Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/19339-mike-pucillo-v-todd-wade.html)

12thMan 08-18-2007 11:03 AM

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.

Beemnseven 08-18-2007 11:14 AM

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.

12thMan 08-18-2007 11:21 AM

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.

Beemnseven 08-18-2007 11:34 AM

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.

backrow 08-18-2007 12:08 PM

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 
[QUOTE=Beemnseven;341000]fading abilities.[/QUOTE]

Jansen in a nutshell.

JWsleep 08-18-2007 12:22 PM

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!

12thMan 08-18-2007 12:39 PM

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.

GMScud 08-18-2007 01:41 PM

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.

Bill B 08-18-2007 01:46 PM

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.

RMSkins 08-18-2007 02:43 PM

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.

GMScud 08-18-2007 02:48 PM

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.

dall-assblows 08-18-2007 02:53 PM

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]

dall-assblows 08-18-2007 02:54 PM

Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade
 
haha maybe its just me.

Redskin Warrior 08-18-2007 03:21 PM

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

70Chip 08-18-2007 04:28 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.09414 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25