Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

Is Smoot helping or hurting us in the secondary?

It seems he is constantly getting burned either by speed or by a move. He had a nice deflection in the end zone yesterday, but he was playing catchup on the play. When the ball is in the air, he is usually trying to find his man, not the ball.

That said, has he cost us that much? How many times has he given up a TD, or the big play that leads to a score? (I don't know the answer to this - just asking). He also is probably the best option (especially with Rogers injured).

I like Smoot - I think that, since his return, he has been a positive influence on the Skins. However, I'm just not sure about his skills out there.

So, what do you think? Where are the polls?

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

I think he's an asset. I think he's a GREAT cover corner.

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

I thought he played great last night.

I don't know why anyone would even ask if he's a liability to tell you the truth.

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

Because he tends to be out of position, and doesn't have the speed to keep up with most #1 receivers.

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

Umm ok.

Guess I saw a different game.

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

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;393928]I thought he played great last night.

I don't know why anyone would even ask if he's a liability to tell you the truth.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I often wonder about people's understanding of football sometimes. How anyone could think he played anything but well last night if beyond me.

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

Plus, my grandmother could have played corner last night, what with the winds. Still, Smoot was out of position at least a few times.

Again, though, this is a results-oriented league. He may be out of position and his assignments may make catches that Springs would have stopped, but did it hurt us? I don't think it has, but I don't have empirical evidence for that.

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

[quote=FRPLG;393934]I agree. I often wonder about people's understanding of football sometimes. How anyone could think he played anything but well last night if beyond me.[/quote]

Seriously.

What's next?

A "What's wrong with Portis" thread?

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

Smoot was out of position? I can think of at least three distinct plays when got his hand on the ball and broke up several more. Over the last three or four weeks, I can't think of the last time I've seen a Redskin corner play like Smoot has.

Dude has been lights out all the way.

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

Honestly, and I'm not just trying to break onlydarksets chops here, I thought Smoot played perhaps his best game of the season last night. He did a great job matched up on Burress and he broke up several passes.

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

[quote=FRPLG;393934]I agree. I often wonder about people's understanding of football sometimes. How anyone could think he played anything but well last night if beyond me.[/quote]

I never said he didn't play well in last night's game. Please read the whole post before starting with the ad hominem attacks. I'm putting the question out there now that we've had Smoot back for (almost) an entire season.

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

smoot played very well last night. buress was fairly quiet and he was on him all night it seemed.

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

[quote=Mattyk72;393941]Honestly, and I'm not just trying to break onlydarksets chops here, I thought Smoot played perhaps his best game of the season last night. He did a great job matched up on Burress and he broke up several passes.[/quote]

Speaking of Burress, I have to say I haven't seen a receiver offensively interfere that much since Irvin.

It's like EVERY PASS to Burress he is pushing someone or holding them down. Sure, almost all WRs do it, but not as bad as him.

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

um, did you watch the same game? he shut plex down....i thought smoot played great.

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

Wow what a thread, Smoot played great last night. OUT OF POSITION! He was sticking like glue to Burress, even Madden made the comment of how well he was doing against him. I think it was the first play of the game where he almost had a pick on a quick slant and then later in the middle of the field he almost got another one.

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

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;393942]I never said he didn't play well in last night's game. Please read the whole post before starting with the ad hominem attacks. I'm putting the question out there now that we've had Smoot back for (almost) an entire season.[/QUOTE]

Blah blah blah. You made a thread questioning how good Smoot is the morning after he shut down one of the NFC's best WR. That makes no sense. He is good enough.

I just wonder when everyone will realize we can't have All-Pros at every spot on the field.

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

MY GOD - does anyone read the original post?

I'll wait till the offseason to ask.

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

[quote=FRPLG;393949]Blah blah blah. You made a thread questioning how good Smoot is the morning after he shut down one of the NFC's best WR. That makes no sense. He is good enough.

I just wonder when everyone will realize we can't have All-Pros at every spot on the field.[/quote]

If anything this thread is just really bad timing.

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

[quote=FRPLG;393949]Blah blah blah.[/quote]

Very articulate.

[U]For everyone[/U] - I'm guessing people feel this is a "pissing on my good feeling" thread. That wasn't my intent, so take that for what it's worth.

I still don't understand the backlash, but I can't argue with democracy. I wouldn't retract anything I posted, but I can see the timing was interpreted as bad. Just don't take it personally.

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

on comcast they were talking about how this has been his best game since coming back. He has been a monster the last few weeks. I think he is playing fantastic right now. I am not saying he is a great player but i am just saying the last 3 weeks have been great.

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

[quote=Mattyk72;393952]If anything this thread is just really bad timing.[/quote]
I see people are feeling that. Can't get 'em all right.

HTTR!

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

smoot's had a year beyond my expectations of him. he's not suppose to be a no. 1 corner, but he's lined up against more than a few top wideouts throughout the year. he had an excellent game last night. no corners ever completely shut down their receiver- the guy on offense usually has the advantage and eventually a corner will bite on a play or two (if he's lucky). smoot has been money this season, especially with all the hits to the secondary.

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

Uh, you do know Smoot is #27 and not #29 right? Is Fred Smoot a top 5 cover corner? No. Is he being paid like a top 5 cover corner? No. It's not like the Skins got rid of Bailey and decided to keep Smoot instead or something. You keep telling people to read your entire post, but why not think through the situation before making your post, particularly given the way Smoot played last night. Even if Smoot was a liability, which he is not, what remedy would you propose? Play more Leigh Torrence? Start David Macklin? Come on now.

