Report: Packers May Sign Brian Westbrook

by Brandon on Apr 13, 2010 1:00 AM CDT in Green Bay Packers Free Agency

It's been reported that the Green Bay Packers are "exploring the possibility" of signing former Eagles RB Brian Westbrook. From JSOnline.com:

Though it's unclear whether the Packers are serious enough to sign the 30-year-old veteran, two sources said Monday that the club definitely has shown interest. Westbrook became a free agent when the Eagles released him Feb. 23.

One thing is clear, even excluding injuries, he's not the player he was three years ago.

		Rushing						Receiving
	G	Rush	Yds	Y/G	Avg	Lng	TD	Rec	Yds	Y/G	Avg	Lng	TD
2009 - Brian Westbrook	8	61	274	34.3	4.5	25	1	25	181	22.6	7.2	34	1

Back in 2007, he had 90 receptions in 15 games, and in 2008, 54 in 14 games. That alone is a major dropoff. His 2009 season is similar to 2008 when you consider he missed more games due to injury. He suffered multiple concussions last season, but said it wouldn't be a problem if he's given himself a chance to heal. His biggest problem in Philly was that he wasn't worth $7 million in 2010. Despite a decent 2009 season, many sportswriters do not expect he'll sign with a team next season, in large part due to his long history with injuries and his age (over 30).

While he's no danger to RB Ryan Grant, he would be an upgrade over RB Ahman Green. As much as I support GM Ted Thompson's preference for younger players, it wouldn't hurt to have another positive veteran presence in the locker room. That's assuming he'd be a good presence and not bitter to have been overlooked by so many teams that were looking for a free agent running back.

I liked how the signing of Green turned out last season. The veteran seemed to give the offense a boost with his pursuit for the Packers all-time rushing record. Neither he or Westbrook should be considered a starter, even in the event of an injury. The discussions with Westbrook's agent might come to nothing if the Packers instead have the opportunity to draft a running back they like. My preference would be to sign a veteran running back, either Green or Westbrook, as an injury alternative who's more likely to know how to pass block and protect QB Aaron Rodgers than a rookie. If they want a young running back with some upside, they can always find one to stash on the practice squad.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

How is Westbrook as a Pass Blocker?

I like the idea of adding Westbrook, especially if he’s good at picking up the blitz.

Hopefully he could teach the Packers the art of the screen. The Eagles do it so well and it could really help our line if the defense had to worry about the repercussions of firing off the line on every play.

by I voted for Kodos on Apr 13, 2010 1:38 AM CDT reply actions

If nothing else

Brandon Jackson is a decent pass-blocker right? I recall reading in the 55 snaps last season where he was kept in to block, he allowed 1 hurry, 0 hits, 0 sacks.

by Archibaldcrane on Apr 13, 2010 2:02 AM CDT reply actions

So adding Westbrook would mean we are going to run more screens?

They want power. We want respect...

by SenorChuckles on Apr 13, 2010 2:34 AM CDT reply actions

With his injury issues

How much of an upgrade over Green would he be, is the question which I have, he may require a high pay due to his past though if neither the injuries and pay are issues he could be a solid add which also may tick off the Vikings.

by tkiller314 on Apr 13, 2010 6:53 AM CDT reply actions

I haven’t been the biggest supporter of us getting Westbrook, but I don’t think I’d be mad if we got him. I just don’t want to see the guy get a concussion again and especially not on my team! I think he needs to call it a career and go enjoy his time with his family! Its his call though.

Strictly from a team perspective, he might add a really good pass catching/third down element and give us a good guy to come in off the bench to provide a spark in tough situations. He’s a good guy and should be a good locker room guy too. Maybe with limited time and a lower contract number I would be on board with this idea.

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 8:47 AM CDT reply actions

He's an upgrade over Green how?

Is it age, Westbrook is younger. Is it by their production in the past? I just don’t get how this is an upgrade over Green. I would say at this point in their careers they are basically the same guy, accept that Green has significant ties to GB and isn’t one head injury away from death (or at least more so than any other NFL player).

