Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Westbrook only cares about money.

Recommended Posts

Westbrook in my opinion only cares about the money. When Gus Frerotte was hear they fueded. If you think those two are freinds, than you are sadly mistaken. If you think Gus Frerotte didnt throw him the ball, you are right. They both publicly have badmouthed eachother. The "future" of the Redskins look like they will reunite in Cincy. Why? Both players suck and so do the Bengals. The Bengals players tradtionally are in it for the money and the money only. I hope they both burn in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the Bengals are a pretty similar team to us in terms of talent. Some of you may have just thrown up on your keyboards but hear me out:


QB questions, Stud RB, young great potential WR corps, nice OL tackle tandem with an average G-C-G combo, great linebacking corps.


We have a much better secondary, they have a much better Dline, we have a better coaching staff, better facilities and on and on.

I'd say that we have a slight edge in talent and I believe that they play in a much tougher division. Don't be surprised if they turn some heads this year folks.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

winning in the NFL is about more than what you have on paper. The atmosphere surrounding a team, its ownership and fan support have a lot to do with its success.

that's what teams like the Cardinals and Bengals have failed to realize. they can sign and draft some good players and show improvement to get to 8-8 or 9-7, but then everything falls down as those players' rookie contracts end and they have a chance to leave town.

players don't want to spend their careers playing for teams with limited payrolls and facilities, basically chained to clubs that you will never see in Super Bowl.

Coaches come and go. But none is able to get the team over that final hump. Just ask Vince Tobin after going 9-7 and winning a playoff game in Arizona in 1998.

The Redskins are a better team than Cincinnati or Arizona because their organization is committed to winning. You can't say that about a number of franchises around the NFL. That commitment filters down to the team on the field and translates over time into wins.

In the case of the Bengals, they go in fits and starts. Spending money and then not spending money. Hoping to pick up players by overpaying them because they won't come to your team otherwise. Also paying for players that no one else seems to want. You can't do that and win.

Not when you can't lock your better players up to career contracts like you used to be able to in the 1970's and 1980's.

Gus Frerotte? No one wanted him. True, neither he nor Shane Matthews has proven to be a solid starter in the NFL to this point, but what is awaiting Gus in Cincinnati that indicates he will improve there?

At least with Matthews his familiarity with the Redskins offense under Spurrier gives some pause to think he will be a better player here than he was in Chicago.

You could go down the line and say the same things about Jacquez Green and even undrafted Robert Gillespie.

The Redskins signed Trotter and Wynn. The Bengals don't have the drawing power or up front money to make those kinds of moves.

And that is why their team will always be a second division squad while Mike Brown is in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how attractive DC really is to play for. We certainly seem to attract the marquis players, but we have had a disturbing tendency to lose our own. Maybe this has to due with a number of years of mediocrity or losing seasons. I would like to begin to see more players staying. The owner and staff certainly are comitted to winning. The question is how do we reverse the culture that has affected us the last season. It bothers me to lose the Thrash's, Lang's, and others. It's worse that there is a tendency for several of them to reportedly make such inflated demands to the Redskins only to accept a deal similar to what the Redskins had previously offered elsewhere. Is it the player or the environment. Hopefully, Spurrier will be sucessful quickly and this culture will change.

Does anyone know on average which team loses the highest percentage of their free agents? Probably a silly queston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think the team(s) which loses the highest percentage of of their own free agents are the winning ones. Every super bowl winner faces players who wants hefty pay days because they helped win a super bowl. and with the cap, you can't apy them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so far the Redskins have not lost any franchise players. Cory Raymer, James Thrash, Kenard Lang....these are all solid players that are contributors but none are pro bowlers, none are players that single-handedly change the outcome of games.

Raymer has never made the pro bowl in 7 seasons in the NFL. The NFC has had a dearth of star caliber centers in the late 1990's after Mark Stepnoski bolted to the Texans. Cory was adequate his first several years and solid the past 2 to 3. He was not worth a big contract at a soon to be 30.

Thrash likewise is a contributor but is by no means a go-to #1 type receiver. The Eagles admitted as much by drafting Freddie Mitchell with their #1 choice after acquiring James in free agency. He works hard and has speed but will never have the consistent hands to be a top producer. Another player whose salary might have gotten ahead of his production.

Lang? We needed him to play DT. He wanted to play DE. He also wanted to be reunited with Butch Davis, his coach from his Miami days. Lang was never the presence on the field you would expect from a guy taken #17 in the first round of the draft. He was porous against the run his first several years when starting at defensive end. Moved inside by Marty, he seemed to have his best season overall in 2001. There are questions what kind of a DE Lang is going to be in Cleveland considering he hasn't played the position full-time in 3 years. That was too much uncertainty to give him $3.4 million in guaranteed money.

Of the players the Redskins have 'lost' I would say Alexander has the most talent to come back and bite us. But he plays a position, TE, that needs talented players at other positions to make him effective. You have to have a good quarterback and the right system. Alexander is not a blocking tight end. He is a pass receiver who on occasion can throw a block. That means you need to have a second TE on the roster like Rasby to do the blocking and short yardage conversions. And of course with Alexander the question of durability has haunted him since coming into the NFL in 1998.

So, overall the Redskins as far as I remember haven't lost any pro bowl players. There haven't been any Trotters, Adams or McCardell types heading out of town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...