The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Why not bring Smoot back? I tell you why not!

1. Its because most of the fans enjoy the high spending antics of this team. They feel that if they can't win the real superbowl, they can keep winning the off-season bowl.

2. His price will be too cheap. He has to want at least 20 billion dollars before we can even consider resigning.

3. It'll make too much sense. Who would want to bring a guy back that flourished in this system? I mean, we bring back Greggs old players but we can't do that with our own. No, thats out of the question.

4. High and Mighty! Smoot is not a good enough person to play for this team. Our roster is full of law abiding players that attend Church 4 times a week and pay their tithes consistently. He can't come here and distract this teams mission to end world hunger. The only way he can be forgiven is to repent to joe directly and maybe he'll have mercy on him.

5. This teams mission is to rake in AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. Fred Smoots return would only garner a weeks worth of attention. Danny needs to thunder to roll until the season starts to make revenue.

6. Chemistry. Bringing back a player who fits within the team well is a no no. We must find the sqaure peg to fit into our round hole.

Yes, we won't sign a player without overpaying them, good point.

That's why we didn't outbid Minnesota for Smoot, and Minnesota is cutting him for not being worth what they paid.

I thought they'd sneak this one past you, but you nailed them. Good job.

But he's cheap now. My post had nothing to do with the past. Right now, he's going to be cheap. He's shown he could play in this system and thrive. So WHY NOT bring him back? Your attempt at a witty comeback failed.

Its been said that he didn't flourish in Minny because its requires big DB's who can tackle well. Tackling has NEVER been Smootys trademark. Sure, he tries but he's not big like Springs. Smoot is a cover corner, he did it well in this system.

You're right, my bad. I took it that way with the money references and wanting him to come back, but you're right you don't actually refer to not having signed him before as a mistake.

If he is cheap we should look at him for the right price, but personally I have a hard time thinking of him as being a great upgrade.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Why not bring Smoot back? I tell you why not!

1. Its because most of the fans enjoy the high spending antics of this team. They feel that if they can't win the real superbowl, they can keep winning the off-season bowl.

2. His price will be too cheap. He has to want at least 20 billion dollars before we can even consider resigning.

3. It'll make too much sense. Who would want to bring a guy back that flourished in this system? I mean, we bring back Greggs old players but we can't do that with our own. No, thats out of the question.

4. High and Mighty! Smoot is not a good enough person to play for this team. Our roster is full of law abiding players that attend Church 4 times a week and pay their tithes consistently. He can't come here and distract this teams mission to end world hunger. The only way he can be forgiven is to repent to joe directly and maybe he'll have mercy on him.

5. This teams mission is to rake in AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. Fred Smoots return would only garner a weeks worth of attention. Danny needs to thunder to roll until the season starts to make revenue.

6. Chemistry. Bringing back a player who fits within the team well is a no no. We must find the sqaure peg to fit into our round hole.

Yes, we won't sign a player without overpaying them, good point.

That's why we didn't outbid Minnesota for Smoot, and Minnesota is cutting him for not being worth what they paid.

I thought they'd sneak this one past you, but you nailed them. Good job.

But he's cheap now. My post had nothing to do with the past. Right now, he's going to be cheap. He's shown he could play in this system and thrive. So WHY NOT bring him back? Your attempt at a witty comeback failed.

Its been said that he didn't flourish in Minny because its requires big DB's who can tackle well. Tackling has NEVER been Smootys trademark. Sure, he tries but he's not big like Springs. Smoot is a cover corner, he did it well in this system.

You're right, my bad. I took it that way with the money references and wanting him to come back, but you're right you don't actually refer to not having signed him before as a mistake.

If he is cheap we should look at him for the right price, but personally I have a hard time thinking of him as being a great upgrade.

My original post was moreso aimed at those who feel this team is somehow "too good" Smoot.

IMO, we don't need a "great" upgrade. We need someone who can do their job well. IMO, he'll do very well here.

I also think we need a good pass rush before we can judge any potential or current DB's.

I don't want smoot back because he's friends with Deon Sanders. The last thing we need is a "deon sanders" influence coming into our lockeroom. Could you imagine it? Going 5-11 and Deon calling up Smoot telling him to say this and that! Deon would do it too! Heck, Smoot left us "after he talked to Deon" (Its a loose quote from smoot) "Deon said this team has no chemistry or continuity and I'm going to get that somewhere else" (I'm to lazy to look up the whole quote, but thats pretty much what Smoot said). About a week later he signed with the Vikings for only $200,000 more.

