Westbrook's last chance?

[bulldog]

the fact remains if he produces and stays healthy he is a good value at his cap number for 2001. He will have some leverage as a free agent but also has some big negatives that will make teams shy away from offering him outrageous money like Keyshawn got.

So, the ball will be in the Skins court. He will be signable if the team wants to go in that direction.

The question is what do we get out of who else that we have now?

And does it come down to keeping Westbrook or Alexander next year if both produce?

[All In]

He's the best blocking WR we've had here in a long time. He finishes his blocks. Remember the Giants game week 3 in '99. Davis bounces out and Mike runs down the field to throw a block to get his guy in the end zone. He has the mentality to finish the play till the wistle blows. He has matured. Right now he's our best all-around WR. I think he will have a good year, and he will be made a fair offer. I think it depends on his agent, he might sign for that. I don't see him as Albert Connell. He likes being here and It seems like he wants to win above all else. Hopefully this is the best fit for him and he sees that too.

[Brave]

Perhaps the reason he wasn't featured in the offense WAS the fact that he was immature and injured. There was no basis to center your offense around a guy who wasn't on the field any more than Westbrook, and who was often a bonehead when he WAS on the field. I could have choked him when he ripped that helmet off against the Giants, potentially costing the team the playoffs!

I'm not saying definately can him, by the way. I just don't think we should give him big money. I think another team ( Houston, Cleveland, Philly?) may take a chance on him next season if he shows he has recovered from his injury this year.

[TennesseeCarl]

It's really a dilemma unless he'll sign for a modest amount. Even if Westbrook performs well this year, do you want to build your passing attack around the likelihood of his remaining healthy and productive?

I'm hoping that Gardner shows he can be a #1 WR so we have a great deal of leverage with MW in coming contract talks.

[redman]

Originally posted by redman:

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.

In follow up, Westbrook seems to have a propensity to have big games. He has 11 career 100+ yard receiving games out of 64 games played. In those games, he has scored 12 of his 20 career TD's. That means the remaining 8 career TD's have been spread across the rest of his other 53 career games played. Interesting . . .

This isn't necessarily a negative statement towards Westbrook, as Norv's offense tended to go hot and cold at times. Besides, it's also nice to have a potentially game-breaking WR on your roster.

------------------

"Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[Henry]

I am not a big Westbrook fan. I figure once his contract is up next year Marty will happily let him go and find his own guy to bring in.

That said, I think a lot of the reason Westbrook struggled early on was the quarterbacking. Gus Frerotte loved Henry Ellard. When Ellard was here Gus played serviceably, and even went to a pro-bowl. Westbrook never seemed to get the ball. However, whenever Gus came out of the game Westbrook had a great night. Remember the 9 catches against the Giants when Hostetler came in? Once Ellard was gone, Gus' favorite target became Brian Mitchell (but that's a whole other story.)

Anyway, one of the reasons Brad Johnson did so well early on here was that he started giving Westbrook the d@mn ball. Suprise suprise, the offense moved that ball! Brad's a hero and all that. The beginning of last season Westbrook was our top receiving threat. In fact he was the only guy that really made any big catches those first two games before he got hurt. Brad's inability to adjust one Westbrook went out proved his downfall. Who knows, maybe he'll do just fine with Keyshawn to throw to (again, another discussion)

Anyway, if he stays health I'd expect at least 70 catches and 7 TDs from him. That's a mighty big IF though. I figure he'll be gone no matter what, but that's just my opinion.

------------------

Hail to the Redskins!

[Brave]

Excellent point redman (and Henry).

Makes him sound like Connell ... a couple of fantastic games a year offset by play that could be described as mediocre at best. Those fantastic games tease you into thinking he (Connell) could do that regularly, but it never happened. Westbrook should be a FAR better WR than Connell, but I suspect the numbers wouldn't show that.

Of course it should be noted that Connell excelled when Westbrook was on the field opposite him, so Westbrook didn't necessrily need to get all the catches to be valuable. Simply being on the field opens things up a bit.

[ by Brave on July 02, 2001.]

[bulldog]

Look I have criticized Westbrook a lot too and he at this point in his career is going to be a very late bloomer if he does turn the corner for a consistent period of time.

BUT, a more assertive and disciplined coaching staff would have forced Westbrook to grow up a lot earlier. Norv indulged him and protected him from the media even after his attack on Davis and his being late to team meetings his first few years.

That set a pattern. And it was allowed to continue up until the present time.

Either way, I think Joe Gibbs or Marty would have moved Connell off the team because he showed he couldn't handle the pressure of being a starting WR in the NFL when the lights were on him.

Westbrook HAS performed well under the lights and other than not being able to beat an in your prime Deion Sanders and Aeneas Williams usually destroyed man coverage when it was presented.

Under Gibbs, my guess is you would have seen Mike's current level of maturity in year 2 or 3 rather than year 7.