Derrick Dockery:

Pages : 1 [2] 3

MTK
11-16-2007, 08:43 AM
All I know is he's not living up to that monster contract that's for sure. Decent player, way, way, way overpaid.

SouperMeister
11-16-2007, 08:47 AM
Not worth the money, when does that count for anything with this team. Lets give the richest safety contract ever to Arch, oh and lets give another FA WR diva 30+ million w/ 10Mil up front and lets give another WR who averages 30 catches a year 30+million w/ 10+ upfront. But lets not sign one of our own draft picks who has been way better than average, built chemistry with the other 4 lineman, is young only getting better, and has been a rock at LG since drafting him.

Yeah, thats a great move!The signings of Betts, Sellers, and Cooley before they could hit free agency is a solid indication that the Skins finally understand the mistake they made by not locking up guys like Pierce and Dockery earlier. This strategy must be continued with Sean Taylor and Campbell. What seemed like a lot of money to re-sign Doc in Sept 2006 looked like a bargain in March 2007.

#56fanatic
11-16-2007, 09:15 AM
All I know is he's not living up to that monster contract that's for sure. Decent player, way, way, way overpaid.

I understand the fact that the contract he signed was a bit high, no doubt. But they knew he was a free agent after last season, they should have locked him up as they did other players this past year. I just hated the fact they gave all this money out to outside guys and didn't even make a decent offer to lock him up. Our offensive line was one of if not the only bright spot of our team, i just would have thought they would want to keep that together.

Hopefully they wont let guys like Taylor and Campbell hit the FA or restricted FA market.

Monkeydad
11-16-2007, 09:40 AM
He is doing damn good in Buffalo and his opening pretty big holes for Lynch

Yeah, for $55 million, he better be.

If we resigned him for more than Buffalo, we'd all be whining about overpaying. For once, we let someone else overpay. :)

MTK
11-16-2007, 09:43 AM
I understand the fact that the contract he signed was a bit high, no doubt. But they knew he was a free agent after last season, they should have locked him up as they did other players this past year. I just hated the fact they gave all this money out to outside guys and didn't even make a decent offer to lock him up. Our offensive line was one of if not the only bright spot of our team, i just would have thought they would want to keep that together.

Hopefully they wont let guys like Taylor and Campbell hit the FA or restricted FA market.

A bit high?

They did try to sign him before he hit the market, he choose to test the free agent waters and it definitely worked out for him. I really don't fault him or the Skins. Dockery got his money, and the Skins wisely choose to not match that insane contract.

Daseal
11-16-2007, 09:50 AM
I really don't fault him or the Skins. Dockery got his money, and the Skins wisely choose to not match that insane contract.
Exactly. I really wanted to keep him, but when I heard the numbers my jaw dropped. Smart move by the front office.

#56fanatic
11-16-2007, 10:08 AM
A bit high?

They did try to sign him before he hit the market, he choose to test the free agent waters and it definitely worked out for him. I really don't fault him or the Skins. Dockery got his money, and the Skins wisely choose to not match that insane contract.


the "bit high" was sarcastic. It was a ton high. I thought they would have tried to make an offer the year before his contract ran out. I can't blame Dockery at all for signing that deal, he would have been foolish not to. I just look at the alternative contracts we through out to people that have not done squat since joining our team, and can't use the "sensable spending" as an excuse.

squrrelco3
11-16-2007, 10:28 AM
I just look at the alternative contracts we through out to people that have not done squat since joining our team, and can't use the "sensable spending" as an excuse.

So what you are saying is because we made bad decisions in the past, then that is a good reason to make bad decisions in the future?

Granted I would have felt better about overpaying a little bit in order to keep cohesion if we didn't have a history of doing so with guys like Lloyd, Brunell, Arch, etc. but because of bad moves like those, the effects became cumulative.

Management had to change thier philosophy at some point because the old way clearly was not working, unfortunately Dockery was the first one in line...now that they've made the first step, I just hope the common sense trend continues and it doesn't become a sacrifice made in vain.

SmootSmack
11-16-2007, 11:13 AM
I've seen about 4 or 5 Bills games this year. Dockery is decent, but he's no Steve Hutchinson. Though his contract seems to say he is.

SouperMeister
11-16-2007, 11:33 AM
I've seen about 4 or 5 Bills games this year. Dockery is decent, but he's no Steve Hutchinson. Though his contract seems to say he is.We could have drafted Hutchinson. I watched the Skins selection with a friend, saying that adding a dominant guard next to Samuels might be like resurrecting the old Hogs. Marty opted for Rod Gardner :doh:

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum