Why did we release Dockery?

[ganesh]

Despite blocking for 2 plus thousand yard years for Lynch and the run game showing some positives with Fred Jackson and even setting a record for fewest sacks given up by a Bills squad last year, the FO clearly had it out for the entire left side of the OL (gone), their C (gone) and even rearranged the right side of the OL. Given the demonstrable successes mentioned above in this paragraph it seems clearly to be more than simple on field issues which has seen the FO essentially tear out the OL page of the roster and start over.

 

Well put....I think there was just too much going on behind-the-scenes for this to have happened. Your hypothesis with regards to Dockery not challenging his team player(s) for both their on the field and off the field acts seem to have put the last nail down.

 

I mean Dockery is not that bad a player and with the Bills hoping for continuity would have felt no hurry to get rid of 3 players from the line. They could have negotiated with Dockery for a pay cut or reduction in the roster bonus if they wanted. Sometime players do want to stay where they are and are willing to take the cut to help the team (Or may be they approached and he refused).

 

The bottom line is the Bills have failed to solve their OL woes for the last 10 years...the same 10 years they have yet to make the playoffs. The QBs have suffered through the same period...Unfortunatley for the Bills, they have tried and FAILED.

[Bill from NYC]

I mean Dockery is not that bad a player and with the Bills hoping for continuity would have felt no hurry to get rid of 3 players from the line.

 

"Not that bad?" I suppose, but the guy played totally uninspired. If I was obligated to pay him 7 mil. or so per year and was able to cut him, I would have opted for the cut. He isn't worth the cash, and set a bad example for the young guys imo.

 

It was a very smart move to draft Wood and Levitre. It might not produce immediate results but if these guys are good, they are going to change the dynamics of this team. Now, we need Tackles on both sides.

[The Dean]

In general, I think the lead post in this thread sought to focus on the issue of why not trade Dockery for a very late pick rather than release him rather than looking for comment on his quality (or lack thereof) of his play,

 

I think asking the question this way was an intelligent move as it focused discussion on the technical and timing issues involved with making a trade or cutting a player rather than the (often fact-free) opinions of whether he could lead block or not.

 

However, as this technical question is fairly well answered in this thread so far, I think that the questions regarding opinion on his play are legit and interesting.

 

From my memory of watching the Bills games I do not remember Dockery as being such a horrible liability as a pulling guard. It was not a notable part of his game (but the the ability to pull is not the central element of his skill as a Bill as for example Fowler did demonstrate clearly to me a number of times that actually he was quick and good enough to be a pulling center but this good skill in now way outweighed the fact the team showed zero push up the middle on short yardage.

 

I think you are more correct in identifying the huge contract signed by Dockery as being the root of his disappointment for the FO and the Bills were willing to take a contract hit (writing off his bonus simply as bad money and valuing getting rid of him whether it be by cut or trade before the next bonus payment kicked in which would have them throwing good money after the bad money.

 

My sense of the Bills disappointment with Dockery is not found in his pulling ability but:

 

A. The Bills could not generate much or any push from the interior line on short yardage play. I think like in the loafers but very bright Fowler, disappointing Dockery and likely shifted from D to RT Butler are gone from their interior line positions because of this failure.

B. Separate from his production on the field, my GUESS is that the Bills were willing to give Dockery such a huge contract with the expectation that he would assert himself to be positive leader for the OL (Kent Hull played this role for the best Bills OL ever). On the contrary not only did DD fell to fill this leadership void but as one of the few players who had any substantive contact with Peters during his holdout, rather than be a leader who urged him to play, DD either took his side or simply remained silent.

 

I think the Bills were disappointed that the largest OL in the NFL seemed to fail to throw its weight around and could not even control the middle of the field during crunch time.

 

I think Dockert's fate was sealed as a Bill when at best he failed to be a mouthpiece for management regarding Peters and actually probably took his fellow players side.

 

Despite blocking for 2 plus thousand yard years for Lynch and the run game showing some positives with Fred Jackson and even setting a record for fewest sacks given up by a Bills squad last year, the FO clearly had it out for the entire left side of the OL (gone), their C (gone) and even rearranged the right side of the OL. Given the demonstrable successes mentioned above in this paragraph it seems clearly to be more than simple on field issues which has seen the FO essentially tear out the OL page of the roster and start over.

 

 

 

I think you've likely hit the nail right on the head, Dazed. People here like the simple labels and explanations, especially those that tend to bolster their formed opinion of a player, FO, etc.

[Lurker]

I think you've likely hit the nail right on the head, Dazed. People here like the simple labels and explanations, especially those that tend to bolster their formed opinion of a player, FO, etc.

