no westbrook, please

[Gamebreaker]

Actually, I was pretty angry when the team let Thrash go. The difference between Thrash and Westbrook is Thrash is willing to work his butt off to get better, while Westy just complains when he doesn't live up to expectations.<br /><br />It wouldn't surprise me at all if Thrash continued to get better as a Eagle, I wouldn't suprised in the least. I doubt Westbrook will EVER make the Pro Bowl. He's always getting hurt, and his best season was just average compared to the best in league. Will you stop defending this guy and see the truth?<br /><br />Do you really think Marty would just let Banks ignore Westbrook all season when he could've helped our offense? I doubt it. This isn't a soap opera, this the NFL. These guys are professionals and I doubt Marty would allow Banks to blatantly handicap the team like that. Yes, Westbrook could've been thrown to more. But does anyone even know for sure if Westbrook was where he was suppose to be?<br /><br />I used to play reciever, and I know as a fact that if you don't run your route properly and end up where the QB expects you to be than you won't get the ball. A QB has no time to search around looking for his reciever. If he did, he'd end with his face in the dirt a whole lot more.

[Riggo-toni]

Actually, Marty was an arrogant idiot, as opposed to Jimmy Raye, who was just a plain idiot. It took those 2 Bozos 6 games before they realized Stephen Davis could run the ball. Banks has never been able to find a second receiver, so w/ the moron twins hyping Gardner, it's no surprise Banks couldn't find Westbrook, while Graham could. Westbrook can definitely be something of a crybaby, but to a lesser extent, one could have made the same criticism of Brian Mitchell, and releasing him turned out to be a major blunder

[bulldog]

I think Westbrook is a #2 receiver in the NFL as stated before. With the right player opposite him I think Michael can be very productive. He is just not a player you want to count on week in and week out to be the 'breadwinner' of the offense because he is too inconsistent.<br /><br />While I agree that Marty and Jimmy Raye know less about offense than Spurrier did 20 years ago, I also have to look at the fact that you can't make a judgment based on one game.<br /><br />Yes, Westbrook performed in Denver. But then again Gardner had a monster game against Carolina and then disappeared the next week.<br /><br />What happened in Denver was that a player unfamiliar to the Broncos, Kent Graham, got into the game under adverse weather conditions and basically started calling plays that the Denver had not seen all day long.<br /><br />As a result, the Broncos were caught at the line trying to stop Davis' running and the pass to Gardner and Graham fooled them by looking for Flemister, Bryan Johnson and Westbrook, each of whom had been ignored by Banks the previous few weeks.<br /><br />Now, if Graham had stayed the starter and we saw that kind of productivity each week as the season winded down, then perhaps a more definitive judgment can be made.<br /><br />But just as most here aren't willing to pencil in Rod Gardner as the #1 next year because of his 200 yard day agains the Panthers, we shouldn't be in a rush to conclude that based on 30 minutes of play in ONE game, that Westbrook is worth retaining.<br /><br />It all comes down to fit. Even if Westbrook goes somewhere else and is productive, letting him go will be right decision IF Spurrier finds another player that fits HIS system better.<br /><br />This is all about the Redskins winning football games. If we let Michael go and still go on to be a top team with another player at WR that is fine with me.<br /><br />What Michael does for his new team under those circumstances to me is immaterial. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[bob1416]

What kind of system was Westbrook in, in College, does anyone know??????