that rate, by the time he's reached where he should have been all along he's going to be old enough for his physical skills to begin fading. What do you think a guy like Henry Ellard would have done in Westbrook's body? How about Gary Clark? Those guys would have been consistantly at the top if they had what God gave Westbrook. [ by Brave on June 29, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markrc99 Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 i agree that if he comes back,no matter the #s,it's basement bucket bonanza + incentives. but if gardner is ready plus another WR emerges,that's it-it's over. i don't believe & think it would be a mistake for the #1 slot to be westbrook's to lose. he's been damaged goods the whole time! and it hasn't taken a whole lot for this guy to go down. i like the idea of starting gardner then resorting to westbrook if need be. obviously we want them both to start and play all 16. if they can find a way to keep westbrook healthy and productive,hey who knows! walsingham looms and is weary of the former king's men! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted June 30, 2001 Share Posted June 30, 2001 The fact is, those are puny stats for a Number One WR in the NFL. We've been conditioned over the past 7 years or so to accept WRs who have 30-reception seasons. I do think Westbrook has the body and skills to become a quality WR, but he's the longest project in the NFL at this point. I don't see us throwing more money down the drain with him. He'd better have a spectacular season. And, because it's his contract year, I expect him to have it...for the first 5 games or so. Then there'll be the inevitable injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 30, 2001 Share Posted June 30, 2001 Forget about it. Westpunkbroke will get injured again this year. Let his sorry *** leave after the season. We spent enough time with him. We will draft or sign in free agency his replacement in 2002. Well actually we drafted his replacement this year. So we need another reciever next year to go along side Garder. Just like Bailey and Smoot, Jansen and Samuels, there will be Gardner and ?????; and that won't be Westbroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SHABBA Posted June 30, 2001 Share Posted June 30, 2001 I agree with giving him one more go at it. If he does not have a stellar sason this year, then we should not break the bank to resign him. 6 or 7 years is long enough for anyone. I hate that I am thinking this way because Mike is one of my favorites but... ------------------ HOW BOUT DEM SKINS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 30, 2001 Share Posted June 30, 2001 Westbrook has his faults, but you can't blame him completely. During those 6/7 years here, has he ever had a decent QB, or a consistent QB throwing to him ? Keep in mind that we havn't gone 2 full years in a row with the SAME quarterback throwing to him, during that 7 year span. Not only is that a reflection on the quality of QB's he's had throwing to him, but anytime you have a revolving door at your QB position, it's a bit tough for a WR to get into a rhythm. [ by Mick on June 30, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted June 30, 2001 Share Posted June 30, 2001 Good point Mick. When I see that we started the "same" QB in back to back years, his production went up and the plays made were bigger. I feel he knows that this year has to be a healthy one, while also getting back to his expected level of play. Should he fail to make the tough catch consistantly or struggle against average or worse competition, then it's over. Since Jeff George rifles passes better and hopefully his timing on the short to mid-range routes, Westbrook SHOULD make the catches with no problem. One can't help being injured sometimes, but when it is a consistant problem, it will lead to being released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted June 30, 2001 Author Share Posted June 30, 2001 I won't argue that point, Mick, but it doesn't account for everything. Let's look at some other WRs who have had multiple QBs during their careers who have performed MUCH better then Westbrook. - Wayne Chrebet: How many QBs has he had throwing to him? - Joey Galloway: Kreig(?), Moon ,Kitna ... good for 1000 yds until last year (Thank God). - Isaac Bruce: Tony Banks made this guy a star! - Eric Moulds - Chris Carter: Count 'em up for him. (OK-better quality) - Armani Toomer: Dave Brown, Kent Graham, Kerry Collins!! - Herman Moore - Tim Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 1, 2001 Share Posted July 1, 2001 I agree with Tenn.Carl, we have gotten used