Doesn't that hold true for anyone born in the WWW age?

[spartacus]

He was not good. I cannot imagine what the Levy-led circle jerks saw in this stiff in the first place. I will give the jerks credit for opening up their wallets and paying him what the market demanded, something they refused to do with Peters. Just our luck they paid the right money to the wrong player, and were forced to eat about 4 or 5 Million against the salary cap.

 

As far as why they could not trade him? Well it appears they refused to accept what teams may have been offering for Dockery and waited too long. When Detroit offered them a late round pick, they were up against the clock for having to pay him a roster bonus, and decided to dump him when the trade failed to go through for whatever reason.

 

Dockery is another victim of the disconnect between the coaches and front office.

 

Dockery was good enough in the Redskins blocking schemes in 2006 to justify the biggest contract in Bills history.

 

Dockery was not good in the Bills blocking scheme in 2007 & 2008 to justify that huge contract, but he was far better than the slugs the Bills had been using since running Ruben Brown out of town.

 

The Redskins paid Dockery big bucks the very day after he was cut by the Bills because they think he can again produce in their blocking schemes.

 

 

Looks to me like the blocking schemes used in Buffalo may be the problem.

 

but what is the surprise when the linemen themselves don't know if they are running a drive blocking or zone blocking scheme.

 

 

Dockery had value on the market - the Bills just totally failed to explore that market more than 2 days before Dockery's bonus was due.

[The Dean]

Doesn't that hold true for anyone born in the WWW age?

 

 

Don't go all Cincy on us.

 

I think it's the problem with most people, most of the time, in most any time period. Could it be worse now? Possibly.

 

Sage is a child of the WWW age, and he seems to be fine.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

During the draft, teams do have to put in trade agreement "paperwork" with the league -- the league has to verify that the deal is legit, etc. In fact, if the league says that the trade wasn't filed in time, the next team in the order can take the pick ahead of the teams making the deal. I agree that the process is streamlined, well understood, and certainly people aren't napping, doing beer bongs, or playing bridge in the spare conference room. I think you are overselling the idea that filing paperwork for the intention to trade involves battalions of lawyers and the faxing of reams of papers to, fro and yon. The league has to know what the contracts involved are, but I'd bet they already have it on file and certainly the Bills would have it and not have to draft a new one from recall. (just kidding, btw)

 

The funky bit from Gaughan's blog is that the Bills never filed anything in regards to extending the deadline 5 more days on Dockery. Why? Dockery got on the plane and went to Detroit for the physical, so it doesn't make sense that he had nixed the deal beforehand -- unless he just likes getting on planes and flying around to kill time. And like you asked, did the Bills really shop Dock? Were they aware the Redskins were very interested? The fact that they didn't even begin the process to slide the deadline, knew it was fast approaching, and then turnaround and use the same deadline as their defense for not making a deal seems like fancy tap dancing, does it not? Again, I guess we could just blow it off completely because the offer on the table was the 7th round pick, but then again the Bills found Bryce Fisher, Jay Riemersma, Tom Nutten and Kurt Schulz in the 7th round -- and those guys were all NFL starters.

 

Another interesting question is how Dock went from being someone the Bills thought so highly of to offer him the richest contract in team history to come to Buffalo, to someone that they apparently felt had essentially no value in just 2 years. Is that not a self-indictment against their own scouting and decision-making? Every team makes mistakes, and nobody should expect total perfection; however, the Bills record these past 9 seasons is exceptional in that the mistakes have consistently outweighed the good decisions (and many of the same people have been there throughout and have even been promoted).

I think the NFL requires more than a page or two, but less than reams of paper, to delay multi-million dollar bonuses payments.

 

DD obviously didn't nix the actual deal beforehand, but he might have declined to sign the paperwork that delayed his bonus, since he knew he would be a free agent after midnight on Thursday.

 

It's all speculation and nobody outside OBD, the Lions, and DD's agent knows what actually went down or why.

[Dan]

Dockery is another victim of the disconnect between the coaches and front office.

 

Dockery was good enough in the Redskins blocking schemes in 2006 to justify the biggest contract in Bills history.

 

Dockery was not good in the Bills blocking scheme in 2007 & 2008 to justify that huge contract, but he was far better than the slugs the Bills had been using since running Ruben Brown out of town.

 

The Redskins paid Dockery big bucks the very day after he was cut by the Bills because they think he can again produce in their blocking schemes.

 

Looks to me like the blocking schemes used in Buffalo may be the problem.

