Re: smoot's ranking
 

Smoot was a quality CB who we would have liked to keep. I wont for a minute downplay his talent simply because he is not a Redskin anymore. As for the off field issues, those are a thing of the past and after being in the league four years and having zero issues anybody who would even consider anything like that is being silly. Smoot was a stand up guy who played his heart out for us and didn't cause any problems. I wish he was still a Skin but it is not the end of the world either. I think we'll live.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Smoot was a quality CB who we would have liked to keep. I wont for a minute downplay his talent simply because he is not a Redskin anymore. As for the off field issues, those are a thing of the past and after being in the league four years and having zero issues anybody who would even consider anything like that is being silly. Smoot was a stand up guy who played his heart out for us and didn't cause any problems. I wish he was still a Skin but it is not the end of the world either. I think we'll live.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

As for Smoot's ranking, after Rolle and Law (assuming he heals), IMO Smoot's talents were always interchangeable with the other top CB's in free agency. An argument could be made that each was the best buy (Lucas, Henry, Baxter, Smoot). For all the reasons stated by FRPLG, I hoped we would retain him. I loved, and will miss, yelling SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

FRPLG, you're still rockin' at #1 in the brackets... Lots of #2 ties.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

I'm with FRPLG too. I miss Smoot =(

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Smoot was one of the top CB's in free agency. There isn't a better alternative in his price range out there. Our DB's will be worse for his leaving.

That being said - and here's a good piece of knowledge for draft day as well - [b]best available doesn't mean great[/b]. It doesn't mean good, or awesome, or irreplaceable. It means best available, and that shouldn't affect overall value. For years, this team has overpaid for the "best available" talent, without worrying how it would affect our overall pay structure. Is Smoot measurably better than Springs? Not really, so we offered them similar deals. He got more elsewhere, so we lost him. But since we have already determined that we have 1 corner of similar value, and 1 corner who we have a great deal of faith in (Harris), and 1 promising youngster (Wilds), and ADE-Freaking-JIMOH, we decided to explore the future without breaking our bank. That's a good thing, and that's what I celebrate - not the loss of a player I enjoyed watching and who helped our team every week.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Smoot was a quality CB who we would have liked to keep. I wont for a minute downplay his talent simply because he is not a Redskin anymore. As for the off field issues, those are a thing of the past and after being in the league four years and having zero issues anybody who would even consider anything like that is being silly. Smoot was a stand up guy who played his heart out for us and didn't cause any problems. I wish he was still a Skin but it is not the end of the world either. I think we'll live.[/QUOTE]
good post!


i want a cornerback that can cover. banks say that smoot might be the best pure cover corner...

but Don banks lost all credibility when he mentioned that smoot might have off field problems.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Smoot was one of the top CB's in free agency. There isn't a better alternative in his price range out there. Our DB's will be worse for his leaving.

That being said - and here's a good piece of knowledge for draft day as well - [b]best available doesn't mean great[/b]. It doesn't mean good, or awesome, or irreplaceable. It means best available, and that shouldn't affect overall value. For years, this team has overpaid for the "best available" talent, without worrying how it would affect our overall pay structure. Is Smoot measurably better than Springs? Not really, so we offered them similar deals. He got more elsewhere, so we lost him. But since we have already determined that we have 1 corner of similar value, and 1 corner who we have a great deal of faith in (Harris), and 1 promising youngster (Wilds), and ADE-Freaking-JIMOH, we decided to explore the future without breaking our bank. That's a good thing, and that's what I celebrate - not the loss of a player I enjoyed watching and who helped our team every week.[/QUOTE]

Yes we have been the kings of buying "the best available" without regard for actual value. Bruce Smith comes to mind...

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Yeah, Smoot LOVED cocaine and hookers!

Re: smoot's ranking
 

And if I remember correctly, didn't he punch his wife just for asking him a question?

What a dumbass. :P

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Let's Not Forget That The Difference Between Our Offer And Minnisota's Is
Very Small, If He Really Wanted To Be A Skin He Still Could Be. Didn't Take Much For Him To Leave. I Wish Him Well And Will Miss Him. But Is Says Something To Me That He's Not Here.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Smoot is a quality cover corner, however, being physical isn't his game, but then again you don't have to be physical to be a good corner.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]Yeah, Smoot LOVED cocaine and hookers![/QUOTE]he would have been a perfect fit in little d

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Irvin and him would have had a GREAT time together... haha I can't believe someone said that SMoot had off-the-field problems... hilarious.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=56FAN]Let's Not Forget That The Difference Between Our Offer And Minnisota's Is
Very Small, If He Really Wanted To Be A Skin He Still Could Be. Didn't Take Much For Him To Leave. I Wish Him Well And Will Miss Him. But Is Says Something To Me That He's Not Here.[/QUOTE]

The difference was the money over the first 3 years, which is almost as important to players as the bonus.

The Vikes' offer over the first 3 years of the deal was much more than the Skins could offer.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Smoot is a quality cover corner, however, being physical isn't his game, but then again you don't have to be physical to be a good corner.[/QUOTE]i disagree. i believe you must be physical to be a good corner. its not your only job to cover a wr. in todays nfl you must be able to come up in run support and be physical enough to play bump and run on guys like TO. deion sanders played the type of corner you are refering to and i believe he would never last as a #1 or #2 cb in todays nfl