I'd rather overpay for Clements then sign smoot for the league minimum.

Redskins Rule wrote:I don't want smoot back because he's friends with Deon Sanders.

I guess we need to cut Sean Taylor for changing his jersey to #21.
Shoot, lets get rid of Vinny for brining Deon here.....now that I can agree with.

Redskins Rule wrote:The last thing we need is a "deon sanders" influence coming into our lockeroom.

We sure don't want an air of success breezing through do we?

Redskins Rule wrote:Heck, Smoot left us "after he talked to Deon" (Its a loose quote from smoot) "Deon said this team has no chemistry or continuity and I'm going to get that somewhere else"

And we still have chemistry problems....whats your point?

Redskins Rule wrote:I'd rather overpay for Clements then sign smoot for the league minimum.

Vinny, is that you?

I also think that Smoot right now would be an "upgrade" for our secondary.

Hopefully the "evaluators" here are going to be looking at everyone and everything to do with what happened here this past year and put a group out there that can get a lot more out of each other than what we all saw happening since the pre season games.

The interesting fact of life this year is that it will not be just a few who are willing to over-pay as there will be a number of "players" in that mix from the looks of where teams stand with the predicted salary cap. The teams that will do better next year will not be those that just add the better players but those that add players that make the other players better.


I agree with CLL in that it is not as simple as Smoot potentially being able to contribute here (a lot of CBs would make us better) it is more about the combinations of the 11 guys on the field at one time playing effectively together.


We have not been able to bring pressure on the QB for so long that that fact in itself makes a lot of other talented players, not look very good. Even if we had the best CB in the NFL, play in our secondary, it would not make our pass rush any better!

We need to get better play from a number of positions and we need a MLB (or defensive leader/play caller) in charge back there.

^ I endorse that post 200%. ^

Chris Luva Luva wrote:My original post was moreso aimed at those who feel this team is somehow "too good" Smoot.

IMO, we don't need a "great" upgrade. We need someone who can do their job well. IMO, he'll do very well here.

I also think we need a good pass rush before we can judge any potential or current DB's.

In terms of problem players, while Joe is a choir boy, he's had tolerance in the past. Wilber and Dexter stand out from his first stint. He's clearly supported Taylor and while he's expressed some frustration with Lloyd is still supporting him. The issue with Smoot though may be not so much that he's worse but going up to 3 problem players simultaneously may be more then he wants to deal with. We're not monks, but we're not the Dallas Cowboys either. Would that be Art Monk? I didn't get it when I wrote it.

In terms of talent, if we could get Smoot for backup money I would say that's worth doing. But for starter money and another player problem I think we should target someone else.

And I agree totally on the pass rush. Given time any pro-QB will shred any secondary.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:My original post was moreso aimed at those who feel this team is somehow "too good" Smoot.

IMO, we don't need a "great" upgrade. We need someone who can do their job well. IMO, he'll do very well here.

I also think we need a good pass rush before we can judge any potential or current DB's.

In terms of problem players, while Joe is a choir boy, he's had tolerance in the past. Wilber and Dexter stand out from his first stint. He's clearly supported Taylor and while he's expressed some frustration with Lloyd is still supporting him. The issue with Smoot though may be not so much that he's worse but going up to 3 problem players simultaneously may be more then he wants to deal with. We're not monks, but we're not the Dallas Cowboys either. Would that be Art Monk? I didn't get it when I wrote it.

In terms of talent, if we could get Smoot for backup money I would say that's worth doing. But for starter money and another player problem I think we should target someone else.

And I agree totally on the pass rush. Given time any pro-QB will shred any secondary.

IMO, Smoot is hardly a problem player. He had the boat incident, what else has he done? He's been a standup guy before that, he's been cool after the boat party. Almost all of these guys attend parties and clubs. Smoots party got outta hand, it is what it is. I'm sure more/worse things have happend that have never gone public.

I doubt he'll ever have issues like that again.

He fits in with the system.
He fits in with the players.
We'll have a locker room boast.
We'll have a morale boast.
We'll have a chemistry boast.
We'll have less of a learning curve.
We can compensate him decently and make his contract incentive driven.

He was a DB that could be left on an island when he left. We didn't have a pass rush back then either...

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:My original post was moreso aimed at those who feel this team is somehow "too good" Smoot.

