The Skins' biggest area of need?

FRPLG · 01-17-2006, 03:38 PM

I went WR but I also think SC is right about needing oline depth. I don't necessarily think Dockery needs replacing when a more pressing need would be depth in general. At least one guy who can play tackle, another who can play guard, one who can play both and a center. And if any of them look as clueless as Raymer then someone needs to get shot.

Redskins_P · 01-17-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

And if any of them look as clueless as Raymer then someone needs to get shot.

I'm surprised no one started any threads about that.

Raymer was horrible!

MTK · 01-17-2006, 04:07 PM

I like our starting 5 up front including Dockery.

Depth is an issue... Raymer was a mess against Seattle.

FRPLG · 01-17-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I like our starting 5 up front including Dockery.

Depth is an issue... Raymer was a mess against Seattle.

Yeah I'd love to have 5 guys competing for pro bowl starting slots but I think for money's sake it is best to settle for better than average at one or two spots. I don't concur with SC that the only reason Dockery was starting was because our depth was so bad that there was anyone decent enough to challenge him. He is a starter on just about any team outside of teams with pro bowlers at both guard spots.

hurrykaine · 01-19-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I don't concur with SC that the only reason Dockery was starting was because our depth was so bad that there was anyone decent enough to challenge him. He is a starter on just about any team outside of teams with pro bowlers at both guard spots.

That is laughable. Name one team with pro-bowlers at both guard spots? Dockery is the weak link on our offensive line (with Jansen, Thomas, Rabach and Samuels healthy).

That Guy · 01-20-2006, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

That is laughable. Name one team with pro-bowlers at both guard spots? Dockery is the weak link on our offensive line (with Jansen, Thomas, Rabach and Samuels healthy).

KC has waters and shields...

That Guy · 01-17-2006, 04:57 PM

I tend to agree
WR #2
CB #3
OL (2 quality G/T)
DL (DE #2, DT #3)
LB
K/P/KR/PR

i think we're also going to need at least one good (not great) LB too... holdman needs to move on and clemons is alright, but if lavar is gone (or even if he isn't) we have no legitimate depth there.

LongTimeSkinsFan · 01-17-2006, 04:58 PM

I voted for WR of the choices listed, but I'm in agreement with SC on the O-line. I think we could stand to upgrade at LG and we need to really improve our depth and quality of depth in case of injuries.

sportscurmudgeon · 01-17-2006, 11:01 PM

FRPLG:

You say Dockery starts for any team that does not have two Pro Bowlers starting at offensive guard. I believe that no team in the league has that luxury so do you REALLY mean to say that Dockery starts for any team in the NFL? That's not even close to right.

Dockery is better now than he was as a rookie but he's not all that much better than he was last year. And I fear that is "not good enough".

BTW, the Skins made it through 2005 with Samuels and Jansen at OT for about every snap of the ball on offense. That was a major factor in the OL's improvement over last year when Jansen was out and Samuels was playing at middling efficiency. Molinaro might have been satisfactory because he worked hard in practice and didn't cost a whole lot in terms of cap room - AND he didn't have to play a lot so that other teams could figure out if he has a huge hole in his game. He may be spectactular or he might be a stumblebum if he has to play 14 games next year. That's why this team needs OL depth - badly.

ParkerGibbs · 01-19-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

FRPLG:

BTW, the Skins made it through 2005 with Samuels and Jansen at OT for about every snap of the ball on offense. That was a major factor in the OL's improvement over last year when Jansen was out and Samuels was playing at middling efficiency. Molinaro might have been satisfactory because he worked hard in practice and didn't cost a whole lot in terms of cap room - AND he didn't have to play a lot so that other teams could figure out if he has a huge hole in his game. He may be spectactular or he might be a stumblebum if he has to play 14 games next year. That's why this team needs OL depth - badly.

hahaha, he said stumblebum

skinsguy · 01-17-2006, 04:59 PM

Yep! Depth on the OL and DL, Secondary, and Wide Receiver. Depth is the key to winning!

