Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;531177]I thought about starting another thread for this post, but now that we have Haynesworth, our top 4 DTs are now: Haynesworth, Griffin, Montgommery and Golston. Alexander is now our #5DT. We dont need that many DTs so Alexander is the odd man out.

Why the heck would we pursue Dockery when we could just move Alexander back to guard? I think it would be much wiser to pursue a FA RT. That way, we could go into the draft with no GLARING needs.[/quote]

Good point about Alexander, BHA. I still think that we could get Dockery and he could even start with us. Randy Thomas is a bit of question mark for me, because of his back surgery. I think we should look for a RT at the draft.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Paintrain;531182]It's not that easy. Remember, Alexander was an undrafted free agent who played his way onto the team for being able to do a little bit of everything. Ever hear the phrase Jack of all trades, master of none? That's LoAx. If anything, the fact they are going after Dock it's an indictment on Chad Reinhart that he's not ready to step up into the starting lineup despite being a 3rd round pick last year.[/quote]

Good post.

On another note, looks like we made an offer to Campbell....Khary Campbell (he's a solid special teamer)

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Paintrain;531182]It's not that easy. Remember, Alexander was an undrafted free agent who played his way onto the team for being able to do a little bit of everything. Ever hear the phrase Jack of all trades, master of none? That's LoAx. If anything, the fact they are going after Dock it's an indictment on Chad Reinhart that he's not ready to step up into the starting lineup despite being a 3rd round pick last year.[/quote]

Yeah, Alexander if like a good utility infielder in baseball. He'll be great to have as a backup on either the O- or D-lines in case if injuries during games. I'm not sure I'd trust him as a starter, at least yet. He does have potential, but that's beyond this season. He's not quite ready yet.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[B]Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat [/B]
"I thought about starting another thread for this post, but now that we have Haynesworth, our top 4 DTs are now: Haynesworth, Griffin, Montgommery and Golston. Alexander is now our #5DT. We dont need that many DTs so Alexander is the odd man out.

Why the heck would we pursue Dockery when we could just move Alexander back to guard? I [B]think it would be much wiser to pursue a FA RT.[/B] That way, we could go into the draft with no GLARING needs. "


... Am I the only one immature enough to not realize he meant Free Agent Right Tackle and thought he wanted us to persue a Fart?

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Paintrain;531182]It's not that easy. Remember, Alexander was an undrafted free agent who played his way onto the team for being able to do a little bit of everything. Ever hear the phrase Jack of all trades, master of none? That's LoAx. If anything, the fact they are going after Dock it's an indictment on Chad Reinhart that he's not ready to step up into the starting lineup despite being a 3rd round pick last year.[/quote]

Good point. I always thought he was a better fit on offense though. He just didnt seem to have the mean streak you really want in a DT. perhaps he can push Rinehart for a backup position. Assuming we started Thomas and Dockery, and Jansen moves to a backup T/G role, then we dont have room for Rinehart and Alexander on the roster as backup guards (and i think its a forgone conclusion we dont have room for Alexander soley as a backup DT). Rinehart is eligible for the PS, so im predicting he'll land there when the regular season starts, with Alexander as our 4th guard/5th DT.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Gmanc711;531194][B]

... Am I the only one immature enough to not realize he meant Free Agent Right Tackle and thought he wanted us to persue a Fart?[/quote]

Lol, i didnt even notice that!

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Mattyk72;530962]I don't think it was performance related at all. He's still a very solid player the Bills are just realizing they need to seriously tighten their belts.[/quote]

I heard, and actually Gmanc would probably know this better since he's up around them parts, that the biggest reason they let Dockery go is that they're working on renegotiating Jason Peters' deal and he's insisting that he has to be the highest paid linemen on the team...so by cutting Dockery and his contract it makes that less impressive.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=SmootSmack;531213]I heard, and actually Gmanc would probably know this better since he's up around them parts, that the biggest reason they let Dockery go is that they're working on renegotiating Jason Peters' deal and he's insisting that he has to be the highest paid linemen on the team...so by cutting Dockery and his contract it makes that less impressive.[/quote]