IMO, we don't need a "great" upgrade. We need someone who can do their job well. IMO, he'll do very well here.

I also think we need a good pass rush before we can judge any potential or current DB's.

In terms of problem players, while Joe is a choir boy, he's had tolerance in the past. Wilber and Dexter stand out from his first stint. He's clearly supported Taylor and while he's expressed some frustration with Lloyd is still supporting him. The issue with Smoot though may be not so much that he's worse but going up to 3 problem players simultaneously may be more then he wants to deal with. We're not monks, but we're not the Dallas Cowboys either. Would that be Art Monk? I didn't get it when I wrote it.

In terms of talent, if we could get Smoot for backup money I would say that's worth doing. But for starter money and another player problem I think we should target someone else.

And I agree totally on the pass rush. Given time any pro-QB will shred any secondary.

IMO, Smoot is hardly a problem player. He had the boat incident, what else has he done? He's been a standup guy before that, he's been cool after the boat party. Almost all of these guys attend parties and clubs. Smoots party got outta hand, it is what it is. I'm sure more/worse things have happend that have never gone public.

I doubt he'll ever have issues like that again.

He fits in with the system.
He fits in with the players.
We'll have a locker room boast.
We'll have a morale boast.
We'll have a chemistry boast.
We'll have less of a learning curve.
We can compensate him decently and make his contract incentive driven.

He was a DB that could be left on an island when he left. We didn't have a pass rush back then either...

Left on an island!??!?!?! Dude! he was a decent number two corner! And that was only in coverage! Smoot could never get off a block from any wide reciever in the league and he could never tackle anyone! Don't you remember the time when he ripped keyshawn johnson's helmet off and keyshawn STILL almost scored! Thank God Smoot had help! It would have been embarrasing if Keyshawn was able to score after that!

Smoot was no Champ Bailey or Darrell Green when he was here. I still remember that game we played against the Rams in 2001 or so. They were picking on Smoot the whole freakin game! And then smoot knocks himself out breaking up a pass......finally! So Darrell Green was rotated into Smoot's spot for the rest of the game......thank God for that too! We would have lost if Smoot was "left on an island" against Holt or Bruce.

I guess on the bright side of things.......Smoot would always dive at their ankles when "tackling" someone. You know, he would at least try. I guess you got to give him an 'A' for effort!

Ok.....maybe I was being a bit generous...

Chris Luva Luva wrote:IMO, Smoot is hardly a problem player. He had the boat incident, what else has he done? He's been a standup guy before that, he's been cool after the boat party. Almost all of these guys attend parties and clubs. Smoots party got outta hand, it is what it is. I'm sure more/worse things have happend that have never gone public.

I doubt he'll ever have issues like that again.

He fits in with the system.
He fits in with the players.
We'll have a locker room boast.
We'll have a morale boast.
We'll have a chemistry boast.
We'll have less of a learning curve.
We can compensate him decently and make his contract incentive driven.

He was a DB that could be left on an island when he left. We didn't have a pass rush back then either...

I'm getting more head shy with things like the boat accident. I'm a VT alum and have always been a Michael Vick fan. Then his loser brother came to VT had incident after incident and each time he contritely swore that was it. Then he drove w/o a license and was kicked off the team and Michael Vick defended him. OK, they're brothers. But then Michael kept losing control and is spiraling down.

Taylor had so many stupid problems his rookie year I would have thought he would have gotten it together, then had the gun incident.

Dexter swore he was through with drugs, then swore the next time, and the next.

I'm not saying my examples are proof, just examples that it seems when you have things that are really that stupid it doesn't end after the first incident.

And while he wasn't negative like Lloyd, he was a motor mouth. It just seems he's headed to more trouble. A rich guy who's lost touch from where he came and thinks he can get away with anything.

I hope I"m wrong.

Smoot? We must be desperate.

Hey! We -are- desperate!!!

My call will be the opposite of Vinny Cerrato's call. If Vinny wants Smoot, I don't and viceversa. I can not go wrong that way.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:But he's cheap now. My post had nothing to do with the past. Right now, he's going to be cheap.

He doesn't talk like he's going to be cheap. That interview sounds like he's looking for money, and whomever will pay him the most.

He's shown he could play in this system and thrive. So WHY NOT bring him back?

If he comes with a low price tag, I'm all for it. But I don't know if he will.

Its been said that he didn't flourish in Minny because its requires big DB's who can tackle well.

