Disillusioned Front Office: Surprised??

[DRSmith]

we signed him for five years. so you're quote should read: "when Fletch has five great years someone bump this thread."

Nah we will just bump it every year, but we have to do it year one first.

[GIBBS LIVES]

Jury is out on this signing.

[Skins PR]

The original poster does bring up a good point that if we are so interested in keeping our core guys, we should never have let Dockery get to free agency.

How long will they keep putting off an extension of Cooley and Taylor?

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

When I want advice on how to sound like an idiot, ill ask for it.

Until then, worst thread of the day.

i think you accomplished it without asking for it.

[DRSmith]

The original poster does bring up a good point that if we are so interested in keeping our core guys, we should never have let Dockery get to free agency.

How long will they keep putting off an extension of Cooley and Taylor?

So you think Dock should get more than Samuels and Jansen although he has never been a probowler?

[One Shot]

To the thread starter, instead of signing Fletcher what do you think we should have done?

[Birdlives]

London Fletcher: he's small and old. last i checked, not a good combination for ANY football player......much less, a middle linebacker.

after ALL these years, vinny and danny STILL haven't learned. this is Mark Carrier, Deion, Bruce Smith written all over again.

i guess it makes too much sense to pay the huge and young (Dockery), when you can pay the small and old.

i realize its apples to oranges before anyone says anything, and the fact that Dockery was asking too much this off-season. HOWEVER, a SMART front office would have recognized Dockery's upside before it ever got to this, and signed him to a more economical extension a year ago.

1. go be a cowboys fan. You dont like the Redskins Team, you just want something to whine about.

2. Sorry, but Dockery got a huge payday. No way he's worth the money Buffalo is paying him. No way even more we can devote that much to the O-Line. We already pay a premium for the other 3-4 guys.

3. We paid peanuts for Fletcher who happens to be a smart and energetic guy. He's also well versed in the Williams defense, and a great locker room presence. If he plays 2-3 more years strong and then backs up the next LB's he'll still be earning evey dollar we pay him.

4. Danny Snyder wants to win and spends what he can to do so. That doesn't mean he's always right, but at least he tries, which is more than I can say for 75% of the other franchise owners out there.

5. Maybe, just maybe the FO didnt sign Dock last year because they knew he wasn't worth the money he wanted. He was looking for a huge payday. What makes you think he came up with that idea recently?

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

So you think Dock should get more than Samuels and Jansen although he has never been a probowler?

the point is that it should have never come to free agency with Dock. they should have extended him last year at the latest. you know, that whole continuity thing, keeping the core together, not losing young talent stuff. jeeze, all seems so stupid doesn't? why would we wanna go ahead and accomplish all THAT stuff?

[ClintonINFORSIX26]

I like this signing, provides leader ship. And small? I would hardly call 245 pounds small hes solid and think hes going to be a good upgrade for us.

[ClintonINFORSIX26]

I like this signing, provides leader ship. And small? I would hardly call 245 pounds small hes solid and think hes going to be a good upgrade for us.

[Skins PR]

So you think Dock should get more than Samuels and Jansen although he has never been a probowler?

No, I was saying that if we had made more of an effort, we could have signed him to an extension before he ever made it to the final year of his contract and he would not have commanded nearly as high a price.

And that if we keep putting off giving Cooley and ST the extensions that they deserve, I will soon be on here reading about how they were not core Redskins or Gibbs guys and that we made a smart decision by letting them walk.

Meanwhile we will celebrate the signing of Danny's newest toy.

[bubba9497]

Dock was a goner as soon as the cap was announced, his agent knew it would be a fools paradise for good OL-man in FA

Fletch lead the NFL in tackles the last five years, something the Skins lacked the ability to do last year, he knows the defense already (a good thing sine he'll be calling the plays), and 31 is far from old for a LB

[Cdowwe]

Not quite.

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

To the thread starter, instead of signing Fletcher what do you think we should have done?

where to start. this $$$ could be spread around in so many other useful ways. as a rule, i never like signing a guy over 30 to be a starter. as it stands now, our #1 CB is on his way out the door b/c we can't afford the contract WE drew up. so while we may be getting a very good MLB, we'll be losing a lockdown corner. this $$ could have also been planned for ahead of time by signing Dock to an extension last year, in addition to contributing towards Springs. so we bring in someone new, and lose two core guys. i guess continuity is a sham.

The bottom line is, Linebackers look bad when the Defensive line gets no pressure. MLB wasn't our greatest need.

[bulldog]

Apples and oranges comparison.

