Something new to talk about

aehs77 · 02-04-2005, 02:08 AM

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, 02:18 AM

Heath Shular!!

Redskins8588 · 02-04-2005, 02:18 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, 02:28 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, 02:33 AM

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

offiss · 02-04-2005, 02:48 AM

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

Daseal · 02-04-2005, 04:12 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, 06:46 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, 09:28 AM

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

FRPLG · 02-04-2005, 09:47 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, 10:13 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.

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, 10:29 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, 10:38 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, 10:52 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, 11:06 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.

02-04-2005, 02:08 AM	#1
aehs77 Special Teams Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: silver spring Age: 39 Posts: 486	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.

02-04-2005, 02:18 AM	#3
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	I would have to go with Gardner. Westbrook usually cought what was thrown to him, more so than Gardner has recently. __________________ "I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor

02-04-2005, 02:28 AM	#4
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	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 __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

02-04-2005, 06:46 AM	#8
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	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. __________________ "I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor

02-04-2005, 10:13 AM	#11
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	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. 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!! __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

02-04-2005, 02:18 AM	#2
madisonwm Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NoVa Age: 42 Posts: 29	Heath Shular!!

02-04-2005, 02:33 AM	#5
gibbsisgod Playmaker Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: 129 W 81st street Age: 45 Posts: 3,503	Westbrook. I Believe He Was Billed As The Next Irvin. Ha

02-04-2005, 02:48 AM	#6
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 60 Posts: 3,097	Defiently Westbrook his expectation's were much higher than Gardner, nobody was real sure what to expect from Gardner.

02-04-2005, 04:12 AM	#7
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	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?

02-04-2005, 09:28 AM	#9
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	They're both disappointments, I wouldn't call the busts, just disappointing.

02-04-2005, 09:47 AM	#10
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	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.

02-04-2005, 10:29 AM	#12
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	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

02-04-2005, 10:38 AM	#13
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Age: 39 Posts: 7,506	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. __________________ #21

02-04-2005, 10:52 AM	#14
Beemnseven Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 50 Posts: 5,311	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.

02-04-2005, 11:06 AM	#15
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	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.

Something new to talk about

Locker Room Main Forum