Punter. And head coach.
Sorry but I'm always thinking ahead to free agency and the draft. We always talk about the holes we have on our team. Which positions in your opinion we DON'T need to take care of in free agency or the draft? Please, don't say we need to address every single position. I believe we're set at center and QB when it comes to our offence. You can make a case for us needing help at T,G,TE,WR and to a lesser degree RB tho I really like Miller tho he's not playing much.
On defence I believe we're set at NT with Soliai and DT if we keep Starks. We're set at LDE with Wake and SS with Jones. You can make a case everywhere else imo. Our LB's are good but none of them made any big plays in a consisten basis, we need pass rushers and 3 new DB's. We're set at punter and that's it.
Wow, that's sad when I think about it. That's 6 positions out of 22 where I really feel we're set at. There's probably 4 other positions where we're ok at tho not great and we're talking about beating the pats....lol It could happen on any given sunday but we're not close to win a superbowl with the group we have now.
Rip it apart guys.
Punter. And head coach.
We need a #1 WR, #1 CB, pass rusher. Would like a playmaking safety opposite Jones and a more athletic TE. Clemons and Fasano have been decent though.
If I were the GM, I'd say Center, NT & 1 DE.
The only players I'd say are gauranteed starters are, Pouncey, Solia, Starks & Wake.
Tannehil would be the qb but I'd keep Moore to compete. I have the gut feeling that we would have won some of those close games had Moore been the starter.
All other positions can be upgraded.
This is an interesting way to look at things. "Set at" in my mind means a very high level player who still has plenty of his prime ahead of him. We have Wake, Pouncey, Soliai, and Starks. As much as I like Reshad and Tannehill, it's too early to say we're set with them. I also think Bess is an excellent slot receiver and would be much more effective with a true number one WR with some speed ahead of him.
I read the question and I also think of depth...not just the starter.
For me 'set at' is a player that is relatively young and has a lot of upside,
a position that we would not actively draft players at in the first 3 rounds of the draft.
Looking back at the Wannsteadt era, the biggest mistake they made was Year in and year out thinking that we had a top 3 defense without trying to improve at most positions. The same goes for QB obviously.
i would say QB