Draft wrap-up 2013

[CRedskinsRule]

LT and 1 WR spot at least should be good to go on ours. Not sure why Garcon would be considered a questionable, could easily have both WR spots as good to go, but I can understand that no one player really rises above the pack for the second spot. Same with DE, again, we may not have elite talent there, but to say it's questionable seems a bit lame as well.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

LT and 1 WR spot at least should be good to go on ours. Not sure why Garcon would be considered a questionable, could easily have both WR spots as good to go, but I can understand that no one player really rises above the pack for the second spot. Same with DE, again, we may not have elite talent there, but to say it's questionable seems a bit lame as well.

I think they were just saying a DE in general, a WR in a general and a tackle in general. Not left or right. I thought the same thing but then I went to the lions page and checked the lions and it said WR questionable. So I'm assuming they don't mean Calvin Johnson and mean the lions could just improve at the receiver position.
And if that's what they mean then they would be right. Redskins could improve the dline, the receiving core and obviously at the tackle positions.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by donofriose

I think they were just saying a DE in general, a WR in a general and a tackle in general. Not left or right. I thought the same thing but then I went to the lions page and checked the lions and it said WR questionable. So I'm assuming they don't mean Calvin Johnson and mean the lions could just improve at the receiver position.
And if that's what they mean then they would be right. Redskins could improve the dline, the receiving core and obviously at the tackle positions.

This.

They aren't denoting the side of the position in need, just the position itself. It would have been nice if they expanded and even noted the sides that need help.