Derrick Dockery:

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

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.

[Redskin Warrior]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

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.

I would be pissed if they let Taylor or Campbell think about FA they are a must to sign.

[Daseal]

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.

[SmootSmack]

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]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

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

Interesting. I don't remember that. All you ever heard was Rod Gardner or Santana Moss.

[djnemo65]

56, if you want to argue that we have historically overpaid for free agents then I don't think anyone would disagree with you. But that has nothing to do with Dockery, who garnered a market deal far in excess of what he was worth. Kudos to the Skins for having the fortitude and forsight to balk on that deal, even though they wanted to keep the player.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

56, if you want to argue that we have historically overpaid for free agents then I don't think anyone would disagree with you. But that has nothing to do with Dockery, who garnered a market deal far in excess of what he was worth. Kudos to the Skins for having the fortitude and forsight to balk on that deal, even though they wanted to keep the player.

i do agree, no way I would have paid him that amount of money. I just dont think I should have come down to him hitting the FA market.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

i do agree, no way I would have paid him that amount of money. I just dont think I should have come down to him hitting the FA market.

I agree with 56fanatic - had we done the right thing and given Doc an extension when he had a year left on his contract, we would have saved a ton of money and kept a core guy just entering his prime. We just did exactly that with Cooley's extension, so I hope we continue the trend with Taylor and others that we hope to retain. The only time we should allow a solid core player get to free agency again is if we have no intention of keeping him.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

I agree with 56fanatic - had we done the right thing and given Doc an extension when he had a year left on his contract, we would have saved a ton of money and kept a core guy just entering his prime. We just did exactly that with Cooley's extension, so I hope we continue the trend with Taylor and others that we hope to retain. The only time we should allow a solid core player get to free agency again is if we have no intention of keeping him.

In hindsight, it might have been a good idea to lock him up a year before his contract was up. However, he was always the weak link on our line IMO and I wasn't sure in 2005 if he deserved an extension. It certainly would have been good to have locked up Pierce before his contract expired.

[djnemo65]

Didn't the Brandon Lloyd saga teach us what happens when we give players contract extensions prematurely? Sorry, you just can't keep every free agent. The league's most consistently excellent teams -- NE, Pit, Baltimore, Indy -- sure don't.