to mediocrity during the Norval fiasco. Last year there was only one wide receiver that showed what a big time NFL receiver is like. It was Champ. When he played receiver it was a completely different level than anybody we have put on the field in the past 7 years. He had speed and sharpness and was a true threat. He made me realize what we have been missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted July 1, 2001 Share Posted July 1, 2001 I agree Brave. Take any 7 year span of Art Monk's career and figure out how many QBs were throwing to him. It's hard to get a handle a a WR's career sometimes, but these days, with player and coach movement, most receivers who've been the the league as long as MW have seen different coaches, QBs, gameplans, etc. I broke Westbrook's stats down to his per game numbers, then averaged them out for a full 16 game season. And I added the TD to reception ratio. Westbrook, over his career, has 3.44 receptions per game, for 56 yds. So his career average over 16 games is 55 receptions, 904 yds, and he scores a TD once ever 11 receptions. I then did the same for some other guys who have been in the league around the same amount of time, just to see where he came out in comparison: Westbook, 7 yrs: 3.44/56 per game, 55/896 per season, 1 TD every 11 receptions Wayne Chebret, 6 yrs: 4.3/55......68/880......1/13.7 Johnny Morton, 7 yrs: 3.6/48......57/777......1/12.6 OJ McDuffie, 8 yrs: 3.5/43......57/699......1/14.3 (had Marino for a lot of those yrs) Keenan McCardell, 9 yrs: 4.2/57......56/892......1/15.2 Raghib Ismail, 7 yrs: 2.7/39......44/637......1/11.9 Joey Galloway, 6 yrs 3.9/62......63/1004......1/7.5 I thought I'd throw in a hot receiver, and a future Hall Of Famer, just for grins: Randy Moss, 3yrs: 4.7/87......75/1387......1/5.2 Irving Fryar, 17 yrs: 3.3/50......53/802......1/10.1 [ by Terry on July 01, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitz Posted July 1, 2001 Share Posted July 1, 2001 When I look at Westbrook and his failure to realize his potential here, I attribute it to three things. First, he was very immature when he arrived here. Some guys just take longer to grow up than others, especially when they're gifted with exceptional athletic ability and they've been pampered and fawned over since junior high. He's showed signs of growing out of that in '99 and throughout his recent rehab, in which he has been extremely diligent, by all reports. Second, he has of course had extremely bad luck with injuries, even moreso than Tre. A lot of Tre's injuries were attributable to his inability to control his weight, Westbrook's seem to be purely bad breaks. Still, you can only get so many chances, and if he has another serious injury, he'll meet the same fate as Tre. Third, I think he's another glaring example of Norval's failure to develop athletes in his tenure here. Norv was unable to discern which guys were mature enough to leave to themselves (i.e., Davis, Bailey and Jansen) and which ones needed a swift kick in the @ss. The roster has been full of guys like Westbrook and Hicks who had talent in spades, but who needed a firmer hand to coax it out of them. Ol' nice-guy Norv just wasn't up to it. Thank God he's been shown the door before he had the chance to ruin Arrington, as he seems to be the same type of personality that wasted away under Norv's lack of guidance. This is one area where I think Marty will make the biggest difference, and I'm hopeful that it's not too late for him to have a positive effect on Westbrook. Overall, though, I agree that Westbrook has just one more chance here. If he doesn't produce in 2001, for whatever reason, Marty will surely cut him loose to free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 1, 2001 Share Posted July 1, 2001 I always hate suffering through a player's development, have my team rid itself of that player, and watch them flourish thereafter. Yes, it's true that Westbrook has taken a long time to show why he was drafted so high. It's also true that injuries, poor QB play and poor coaching contributed to all of that. I have seen nothing contradicting the idea that '99 is the best read on the present status Westbrook's maturity and development as a player. I think he's a very explosive receiver. Short of his play proving me wrong this year, the only obstacle I see to him returning would be a high salary demand during this contract year. I also agree that if he misses a significant amount of playing time due to injury, then he'll likely end up the odd man out at contract time as far as the Redskins go. ------------------ "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...