I’m with Trevor, I wouldn’t be mad if this happens, but I would rather see the Pack draft guy with upside and could help with returns. Maybe start forming a plan past Grant.

Although if Westbrook is signed for the veteran min then there is no real risk either.

by PackApologist on Apr 13, 2010 9:08 AM CDT reply actions

Honestly Green really doesn’t do much for me either. I’d rather have Westbrook, I think he has more game breaking ability than Green. I liked Green but the guy has two more years of wear on him. Westbrook has always been a more explosive receiver out of the backfield. I wouldn’t want him between the tackles running but as a big play third down guy, I’d rather have Westbrook over Green. I think. I guess it comes down to price too. If Westbrook is really expensive still, I might change my mind. I don’t want to see us putting out big bucks for an over the hill RB (either one) and especially not for one that is one concussion from being unable to function properly.

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions

I think this is a great idea. Westbrook is not LT, stumbling around the field. He still had a 4.5 yd average last year. Injuries were the only problem.

I agree with what Trevor said about being uneasy with a concussion guy on our team, but we can limit his touches and let him ease back into things, like Ahman last year. PackApologist asked how Westbrook is an upgrade over Green… the difference is that Westbrook is still genuinely explosive when he’s on the field. Also, he won’t look like Night of the Living Dead if we ask him to return kicks. Westbrook’s actually good at that.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Green. I’d be fine if they keep Green on the roster this season. But, Westbrook would be an upgrade. He’s also from a very similar system in Philly, so he’d be comfortable right away.

And, let’s face it, Green’s not going anywhere. He’s going to be a teacher this year, right? Perfect. Let him learn the teaching ropes for first semester, and we’ll give him a call if Westbrook gets concussed. …which, I agree, if Westbrook gets a concussion again, he’s done. Don’t think about it, don’t give it a couple weeks to see how he feels, don’t do anything except put him on IR. If he says “but I want to see what the doctor says,” you say “that’s fine Brian, but you can talk to the doctor on IR, cause you’re done.”

by Curly Lambeau on Apr 13, 2010 10:57 AM CDT reply actions

I’m with you, Westbrook is a pretty clear upgrade over Green, if he can play. I realize it’s a big if but Westbrook gives us something we haven’t had and desperately need. A 3rd down Rb who is respectable in protection, a dangerous threat out of the backfield, and a quick Rb who could take a draw on 3rd and 4 out of the shotgun and turn it into 10 yards. Jackson can’t do any of those things aside from blocking, and the same goes for Grant (except he can’t block either).

I wouldn’t mind seeing us bring Westbrook in at all.

by packallday555 on Apr 13, 2010 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions

Westbrook wouldn't cover kicks

When you want to limit a guy’s touches using him in the offense and having him cover kicks wouldn’t accomplish that. I don’t know how much more explosive he would be than Green. Green actually has less miles on him actually since he wasn’t used much in Texas.

by PackApologist on Apr 13, 2010 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions

I didn’t say “cover” kicks, I said “return” kicks. Let Jarrett Bush and our 3 fullbacks cover kicks. Seriously, we got young players galore to do all the heavy lifting on STs. Westbrook could give us a few difference-making plays here and there. Think Keith Jackson or Andre Rison in ’96.

by Curly Lambeau on Apr 13, 2010 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah, Westbrook can be a dangerous playmaker and that’s what we need. He’s probably one of the best Rb’s when it comes to running screen passes, if not the best. We could also line him up in the slot on occassion, which could create match-up nightmares for defenses. Who would defenses choose to put on him? Free safety maybe or a Cb but then that leaves Finley with a LB. And if they choose to cover Finley with a better cover guy (FS or Cb), then Westbrook could be covered by a LB.

Westbrook could be a nice addition for us for sure.

by packallday555 on Apr 13, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions

less miles?

How do you figure?

