Could This Be Troublesome?
 

[b]Redskins | Dockery has not signed tender[/b]
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:25:15 -0800

Jason La Canfora, of the Washington Post, reports, contrary to earlier reports, <A href="http://www.kffl.com/team/37/nfl">[color=#0000ff]Washington Redskins[/color] restricted free agent OL [url="http://www.kffl.com/player/5927/nfl"][color=#0000ff]Derrick Dockery[/color][/url] has not yet signed his tender offer. He was offered a one-year tender that would require a first-round draft pick as compensation should he sign with another team.

THOUGHTS ANYONE?

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

win win situation if you ask me, if he does sign somewhere else...we get a first round pick, if we keep him then we still have a decent guard...

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

I hope we re-sign him. If we lose him, then that's yet another position we have to worry about. Consistency on the O-line is key. I'd like all five starters back for the next several years

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I hope we re-sign him. If we lose him, then that's yet another position we have to worry about. Consistency on the O-line is key. I'd like all five starters back for the next several years[/QUOTE]

Agreed. We should get this guy in the fold. He's been a rock for us, never missed a start, and has made steady improvements each year. I can see why he'd want more than the $700K one-year tender.

Skins have to do what's in their best interests. But I don't think it would be a bad thing if we gave him $6 million over the course of 3 years.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

[QUOTE=SKINFANFOLIFE][b]Redskins | Dockery has not signed tender[/b]
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:25:15 -0800

Jason La Canfora, of the Washington Post, reports, contrary to earlier reports, <A href="http://www.kffl.com/team/37/nfl">[color=#0000ff]Washington Redskins[/color] restricted free agent OL [url="http://www.kffl.com/player/5927/nfl"][color=#0000ff]Derrick Dockery[/color][/url] has not yet signed his tender offer. He was offered a one-year tender that would require a first-round draft pick as compensation should he sign with another team.

THOUGHTS ANYONE?[/QUOTE]

What does that mean if he doesn't sign the offer. I thought that was just a formality. He can sign with someone else even after he signs the tender right? I'll gladly take a first for a slightly above average guard. He's a big boy and durable, but he ain't that good.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

[QUOTE=wilsowilso]What does that mean if he doesn't sign the offer. I thought that was just a formality. He can sign with someone else even after he signs the tender right? I'll gladly take a first for a slightly above average guard. He's a big boy and durable, but he ain't that good.[/QUOTE]

As soon as the Skins issued the tender, that made him a RFA, meaning it doesn't matter whether he signs the tender or not, we still get the right to match any offer and receive a 1st rounder if we decline to match.

It's just that he obviously feels he's worth more than the $700K one-year tender. And I actually would agree with him. But the Skins hold the leverage in this situation, because nobody is going to give up a 1st rounder for Derrick Dockery. The Skins can afford to just wait Dockery out until he eventually signs the tender.

So he's pretty much guaranteed to be a Skin. I just think it might be wise to treat him with some respect and do right by him. He hasn't earned big money or anything, but we might want to consider rewarding him with a 3 year deal. That way if he gets even better he still has that opportunity for a big payday before he exits his prime. Of course that all depends on how much he asks for, which we have no idea of knowing at this point.

We just have to wait it out. But he's 99% sure to be a Skin next year.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

He will be back.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

Nobody is going to give up a 1st rounder for him, smart move though by the Skins to not risk losing him.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

there's better guards available in the 2nd round this year (or ones will be better in a year), so if anyone offers a first, i'd gladly take it.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

Teams hardly ever draft Guards with 1st round picks so I doubt that we even need to worry about someone trading a #1 for a guard. dockery resigning is more a matter of when not if...

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

If a team gets him and gives up a #1, we can use our second round pick on one of the best guards in the draft and use the #1 for another position.

Rookie blue Chip Guard + 1st round pick > Dockery

but then again, dockery is overrated. He is too inconsistent and doesnt have the temperment to be a gibbs type guard. So i would be shocked if a team signed him.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

Couldn't Hurt.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

he's alright, he's just too slow to be great at pulling and gibbs loves pulling guards.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]he's alright, he's just too slow to be great at pulling and gibbs loves pulling guards.[/QUOTE]
I do agree to this statement, but its also good to have another lineman that knows the system and is somewhat comfotable with it. Keeping people is always better than teaching new people.

Re: Could This Be Troublesome?
 

[QUOTE=Warpath]I do agree to this statement, but its also good to have another lineman that knows the system and is somewhat comfotable with it. Keeping people is always better than teaching new people.[/QUOTE]

I agree, he's competent enough (for now at least), still if you can draft someone with upside, they'd be super cheap backup and have a chance to learn the system and people before being rushed into a starting role. thats why i dont think a FA move at LG is a smart idea.