Do we miss Smoot?
 

I was just thinking the other day, I really miss Smoot not being on the Skins. Yea we all know the boat thing, and that makes him not the best role-model and all that. But he was a fun player to watch, that was pretty good. He probably had the best connection to the fans. I remember the game I went to last year, when the Eagles visited. Even though we lost, it was a lot of fun watching Smoot and how he got the crowd into the game. I would not mind if we had him. Hey maybe if he stayed he would not have played for the Viks, which means no boat incident haha.

Re: Smoot
 

I agree, Smoot was my favorite skin and especially with the problems we've had at CB all year we should have kept him. I think it was a huge mistake to let him go for a few bucks. Gibbs is willing to give Portis the richest RB contract in the league (at that time) but couldn't toss Smoot a couple more dollars because he didn't play better than Springs, come on!

Re: Smoot
 

yeah looking back we should've kept smoot. As for the boat thing, i heard the only reason he was involved was because they do that every year, and that a first year player with the vikes has to pay for it. If he hadn't gone to the vikes he wouldn't have been involved.

Re: Smoot
 

Crap on a cracker, boys!

We're in the playoff race with this team, and you're pining for a guy who nearly got half his team arrested for lewd behavior!

TAFKAS (The Artist Formerly Known As [b]Smootsmack[/b]) isn't [u]that[/u] myopic!

That being said, if he hits the free agent market this year because of his behavioral issues, I'd "Trotter" him back in a heartbeat.

Re: Smoot
 

the contract offer we made was nearly idnetical if not the same. but it was structerd differently. that's why buges said so much for being a life long skin.he made the choice, he thought he'd get 13mil signing bonus and we offerd 11mil. he signed with minn for an 11 mil signing bonus.he should have made the choice to stay.i would love to have him back but i feel we made a good effort to sign peirce and smoot and they choose to walk away for contracts that were basically the same but structerd differently to help with the cap and they walked.sala ve.hope he enjoys watching us in the playoffs.

Re: Smoot
 

[QUOTE=56FAN]the contract offer we made was nearly idnetical if not the same. but it was structerd differently. that's why buges said so much for being a life long skin.he made the choice, he thought he'd get 13mil signing bonus and we offerd 11mil. he signed with minn for an 11 mil signing bonus.he should have made the choice to stay.i would love to have him back but i feel we made a good effort to sign peirce and smoot and they choose to walk away for contracts that were basically the same but structerd differently to help with the cap and they walked.sala ve.hope he enjoys watching us in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

The contract came down to one thing, money. Smoots contract with the Vikings guaranteed 6 million a year for the first 3 years. He would not have made that much with the skins until the last two years. The signign bonus was fine with him, which was about a two million differnce. He basically, which is the way the NFL is, took the money and ran to an awful team in a pretty crappy town. No disrespect to those people, if any, from Minnesota.

Re: Smoot
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I agree, Smoot was my favorite skin and especially with the problems we've had at CB all year we should have kept him. I think it was a huge mistake to let him go for a few bucks. Gibbs is willing to give Portis the richest RB contract in the league (at that time) but couldn't toss Smoot a couple more dollars because he didn't play better than Springs, come on![/QUOTE]
The problems? What the injuries? It's hard to conjecture that Smoot would have stayed any healthier than Springs. I loved Smoot and he was in line as my next jersey but he took the money and ran. He ended up in a basically dead-end football town and got himself in trouble. It has ended up being a solid decision. Now the Pierce situation I view a little different but in that case he was just a little bitch and ran to the Ginats for real flimsy reasons.

Re: Smoot
 

wake up everyone!they both left for the same reason,guarenteed money,i.e signing bonus with up front money.everyone on this board would do the same in the regular workforce.denying that would be anything short of a lie

Re: Smoot
 

[quote]The problems? What the injuries? It's hard to conjecture that Smoot would have stayed any healthier than Springs.[/quote]
Not saying he would, but I'd rather have Smoot added into the core we have now, we probably would have drafted differently, but still, Smoot is known to play through it if at all possible. When I hear Ade Jimoh may have to start, that's a real problem with injuries.

Also, you have to realize, the typical NFL career doesnt last long, and the way the skins give out contracts they look much bigger than they actually are since the last 2-3 years on every contract gets either restructured or cut. Smoot made a significant amount more by going to Minnesota and if we wanted him we could have paid. Let's not act like Smoot was in DC racking up Super Bowls, meanwhile at least MN was headed to the playoffs last year and have at least been in the race for many years.

Re: Smoot
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]TAFKAS (The Artist Formerly Known As [b]Smootsmack[/b]) isn't [u]that[/u] myopic![/QUOTE]

Myopic? I had to look that one up!

Re: Smoot
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I agree, Smoot was my favorite skin and especially with the problems we've had at CB all year we should have kept him. I think it was a huge mistake to let him go for a few bucks. Gibbs is willing to give Portis the richest RB contract in the league (at that time) but couldn't toss Smoot a couple more dollars because he didn't play better than Springs, come on![/QUOTE]

It definitely wasn't just a couple more dollars. He got a lot more guaranteed to him over the course of the first three years than we were offering. Our salary cap situation is not bad, but not great right now. If we brought Smoot back at the Minnesota price, we'd end up in some trouble in the next three years.

We're better off with what we have on our roster now. Rogers is much much cheaper than Smoot is. It'd be nice to have Smoot around as a luxury, but I'd rather see the franchise develop some long-term viability.

Re: Smoot
 

...besides, it seems like he's starting to become injury prone.

Re: Smoot
 

Isn't smoot that long-term viability? Will you defend shipping rogers off when his rookie contract expires? Everyone complains that we don't keep talent we develop but seems to be perfectly happy to ship off a player that played his ass off for us and, in my opinion, was more clutch than any CB on our roster last year.

Re: Smoot
 

Fred who??

Re: Do we miss Smoot?
 

Didn't Fred Smoot suffer a rather serious injury this year? What I mean by that, is one that keeps him out more than 3 weeks? Keep in mind, it took Smoot a few years to really become a solid CB. Give Rogers a chance...I believe he can be just as effective if not more.

Fans complained because we spent too much money, but then they complain when we don't spend enough to keep players. Can't have it both ways.