More Whining from Westbrook

PhillyPhreak54 · October 10, 2005, 02:43:47 PM

QuoteThe Philadelphia Eagles will not be able to re-sign tailback Brian Westbrook to a contract extension. And they definitely will not use the "franchise" tag to retain his rights

This is from Pasquarelli's "Morning After" column on ESPN.com in the "heard in the pressbox" sidebar...

And I don't quite understand this. They won't be able to re-sign him? Who was Len getting this information from? They are going to have a load of cap money available to them and they have a load of it now.

MURP · October 10, 2005, 02:45:08 PM

the only way they wouldnt be able to resign him is if Westbrook refuses. (assuming they dont use the tag).

rjs246 · October 10, 2005, 02:49:58 PM

Quote from: MURP on October 10, 2005, 02:45:08 PM
the only way they wouldnt be able to resign him is if Westbrook refuses. (assuming they dont use the tag).

I thought that was what he was insinuating.

General_Failure · October 10, 2005, 02:54:32 PM

He's already refused. What else is new?

MURP · October 10, 2005, 03:10:25 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on October 10, 2005, 02:49:58 PM
Quote from: MURP on October 10, 2005, 02:45:08 PM
the only way they wouldnt be able to resign him is if Westbrook refuses. (assuming they dont use the tag).

I thought that was what he was insinuating.

maybe, I thought he meant they dont have the $ to pay Westbrook.

PhillyPhreak54 · October 10, 2005, 03:11:36 PM

Quote from: MURP on October 10, 2005, 02:45:08 PM
the only way they wouldnt be able to resign him is if Westbrook refuses. (assuming they dont use the tag).

I thought that at first too...

But if that was the case it should say "the Eagles will not bring Westbrook back"

The whole "not able to" suggests, IMO, that they will not have the funds to do so.

rjs246 · October 10, 2005, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: MURP on October 10, 2005, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on October 10, 2005, 02:49:58 PM
Quote from: MURP on October 10, 2005, 02:45:08 PM
the only way they wouldnt be able to resign him is if Westbrook refuses. (assuming they dont use the tag).

I thought that was what he was insinuating.

maybe, I thought he meant they dont have the $ to pay Westbrook.

Well you were wrong sucker.

MURP · October 10, 2005, 03:16:46 PM

oh well, guess we will have to sign Edgerrin James or Shaun Alexander. ha.

Mad-Lad · October 10, 2005, 03:20:05 PM

Quote from: MURP on October 10, 2005, 03:16:46 PM
oh well, guess we will have to sign Edgerrin James or Shaun Alexander. ha.

Shaun Alexander? are you kidding me? why would the Eagles want a player that runs between the tackles for a couple touchdowns per game?

If the Eagles had traded TO for Santana Moss in the offseason, they OBVIOUSLY would have beat Dallas yesterday.

MURP · October 10, 2005, 03:21:31 PM

because they are trading Andy Reid for Norv Turner.

MadMarchHare · October 10, 2005, 03:24:24 PM

C'mon, Norv Turner is half the man AR is. At least.

Purple_Hayz · October 10, 2005, 03:44:51 PM

Quote from: MadMarchHare on October 10, 2005, 03:24:24 PM
C'mon, Norv Turner is half the man AR is. At least.

No worries! Start feeding him some cheesesteaks and he'll bulk right up!

Larry · October 10, 2005, 04:48:26 PM

They'd franchise Westbrook if no deal's reached. They know they cannot afford to lose both Owens and Westbrook. Having over $20m in cap room next season guarantees Westbrook will not be allowed to test the FA market.

WEST is GOD · October 10, 2005, 04:50:42 PM

A deal will be reached. If somehow one is not reached, then the Eagles will be an absolute disgrace and slap all the fans in their faces.

shorebird · October 10, 2005, 05:33:39 PM

Quote from: Avenger on October 10, 2005, 04:50:42 PM
A deal will be reached. If somehow one is not reached, then the Eagles will be an absolute disgrace and slap all the fans in their faces.

Whatever happens, their moves have been questioned before, and most of the time, Reid, Banner, and Lurie have been proven right.