Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-18-2007, 12:22 PM   #1
JWsleep
Propane and propane accessories
 
JWsleep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 56
Posts: 4,719
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!
__________________
Hail from Houston!
JWsleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 12:39 PM   #2
12thMan
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWsleep View Post
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!
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.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 01:41 PM   #3
GMScud
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,626
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.
__________________
Tardy
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 01:46 PM   #4
Bill B
Impact Rookie
 
Bill B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 721
Re: Mike Pucillo v. Todd Wade

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWsleep View Post
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!

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.
Bill B is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.49899 seconds with 11 queries