Monksdown · 01-17-2006, 05:54 PM

I'll play devil's advocate. CB all the way. Our depth due to injuries at the end of this year had us playing Prioleau one on one for entire games. That sucks.

BigSKINBauer · 01-17-2006, 06:15 PM

Does anyone else think TE is a concern?? Is robert royal worthy of being re-signed??

gibbsisgod · 01-17-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

Does anyone else think TE is a concern?? Is robert royal worthy of being re-signed??

only for the league min.

bigm29 · 01-17-2006, 07:13 PM

is it possible we will draft santanas brother Sinorice. obviously has to play like Santana and will very likely be availabe in the late 2nd round

View Poll Results: What is the one position that the Redskins must absolutely upgrade this offseason?
Wide Receiver	111	79.86%
Defensive Line	13	9.35%
Secondary	5	3.60%
Special Teams	1	0.72%
Other	9	6.47%
Voters: 139. You may not vote on this poll

01-17-2006, 03:38 PM	#1
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 47 Posts: 10,164	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? I went WR but I also think SC is right about needing oline depth. I don't necessarily think Dockery needs replacing when a more pressing need would be depth in general. At least one guy who can play tackle, another who can play guard, one who can play both and a center. And if any of them look as clueless as Raymer then someone needs to get shot.

01-17-2006, 04:57 PM	#7
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 43 Posts: 17,620	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? I tend to agree WR #2 CB #3 OL (2 quality G/T) DL (DE #2, DT #3) LB K/P/KR/PR i think we're also going to need at least one good (not great) LB too... holdman needs to move on and clemons is alright, but if lavar is gone (or even if he isn't) we have no legitimate depth there.

01-17-2006, 04:58 PM	#8
LongTimeSkinsFan Impact Rookie Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: LaVale MD Age: 63 Posts: 515	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? I voted for WR of the choices listed, but I'm in agreement with SC on the O-line. I think we could stand to upgrade at LG and we need to really improve our depth and quality of depth in case of injuries. __________________ ...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'!

01-17-2006, 11:01 PM	#9
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? FRPLG: You say Dockery starts for any team that does not have two Pro Bowlers starting at offensive guard. I believe that no team in the league has that luxury so do you REALLY mean to say that Dockery starts for any team in the NFL? That's not even close to right. Dockery is better now than he was as a rookie but he's not all that much better than he was last year. And I fear that is "not good enough". BTW, the Skins made it through 2005 with Samuels and Jansen at OT for about every snap of the ball on offense. That was a major factor in the OL's improvement over last year when Jansen was out and Samuels was playing at middling efficiency. Molinaro might have been satisfactory because he worked hard in practice and didn't cost a whole lot in terms of cap room - AND he didn't have to play a lot so that other teams could figure out if he has a huge hole in his game. He may be spectactular or he might be a stumblebum if he has to play 14 games next year. That's why this team needs OL depth - badly. __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

01-17-2006, 04:07 PM	#3
MTK Hail Raiser Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 53 Posts: 100,050	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? I like our starting 5 up front including Dockery. Depth is an issue... Raymer was a mess against Seattle. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

01-17-2006, 04:59 PM	#11
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? Yep! Depth on the OL and DL, Secondary, and Wide Receiver. Depth is the key to winning! __________________ "Fire Up That Diesel!"

01-17-2006, 05:54 PM	#12
Monksdown The Starter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Warrenton, Virginia Age: 45 Posts: 1,515	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? I'll play devil's advocate. CB all the way. Our depth due to injuries at the end of this year had us playing Prioleau one on one for entire games. That sucks.

01-17-2006, 06:15 PM	#13
BigSKINBauer Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Age: 38 Posts: 5,688	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? Does anyone else think TE is a concern?? Is robert royal worthy of being re-signed??

01-17-2006, 07:13 PM	#15
bigm29 Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Mt. Laurel, NJ Age: 38 Posts: 353	Re: The Skins' biggest area of need? is it possible we will draft santanas brother Sinorice. obviously has to play like Santana and will very likely be availabe in the late 2nd round

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Skins' biggest area of need?

Locker Room Main Forum