Know before I get flamed, let me just get this out.

Faulk was one of Brady's most reliable players on third down. Faulk gave so much to this offense and his loss is a blow. Right now, I don't see a Kevin Faulk type on this team, we have no third down back.

That made me think of Brian Westbrook. He is currently on the 49ers who really have not used him at all. In fact he has one carry for no yards in two games this season.

Why I think this would be a good trade? Well just take a look at what Brian does. He can run, he is a great receiver out of the backfield and he can also split out wide. Sounds like a Kevin Faulk to me.

Now I bet everyone will want to point out that Westbrook is often injured, well as of right now I would rather have Westbrook instead of no real third down back. He would fit in perfectly in my opinion. He would be faster Faulk in a sense.

As for compensation, I would think that the 49ers, seeing as they really have no use for him, would gladly take a 6th rounder for him.

Before you jump all over me for wanting to trade a 6th rounder, please realize we have two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, a third and two 4ths. How many rookies are you expecting to make next years roster? Would a 6th rounder for a proven third down back be that big of a blow?

I know that most likely wont happen, but I for one would love to see it. Westbrook's contract is a bargain 1.25 million with 1.25 million worth of incentives.

Those wondering if he would fit the kevin faulk profile, well so far in his career, Westbrook has 426 receptions for 3790 yards avereging 8.9 yards a catch.

Now I ask you, is he worth it?

Cant hurt....no pun intended

no id pass

Best trade idea this forum has ever had

Will the Pats bring James off the practice squad and give him a shot. I think he has a huge upside

In Response to Re: Faulk's injured, should the Pats trade for Westbrook?:

I'm guessing your being sarcastic?

I just think this would deal would have a ton of upside, and with no proven third down back that has good hands, trading for Westbrook would be ideal.

Edit: I also see that people can argue we got Woodhead to be a third down back and that he might be able to step into that role. My only problem is that he isn't a proven player like Westbrook.If Woodhead can catch, then I'm all for it. He has long term upside and could eventually replace Faulk.

In Response to Re: Faulk's injured, should the Pats trade for Westbrook?:


There's that and I'd like to see what Woodhead has to offer first

Why are people forgetting Woodhead?  Why don't we see whether or not the kid can play? he's got some talent and if he can fit into the system, we don't have to make a trade since he's already on the roster.  The Pats picked him up for a reason.

He would be a good fit.  Don't know if they could get him.

No. BB needs to quit bringing in aging RBs, and start fresh with young bulls

Mike It's not that some people are forgetting Woodhead it's that they get hung up on big names. There has to be a period where some young talent is brought in or we'll stay in this cycle of bringing in older guys to play for a few yeras over and over. That doesn't play well with the crowd that thinks if you don't win a SB every other year you stink. Spoiled

In Response to Re: Faulk's injured, should the Pats trade for Westbrook?:

I just read James is being brought into play, Edelman stays put and Woodhead is cracking the books, he will be given a chance. So look for Woodhead and James