No way is he a liability and I'd have to ask you who you think would be better? You're not going to get Asante Samuel or Marcus Trufant or anyone else of that ilk for the money they're giving Smoot. Plus, Smoot loves Washington, Washington loves Smoot and he's playing about 300% better here than he did in Minnesota. The very short answer to your question is, he's an asset, end of story, end of thread.

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

[quote=BigSKINBauer;393956]on comcast they were talking about how this has been his best game since coming back. He has been a monster the last few weeks. I think he is playing fantastic right now. I am not saying he is a great player but i am just saying the last 3 weeks have been great.[/quote]

Yeah the past 3 weeks he's really stepped up his play.

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

[quote=SC Skins Fan;393962]Uh, you do know Smoot is #27 and not #29 right? Is Fred Smoot a top 5 cover corner? No. Is he being paid like a top 5 cover corner? No. It's not like the Skins got rid of Bailey and decided to keep Smoot instead or something. You keep telling people to read your entire post, but why not think through the situation before making your post, particularly given the way Smoot played last night. Even if Smoot was a liability, which he is not, what remedy would you propose? Play more Leigh Torrence? Start David Macklin? Come on now.

No way is he a liability and [U]I'd have to ask you who you think would be better[/U]? You're not going to get Asante Samuel or Marcus Trufant or anyone else of that ilk for the money they're giving Smoot. Plus, Smoot loves Washington, Washington loves Smoot and he's playing about 300% better here than he did in Minnesota. The very short answer to your question is, he's an asset, end of story, end of thread.[/quote]

Probably nobody (yes, that's in my original post, too). :D

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

[quote=itvnetop;393959]smoot's had a year beyond my expectations of him. he's not suppose to be a no. 1 corner, but he's lined up against more than a few top wideouts throughout the year. he had an excellent game last night. no corners ever completely shut down their receiver- the guy on offense usually has the advantage and eventually a corner will bite on a play or two (if he's lucky). smoot has been money this season, especially with all the hits to the secondary.[/quote]

True, remember he was supposed to be the nickel guy until Rogers got hurt. He's really stepped it up.

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

Here are the facts IMO.... Our starting CB got hurt (Rodgers) so we have had to play our backup (Smoot) who is playing better than most starting CBs for other teams. Everyone complains about depth, but at Corner we have had it this year. Thank goodness for Smoot and Todd Collins as quality back-ups. Otherwise we would be 5-9 right now and thinking about next year. Smoot and Collins (again, quality backups) are a big part of our last two wins in my opinion.

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

Smoot's filled in pretty damn well for Carlos Rogers, I have no complaints whatsoever. If everyone were healthy I'd still have Springs and Rogers as the #1 and #2, and have Smoot in on Nickel packages.

For being the #3 CB, he's filling in admirably. He also brings the "intangibles" to the team, namely a lot of fire, attitude and energy.

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

I thought Smoot played a great game last night. He's not a probowl cb, but he's pretty solid most days. One of his best games last night though.

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

[quote=scowan;393970]Here are the facts IMO.... Our starting CB got hurt (Rodgers) so we have had to play our backup (Smoot) who is playing better than most starting CBs for other teams. Everyone complains about depth, but at Corner we have had it this year. Thank goodness for Smoot and Todd Collins as quality back-ups. Otherwise we would be 5-9 right now and thinking about next year. Smoot and Collins (again, quality backups) are a big part of our last two wins in my opinion.[/quote]

Good point. As a backup, he is absolutely asset. Even as a starter, I'd probably have to say he's an asset, although that's a results-oriented analysis.

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

Smoot did play great last night but 1 game does not an asset make. I think between Smoot being hurt a lot and getting burned a good bit I could never call him an asset. I dont think he's a liability either so I'd have to say neither.

And lets not get too carried away with smoot shutting down his receiver, the wind was the shut down factor.

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

Duck, irish.

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

[quote=onlydarksets;393983]Duck, irish.[/quote]

Nah, that's typical.

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

I am confused why anyone would start a thread ripping on Smoot...maybe I watchd a different game.

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

[quote=celts32;393989]I am confused why anyone would start a thread ripping on Smoot...maybe I watchd a different game.[/quote]

Or maybe you just haven't watched the entire season!!

I'm not sure what that means either. I was just trying to play along. ;)

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

I'm just trying to bump my post count. Mission accomplished.

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

At least you weren't trying to bump your reputation points.

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

Smoot had a great game last night against a great receiver in Plax, he totally shut him down. Fred is definitely an asset to this team, but I still think he is best suited at the #3 CB position.

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

I could see people question him being a starter, but find me a better 3rd CB in this league than Smoot. He's certainly one of the best nickel players around. The last 2-3 games Smoot has been playing great. he's found his stride again.

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

[B]Liability [/B]as a #1 corner

[B]Neither/Push[/B] as a #2 - i mean to say he is strictly average, nothing more nothing less as a #2

[B]Asset[/B] as a #3/Nickel and Dime Db

The only caveat to all of that is when he decides to have a breakout game every now and then. This is usually instigated by trash talking/friendlly banter with a specific wideout and he plays like he has a chip on his shoulders. Then he looks like a legit #1 guy. He also does possess good open field tackling skills to help out in the run game (a vital skill in a GW system). My final thought on Fred Smoot is that he is neither the problem nor the solution when it comes to our secondary or our defense as a whole. He is the essential filler meat to our squad and is a great locker room presence, so i'd like to see him stay a redskin unless we get someone who is a [I]significant[/I] upgrade.