 

but what is the surprise when the linemen themselves don't know if they are running a drive blocking or zone blocking scheme.

 

Dockery had value on the market - the Bills just totally failed to explore that market more than 2 days before Dockery's bonus was due.

I've been suggesting that for several seasons. The real problem is I think you can extend that to most positions on the field.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

In general, I think the lead post in this thread sought to focus on the issue of why not trade Dockery for a very late pick rather than release him rather than looking for comment on his quality (or lack thereof) of his play,

 

I think asking the question this way was an intelligent move as it focused discussion on the technical and timing issues involved with making a trade or cutting a player rather than the (often fact-free) opinions of whether he could lead block or not.

 

However, as this technical question is fairly well answered in this thread so far, I think that the questions regarding opinion on his play are legit and interesting.

 

From my memory of watching the Bills games I do not remember Dockery as being such a horrible liability as a pulling guard. It was not a notable part of his game (but the the ability to pull is not the central element of his skill as a Bill as for example Fowler did demonstrate clearly to me a number of times that actually he was quick and good enough to be a pulling center but this good skill in now way outweighed the fact the team showed zero push up the middle on short yardage.

 

I think you are more correct in identifying the huge contract signed by Dockery as being the root of his disappointment for the FO and the Bills were willing to take a contract hit (writing off his bonus simply as bad money and valuing getting rid of him whether it be by cut or trade before the next bonus payment kicked in which would have them throwing good money after the bad money.

 

My sense of the Bills disappointment with Dockery is not found in his pulling ability but:

 

A. The Bills could not generate much or any push from the interior line on short yardage play. I think like in the loafers but very bright Fowler, disappointing Dockery and likely shifted from D to RT Butler are gone from their interior line positions because of this failure.

B. Separate from his production on the field, my GUESS is that the Bills were willing to give Dockery such a huge contract with the expectation that he would assert himself to be positive leader for the OL (Kent Hull played this role for the best Bills OL ever). On the contrary not only did DD fell to fill this leadership void but as one of the few players who had any substantive contact with Peters during his holdout, rather than be a leader who urged him to play, DD either took his side or simply remained silent.

 

I think the Bills were disappointed that the largest OL in the NFL seemed to fail to throw its weight around and could not even control the middle of the field during crunch time.

 

I think Dockert's fate was sealed as a Bill when at best he failed to be a mouthpiece for management regarding Peters and actually probably took his fellow players side.

 

Despite blocking for 2 plus thousand yard years for Lynch and the run game showing some positives with Fred Jackson and even setting a record for fewest sacks given up by a Bills squad last year, the FO clearly had it out for the entire left side of the OL (gone), their C (gone) and even rearranged the right side of the OL. Given the demonstrable successes mentioned above in this paragraph it seems clearly to be more than simple on field issues which has seen the FO essentially tear out the OL page of the roster and start over.

excellent post!

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Dockery had value on the market - the Bills just totally failed to explore that market more than 2 days before Dockery's bonus was due.

and you know this because?

[Sisyphean Bills]

I think the NFL requires more than a page or two, but less than reams of paper, to delay multi-million dollar bonuses payments.

For the sake of fact-free discussion, let's say there is a 10 page form and various supplemental documents. How long does it take to pull that together? How long does it take a professional in the business that's managed trades before to pull the paperwork together? Opening vertical files and filing out the forms should be the easy part. This was not a renegotiation, apparently, so the dollar amounts weren't a concern.

DD obviously didn't nix the actual deal beforehand, but he might have declined to sign the paperwork that delayed his bonus, since he knew he would be a free agent after midnight on Thursday.

Yeah. More speculation: it may have been the case that the Redskins strongly suspected the Bills wouldn't be able to work a trade out and were willing to just sit tight and hope to catch Dockery on the rebound.

It's all speculation and nobody outside OBD, the Lions, and DD's agent knows what actually went down or why.

Agreed.

[Lurker]

Don't go all Cincy on us.

Properly chastened...

[The Dean]

Yeah. More speculation: it may have been the case that the Redskins strongly suspected the Bills wouldn't be able to work a trade out and were willing to just sit tight and hope to catch Dockery on the rebound.

 

 

Dockery looks to be making quite a bit less next year than he would have made in Buffalo. Do you think Washington, or any/many other teams, would have been willing to trade for Dockery with his Bills' contract in place?

[Sisyphean Bills]

Dockery looks to be making quite a bit less next year than he would have made in Buffalo. Do you think Washington, or any/many other teams, would have been willing to trade for Dockery with his Bills' contract in place?

