The Westbrook side. TJ is still hurting and the Raiders offense is hurting even WORSE.
2006-09-20 03:14:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That depends on if you are in need of a WR. If you are in a 10-12 man league with 3WR I would say you benefit. Then again, Philly is tearing it up this year with a healthy McNabb. Well, here's my advice- if you think you need a WR, you should take the deal. Westbrook is injury prone and though Oakland is sucking, I think that Art Shell will implement Jordan greatly. Maybe Brooks was the problem there.
2006-09-20 10:20:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by mattlayer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would keep Westbrook unless you really really really need a WR. TJ has been hurt all year so far, no idea when he is due back and Jordan just sucks with that team. I say stick with Westbrook.
2006-09-20 09:39:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by Drunk365 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Take Housh and Lamont Jordan
2006-09-19 22:33:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Free 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Keep Westbrook.
2006-09-20 00:29:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by JoseIIV 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
don't be a fool leave that deal alone. TJ hasn't played this season, and Lamont and the raiders are having offensive problems.
2006-09-20 01:54:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by King Midas 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you take the deal you're getting screwed. Jordan is gonna do nothing and Housh is injured and could be out. ..While Westbrook is getting touches and scoring TD's.
2006-09-19 23:52:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
TJ too unpredictable at this point. Westbrook more a sure bet.
2006-09-19 23:29:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by Girls Gone Wild 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
keep westbrook tj has yet to play and jordan wont get anything if the raiders dont improve and they probley wont
2006-09-19 22:47:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by J C 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Keep Westbrook.
Housh is hurting but when he comes back he'll put up some numbers. BUT Jordan will never get close to 100yrds a game in Oakland.
2006-09-20 01:14:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by aarongray45 2
·
0⤊
0⤋