Dockery had not shown through 2005 that he was going to go beyond the plateau we had seen his first 3 seasons. He was overweight and was flagged often for mental mistakes, false starts and other penalties that hurt the club at critical times.

Once again, during a contract year Dockery made sure he came into camp much lighter and seemingly ready to put in the work to get better and he did.

I don't think the two are coincidental. Bugel and Gibbs have been after Dockery to do the same things for years and with the rookie deal expiring all of a sudden #66 puts it all together?

I think Dockery could have worked harder in 2004 and 2005 to become a better player for us faster and I think the improvement we saw in 2006, if it had happened in 2005, would have been rewarded in a new deal.

That said, Dockery is a solid guard, a contributor, but not an anchor. This is not Russ Grimm or Larry Allen or John Hannah. He is not one of the best in the game.

The Bills paid as if he already was one of the best.

Fletcher is 5'11 and 245. 245 is not small for a MLB in a 4-3 scheme. Ray Lewis may be 262 but he plays in a 3-4 scheme where the middle backers are bigger because their role is different.

5'11? Do you realize that Neal Olkewicz was barely 6'0. Sam Mills was only 5'10. Both played MLB in the NFL for 10 plus years. Mills went to a number of pro bowls.

Critics of Fletcher conveniently ignore the fact he has registered 100 plus tackles in 8 years of his 9 year career and has been a durable performer for teams that went to the postseason.

[DRSmith]

No, I was saying that if we had made more of an effort, we could have signed him to an extension before he ever made it to the final year of his contract and he would not have commanded nearly as high a price.

And that if we keep putting off giving Cooley and ST the extensions that they deserve, I will soon be on here reading about how they were not core Redskins or Gibbs guys and that we made a smart decision by letting them walk.

Meanwhile we will celebrate the signing of Danny's newest toy.

Why extend ST since he is under contract to 2011?

Has anyone complained about Cooley there was some complaints about Dock and it seems he was looking for a payday.

[SkinsFanAnt]

I like Fletcher. I just think we paid too much for him. People say we got a good deal but forget our other needs. Dock needed to go. He was disgustingly overpaid by the Bills. Either way, after last years FF debacle what we needed was a player who gives us something to build on the next 2-3 years. This wasn't going to get fixed in one year. The reason the Redskins shouldn't have signed Fletcher because now we'll be picking up the pieces after he retires or gets hurt...sound familiar?

[DRSmith]

I like Fletcher. I just think we paid too much for him. People say we got a good deal but forget our other needs. Dock needed to go. He was disgustingly overpaid by the Bills. Either way, after last years FF debacle what we needed was a player who gives us something to build on the next 2-3 years. This wasn't going to get fixed in one year. The reason the Redskins shouldn't have signed Fletcher because now we'll be picking up the pieces after he retires or gets hurt...sound familiar?

Having to see Bills games as they are the local team, I can say I always wanted to see Fletch in a Skins uniform, he is a game maker.

I felt the same way about ARE and he has been a great contirbutor to the team also.

[One Shot]

where to start. this $$$ could be spread around in so many other useful ways. as a rule, i never like signing a guy over 30 to be a starter. as it stands now, our #1 CB is on his way out the door b/c we can't afford the contract WE drew up. so while we may be getting a very good MLB, we'll be losing a lockdown corner. this $$ could have also been planned for ahead of time by signing Dock to an extension last year, in addition to contributing towards Springs. so we bring in someone new, and lose two core guys. i guess continuity is a sham.

The bottom line is, Linebackers look bad when the Defensive line gets no pressure. MLB wasn't our greatest need.

But our linebacking corps was obviously weak. Holdman is done and Marshall struggled. That leaves Washington, and one productive linebacker isn't going to cut it. Hopefully Rocky will step up this year, and that leaves one linebacker to go...it's something that needed to be addressed. This years draft is pretty ripe with defensive line talent, so the defensive line problem will be addressed in the draft. The Fletcher deal wasn't excessive, it was necessary.

[Cheers, Beers and Mountaineers]

people put way too much emphasis on measurables like size, height, 40 times and whatnot, although those can be and idicator to what kind of football player some one might be, what really matters is production, can they play. and fletcher has shown consistently that he can produce. if 40 times and size are everything, than jerry rice is a bad football player (bad 40 time) and barry sanders is a bad football player (small) just to name a couple.

[Skins PR]

To the thread starter, instead of signing Fletcher what do you think we should have done?

I'm not the thread starter but I think that what we should have done is re-sign the good middle linebacker that we had.

Antonio Pierce was a core Redskin and he signed with another team for 26 million over 6 years. Many people justified letting him go as this was too high a price to pay.

