Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Locker Room Main Forum (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Something new to talk about (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=4699)

aehs77 02-04-2005 01:08 AM

Something new to talk about
 
I realize gardner's tenure with the redskins my not be over but i'm gonna ask anyway. Who was the bigger first round bust for the redskins. Rod gardner or michael westbrook.

madisonwm 02-04-2005 01:18 AM

Heath Shular!!

Redskins8588 02-04-2005 01:18 AM

I would have to go with Gardner. Westbrook usually cought what was thrown to him, more so than Gardner has recently.

SmootSmack 02-04-2005 01:28 AM

Definitely Westbrook. Gardner has been frustrating but he's played in every game and his worst year of his first four was better than the best of Westbrook's first four

Gardner isn't all that bad really

gibbsisgod 02-04-2005 01:33 AM

Westbrook. I Believe He Was Billed As The Next Irvin. Ha

offiss 02-04-2005 01:48 AM

Defiently Westbrook his expectation's were much higher than Gardner, nobody was real sure what to expect from Gardner.

Daseal 02-04-2005 03:12 AM

Westbrook hands down. Gardner wasn't THAT bad. He made mistakes, stupid mistakes, but he made some huge plays. How many 1K yard seasons did Westbrook have?

Redskins8588 02-04-2005 05:46 AM

Westbrook had exactly the same 1k seasons as Gardner had. 1, Westbrook had his in 1999 and Gardner had his in 2002 or sometime around there.

MTK 02-04-2005 08:28 AM

They're both disappointments, I wouldn't call the busts, just disappointing.

FRPLG 02-04-2005 08:47 AM

I'd call Westbrook a bust and Gardner a typical first roudn receiver. Westbrook had basically no career after the Skins. He never lived up to the top ten pick we waste on him and the only notable thing he ever did was go Judo on the Redskins single season rushing leader. Gardner is a decent receiver for sure. He probably has a good 6 or 7 year career ahead of him and could end up in the 500-600 catch range if he finds the right situation. What he isn't is a game changing type receiver that we need. He is a good number two on a balanced offensive team. Most first round receivers end up in this mold. Only a few go on to be great players. First round WRs are the bigest crap shoot but also carry the least risk since basically you know you're at least going to get a decent ball player. It is such a skill position that if they show any acumen in college you'll know whether they are good enough or not. Whether they become great or not depends on system and intangibles. Gardners doesn't seem to have much in the intangibles category.

sportscurmudgeon 02-04-2005 09:13 AM

Matty:

It's OK to be nasty. You can call them "busts" instead of "disappointing" and we won't think you've gone totally over to the dark side. :laughing-

Expectations for Westbrook were higher than for Gardner and neither came close to living up to whatever expecation level was set for them. I think Westbrook was the bigger problem for the Skins because he was involved in some "internal team issues" that were less than wonderful and Gardner seems not to have had that dimension to his game.

I have to conclude that Gardner is not anywhere near a MENSA candidate though. Remember, he's the guy who had his car stolen when he gave the keys to some guy posing as a valet parking attendant. As they say in the Guinness commercials: BRILLIANT!!

MTK 02-04-2005 09:29 AM

Yeah the more I think about it I think it's safe to call Westbrook a bust because of how high of a pick he was, the expectation level was definitely a lot higher for Westbrook compared to Gardner.

Westbrook = bust
Gardner = disappointment

Gmanc711 02-04-2005 09:38 AM

Westbrook. He was a top five pick? right? Westbrook just was a total and complete bust, I wouldnt really call Gardner a bust. He is still an overall decent wide reciver, he's just inconsistant. I know thats huge for a wide out, but I think you see what I'm saying; If I had a team right now and I had to pick the two guys, I'd take Gardner easily.

Beemnseven 02-04-2005 09:52 AM

Hold on there, guys. Westbrook and Gardner are closer than you might think.

We have to remember that Westbrook never had much of a quarterback to work with -- Gardner was slightly more fortunate in that regard.

Michael Westbrook was simply one cog in the wheel of really bad teams that were constantly overhauling under a bad coach. In '99, when things finally started to come together, and there was an equally imposing threat from Albert Connell, Westbrook had a good year. The main problem with him was his injury bug.

MTK 02-04-2005 10:06 AM

True, injuries did plague Westbrook. The guy looked like he was carved from stone but he was constantly nicked up and then he ripped up his knee in '00.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.71793 seconds with 9 queries