Redskins are intrested in Charlie Garner

SirSmizzy · Post by **SirSmizzy** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:32 am

Redskins | Interest in Garner - from www.KFFL.com
Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:19:45 -0800

The Washington Post reports the Washington Redskins are interested in Oakland Raiders RB Charlie Garner.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:48 am

The Redskins are, but their fans aren't...

This is becoming a trend :-(

skinsfaninroanoke · Post by **skinsfaninroanoke** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:49 am

You know - he doesn't have bad stats, but he is getting a bit long in the tooth for a RB...

4.6 ypr avg. career and 8.9 ypc avg.
51 total TDs between rushes and rec. but I don't think he is the power back that we all thought Gibbs would go for - he is only 5'10" and 190 - might as well keep Trung then...

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:04 am

Like Antowain Smith, he's only had 2 1,000 yard seasons. Not too impressive. I don't want him at all. I hope he goes somewhere else, like Tampa. We might as well sign Antowain Smith.

Post by **admin** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:09 am

You guys are mad... have you ever seen this guy run? :shock:

He has been buried in LA with their rotating RB carousel, but I think if you ask any Raider fan or 49er fan for that matter, they will tell you that this guy is a player.

We are not going to get an Edge or Ricky Williams or priest Holmes... we have to accept a 'second tier guy'. I think Garner would thrive in an offense that he was given a chance to bethe feature back.

NC43Hog · Post by **NC43Hog** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:45 am

He is a player, but won't be a feature back - how and who is going to be in the rotation? Betts, Candidate, Morton . . . seems like we still need the bruising big back. Sorry Rock, you have shown promise but you are undersized.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:47 am

No, man. We need an Alstott. Not a Garner.

Warmother · Post by **Warmother** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:53 am

I would rather have Jim Garner or better yet Jennifer Garner

than Charlie Garner. Charlie is as old as Jim but doesn't look as good as Jenn.

RedskinsArePimps · Post by **RedskinsArePimps** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:17 am

Garner would be a great guy to have in Washington, but because of his age I say forget about him. RB's life span in this league is a lot shorter than other positions, and this guys already like 34 maybe?

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:23 am

RedskinsArePimps wrote:Garner would be a great guy to have in Washington, but because of his age I say forget about him. RB's life span in this league is a lot shorter than other positions, and this guys already like 34 maybe?

You can find his age right here.
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1149

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:28 am

I'll stick with my first choice Rhodes from Indy...young, low mileage....good size and speed!!

AshlynSkins · Post by **AshlynSkins** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:08 am

I've always like Garner as a two way back (run and catch out of the back-field) but I don't see Garner being a RB who can carry the load 20+ times a game as a featured back any longer, so I'd have to say no on him coming here.

chi3fs · Post by **chi3fs** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:29 am

Garner came out the same year that Faulk did.

Redskins4Life · Post by **Redskins4Life** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:38 am

Hes 32, but how many good years can the guy have left in him? He wasnt even all that great when he was young.