Now we have signed a much older player to a five year contract for roughly the same amount of money.

[Drex]

Why extend ST since he is under contract to 2011?

Has anyone complained about Cooley there was some complaints about Dock and it seems he was looking for a payday.

With Drew Rosenhaus as his agent and Taylor making it to the pro bowl and garnering the attention of the league, I highly doubt that Taylor will still be under that same contract until 2011.

If we don't extend him, Rosenhaus, as the case with most of the guys he represents, is going to get his client big time dollars, whether it is in Washington or somewhere else.

[JRAB]

Well, I didn't like seeing Dock go either. He is young and up-and-coming OL in the NFL and he was a Redskin. I always hate to see those types leave. It doesn't matter if he was over paid or not... it still hurts to see him go and we still have a hole on the OL that has to be plugged. Who do we get? All OL will be overpriced because of this FA period, so whoever we sign will be overpriced. Either that or we plug in a player we already have, which I'm really leery of doing.

As for Fletcher... I like him as a player. He may be short, but as many have already pointed out, he's thick and solid. Durable too.

Still, his age is a concern for me because guys do start to slow down at his age in the NFL. He hasn't had many injuries, but that's no guarantee that, at his age, injuries won't start to become a problem. I've seen plenty of NFL guys that never were injury prone but late in their careers started having problems that never went away. Barrow comes to mind.

Anyway, letting a young core Redskin go and bringing in an older guy always makes me nervous. It is the opposite of what most on here have been saying they want to see.

Linebackers are easier to come by than OL, too. Getting Rocky last year for LB is exactly the way I'd like to see us stock the LB's. That's why I never was happy to see Lavar get so much at LB and why I was thrilled to see him go. In Williams' scheme, LB's aren't hard to find, IMO. Just get a young, fast guy who has some instincts for the position and let him go. It's how a ton of teams get their LB's. That's why you rarely see 4-3 teams go LB in round 1. Most first round LB's are in 3-4 defenses. 4-3 LB's aren't hard to come by.

I'll give it a chance though, and hope for the best. Still, I hope they find a way to make the roster younger and not older. Plus, OL isn't anything to screw around with. There are teams that have great skill position players but a sorry OL and they can't do squat in the NFL. I don't want us to end up that way. Please do something with the OL.

[DRSmith]

With Drew Rosenhaus as his agent and Taylor making it to the pro bowl and garnering the attention of the league, I highly doubt that Taylor will still be under that same contract until 2011.

If we don't extend him, Rosenhaus, as the case with most of the guys he represents, is going to get his client big time dollars, whether it is in Washington or somewhere else.

I like ST but if hr pulls some immature crap like a hold out and wants to void his contract to go play else where at some point in time then fine.

You seem to be missing that he has guys around him that he has played with since college to help him try to keep a level head.

[DRSmith]

Well, I didn't like seeing Dock go either. He is young and up-and-coming OL in the NFL and he was a Redskin. I always hate to see those types leave. It doesn't matter if he was over paid or not... it still hurts to see him go and we still have a hole on the OL that has to be plugged. Who do we get? All OL will be overpriced because of this FA period, so whoever we sign will be overpriced. Either that or we plug in a player we already have, which I'm really leery of doing.

As for Fletcher... I like him as a player. He may be short, but as many have already pointed out, he's thick and solid. Durable too.

Still, his age is a concern for me because guys do start to slow down at his age in the NFL. He hasn't had many injuries, but that's no guarantee that, at his age, injuries won't start to become a problem. I've seen plenty of NFL guys that never were injury prone but late in their careers started having problems that never went away. Barrow comes to mind.

Anyway, letting a young core Redskin go and bringing in an older guy always makes me nervous. It is the opposite of what most on here have been saying they want to see.

Linebackers are easier to come by than OL, too. Getting Rocky last year for LB is exactly the way I'd like to see us stock the LB's. That's why I never was happy to see Lavar get so much at LB and why I was thrilled to see him go. In Williams' scheme, LB's aren't hard to find, IMO. Just get a young, fast guy who has some instincts for the position and let him go. It's how a ton of teams get their LB's. That's why you rarely see 4-3 teams go LB in round 1. Most first round LB's are in 3-4 defenses. 4-3 LB's aren't hard to come by.

I'll give it a chance though, and hope for the best. Still, I hope they find a way to make the roster younger and not older. Plus, OL isn't anything to screw around with. There are teams that have great skill position players but a sorry OL and they can't do squat in the NFL. I don't want us to end up that way. Please do something with the OL.

The way I see it we now have 3 solid linebackers to teach young LBs over the next couple of years their various spots be strong weak or middle.