Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=SBXVII;530422]Ok, some one with cap knowledge please help.

People keep posting how we can get all the free agents ...Haynesworth, Hall, Dockery, Canty and keep Taylor and even look for others. How can we do it? and are they correct in what they say ie; the thread starter. Is it possible?

Secondly, why are so many people or few people ready to shift Samuels to RT? #1 can he do it and #2 would he even want to?

Thirdly,(LOL) Why would we expierment with putting DD at RT or LT? He was used as a Guard cause he was not Tackle material. They tried to make the move with Wade cause he was taller and bigger but he could not do the job.

I'm not knocking DD I'm glad to have him back even if he did false start more often then anyone else.

I stand corrected it was not the thread starter. I think it was in another thread about free agency and salary cap I think.[/quote]

if you cut springs (for 6.5mill) and taylor (for 8.5mill) you have about 27mill of space to work with.

rookies and tender offers can cost us up to 4mill (1.5 for monty/golston i believe, and our kicker signed his 1mill deal already). rookies should be 3mill-3.5mill.

haynes i believe would cost 12mill for 2009 (other people have said 7mill, but i don't think that'd be a workable, league approved and compliant type of contract for a 6 year 100mill deal with 35mill in signing bonus).

so that leaves you with about 8mill (though there can be a few small restructures etc left for maybe 2mill more if needed).

that leaves 8-10 to work with...

canty is probably 6mill for a first year. dockery (hopefully) would only be 4... hall would probably be 5-6.

so it'd be cut springs/haynesworth, sign one other major FA and 1-2 minor ones.

2 big names, 1-2 very low level guys (kendall/depth LB/etc).

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

as far as the line moves... we don't have a spare LT, so samuels isn't moving. dockery is NOT a tackle (he's straight run blocking anyways), so kicking him out there would be a bad idea.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

I guess I'm the only one who didn't really care for him when he was here. It seemed like his head wasnt into the game as much as it needed to be. He made a lot of mistakes. I say go for youth and build for the future.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=EternalEnigma21;530619]I guess I'm the only one who didn't really care for him when he was here. It seemed like his head wasnt into the game as much as it needed to be. He made a lot of mistakes. I say go for youth and build for the future.[/quote]

he was the 26th best starting OG i think when he walked... he's decent, but he'll never be a stud.

still, our OL is TERRIBLE right now. if samuels heals up well we've got one spot locked up. thomas (hopefully) will be back to being good and rabach is okay, kendall is ancient and we don't have a RT at all. so if he's 3-4mill per, dock is a decent deal and a huge upgrade.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=That Guy;530652]he was the 26th best starting OG i think when he walked... he's decent, but he'll never be a stud.

still, our OL is TERRIBLE right now. if samuels heals up well we've got one spot locked up. thomas (hopefully) will be back to being good and rabach is okay, kendall is ancient and we don't have a RT at all. so if he's 3-4mill per, dock is a decent deal and a huge upgrade.[/quote]

Also i thought Dock improved markedly in '06, before he left us. Our rushing attack was stellar even after CP was hurt - Betts racked up more yards in the last 8 games than any RB save for LT - big Dock had a lot to do w/ that.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=That Guy;530652]he was the 26th best starting OG i think when he walked... he's decent, but he'll never be a stud.

still, our OL is TERRIBLE right now. if samuels heals up well we've got one spot locked up. thomas (hopefully) will be back to being good and rabach is okay, kendall is ancient and we don't have a RT at all. so if he's 3-4mill per, dock is a decent deal and a huge upgrade.[/quote]

Agreed, I don't think anyone expects him to come and be a beast of an o-lineman (it'd be nice if he did). I think Dock could replace Kendall or if the Redskins do get Jason Brown, could be a nice insurance in case Thomas gets hurt (dude had back surgery!).

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Ruhskins;530661]Agreed, I don't think anyone expects him to come and be a beast of an o-lineman (it'd be nice if he did). I think Dock could replace Kendall or if the Redskins do get Jason Brown, could be a nice insurance in case Thomas gets hurt (dude had back surgery!).[/quote]

I don't know if we'll get Brown and Dock. Either way, Thomas or Kendall are going to be gone. We're definitely not considering either of those guys to be insurance policies for current players.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=GMScud;530672]I don't know if we'll get Brown and Dock. Either way, Thomas or Kendall are going to be gone. We're definitely not considering either of those guys to be insurance policies for current players.[/quote]

Well I don't think Brown would be anyone's insurance, and come to think of it, you're right, we wouldn't get both Dock and Brown. I do want Brown though.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

Is Dock one of those pickups that looks good now but turns out bad? Why did the Bill give up on him? Is thier someone else better in the draft or FA? Were taking a big chance on Hall so I like the next few pick up to be more of a sure things!

