Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

This could be an interesting development here. If Pucillo plays well tonight, we might very well see an open competition between Pucillo and Wade for the remainder of camp. I don't think by any means Wade has locked the position down yet. So this may be something to keep our eye on tonight.

Wouldn't it be something if Pucillo, a former Buffalo Bill draft pick, steps in and becomes the starter to replace the departed Derrick Dockery.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

I was thinking about losing Dockery. It could be that he was far more of a significant player than any of us thought. If Buffalo hadn't offered such an outrageous amount of money, we'd be in much better shape, only waiting for Samuels to get healthy.

Why the hell did the Bills put that much money up for Dockery? I mean, it was almost Steve Hutchinson-type cash. I don't fault Dockery at all for taking it, but man, I sure hope this doesn't turn out to be what kills us this year.

One of the things that separates good teams from the bad is the ability for units who performed well from the year before not to miss a beat the following year. We really need for the O-line to carry over what they did in '06. If we're going to be in a situation that one group or another can't match up from one season to the next, then this thing will never get on track.

As for Pucillo, he MUST perform well. That's all there is to it. Things like this happen to teams like New England all the time, and there's always someone way down their roster who steps up and has a pro-bowl type season.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

You bring up a couple of valid points. On one hand, we can't pay Dockery that kind of dough. On the other hand, he was important to the line and we lose some continuity along the line.

But to your other point, this guy 'aint Hutch, so while there will be some drop off, we didn't exactly lose a perennial Pro Bowler. Look, Buffalo let three or four good starters walk this year, and made some very, very questionable signings. They don't know what they're doing, in my opinion.

I'm betting, like you and Matty, that Pucillo has a solid game tonight and we'll put all this talk about Wade behind us. If anything, Wade should be pushing Jansen for the starting roll.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

Yeah, what is it with Jansen anyway? He's completely healed from the two broken thumbs, right? Has he said anything publicly about lingering effects from the Achilles injury a few years ago?

I guess we can only hope that the whispers around the league, from fans, and the media about his fading abilities will push him mentally for the best year of his career.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;341000]fading abilities.[/QUOTE]

Jansen in a nutshell.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

I am willing to allow that Jansen is starting slow, but will pick it up. Also, he gets more TE and RB help anyway--we usually have Samuels on an island.

As for Dock, we obviously couldn't match, but I was disappointed that we didn't target ANYONE out there as a replacement. We just went with what we already had. And that was a mistake, because instead of using Wade as a backup/replacement for Samuels and Jansen, we've got him out of position at guard. We didn't have to break the bank to find an actual guard out there, and we would have maintained our depth at OT, which is an obvious need now.

But maybe there wasn't a decent candidate out there, who knows? The FO gets criticized for spending too much. Maybe this will all work out by the 1st game. Man, I really hope so!

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=JWsleep;341008]I am willing to allow that Jansen is starting slow, but will pick it up. Also, he gets more TE and RB help anyway--we usually have Samuels on an island.

As for Dock, we obviously couldn't match, but I was disappointed that we didn't target ANYONE out there as a replacement. We just went with what we already had. And that was a mistake, because instead of using Wade as a backup/replacement for Samuels and Jansen, we've got him out of position at guard. We didn't have to break the bank to find an actual guard out there, and we would have maintained our depth at OT, which is an obvious need now.

But maybe there wasn't a decent candidate out there, who knows? The FO gets criticized for spending too much. Maybe this will all work out by the 1st game. Man, I really hope so![/quote]

I think in the end, we'll be okay. I agree with you on Jansen. I think he's just starting slow, but I'd still like to see Wade over there pushing him a bit.

If you look around the NFL practically no one returned all five starters along the offensive line. I think the norm for keeping an entire unit together is probably 3-4 years tops.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

I'm not really all that impressed with Todd Wade. He's just sort of a ho-hum player and doesn't seem to play with much of a chip or intensity. I hope Pucillo plays great tonight. If anything it'll light a bigger fire under both players.

As far as Jansen is concerned, we need him to be great. That being said, Fabini played tackle for a long time, and could step in and play his natural position pretty well I would think. This business of moving guys from position to position (i.e. wade, fabini) makes me nervous.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=JWsleep;341008]I am willing to allow that Jansen is starting slow, but will pick it up. Also, he gets more TE and RB help anyway--we usually have Samuels on an island.

As for Dock, we obviously couldn't match, [B]but I was disappointed that we didn't target ANYONE out there as a replacement[/B]. We just went with what we already had. And that was a mistake, because instead of using Wade as a backup/replacement for Samuels and Jansen, we've got him out of position at guard. We didn't have to break the bank to find an actual guard out there, and we would have maintained our depth at OT, which is an obvious need now.

