Bare in mind I am mainly playing devil's advocate here, although this is a view I have seen expressed.
The problem with being the skill in a game with no skills... is that its not very good. All those skills can be replicated in the core by a Fighter (or any other class) with decent Ability Scores. Which led to non-weapon proficiencies, which led to skill points, which led to the dark side.
If you go back to Ability Score primacy for 'Skill' resolution, the only thing you really *need* to make a Fighter into a Rogue is a Backstab feat.
Now bear in mind I am not saying removing the Rogue is a good idea, I am just saying I don't see that the Rogue is unique enough in an essentially Skill Free system to be at the very top table.
This is actually my biggest "fear" of removing (or ad-hocing) skills in Next; there are some classes (primarily rogues, but also bards, assassins, monks, and rangers) who were defined by access their to skills, either automatically or via large pools of skill points/proficiency. So far, the idea of giving the traditionally "skilly" characters some bonus (either something like skill mastery, or advantage when in forests, etc) and to buff out their non-skill areas (combat or spell use, primarily). I hope they do this well though; the archetype of a guy who is not necessarily a combat machine or caster but gets by on skill, luck and finesse is a perfectly good one and should be kept in sharp focus.