I'm not sure how relevant that is given that the Lions agreed to make the trade and even, supposedly, offered Dock more money and more than Washington did after the Bills cut him. The Redskins, for their part, have not been a team to agonize over a couple of shekels in recent memory.

 

On the other hand, if I was in the Redskins shoes and knew Dock was very interested in returning to the team, that the Bills only started shopping him around a day or two before they'd have to pony up a big bonus, felt he'd be a solid addition but missing out wouldn't hurt the team, and really didn't want to give up anything to the Bills -- I'd be tempted to roll the dice, wait, and pounce when the blivet hit the fan.

[The Dean]

I'm not sure how relevant that is given that the Lions agreed to make the trade and even, supposedly, offered Dock more money and more than Washington did after the Bills cut him. The Redskins, for their part, have not been a team to agonize over a couple of shekels in recent memory.

 

On the other hand, if I was in the Redskins shoes and knew Dock was very interested in returning to the team, that the Bills only started shopping him around a day or two before they'd have to pony up a big bonus, felt he'd be a solid addition but missing out wouldn't hurt the team, and really didn't want to give up anything to the Bills -- I'd be tempted to roll the dice, wait, and pounce when the blivet hit the fan.

 

 

My point, in response to your question about the Redskins, is that they probably didn't want to trade for Dock, as they would have been stuck with his contract. Dock could have made more in Detroit, but he obviously didn't want to go there.

[spartacus]

My point, in response to your question about the Redskins, is that they probably didn't want to trade for Dock, as they would have been stuck with his contract. Dock could have made more in Detroit, but he obviously didn't want to go there.

Redskins gave Dockery $26 mil over 5 years- with about $8 mil in new guaranteed money in 2009 & 2010.

 

Dockery earned $18 mil of his $50 mil Bills contract in 2007 & 2008.

 

The Redskins are paying less in total but the deals are pretty comparably.

 

Sure looks like the Redskins would have been willing to deal something to get Dockery if the Bills had actually shopped him earlier than the day before his bonus was due.

 

This really looks like the Bills finally realized in Feb they needed to re-do Peters deal in 2009- and that Dockery's deal would be cost prohibitive.

 

why they couldn't have figured this out in January is beyond me.

 

the real galling part is they screwed up the Peters deal and ran both guys out of town.

[Lurker]

Sure looks like the Redskins would have been willing to deal something to get Dockery

Even if the contract $$ are equivalent, the Skins didn't have to give up anything to sign him, so that dog don't hunt...

[Sisyphean Bills]

My point, in response to your question about the Redskins, is that they probably didn't want to trade for Dock, as they would have been stuck with his contract. Dock could have made more in Detroit, but he obviously didn't want to go there.

My point was that trading for a player's rights does not necessarily mean you are "stuck with his contract". It does mean the contract is picked up as is, but you're assuming Dockery would not have entertained renegotiation of his deal. That argument rings hollow, since he did take a new deal and turned down another Buffalo-type deal (apparently) from the Lions.

[VOR]

My point was that trading for a player's rights does not necessarily mean you are "stuck with his contract". It does mean the contract is picked up as is, but you're assuming Dockery would not have entertained renegotiation of his deal. That argument rings hollow, since he did take a new deal and turned down another Buffalo-type deal (apparently) from the Lions.

When you trade for a player, you acknowledge that he has an existing contract and that you're fine with assuming it. No one makes a trade expecting the player to reduce his contract. It also signals that a team is fine with surrendering something for that player. No one, outside of the Lions, was interested in trading for Dockery, which means assuming his contract and giving-up something for him. And the Lions themselves gave a half-hearted attempt at it, figuring that Dockery was theirs for the taking. But that's why they just came off the first-ever winless season in the NFL. They should have offered a 2009 7th rounder at least, instead of a laughable conditional 2010 7th rounder.

[The Dean]

When you trade for a player, you acknowledge that he has an existing contract and that you're fine with assuming it. No one makes a trade expecting the player to reduce his contract. It also signals that a team is fine with surrendering something for that player. No one, outside of the Lions, was interested in trading for Dockery, which means assuming his contract and giving-up something for him. And the Lions themselves gave a half-hearted attempt at it, figuring that Dockery was theirs for the taking. But that's why they just came off the first-ever winless season in the NFL. They should have offered a 2009 7th rounder at least, instead of a laughable conditional 2010 7th rounder.

 

 

Correct. It is possible to trade for a player and then try to negotiate the contract (eg. Bills/Darwin Walker) but it is rare, and typically the player gets a raise, not a cut in salary, I believe.