Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

He's doing a great job. It took a little while for him to regain his stride, but I think he's doing great now. (He has to remember he's not Mike Sellers.) I think Springs has also been playing with a lot of passion, especially with what's been going on in his life.

But Smoot is the one who has revived his career coming here. Of course the difference between Minnesota and Washington is night and day:
On this board we bring the "love boat" to Smoot, not like in Minn.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[QUOTE=Campbell17;394190]He was an asset, becoming a liability.[/QUOTE]

Care to elaborate?

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

are you cereal?

asset in washington, liability in minnesota. he's played well for us.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

The man has been playing lights out since Sean's passing. If Fred Smoot keeps playing like he has I may have to rename him Super Smoot.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

Smoot has been playing the best football I have ever seen him play these past few weeks. He is really wrapping and making solid tackles on the short passes near the line. That said he is not a pro-bowler but has been a definite asset to the team. And that cruise party on the potomac last weekend was a blast too! Now if this was a torrence thread its another story

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

Total asset. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish. Would you prefer Mike Rumph?

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

smoot is an asset and a great value. we havent had a third string corner that could play for shit in years, even though walt harris leaves us and turns into deion sanders...

Can't imagine anyone would question anything if he'd been lining up against sinorice or just playing zone last night...


I understand asking, though... I think its okay to find out if someone else sees performance evaluation through the same set of eyes. I made a comment about chris samuels and have been receiving magazine-letter-cut-out death threat letters since....

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

Smoot has become a core redskin....he was the only one who played a complete game in the Bills debacle. He is the best at adjusting to the ball once it's in the air. If you wanna watch bad CB's watch another team.....the redskins corners have been lights out since Taylor's death. The only thing is that Smoot plays too hard and tries to make big tackles that he cannot make with his small frame, so he keeps getting stingers and missing series. He's a better cover corner than rogers

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;394560]I understand asking, though... I think its okay to find out if someone else sees performance evaluation through the same set of eyes. I made a comment about chris samuels and have been receiving magazine-letter-cut-out death threat letters since....[/QUOTE]

I'm glad to see you've been receiving my letters.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=canthetuna;394560]I understand asking, though... I think its okay to find out if someone else sees performance evaluation through the same set of eyes. I made a comment about chris samuels and have been receiving magazine-letter-cut-out death threat letters since....[/quote]

Word.

(stupid software won't just let me type "word")

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=SouperMeister;394512]Total asset. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish. Would you prefer Mike Rumph?[/quote]

I would prefer reasoned discussion.

I disagree that it's a closed book. I think Smoot has been getting better through the season. I also think he's a 7th year player in a system he should be familiar with. I think that no corner should receive 100% credit for shutting down any receiver in that game against the Giants, given the winds. Anyone who watched the game has to acknowledge that a [U]lot[/U] of those throws hung in the air or went off target. Do do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. I would bring up the fact that Burress is too injured to practice, except that he's like Iverson and it doesn't really seem to impact his ability to make big plays.

Not that anyone has probably read this far in this post, but I like Smoot as a Redskin and in the #3/nickle spot. I'm on the fence about him in the #2, but I'm being converted (by his play - not by any of you knuckleheads). I'd be scared silly if he was our #1. Regardless, I realize that he is our best option right now, and if Springs goes down, Smoot would be our best option at #1.

If anyone has anything [U]new[/U] to add, I'd love to hear it.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=onlydarksets;394583]I would prefer reasoned discussion.

I disagree that it's a closed book. I think Smoot has been getting better through the season. I also think he's a 7th year player in a system he should be familiar with. I think that no corner should receive 100% credit for shutting down any receiver in that game against the Giants, given the winds. Anyone who watched the game has to acknowledge that a [U]lot[/U] of those throws hung in the air or went off target. Do do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. I would bring up the fact that Burress is too injured to practice, except that he's like Iverson and it doesn't really seem to impact his ability to make big plays.

Not that anyone has probably read this far in this post, but I like Smoot as a Redskin and in the #3/nickle spot. I'm on the fence about him in the #2, but I'm being converted (by his play - not by any of you knuckleheads). I'd be scared silly if he was our #1. Regardless, I realize that he is our best option right now, and if Springs goes down, Smoot would be our best option at #1.

If anyone has anything [U]new[/U] to add, I'd love to hear it.[/quote]

I can respect that.

now about calling me a knucklehead...

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;394583]I would prefer reasoned discussion.

I disagree that it's a closed book. I think Smoot has been getting better through the season. I also think he's a 7th year player in a system he should be familiar with. I think that no corner should receive 100% credit for shutting down any receiver in that game against the Giants, given the winds. Anyone who watched the game has to acknowledge that a [U]lot[/U] of those throws hung in the air or went off target. Do do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. I would bring up the fact that Burress is too injured to practice, except that he's like Iverson and it doesn't really seem to impact his ability to make big plays.

Not that anyone has probably read this far in this post, but I like Smoot as a Redskin and in the #3/nickle spot. I'm on the fence about him in the #2, but I'm being converted (by his play - not by any of you knuckleheads). I'd be scared silly if he was our #1. Regardless, I realize that he is our best option right now, and if Springs goes down, Smoot would be our best option at #1.

If anyone has anything [U]new[/U] to add, I'd love to hear it.[/QUOTE]

I've read the whole post. Going back to the OP, the question was asked, "Is Fred Smoot and asset or a liability in the secondary" and NOT specifically a certain player position in the secondary. With that said, the answer is that Smoot is an asset, and it appears by this post that you also now agree.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=skinsguy;394587]I've read the whole post. Going back to the OP, the question was asked, "Is Fred Smoot and asset or a liability in the secondary" and NOT specifically a certain player position in the secondary. With that said, the answer is that Smoot is an asset, and it appears by this post that you also now agree.[/quote]

You are absolutely right. I thought it was implied in my original post (but obviously it wasn't) that I was talking about his current role as the #2. That is the context in which most people discussed this. I am still on the fence about that question.

When expanded to talk about being a #1 or a #3, I feel very solid in my opinion of those.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;394590]You are absolutely right. I thought it was implied in my original post (but obviously it wasn't) that I was talking about his current role as the #2. That is the context in which most people discussed this. I am still on the fence about that question.

When expanded to talk about being a #1 or a #3, I feel very solid in my opinion of those.[/QUOTE]

Solid #3? definitely. Solid #2? In my opinion, definitely. Solid #1? Probably not on a consistent basis, but Smoot definitely has what it takes to step into the role if need be on a short term basis.