Art Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 The value at No. 2 was incredible. You had to go with Jacobs. It was a great pick. At No. 3 we're lined up ideally. Eason is the appropriate way to go. You could even go Long and not have to worry about trying to add another player for defensive tackle. You could go with Weathersby to give you some leverage if you wanted to move Smooty, but I guess you don't want to move Smoot, which makes me smile. My problem is I can't understand how we passed on Simms at this point. That, to me, would have been THE pick to make. There's your value pick. He's a good prospect who won't pressure Ramsey too much and who needs time to continue to develop. Dockery, to me, is a great big wonderful prospect for Dallas or another team that is working in huge linemen. This guy seems ill-suited for our style of offensive line. He's big and can probably backup both guard and tackle, but, to me, you only take a guard who can swing to center, like Manuwai who'd already been taken. Very perplexing No. 3 for us because value was out there. Now, had we night signed Friedmann, Thomas, Fiore and Johnson already this would be just the sort of move we'd all be happy with. It just seems overkill on this roster at this time when we could have gotten Eason who could play right away or Simms who could be ideal as a longer term project or Weathersby who could leverage Smoot some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandies Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 It seems if we wanted Dockery we could have traded down. A lot of value in front of him. Would have been nice to pick of a 5th rounder. 43. George Wrighster, TE, Oregon 44. Bradie James, ILB, LSU 54. Onterrio Smith, RB, Oregon 55. Justin Fargas, RB, USC 56. Dave Ragone, QB, Louisville 57. Chris Brown, RB, Colorado 58. Lee Suggs, RB, Virginia Tech 64. Rien Long, DT, Washington State 65. Drayton Florence, DT, Tuskegee 66. Shaun McDonald, WR, Arizona State 68. Chris Simms, QB, Texas 70. Tony Pashos, OT, Illinois 73. Andrew Williams, DE, Miami (Fla.) 75. Antonio Garay, DT, Boston College Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I find it hard to argue with Dockery, he has as much potential as anyone else they could have gotten and it really helps solidify the OLine, where we had no real option at back-up tackle. Plus he has the talent to turn into a Pro Bowl guard. I would have preferred Eason or Long, but its a solid value pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 We still have no pass rush for next year :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennSkinsFan Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Whatever happened to needs being DT and S. Is there an agreement in place with Michale Myers at DT? Rien Long was still there? I like Dockery, I like what I have seen and read, but it does not make me understand the pick at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I think this guy has slacker ala Mookie written all over him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Totally agree with you, Art. When I saw that Eason and Long were still available, I thought this was a no-brainer. But while the #2 pick was a steal, this #3 pick makes zero sense to me. We've already got solid backups in Friedman, Johnson, and Sulfsted, and the only starting O-Lineman we have who has had the injury bug in the past is Fiore. Either Friedman or Johnson could fill his shoes, and this line would lose little. Yes, I think this guy will be good. But he doesn't fill our needs. And after seeing this, it seems clear to me that the FO is happy with our D-Line, and don't have serious plans about bolstering it. That means our biggest pass-rushing threat is Bruce Smith. A fast DE who could share time with Wynn (and maybe beat him out to be the starter) makes a lot more sense to me. Maybe after the June 1 cuts, we'll see some additions. But at this point, I think the FO is ignoring this weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Originally posted by riggo-toni We still have no pass rush for next year :doh: True, but now the pressure is no longer on the D to carry the team, plus Andre Wadsworth is sitting by the phone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 where we had no real option at back-up tackle Ummmm, I thought Sulfsted performed acceptably when Samuels went down last year. Or was I dreaming that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Originally posted by NavyDave I think this guy has slacker ala Mookie written all over him Is there anything worse than a slacker on the OLine? I mean, you take off a play, or break down at the end of the game...and crunch! bye-bye Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Originally posted by Montilar Ummmm, I thought Sulfsted performed acceptably when Samuels went down last year. Or was I dreaming that? I think you were dreaming that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandies Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Maybe since we didn't draft a guard last year when we needed one, they felt they should over compensate and draft a guard this year when we didn't need one. Maybe they know something we don't. Let's hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Dockery is a mauler and a good player, but like Art said it probably is overkill here. It would appear that he can play G as well as RT, but I doubt he has the agility to back up at LT. Recall that Ron Nay said in a recent interview that the Skins were searching for a backup tackle. I suspect this means that Rod Jones and Alex Sulfsted are history now. Jones I thought was a decent LT and certainly has shown the ability in the past to at least play RT. And Sulfsted looked decent last year in a couple of starts at LT. Based on this and the fact there were still decent defensive players on the board -- as well as Sims -- the Dockery pick was puzzling. Does this now mean we trade Rod Jones for some lower picks? I would think that Jones is worth something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 27, 2003 Author Share Posted April 27, 2003 Actually, Yomar, we do still have Rod Jones who is a MORE than competent backup at either tackle