Whomever said that is an idiot. Minnesota has one corner who has consistently played very well for them since he came over as a Free Agent. That corner is Antoine Winfield, who is possibly the smallest starting corner in the NFL. He makes Smoot look positively enormous.

Smoot just didn't play well in Minnesota. Period.

PulpExposure wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:But he's cheap now. My post had nothing to do with the past. Right now, he's going to be cheap.

He doesn't talk like he's going to be cheap. That interview sounds like he's looking for money, and whomever will pay him the most.

He's shown he could play in this system and thrive. So WHY NOT bring him back?

If he comes with a low price tag, I'm all for it. But I don't know if he will.

Its been said that he didn't flourish in Minny because its requires big DB's who can tackle well.

Whomever said that is an idiot. Minnesota has one corner who has consistently played very well for them since he came over as a Free Agent. That corner is Antoine Winfield, who is possibly the smallest starting corner in the NFL. He makes Smoot look positively enormous.

Smoot just didn't play well in Minnesota. Period.

I'm with you. I remember that said before about the corners for Minnesota and I was scratching my head. The Corner can cover or he can't. What are they talking about, like a small cover corner can't play well in their system.

Like, sure, he coverd the guy, but he was small when he did it so it didn't work out.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Why not bring Smoot back? I tell you why not!

1. Its because most of the fans enjoy the high spending antics of this team. They feel that if they can't win the real superbowl, they can keep winning the off-season bowl.

2. His price will be too cheap. He has to want at least 20 billion dollars before we can even consider resigning.

He's been paid... and if we trade for him we can wait until after the roster bonus is due and have them pay that. It would cost a draft pick but it would be for a player that knows the base system (GW has already said it will be changing) so he would be learning a new system (something he said he did't want to do). His base salary will be $2.7M next year so that will keep the fans happy

Chris Luva Luva wrote:3. It'll make too much sense. Who would want to bring a guy back that flourished in this system? I mean, we bring back Greggs old players but we can't do that with our own. No, thats out of the question.

Who's talking about bringing back A guy? I'm talking about Retro-Redskins, Smoot - Clark - Rashad Bauman, and that's just DBs. I want to trade the #6 pick with Atlanta, SF, Denver or anybody else that has a pick that HAD our name on it. Bringing all back.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:4. High and Mighty! Smoot is not a good enough person to play for this team. Our roster is full of law abiding players that attend Church 4 times a week and pay their tithes consistently. He can't come here and distract this teams mission to end world hunger. The only way he can be forgiven is to repent to joe directly and maybe he'll have mercy on him.

Smoot woulld fit in find back at Redskin Park he'd just have to be a land lover. There's always Anacostia and walks along the Potomac

Chris Luva Luva wrote:5. This teams mission is to rake in AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. Fred Smoots return would only garner a weeks worth of attention. Danny needs to thunder to roll until the season starts to make revenue.

Taylor has the #21, Smoot's return would produce a brand new jersey blitz to go along with what the 75th anni bomb is going to be

Chris Luva Luva wrote:6. Chemistry. Bringing back a player who fits within the team well is a no no. We must find the sqaure peg to fit into our round hole.

Where you been The team switched to round pegs and square holes weeks ago

PulpExposure wrote:He doesn't talk like he's going to be cheap. That interview sounds like he's looking for money, and whomever will pay him the most.

If he's cut he won't get what he is currently due but won't want #3 money. He's not a #1 and knows it so it wouldn't cost much. If they trade for him it'll cost more yearly than it would if we signed him as a free agent and hopefully they don't re-do the contract

PulpExposure wrote:

He's shown he could play in this system and thrive. So WHY NOT bring him back?

If he comes with a low price tag, I'm all for it. But I don't know if he will.

He he comes with his current price tag I'd really think about it. I wouldn't call it a upgrade but it would be a improvement

I really think Smoot would fit right back in for us and could eventually be our #1 guy.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I really think Smoot would fit right back in for us and could eventually be our #1 guy.

I totally disagree, Smoot will find a home somewhere but he is not a number one corner, never has been, never will be

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I really think Smoot would fit right back in for us and could eventually be our #1 guy.

Eventual #1? Based on what? He was developing for us and was a decent corner. He went on to fail in Minnesota. What are you basing projecting him to be an eventutal #1?