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

I have a feeling we're gonna be seeing our guy return home... he was a truck opening holes for our running game in DC. Hopefully, Dock's cleaned up the false starts and our line can get back to business.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=RedskinPete;530878]Is Dock one of those pickups that looks good now but turns out bad? Why did the Bill give up on him? Is thier someone else better in the draft or FA? Were taking a big chance on Hall so I like the next few pick up to be more of a sure things![/quote]

they paid a 3mill/year OG 7mill/year. that's pretty much all there is to it. they expected a top tier OL addition by taking our (at the time) 4th best lineman and vastly overpaying him, and then magically were surprised when they found out he played there the same way he played here.

I guess the forgot that the rest of that line wasn't coming with him.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=RedskinPete;530878]Is Dock one of those pickups that looks good now but turns out bad? Why did the Bill give up on him? Is thier someone else better in the draft or FA? Were taking a big chance on Hall so I like the next few pick up to be more of a sure things![/quote]

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.

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]

Yes, they overpaid for him and now realize it. I'm sure they were satisfied with his performance, but the deal was just TOO BIG for a lineman in the first place. They got their man, then realized it was a bad financial position...sort of like some guy that walks into an auto auction and immediately says "$50,000!" for a car currently bidding at $20,000...of course everyone else is going to just let him have it for that price.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

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 [U]move Alexander back to guard[/U]? I think it would be much wiser to pursue a FA Strong Side LB or DE (whichever position Jason Taylor will not be playing).

That way, we could go into the draft with the only starter needed at RT.

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. [b]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?[/b] 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]
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.

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!

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Paintrain;531307]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![/quote]

Good points. As Miami and Atlanta (and Baltimore to some extent) proved, you can go from disaster to playoffs pretty quickly in the NFL.

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]

They've got more salary cap space which equates to a bigger contract.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=Gmanc711;531194][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?[/quote]

ha ha. Well i think we still have glaring needs at RT, LG and SLB. I highly doubt we can address more than 1 of those in FA (2 at the most if we get Dock and Willis cheap). That probably means we still take Maluauga at 13 which I'm more and more excited about.

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.

[B]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[/B].[/quote]

Nothing wrong with him checking out his options. I agree, to question his desire based on that is pretty silly.

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]

Going after Dockery imo is an indictment on the FO/Buges and how they have managed or mismanaged the offensive line.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

My thing with Dock is why is Buff letting him go? Dock just seems like kind of an average player to me. He was never anything special here. Good road grader but couldn't pull and got a ton of false starts. Plus Kendall really wasn't the main problem with the line. It was more Jansen and Rabach IMO. I know we need to get younger but what about Rinehart? Does he just plain suck?

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=skinsfan69;531416]My thing with Dock is why is Buff letting him go? Dock just seems like kind of an average player to me. He was never anything special here. Good road grader but couldn't pull and got a ton of false starts. Plus Kendall really wasn't the main problem with the line. It was more Jansen and Rabach IMO. I know we need to get younger but what about Rinehart? Does he just plain suck?[/quote]Kendall was definitely not the main problem with the line, but he's also the one part of it that doesn't have a contract for next season.

I really do think Jason Brown is/should be the team's first choice here, but Dockery should be the plan B. I hope if they do pay for Brown, they release Rabach and let Brown be the Center. Paying him to play LG would be such a misuse of our limited resources.

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

doc was a pulling monster when he was here, moe-ing mofos down on tosses and counters..... dont know what games u were watching SkinsFan

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=GTripp0012;531418]Kendall was definitely not the main problem with the line, but he's also the one part of it that doesn't have a contract for next season.

I really do think Jason Brown is/should be the team's first choice here, but Dockery should be the plan B. I hope if they do pay for Brown, they release Rabach and let Brown be the Center. Paying him to play LG would be such a misuse of our limited resources.[/quote]

I don't know much about this guy Brown from Balt. other than he can play center and guard but again, can he play? Why isn't Balt. resigning him?

Re: Dockery Cut:
 

[quote=skinsfan69;531420]I don't know much about this guy Brown from Balt. other than he can play center and guard but again, can he play? Why isn't Balt. resigning him?[/quote]He's young and mediocre. Not unlike Hall.

He's clearly more physically able to handle the position than Rabach is. He's not necessarily worth what he's going to get in free agency, but he would fill a hole that we would no longer need to use a draft pick on, which is valuable within itself.