Terry Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Hey Redman, Based on any statistical standard I can apply, when Westbrook is on the field, he produces at the same rate as the better receivers, but certainly not at the level of a Randy Moss. But when you look at 1999, he put up numbers that were almost Randy Moss like, with a TD every 7.2 touches. If Brad hadn't gone cold after the break, you'd have to wonder what he was capable of acheiving that year. His injuries have kept him off the field for so long that he has no real accumulative stats to speak of. And being injured last year, we don't know whether 1999 will be a statistical blip, or a portent of a very good receiver about to kick it in gear for the second half of his career. My guess is that George is going to have a very good season and surprise a lot of folks. I think he and MW are gonna hook up a ton this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown on how MW fares in "big games," and/or against the more physical defenses. Guess we'd have to agree on a standard for what constitutes either of those first, though, to make a meaningful assessment. My impression over the years is that Mike tends to have the occasional big game against teams like the Cardinals, but doesn't often figure that much against the big boys. Am I off base with that? (BTW, I think Fitzman nailed it.) [ by Om on July 02, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 I've been sucked in by Westbrook's undeniable potential for too many seasons...I refuse to get on his bandwagon. If he has a terrific season, that's wonderful. BUT...extrapolating stats to translate to a 16 game season for MW is a bit unreal. As you note, Terry, when he's on the field, he can produce. The problem, of course, is that he doesn't stay on the field. He's only had one 16 game season. This is not a rookie or an underutilized guy - he's been the #1 WR from the start and he's had plenty of time to prove himself. The reality is that his 6-year career averages are: Games 10.66 per season Receptions 36.6 per season Yards 602.66 per season. TDs per season 3.33. I'm tired of waiting for Westbrook. I want a #1 guy who puts up better numbers than Amani Toomer. If MW isn't showing it early on, I'd just as soon trade him and go with Lockett or McCants. Look at the number of games he misses. If we were ready to cut Carrier because he was going to miss 4 games or Tre because he was only a part-timer, it's fair to look at Westbrook as a 10-game per season contributor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 There is something else to factor in here when thinking about Westbrook. Everything said here is undeniably true. He is physically gifted. He's been too injured. He's not been consistent even when totally healthy. He's produced, though, when healthy at a fine clip. But the thing to add is that Westbrook has never been utilized as a true No. 1 receiver. A lot of us who go to the games may have watched Westbrook running routes. I've seen games where Westbrook is so open on so many plays, but the ball never goes his way. I have very rarely seen a game where Westbrook gets the ball thrown his way 15 times, like Harrison, or Smith, or Rice (back a few). Westbrook never was a true focus of the passing game, even when healthy. You NEVER saw Norv call plays for him like he'd call plays for Irvin. I really never knew why. To me, if you have a receiver like Westbrook, the worst thing you can do is go away from him for long stretches in a game. He isn't as mentally tough as you'd like. He NEEDS the ball and to be involved to be successful. And there were times the ball never hinted at his direction, causing his entire game to falter. To me, you throw the ball at Westbrook 10 times a game and see how things work out at the end. I still like Mike. He shows up on time. Keeps himself in shape. He gets faster and stronger every year. Other than the injuries, he'd seem to be a pretty solid guy to like for the rest of the fans. I think George has a legitimate guy to throw to this year and Westbrook will, once again, look good while he's on the field. I don't suspect he wants to go elsewhere either, so, we'll probably keep him for a reasonable price. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 During the season what could happen to Westbrook? He could have a stellar season. He could have a solid but not spectacular season. He could have his usual and miss a few games with injury and catch 40-50 balls. Or he could find he's not back at all from his ACL and have a really bad season. I don't think we could afford him if he has a steller season. Depending on the performances of Gardner, Lockett and McCants, we may or may not need him if he's solid. I don't think he'd accept being the two or three wide if he hits that third. If he hasn't completely healed, it may be time to cut bait. ------------------ There are two kinds of opinions, mine and the wrong one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 After the first year or 2 Westbrook's problem has been almost entirely injuries. He took longer to mature than I'd have liked, but a lot of that is Norv's fault and in any case maturity-wise he's way above a guy like Meshawn. Westbrook healthy is a terrific #1 who does a great job with other responsibilities like downfield blocking. To answer the question about how a guy like Ellard would have done with Westbrook's body: not well, its hard to build up the stats when you can't play. I think this is his last chance and I really don't think he can stay healthy. I find myself in the odd position of almost hoping the guy gets injured again so we're not sucked into another big contract for a guy who only plays half-seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Art, there's something in what you say about Norv not utilizing Westbrook (on those occasions when he was on the field). I don't recall us consistently going to him either. Does that mean that the play wasn't called for MW or does it mean that when the QB went through his reads he deemed MW covered? And JimbodaMan really hit on an ugly truth. It's almost hard to root for the guy. If Westbrook has a '99-type year, he'll want Keyshawn money. Anyone want to bet how well Michael Westbrook will perform with a big contract in pocket? Anyone think he'll step up AFTER he gets the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Jimbo- I don't think you'll need to worry about the team forking over huge $$$ to a WR with Westbrook's history. Marty's history doesn't exactly show a lot of love affairs with WR's (RB's are a different matter). Recall that before 2 and one-half months ago, Marty had never drafted a WR in the first round. Westbrook may well be gone next year no matter what he does for us this year. ------------------ "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...
redman Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 If you want to break down his weekly stats, check out this website: http://www.football-reference.com/players/WestMi00.htm I don't have time to do it but tell me what you think about his "big game" performance. ------------------ "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...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.