But maybe there wasn't a decent candidate out there, who knows? The FO gets criticized for spending too much. Maybe this will all work out by the 1st game. Man, I really hope so![/quote]


I think what also really hurt the team was the lack of draft picks that we could have used to replace Dockery - we could have found a guard if we had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th round pick. Heck if I remember correctly Dockery was a 3rd round pick. I don't want to go into the whole Redskins need a GM thing, but what I hope the team is doing is valuing the draft picks a little more than they have been for the past couple of years - maybe keeping all their 2008 picks is a sign of things to come and we can build a team that has some sustainability in the salary cap era.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

Pucillo would make more sense since guard is his natural position. Wade looks to be really struggling in his move from RT to LG, I think in the end it was a horrible decision by our coaching staff to think that Wade could just change positions like that, and not miss a beat. I think we're really going to regret not bringing in a guy like Edwin Mulitalo to replace Dockery. Hopefully Pucillo can do a good job for us, or maybe Wade can pull out the switch, but right now it looks unlikely.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=RMSkins;341032]Pucillo would make more sense since guard is his natural position. Wade looks to be really struggling in his move from RT to LG, I think in the end it was a horrible decision by our coaching staff to think that Wade could just change positions like that, and not miss a beat. I think we're really going to regret not bringing in a guy like Edwin Mulitalo to replace Dockery. Hopefully Pucillo can do a good job for us, or maybe Wade can pull out the switch, but right now it looks unlikely.[/quote]

I agree 100%. I REALLY wanted us to sign Mulitalo. I am pretty concerned about the line on both sides of the ball. Funny how all offseason all we bitched about was the D-line, now all of a sudden the O-line is looking very iffy. Tonight we'll find out a lot against that Pitt D. Eeesh.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

does anybody think he looks like jansen, alittle in the face:

[img]http://media.hamptonroads.com/images/sports/jansen-jon-redskins.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.nflplayers.com/images/players/33197.jpg[/img]

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

haha maybe its just me.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[QUOTE]As for Dock, we obviously couldn't match, but I was disappointed that we didn't target ANYONE out there as a replacement. We just went with what we already had.[/QUOTE]

But we paid Archuleta all that money and he sucked. We could have spend that on Dockery!!! I knew he was not a great safety he had to be in the cover 2 type of scheme that Lovie Smith runs to be effective

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

A couple of points:

1. Dockery would not have helped much last week. He can only block HIS man. I don't think we can say based on last week that we should have broken the bank for D.D.

2. If Pucillo can play guard, then we should consider Wade at RT because he played great against New Orleans last year and this thing with Jansen has been building for some time now. He is not the player he was. That's not to say that he can't have a good year, but it won't be easy for him. He will have to actually work at it.

3. Everything we saw last week could be irrelevant. Look at the difference between the Eagles in their first two games. I have a hard time believing that our O-Line, which was dominant the second half of last year, could suddenly turn to shit because the one player that everyone here would have said was the weak link, if you had taken a poll any time last year, isn't here anymore. Stephon Heyer is a rookie and the others looked rusty. The defense is often ahead of the offense in pre-season and I expect this group to edge their way back into form. I just can't beieve that Dockery is irreplaceable even if Wade is not the answer. But I could be wrong. The Bills obviously saw something.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=70Chip;341060]A couple of points:

1. Dockery would not have helped much last week. He can only block HIS man. I don't think we can say based on last week that we should have broken the bank for D.D.

2. If Pucillo can play guard, then we should consider Wade at RT because he played great against New Orleans last year and this thing with Jansen has been building for some time now. He is not the player he was. That's not to say that he can't have a good year, but it won't be easy for him. He will have to actually work at it.

3. Everything we saw last week could be irrelevant. Look at the difference between the Eagles in their first two games. I have a hard time believing that our O-Line, which was dominant the second half of last year, could suddenly turn to shit because the one player that everyone here would have said was the weak link, if you had taken a poll any time last year, isn't here anymore. Stephon Heyer is a rookie and the others looked rusty. The defense is often ahead of the offense in pre-season and I expect this group to edge their way back into form. I just can't beieve that Dockery is irreplaceable even if Wade is not the answer. But I could be wrong. The Bills obviously saw something.[/quote]


Good points. The defense generally is ahead of the game at this point in the season; the offense is much more timing oriented.

That being said, let's look at Pucillo tonight to see how he fairs against an aggresive defense.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=12thMan;341062]Good points. The defense generally is ahead of the game at this point in the season; the offense is much more timing oriented.