Green
-Carries – 2,056
-Yards – 9,200 (avg under 4 yds/carry last 4+ seasons)
-Receptions – 378
-Yards – 2,880
-Seasons – 12
-TDs total – 74
-Fumbles (career) – 37 (24 lost)

Westbrook
-Carries – 1,308
-Yards – 5,995 (4.5+ yds/carry avg for last 4 seasons…incl last year)
-Receptions – 426
-Yards – 3,970
-Seasons – 8
-TDs total – 68
-Fumbles (career) – 12 (9 lost)

I don’t see how you can argue that Green has less miles. He hasn’t done jack in the past 3 years but that is more due to his age and lack of explosiveness as much as opportunity.

If we don’t go after Westbrook, I hope Green isn’t our solution. I hope they look to the draft and keep Green as an emergency injury option.

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Injuries

The way i figure there are less miles on Green is because Westbrook has knee problems as well as head problems. That’s not good for a HB.

by PackApologist on Apr 13, 2010 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Injuries...

Sure injuries affect things some but Green CLEARLY has more wear on those tires. By the way, Green’s had his own share of injuries, especially late in his career:

Ahman Green injuries
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/4261/injuries.html

Brian Westbrook injuries
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/5977/injuries.html

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Inconthievable!!

Um… didn’t your stats just prove the oposite of what you said? 700 fewer carries, 1/2 yard better per-carry average over the last 4 years… I mean, stats aren’t everything, but these stats indicate that Westbrook is not as washed-up as Green.

Plus, Westbrook has never really been a pound-it-between-the-tackles, 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust guy like Green was for years, and other I’m-over-the-hill-but-I’m-just-not-ready-to-give-it-up-yet guys such as LT and LJ (see also past running backs such as Shaun Alexander, Emmitt Smith, Franco Harris, et. al.). Westbrook has always been a David Meggett skatback-type guy.

Consequently, he’s injury-prone (I’ll grant you), but his skills and explosiveness are still there when he IS healthy.

by Curly Lambeau on Apr 13, 2010 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions

That was my point. He said Green has LESS miles. I posted the stats to show that Green does in fact have more miles on him…by a lot.

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions

…and, btw, 9 lost fumbles in 1,700+ touches over 8 years is incredible.

by Curly Lambeau on Apr 13, 2010 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions

sure is!! WOW.

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions

ooh no kick returns for Westbrook…scary. There HAS to be someone young and concussion free to handle that job!!

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions

We dont need him

Jackson is fine as the backup. Westbrook would probably last only 2 or 3 games anyway before suffering an injury.

by Yankees10 on Apr 13, 2010 11:15 AM CDT reply actions

Concussion recovery only issue

Westbrooks knee injury was in 2006. Other than last year’s concussions, none of his injuries kept him out for more than 4 games. His targets/touches per game with the Eagles were very high. Stands to reason he would miss a game or two through the course of a year.

Thanks, Ahman. Loved you back in your prime, but it was a joke to have him around last year. It was an easy choice to fill in for our injured backs, but you have no place on a Week 1 roster in 2010.

Jackson is a “fine” backup, but Westbrook would be a absolute upgrade there. It’s not just his past catching skills, but its his after the catch ability that I admire.

Screens? Um, lots more than just screens going on there.
2004 – 73 rec.
2005 – 61
2006 – 77
2007 – 90
2008 – 54

by Squatbulk on Apr 13, 2010 4:54 PM CDT reply actions

That (screens) is the one thing that REALLY would get me excited about this idea. I still worry about the concussion aspect though…a lot! It sure would be fun to see what Brian could do in 3rd down and passing situations though!

by TrevorR on Apr 13, 2010 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Why?

Seems to me like the Pack’s needs are pretty much abundantly clear. Only way a RB becomes feasible, IMO, is if he can pick up a start if, god forbid, Grant got injured and I just don’t believe Westbrook is that guy.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi

by AdamA on Apr 14, 2010 1:03 AM CDT reply actions

Who is that guy now?

Nothing terrible about him, but it isn’t Jackson – yet.

Westbrooks, if he can regain his form from even a couple years ago, can certainly start for the Packers. I recall talks on this very board questioning Grants usefulness.

With limited touches, the Pack could have a very nice tandem.

by Squatbulk on Apr 15, 2010 4:37 PM CDT reply actions