smoot's ranking
 

"In summary, we think Smoot has been overrated. Maybe not to Champ Bailey levels (another ex-Redskins cornerback, perhaps that's the key)", [url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com[/url].

Does Don Banks know what he's talking about? I always thought Smoot was very physical, what do you think? If you read the artical he says he has good coverage skills but ranks him last among FA cornerbacks.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

I didn't think much of him untill half way through the 2003 season when he played with a bruised sternum. IMO 2004 was when he really started looking like a solid corner. Anyways, he's gone and I'm glad we didn't overpay for him.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

He used to tackle like a matador, now we think he's better because he was always reminding us. Him and Springs really attacked the run last year though.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

smoot didnt press in coverage a lot i dont think, maybe thats what he means. i remember smoot always giving a huge cushion.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

I think he was a good corner, physical enough. The problem is, we don't have anybody to fill his shoes.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

I would actually take Springs over Smoot even considering his age.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=dirtbag2112]I would actually take Springs over Smoot even considering his age.[/QUOTE]
Didnt springs have a better year last year? Even though it did seem apparent that Smootie was willing to parcipated in tackling for once.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

I've seen Lucas play. He is nothing special. Smoot is a good player but lets face it, big receivers would eat him for lunch.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

I give Smoot full marks for heart but a WR like Owens just runs through him. Then Owens gets to Taylor and it's 'Lay down' time.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=RedskinRat]I give Smoot full marks for heart but a WR like Owens just runs through him. Then Owens gets to Taylor and it's 'Lay down' time.[/QUOTE]I thought Smoot and springs did a good jod against Owens last year. First game two catches for 24 yards 1 TD. Second 6 catches 47 yards no Tds and one lost fumble. That sound like numbers with Brunell at QB. LOL

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Smoot's tackling improved, but he was still no tackler. He was sent on as many blitzes as Springs, and got exactly zero sacks. I remember once he completely whiffed on a blind side sack opportunity.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Smoot's tackling improved, but he was still no tackler. He was sent on as many blitzes as Springs, and got exactly zero sacks. I remember once he completely whiffed on a blind side sack opportunity.[/QUOTE]


I think that was against Green Bay. If I remember correctly?

Re: smoot's ranking
 

What the hell are these character issues they are talking about? Smoot was a model teammate and citizen for his entire stay in DC.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

it's funny how opinions change so quickly...i could have sworn a few weeks ago smoot was this awesome corner that many people didn't want to let go...now he's nothing but average and it's ok that he's gone...

i for one will miss the little guy. he got better and better every year, and did very well in williams system. i think it was a definite loss for the team both on and off the field.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

We didn't want to let him go because we liked him as a person and a character in our "Soap Opera for Men," however I think that many of us conceded that he was not worth the money he was asking.

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

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=firstdown]I thought Smoot and springs did a good jod against Owens last year. First game two catches for 24 yards 1 TD. Second 6 catches 47 yards no Tds and one lost fumble. That sound like numbers with Brunell at QB. LOL[/QUOTE]

Agreed! The Redskins did an amazing job on Owens last year.

As for Smoot being overrated. I say Smoot is underrated and Bailey is over rated.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=gibbsisgod]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[/QUOTE]

If Deion was playing today, in his prime, I believe he would still dominate.

Like him or not he was one of the best corners to have played the game, in any era.

When you have speed like he did, you don't have to be physical.

It's not like he played in the 70s, there were plenty of physical WRs in the league during his prime.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]If Deion was playing today, in his prime, I believe he would still dominate.

Like him or not he was one of the best corners to have played the game, in any era.

When you have speed like he did, you don't have to be physical.

It's not like he played in the 70s, there were plenty of physical WRs in the league during his prime.[/QUOTE]i guess we will have to agree to disagree

Re: smoot's ranking
 

With Smoot I think its one of those time will tell and its to early to tell. He did a great job this past year but he also was with one of the best Ds in the game. He will definetly be challenged this coming year and we will learn alot about him as a player. Hopefuly its not one of those god if we only had Smoot back.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

he has always been good. I don't think Smoot is overrated because not often he was burned when he played at the position and he had the heart that made up for what he lacked in physical talent. Bailey is over-rated He got burned alot in big games as a skin and bronco

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Good thing I like the Vikings too

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=gibbsisgod]i guess we will have to agree to disagree[/QUOTE]

Actually, given today's rules, good cover CB's have to rely much more on their speed then being physical. Sure, supporting the run is good and helpful. Generally speaking, however, a CB's primary job is to cover one WR - I don't think ANYBODY plays pure zone 100% of the time. To me, run support from a CB is gravy, and, if the D is calling corner blitzes, the non-blitzing corner better be able to lock down on the hot WR or burnage will occur.

Given the rules emphasis, the emphasis on man coverage, given his skills, and IMHO, Deion (in his prime) would thrive in today's game.

Re: smoot's ranking
 

i would prefer to have a corner who can jam his man and disrupt his pattern than a guy that cant geta bump on the guy. the wr in this league are just as fast as they are in most cases.and furthermore how many times have you seen deion miss a takle because he was soft

Re: smoot's ranking
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Actually, given today's rules, good cover CB's have to rely much more on their speed then being physical. Sure, supporting the run is good and helpful. Generally speaking, however, a CB's primary job is to cover one WR - I don't think ANYBODY plays pure zone 100% of the time. To me, run support from a CB is gravy, and, if the D is calling corner blitzes, the non-blitzing corner better be able to lock down on the hot WR or burnage will occur.

Given the rules emphasis, the emphasis on man coverage, given his skills, and IMHO, Deion (in his prime) would thrive in today's game.[/QUOTE]

Very good point about the new rules

Re: smoot's ranking
 

Based on the new rules of corner coverage, which recievers would do well? If I am correct a big strong reciever is not needed as much as speed. I think our team just addressed this very issue. So they must see it the same way we do, speed beats the corner becasue you can not bump a man outside the 5 yard line cushion and speed takes over.

Michael Irvin would not even be a hall of fame canidate then.