That being said, let's look at Pucillo tonight to see how he fairs against an aggresive defense.[/quote]

They have their work cut out again. I'd hate to have to pass block against those guys. They come from every which way. We shall see what happens. What I hate is that if they suck again it will be a full blown media thing this week. What's wrong with the offense? You get one pass in the pre-season, I guess, befor the hyenas start gathering. It would be better to avoid all that even if they really are going to suck.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;341066]They have their work cut out again. I'd hate to have to pass block against those guys. They come from every which way. We shall see what happens. What I hate is that if they suck again it will be a full blown media thing this week. What's wrong with the offense? You get one pass in the pre-season, I guess, befor the hyenas start gathering. It would be better to avoid all that even if they really are going to suck.[/QUOTE]


Of course, the Redskins could solve that by coming out and kicking ass tonight. I guess that would be asking too much though, from this team.

In preseason, they always seem to give everybody watching plenty of reason for doubt.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=Beemnseven;341072]Of course, the Redskins could solve that by coming out and kicking ass tonight. I guess that would be asking too much though, from this team.

In preseason, they always seem to give everybody watching plenty of reason for doubt.[/quote]

It seems we do give people something to talk about, don't we?

I would really like to see the offense put together two or three nice drives. Even if we don't score a ton of points, march down field for once.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

one thing is for sure, if we dont draft a O-lineman in the 1st or 2nd round next year, we are screwed.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

I say we put Mike Pucillo in over Todd Wade because Mike Pucillo is actually accustomed to being a guard.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

Well clearly Pucillo makes this team. He gives us depth at C and G and looked just fine tonight.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

Yes, there was clear improvement from last week to tonight. Wasn't Campbell sacked like three times against the Titans in the first quarter or so?

There was far better O-line protection -- hopefully Pucillo is the missing piece of the puzzle.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

You have to figure that Wade is now behind simply by missing this game. They still haven't had time to really evaluate him at the position.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

I'll preface this by saying that I was a huge fan of moving Wade to G. The raves he got last year and his performance when he played showed he is at worst a decent NFL RT. That couple with the supposed easyness of the G position made me believe that a decent T could probably be a decent G. I mean G is supposed to be the easiest position on the field.

I started becoming concerned when the rhetoric about Wade switched from "Man he looks great in practice" to "Well his is making a tough adjustment and he is working hard on overcoming the difficulties."

Seems to me that it really shouldn't be all that hard. Now that the rhetoric has not changed and he is missing time I am pretty much convinced he can't do it. Just a gut feeling but I think this experiment ends soon. Too bad whit got hurt like he did. I suspect he could have been decent for us.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=Cowell;341094]I say we put Mike Pucillo in over Todd Wade because Mike Pucillo is actually accustomed to being a guard.[/quote]


I agree with you. The left side of the line looked good, at least in pass situations. When Samuels gets back they will start to pimpslap people.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

NEXT choice plz ....?

I hope Wade will be able to make the transition, only these next few games will tell, IMO they are probually about even, below average at this point. It will be great to get CS back!

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

either way we will have a problem there this year

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[QUOTE=CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR;341425]either way we will have a problem there this year[/QUOTE]

I agree. If were basing it on last week vs this week, I would say Puccilo played better at the spot than Wade did vs Tenn. However, the line as a whole played better this week too.

However, no matter how you look at it, we're going to miss Dock. Not saying we should have paid him that type of money, but we are defintley taking a huge step down at that position, and I think we'll see that while Dockery may not be an elite gaurd, he's much better than "average" like many people want to belive.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

[quote=Gmanc711;341511]I agree. If were basing it on last week vs this week, I would say Puccilo played better at the spot than Wade did vs Tenn. However, the line as a whole played better this week too.

However, no matter how you look at it, we're going to miss Dock. Not saying we should have paid him that type of money, but we are defintley taking a huge step down at that position, and I think we'll see that while Dockery may not be an elite gaurd, he's much better than "average" like many people want to belive.[/quote]

Well Dock isn't on the same planet as Hutchinson and he signed a bigger deal. He was not worth it and we need to move on.

If we struggle with the three time pro-bowler in, then I will worry. Right now I like what I saw from last week to this one.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

I think it's important to remember we're facing some very good D's in these presesason games. Tenn was good, and the Steelers and Ravens always present tough Ds. Not to say that this is an excuse for blown assignments and poor run blocking, but hopefully playing these tough Ds now will have a positive effect once the season begins.

Also, it's kinda hard to really evaluate these guys at LG when the LT is an undrafted rookie! I trust that the coaches are able to see through that and grade these guys well. Hopefully Puc will light a fire under Wade for this week.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

After Samuels comes back, I wouldn't mind seeing Stephon Heyers in the mix at LG. He's built more like a pile-driving guard than either Wade or Pucillo. I like Wade more for emergency depth at either tackle position.

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 

I'm very worried about the O-line depth. The starting five are fine, but once we have an injury......then what?

Same goes for the D-line. You have to expect injuries in football, the good teams are the ones that recover.