There is a lot of truth to that, I dont know if thats exactly why they let Dock go, but theres been a lot of back and fourth between Peters & Buffalo. Peters held out well into training camp last year, and the Bills didnt budge at all, and finally Peters had to come back to the same contract, and he really didnt play as well as he had the previous years, in fact well under that (according to some Bills fans I know, I dont watch Buffalo cause they often play opposite WSH or I'll watch Dallas/Philly/NYG) ... I havent heard too much about the negotiations thusfar this year; but I know that was big last year...

There is very little news up here in Buffalo, they tend to be the exact opposite of Washington, not spending ANY money. In fact, people were stunned when they signed Dockery to that type of deal because they never do that sort of thing...I'm very suprised they let Dockery go; they have the cap space to keep whoever they want as far as I know... but I'm really hoping the Skins' pick up Dockery (or another starting offensive linemen) and draft some more... I mean I'm gald if they did anything on the defense, it was the line...but I'd still much rather see the money spent on the offensive side of the ball given how ineffective we were for 12 of our 16 games last season.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

Bills fans I know are the exact opposite of Redskins fans. It pisses them off that the team doesn't spend any money

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=SmootSmack;531232]Bills fans I know are the exact opposite of Redskins fans. It pisses them off that the team doesn't spend any money[/quote]

Pretty much, and I dont really blame them for it... they really are the exact opposite. I think its a pretty poor run organization as well... they try to build through the draft, which is how you build a team...but they dont draft very well, and they are afraid to get any big name free agents to plug holes to try to get them over the hump...

There really needs to be a happy medium with all teams..we're on the far side one way, they're on the far side the other way... alot of it I'm sure has to do with their market and location...

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

I'm in line to get my cup of Kool Aid. Brink D-Docks back home. 70Chip, baby!

Uhh, not you 70Chip.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

Docs in Detroit today-

[url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2009/02/dockery_in_detroit_so_tempted.html#comments]Dockery In Detroit (So Tempted To Call This Dr. Detroit) - Redskins Insider[/url]

Any quality free agent who would even consider detroit doesnt care about winning. this makes me question docks desire. I certainly would not overpay for him 1 cent.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;531263]Docs in Detroit today-

[URL="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2009/02/dockery_in_detroit_so_tempted.html#comments"]Dockery In Detroit (So Tempted To Call This Dr. Detroit) - Redskins Insider[/URL]

Any quality free agent who would even consider detroit doesnt care about winning. this makes me question docks desire. I certainly would not overpay for him 1 cent.[/quote]

I wouldn't go that far. They have a rabid fan base, great facilities, and a new head coach. He's probably just doing his due diligence as far as contract offers go.

Just b/c he wasn't immediately on Redskin One for a visit to Ashburn this morning doesn't mean he has no desire to win. That's kind of a silly statement.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=GMScud;531269]I wouldn't go that far. They have a rabid fan base, great facilities, and a new head coach. He's probably just doing his due diligence as far as contract offers go.

Just b/c he wasn't immediately on Redskin One for a visit to Ashburn this morning doesn't mean he has no desire to win. That's kind of a silly statement.[/quote]

My point wasnt that he wasnt coming HERE, its that he was going to Detroit. Detroits the joke of the NFL. none of their front office or coaching moves looks to have made the team any better... why on earth would ANYONE go to detroit?

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;531305]My point wasnt that he wasnt coming HERE, its that he was going to Detroit. Detroits the joke of the NFL. none of their front office or coaching moves looks to have made the team any better... why on earth would ANYONE go to detroit?[/quote]

I'm pretty sure even with Parcells the same could have been said by some about coming to Miami last year. 1-15 team, first time head coach, turmoil in the locker-room.

How can anyone say that their front office and coaching moves haven't made the team better? They got rid of the worst GM in NFL history with Matt Millen and fired a coach that went 1-23 in his last 24 games. I think they can ONLY get better by default!