spot. Sulfsted did play very, very well for us in his game and a half for us, but I wouldn't want to live with him as a backup tackle for too long . What I find interesting about this is we have to keep Wilbert Brown on the roster. We NEED two centers who can play and Brown will be the No. 2. With Brown as a lock, and the starting five as a lock, that leaves three spots open for Jones, Sulfsted, Friedmann, Dockery and Tre Johnson. I wouldn't be surprised if the number issue with Tre gives Spurrier a reason to cut him. We're not going to keep more than 10 lineman with Albright as one. Dockery could well be practice squad material. We're going to have to cut someone we kind of like though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 PFW did rate him as the 49th best prospect, but still, we were pretty set at this position. Simms would have been the best value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I look at Dockery and think of a player that marty would draft for guard. Not spurrier. Big mauler type. It's an interesting pick. any bets on how long it takes him to see action on the field (barring injuries of course). Two, three years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 27, 2003 Author Share Posted April 27, 2003 Inmate, There's no way both Jones and Sulfsted are gone. There's no way we're going into the season with Dockery as the SOLE backup at both the right and left tackle positions. I think you have to keep Jones, but Sulfsted is on the bubble. I also think Tre may be cut now unless Dockery is more of a practice squad player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennSkinsFan Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I remember reading combine reports about Dockery slipping because he looked slow and sluggish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Originally posted by Art With Brown as a lock While true on paper, this is criminal. The top three centers were gone -- Faine, Johnson, Nelson -- but Koppen and Romberg were still available. Koppen and Romberg aren't better than Moore, but they're sure as hell better than Brown. And we could have traded back to get them, picking up an extra pick. I can't shake the conviction that Wibert Brown is a Redskin strictly because of his past relationship with Helton. If Moore goes down to injury, we're screwed. Dockery had better not cost a roster spot for Tre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Art, Dockery is too good to be practice squad material, because we would lose him, in that he would not clear waivers without being claimed. I dont like the idea of cutting Sulfsted and Rod Jones. Maybe we can salvage a draft pick for Rod Jones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 At;lanta skins fan, if Moore went down, I think you'd see fiore moved over within a week or so. Fiore has played center. In fact part of the reason he signed with the skins is we "promised" him he'd be a guard, not center. But for the game that Moore went down in, we'd be surely screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 27, 2003 Author Share Posted April 27, 2003 Go easy ASF. Though, I did overlook the possibility that Friedman could be the backup center I suppose. Still, I think Brown is a lock and to be honest, I think he'd be a better center than he was a guard and he could be ok if he turned out to be necessary at that spot. Still, Dockery is going to cost someone his job. Unless Lennie can be the center though to backup Moore, this means Brown is a lock and Tre is almost certainly gone. You could get rid of Sulfsted though. Inmate, again, there's NO WAY ON EARTH both Sulfsted and Jones will be gone. None. No way at all. Period. You simply will NOT lose both guys under any circumstances. You can't. One of those two is a lock. The top five are locks. Brown is a likely lock as a backup center and if not Brown then Lennie Friedman is a lock. Dockery, you're right, is a probable lock. That's eight. That leaves the loser of Sulfsted/Jones to battle out the loser of Brown/Friedmann/Johnson for the last spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milliondollarslim Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 we'll have to see but if you are going to be a passing team, you better have more than just 5 good o-lineman. Dockery was a surprise but not a 'reach' as they say. 2 big questions. QB where i am not happy with only R. Johnson (who has a lot to prove and has sucked the last 2 years) and pass rush , which may turn out not to be a problem (we just won't have a 10 -12 sack guy). i also was maybe hoping for one of those FS/CB types with some size. maybe Dennis Weathersby will slip to us in round 7, has he been picked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandies Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Originally posted by milliondollarslim we'll have to see but if you are going to be a passing team, you better have more than just 5 good o-lineman. Dockery was a surprise but not a 'reach' as they say. 2 big questions. QB where i am not happy with only R. Johnson (who has a lot to prove and has sucked the last 2 years) and pass rush , which may turn out not to be a problem (we just won't have a 10 -12 sack guy). i also was maybe hoping for one of those FS/CB types with some size. maybe Dennis Weathersby will slip to us in round 7, has he been picked? Maybe I'm all mixed up but I thought Weathersby was recently shot, which might mean he will slip to us in the 7th. (not a serious injury). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I was as shocked as anyone with the Dockery pick, but no one can overlook his size and potential. Yes... some said he seemed aloof and disinterested at the combine, but that might be attributed to something else other than football. The thing is, he was at one time considered THE top guard prospect in the draft. he's 6'7 and 340lbs.... that is a mammoth of a man. With Fiore's injury history, along with Tre's, this could actually turn out to be a good pick in a year or two. Can you imagine a line with.... Samuels..... Dockery...... Moore..or an Upgrade Thomas.... Jansen... Talk about an immovable object..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.