tcwest10 wrote:Smoot doesn't replace Springs, in my mind. He complements him.
If we sign Smoot, we have more leverage to persuade Springs to restructure his contract. For the right price, Springs makes a great contribution to the team. Given his injury history, he is way overpaid under his current contract. If he won't restructure, show him the door.
If Smootie is brought back as a replacement for Springs, I don't like it. He's not nearly the same, personally or professionally. If Smootie is back to help take away the other side of the field, yap at WR's and just generally give a little life back to what was an anonymous secondary last year, I like it.
I don't think Springs considers the possible signing of Fred Smoot to be any threat to his livelihood. I know I don't. Smoot has never been a #1, and is only a serviceable #2.
Again, in my view...this is a signing that complements Springs, not a signing that gives the team any leverage.
Smoot is no Clements.
"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother
tcwest10 wrote:Smoot doesn't replace Springs, in my mind. He complements him.
Yo TC....I'd like to complIment you on your correct spelling and usage of the word "complEment"....As someone who communicates for a paycheck, you are a cool glass of water on a hot summer day for spelling complEment with an E instead of an I.
Oh...I appreciate the thought, but please.
Don't go calling me a "cool glass of water". You'll get Fios all horny, dreaming of the condensation dewing up my sleek, glassy sides.
"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother
gibbs4president wrote:You're just upset your own team couldn't get Ladell Betts from the Redskins... sorry about that...
why would i want betts, a backup that fumbles a lot and isnt as good as michael turner or marshawn lynch. You guys would want vilma who is a top 3 lb in the 4-3 system
Marshawn lynch? The guy has even carried in the NFL yet and you are comparing him to a proven guy? Gimme a break man!
Taylor and Landry will take no Prisoners!! - I just can't bring myself to delete it!
John Manfreda wrote:I don't like Fletcher he is too old. Stupid signing, I hope we get Smoot back so Rogers doesn't have to start.
Huh? Rogers is developing into a great corner. He's improved each year and is EASILY better then Smoot right now. He's bigger, just as fast and a much better tackler. Signing Smoot is only good if we get him cheap so he adds depth as a nickel corner.
The Redskins were also in serious negotiations with Smoot, who played four seasons with the Redskins before leaving in 2005 to sign with the Minnesota Vikings.
"Everything would be put back in place if I did (return)," said Smoot, who had two difficult seasons in Minnesota. "Me leaving here was a big mistake."
"One thing about it: We know Smooter," Gibbs said. "And he knows us."
I think in another year, Carlos is going to be the best CB on the roster, with Springs and Smoot. So Smoot has to be viewed as depth or leverage against Springs. Whether that's leverage to get Springs to take a pay cut and/or leverage to get him to move to safety. If they are serious about moving him to safety I wonder how he projects as a Strong safety since Taylor is the FS. Usually you're looking for a bigger body who can play closer to the line instead of an aging CB who is better in coverage.
Again, bringng back Smoot is fine as long as we don't pay him starting CB money.
John Manfreda wrote:I don't like Fletcher he is too old. Stupid signing, I hope we get Smoot back so Rogers doesn't have to start.
He's no spring chicken, but he's not too old. It's probably only really a three year contract in practical terms, and he'd be 34 at the end of that, which wouldn't exactly make him a coffin dodger.
fleetus wrote:I think in another year, Carlos is going to be the best CB on the roster, with Springs and Smoot. So Smoot has to be viewed as depth or leverage against Springs. Whether that's leverage to get Springs to take a pay cut and/or leverage to get him to move to safety. If they are serious about moving him to safety I wonder how he projects as a Strong safety since Taylor is the FS. Usually you're looking for a bigger body who can play closer to the line instead of an aging CB who is better in coverage.
Again, bringng back Smoot is fine as long as we don't pay him starting CB money.
First of all, there is no way that Shawn Springs is moving to safety. He can barely stay healthy playing corner - the last thing he needs is a higher-impact position.
Second, I don't understand how you can project Rogers to improve so much. He just isn't very good, and I haven't seen anything to suggest he could dramatically improve.
If you had your way, Darrel Green would have been sitting in a retirement home in 1990.
This is a good signing of a proven, durable, defensive leader, who understands this defense. It meets the needs of the team, didn't cost an arm and a leg, and, he WANTS to be here... many teams wanted a shot at him, but he spoke only to the Redskins.
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
John Manfreda wrote:I don't like Fletcher he is too old. Stupid signing, I hope we get Smoot back so Rogers doesn't have to start.
