If there’s any chance of brain damage, he needs to hang it up.

Brian would see only seven starts during 2009, due to additional injuries suffered. In week 7, Westbrook suffered a concussion and would not return until week 10, when he would suffer yet another concussion and be forced to miss the majority of the remainder of the season.
Three strikes is never good.
I love the guys (PA 21 yrs) but……

he is a fantastic third down back, can do a lot of things for you

True, we don’t know. But the logic is neutral regarding the situation since they either know the existing RBs are adequate or that they are not. Having superior knowledge doesn’t automatically entail having superior talent.

I’d like to believe that the coaches already know we have enough talent on-board but the opposite conclusion works as well. In fact, too many people here at MHR have unnecessarily jumped to ‘it means good things’ conclusion even though the ‘it means bad things (so to speak)’ conclusion works just as well. Releasing Arrington could have been a precursor to signing Westbrook. I don’t think the trade makes as much sense as people have given it. We pushed this trade, and we pushed it for reasons that haven’t been made public yet.

But we know enough based on their NFL experience to know that if Brian Westbrook were on the team, there is a good/great chance these guys would not make it. I have not heard anything about these guys at all, save for they would be decent practice squad fodder.

We backed off and so did Westbrook. It wasn’t because we didn’t like Westbrook, we simply lacked a reason for ‘upping’ the offer. Moreover, his desire to play with his brother made Washington his 1st choice, but the Redskins haven’t shown as much interest in him and their numerous RB acquisitions make it a crowded competition.

I think one of the biggest reasons Westbrook backed off from continuing his active pursuit was simply because he wanted a break. He took time off to relax and ponder his next employment location at his leisure. He never backed off truly, he merely stopped making visits and actively pursuing employment. He had his offers and he would wait, and think.

I don’t place too much emphasis on an uncited quote but the fact is that Westbrook and Arrington would have competed for the same slot. Unlike the rationale offered by many here, I see a void at RB instead of a surplus. The fact that we would trade Arrington merely intensifies the paradoxical nature of the situation. Furthermore, I don’t presume that the Broncos failed to see “progress” in Arrington since they couldn’t have seen much in the short time camp has been in session. My guess is that it had less to do with Arrington’s performance than with Westbrook’s. They didn’t need to see anything now, they already saw all they needed long ago.

Westbrook is still out there and waiting. He’s yet to make a move after declaring his desire to play for Washington. Having his brother there obviously tipped the scale in their favor but Westbrook also has friends here, too. In my original analysis, I said that one objection for Westbrook was the type of role we envisioned. His demand of a a significant role in the offense was one that we couldn’t meet. Not having Arrington clears the field for Westbrook but it’s still an open question as to whether that’s enough. It ‘ups’ the offer but it’s hard to say if that’s enough, although the time he’s spent thinking while taking the summer off may have helped. The simple fact that we’re showing (so to speak) an interest now by removing obstacles in his path could help us persuade him. He has offers and the time to decide in now because camp has started. Moving on him now makes sense, and the timing of the Arrington trade doesn’t — unless.

THat statement was made by Bill Williamson, here’s the quote exactly:

The question now is who Denver’s third-down back will be. The trade could potentially mean Denver will revisit signing free agent Brian Westbrook. In June, Denver sources said they were no longer interested in Westbrook because the team wanted to see what Arrington could do. The source said Westbrook could come back into play in training camp if the team wasn’t sold on Arrington.

So, it’s something to think about.

Embarrassingly, I have to say I agree with Jamie Dukes on this one

Why dispense with a player who offers so many needed traits (3rd down RB, KR, etc.) unless there’s a plan for filling the hole we just made.

That assumes that Arrington would have really provided those skills. We’re giving him a lot of credit to say he would be immediately effective in those crucial roles after missing two years of football with a tough injury.

And those who believe the answer lies at ILB should recall that we ignored that (supposed) problem in the draft (Jamar Chaney was still available in the 7th). For a team that supposedly had a need, we didn’t show much interest in fixing the problem.

Sure but the draft was in April. We’ve since been able to see Haggan in his new role in and we’ve seen Reid’s progress with his injury.

Perhaps it is a situation of trying to get something more as we trim back the RBs , combined with somebody in the back of the line being more ready to step in than we think.

You’ll like what you see

And while Westbrook isn’t the same, he has the ability to come in on 5-10 snaps a game, and make a difference with his ability to catch, and because he’s likely to pull a man to his side of the field.

Number two is an option that I had completely forgotten about. Lost in the fray is Kolby Smith. Still, I don’t know. I’d rather have Westbrook at a bargain price to fulfill the role JJ Arrington was supposed to. Good reasons though.

Said he would sign him when he came back, didn’t say he would not trade him.

With rookies on the interior and injuries at Tackle. I do believe there will be 9 OL. So the way I see of the 5 remaining slots you mention at least 1 will go to OL. I see 4 RBs Moreno, Buck, Larson, and 1 more.

This is a good point, but what about Brandon Stokley? He is an example of a guy who does not play special teams who was kept as a key reserve, and he had a big impact in two of our first six victories.

and that is why I think Mays will make the team over Ayodele.

We’re looking better and better on STs, which allows us the luxury of carrying player who are significant contributers on offense/defense but aren’t STs players. It’s important that most of our reserves play STs but there can be important exceptions.

Firstly, situational roles shouldn’t be lumped in with backups. We’re not talking about someone who sits on the bench during the entire game; we’re talking about an important role that is used for certain critical situations. 3rd down/ change of pace RBs are an established role that we’d be unwise to dispense with (nor the best player at it) merely because the best candidate is not a contributer in STs. There would still be plenty of snaps for Westbrook even if he wasn’t on STs. And it’s not that we couldn’t use him, it’s more the case of sparing him the wear and tear, which is the philosophy that many teams employ. I’d agree if we were talking about a larger RB corps but it becomes risky if we go with a small group. However, you’ve hit on the fundamental problem concerning Westbrook since it’s not the starter role he’d be offered but a somewhat smaller role with a correspondingly reduced salary.

my thought exactly. Barrett may not make it past 1st cuts IMO