artmonkforHOF Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I'm guessing by the number of people posting in the NFL Network Chad Johnson freak show threads that a lot of people saw the "On the clock" segement with the skins. The listed team needs as WR, DE, CB/S and LB???? Am I missing something? Rock, Marcus, Fletcher, Blades,- how is LB one of our needs? If we need depth at that position, I think the argument can be made that we need OL just as much if not even more. We might be thin at LB, but at least those guys stayed healthy, Our line seems to have a problem with that lately. The "online insider" was from warpthinsider.com, and he was toting us getting a big WR in the first round. But if this needs list from the NFL turns out to be an accurate assesment of what we draft this year, is anyone going to be dissapointed if we don't pick up some O line help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 They may have put "LB" as a need b/c of Marcus' injuries last year, and the uncertainty of McIntosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 yes, if we don't draft at least one OL'man in the later rounds I will be disappointed. There has got to be at least one OL prospect worth drafting. I don't think we necessarily have to go OL early, but at least by round 4 or 5 I would hope there would be an OL'man sitting there waiting for us to grab him. I think we could use some young depth at LB'er too, but the only way I see us taking one in the top 3 rounds is if he is the BPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daNattyFatty Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Am I missing something? Rock, Marcus, Fletcher, Blades,- how is LB one of our needs? here's how i see it. marcus and london are getting up there in age. marcus has had issues with injuries the past two years. rocky, as much promise as he's shown, had documented knee issues coming out of miami, and here he is going down last season with an acl tear. so yes, LB is another need. i wouldn't say it's as urgent as DL, but depth is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Yeah LB is a need because of Marcus age and injuries, London's future replacement at MLB as well as Rocky's availability because of injuries but for now its not a glaring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbnva Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 rocky really should not be playing in the 08 season with the injury he had. recovery time is usually 1 year and he was injured late in 07. Blades is still not completely proven, Washington & fletcher are getting older and will not be here in a couple of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 Yeah LB is a need because of Marcus age and injuries, London's future replacement at MLB as well as Rocky's availability because of injuries but for now its not a glaring. Last time I checked, Marcus Washington is the same age as Samuels and Casey, Randy Thomas and Jansen are a year older than Marcus and Pete Kendal is older than all of them and London Fletcher. I'd rather get a T or G than a LB, unless a real stud drops to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefPowhatan17 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 With all of this everywhere I look has us taking a WR. IF we do, he better produce, or else it will be another wasted WR pick. I would feel so much more comfortable if we go ahead and take a DE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Last time I checked, Marcus Washington is the same age as Samuels and Casey, Randy Thomas and Jansen are a year older than Marcus and Pete Kendal is older than all of them and London Fletcher. I'd rather get a T or G than a LB, unless a real stud drops to us. Yes, but OL'men are more likely to play well, well into their 30's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobigred Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I'm guessing by the number of people posting in the NFL Network Chad Johnson freak show threads that a lot of people saw the "On the clock" segement with the skins. The listed team needs as WR, DE, CB/S and LB???? Am I missing something? Rock, Marcus, Fletcher, Blades,- how is LB one of our needs? If we need depth at that position, I think the argument can be made that we need OL just as much if not even more. We might be thin at LB, but at least those guys stayed healthy, Our line seems to have a problem with that lately. The "online insider" was from warpthinsider.com, and he was toting us getting a big WR in the first round. But if this needs list from the NFL turns out to be an accurate assesment of what we draft this year, is anyone going to be dissapointed if we don't pick up some O line help? Trust we will more speed needed on the line to run gap plays and slants. Actually I see this happening in the first two rounds depending on whats out there. I would not draft a WR in first in the past not to successfull. (Howard, WestBrook, Gardner) to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 yes, if we don't draft at least one OL'man in the later rounds I will be disappointed. There has got to be at least one OL prospect worth drafting.I don't think we necessarily have to go OL early, but at least by round 4 or 5 I would hope there would be an OL'man sitting there waiting for us to grab him. I think we could use some young depth at LB'er too, but the only way I see us taking one in the top 3 rounds is if he is the BPA. I agree with everything you said. But I was hoping that if we do end up getting an extra 3rd, maybe we could use that on a OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS FAN #56 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Yes, but OL'men are more likely to play well, well into their 30's. Yeah because they normally don't take that many hits or get banged up. And I definitely will be dissappointed. We have plenty of depth at LB and I think we should get H.B. Blades out there a little more and give guys like him more chances. If not early, we should atleast draft an OL somewhere in the later rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 They may have put "LB" as a need b/c of Marcus' injuries last year, and the uncertainty of McIntosh. And the fact that Fletcher is a member of AARP. He's a mutant though, so its okay. NFL Network prolly didn't know that, so its okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 They may have put "LB" as a need b/c of Marcus' injuries last year, and the uncertainty of McIntosh. It wasn't just last year, he's been playing banged up and missing time a LOT the last three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 With all of this everywhere I look has us taking a WR. IF we do, he better produce, or else it will be another wasted WR pick. I would feel so much more comfortable if we go ahead and take a DE. So if we draft a DE, hes a guaranteed superstar? Any position can be a bust. That DE better produce, or else it will be another wasted DE pick. A large wide reciever is the missing part to our offense. It is neccessary for the WCO. Chris Wilson is bound to get more playing time, and Demetric Evans isn't so bad either. Daniels is a great run stopper, I think were ok for now. Bring Wilson in on pass rushing downs, and we'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 LB depth is certainly a need. We have 4 solid LBs but nothing after that. And all four of those have questions. London is old, Marcus is injury prone, Rocky is recovering from knee surgery, and Blades is still relatively unproven. I wouldnt spend a first day pick on it, but a later round pick wouldnt be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I really think Blades will be a great replacement for Fletcher. I think if Rocky stays healthy, he will definitely be productive. Hopefully I am right about those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemSkinz Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think Blades is gonna be a really good middle or strong side linebacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat~man Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 It wasn't just last year, he's been playing banged up and missing time a LOT the last three years. um no, you put emphasis on the word LOT but you're just wrong, his first 2 years here he didn't miss a game then he missed 2 games with a banged up knee and missed 4 last year but he hasnt missed due to a bunch of little injuries, he has one injury one time then another injury another.... he hurt his knee but was still doing good last year he struggled some but he was injured and although I do think we need to start paying attention to LB ...but what you said was not right ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.