He's no spring chicken, but he's not too old. It's probably only really a three year contract in practical terms, and he'd be 34 at the end of that, which wouldn't exactly make him a coffin dodger.
Plus, he's NEVER missed a game in his NFL career.
You can make the age argument if there's evidence that he's breaking down...but the guy just had a phenomenal season.
The deal is done and Fletcher is our MLB for at least the next few years. Let's just hope that he performs up to expectations, and doesn't end up getting hurt, ala M. Barrow and we have to stat all over again.
Fletcher is a nice player to have, veteran with the right kind of attitude. He is likely to be at least a slight improvement over MArshall. However, he is not a run-stuffer as some have written. He is under-sized at MLB and is a technique tackler. He is not going to stop a 320 lbs. guard to plug a hole. He makes lots of tackles 5 and 6 yards deep. Whether he will be worth the money over MArshall remains to be seen. I like his intangibles though. London, welcome to the best organization in the NFL!
fleetus wrote:Fletcher is a nice player to have, veteran with the right kind of attitude. He is likely to be at least a slight improvement over MArshall. However, he is not a run-stuffer as some have written. He is under-sized at MLB and is a technique tackler. He is not going to stop a 320 lbs. guard to plug a hole. He makes lots of tackles 5 and 6 yards deep. Whether he will be worth the money over MArshall remains to be seen. I like his intangibles though. London, welcome to the best organization in the NFL!
I like the fact that Marshall can move back to WLB or compete with Rocky for that spot. I wouldn't be oposed to Marcus moving to WLB and Rocky at SLB (since he sheds blocks so well - atleast that is what GW says). Maybe we could even use a 3-4 in certain situations, like 2nd and long.
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren
"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier
Fletcher is a great player to have for leadership and knowledge. The skins were just out of position last year a ton. I think fletcher will bring the stability that pierce brought to the defense as far as having everyone in the right place. This is the same reason we need Springs back, he was the coach of the secondary and keeps guys like Taylor in the right spot to make plays
Smoot: 2nd Visit to Redskins Park By Gary Fitzgerald Redskins.com March 3, 2007
Free agent cornerback Fred Smoot, a former Redskin, was back at Redskins Park on Saturday. On Friday afternoon, Smoot met with team officials and later attended the Washington Wizards-Atlanta Hawks basketball game at Verizon Center.
I really am suspcious about the Fletcher addition.
The Bills defense was middle-of-the-pack last year and terrible the year before that.
What really worries me is that their rush defense was even worse than ours last year and in 2005.
Check out the stats on NFL.com:
-Second to last in 2005
-28 in 2006
Our current crop of LB got seriously critized this year because they couldn´t tackle. Seems they couldn´t get the job done in Buffalo either.
Fletcher having a lot of tackles does not garantee he will be a good player for us. It just demonstrates he sees a lot of running to him.
I´ll give you that the Bills offense was also terrible last year, so their D stayed on the field longer. Hope that´s the reason they sucked trying to stop the run.
The Rams, Fletcher´s previous team before the Bills, was also not very recognized for having a great D.
El Mexican wrote:I really am suspcious about the Fletcher addition.
The Bills defense was middle-of-the-pack last year and terrible the year before that.
What really worries me is that their rush defense was even worse than ours last year and in 2005.
Check out the stats on NFL.com:
-Second to last in 2005 -28 in 2006
Our current crop of LB got seriously critized this year because they couldn´t tackle. Seems they couldn´t get the job done in Buffalo either.
Fletcher having a lot of tackles does not garantee he will be a good player for us. It just demonstrates he sees a lot of running to him.
I´ll give you that the Bills offense was also terrible last year, so their D stayed on the field longer. Hope that´s the reason they sucked trying to stop the run.
The Rams, Fletcher´s previous team before the Bills, was also not very recognized for having a great D.
Any LB will have issues when the front four are having issues. Fletcher will be fine if we can get the line together.
5-10 and 245lb seems plenty big enough to me to play middle linebacker in the NFL. I'm sure there are a number of middle 'backers in the league (successful ones), who weigh 245lb or less. So, he's less than six feet tall, but does that matter? If you're going to tackle people, then shouldn't you be getting low anyway? So wouldn't having a low centre of gravity be an advantage?!
I certainly don't want him trying to plug holes against 320lb guards, but that's why I want the Redskins to take care of the defensive line as well this offseason - I want our linebackers to be tackling running backs, not offensive linemen.