He's undersized and can't tackle and never played for us as well as Springs did when healthy. For Springs I agree healthy and related age is the issue and we need to look for a new #1. But if Smoot were that we wouldn't have let him go before he went and showed he wasn't worth the dough in Minnesota.

I agreed with you in our prior discussion for the right price we bring him back. Though I dont' think we can get him for a dollar figure it's worth bringing him back for because I wouldn't pay him a lot, and he's talking like last time it's the respect, not the money, and he's measuring respect with money. But #1?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I really think Smoot would fit right back in for us and could eventually be our #1 guy.

Eventual #1? Based on what?

I can't speak for CLL (he's a big boy and can do that on his own), but CLL's statement may be more of a reflection on our current (lack of) depth in the secondary than on Smoot's actual talents. Think about it - given Springs' issues with injury and age, he very well could miss a significant stretch in '07. That leaves Rogers and Smoot as the likely starters (assuming we don't pick up a CB in free agency; even if we draft a great rookie CB, he likely won't be starting in his first year), so who's your #1 CB? Rogers looked awfully shaky this past year, so it could be Smoot! I'm not saying Smoot's actually better (I only saw him play vs. us in Week 1), but the arguement could be made. That is all.

Mursilis wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I really think Smoot would fit right back in for us and could eventually be our #1 guy.

Eventual #1? Based on what?

I can't speak for CLL (he's a big boy and can do that on his own), but CLL's statement may be more of a reflection on our current (lack of) depth in the secondary than on Smoot's actual talents. Think about it - given Springs' issues with injury and age, he very well could miss a significant stretch in '07. That leaves Rogers and Smoot as the likely starters (assuming we don't pick up a CB in free agency; even if we draft a great rookie CB, he likely won't be starting in his first year), so who's your #1 CB? Rogers looked awfully shaky this past year, so it could be Smoot! I'm not saying Smoot's actually better (I only saw him play vs. us in Week 1), but the arguement could be made. That is all.

Questions. BTW, he's not a Skin he's a Viking. I'm guessing you know that but your point makes it sound like we've already signed him.

- Assuming Smoot is cut by Minnesota, you are assuming we have him. Why? He's going back on the market, what's he worth to you? Are we going to outbid everyone?

- Of the free agents on the market, if we are going to outbid everyone, why him over others on the free agent market?

- And related to the second question, we already have two problem players, Taylor and Lloyd. I'm for keeping both, but the hedonism boat incident is concerning and while he's not a negative influence like Lloyd he's a motor mouth. You are just writing the problems off? Do we need potentially a third problem player?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I really think Smoot would fit right back in for us and could eventually be our #1 guy.

Eventual #1? Based on what?

I can't speak for CLL (he's a big boy and can do that on his own), but CLL's statement may be more of a reflection on our current (lack of) depth in the secondary than on Smoot's actual talents. Think about it - given Springs' issues with injury and age, he very well could miss a significant stretch in '07. That leaves Rogers and Smoot as the likely starters (assuming we don't pick up a CB in free agency; even if we draft a great rookie CB, he likely won't be starting in his first year), so who's your #1 CB? Rogers looked awfully shaky this past year, so it could be Smoot! I'm not saying Smoot's actually better (I only saw him play vs. us in Week 1), but the arguement could be made. That is all.

Questions. BTW, he's not a Skin he's a Viking. I'm guessing you know that but your point makes it sound like we've already signed him.

- Assuming Smoot is cut by Minnesota, you are assuming we have him. Why? He's going back on the market, what's he worth to you? Are we going to outbid everyone?

- Of the free agents on the market, if we are going to outbid everyone, why him over others on the free agent market?

- And related to the second question, we already have two problem players, Taylor and Lloyd. I'm for keeping both, but the hedonism boat incident is concerning and while he's not a negative influence like Lloyd he's a motor mouth. You are just writing the problems off? Do we need potentially a third problem player?

You worry about all this too much. I'm merely suggesting he'd be worth getting FOR THE RIGHT PRICE, and given the fact our best CB is getting older and missing games due to injury, and our second best corner slumped a bit last year, Smoot (ASSUMING WE GET HIM - yes, yes, this is all speculation) could be the best corner on the field for this team in '07. Will that happen? Heck if I know, and it's not like I'm in charge of it anyway, so I'm really not going to waste more time discussing it.

Oh, and who cares if he runs his mouth a bit. I don't remember him getting arrested the years he was here, so he's probably no worse than half our current roster.

I'm not calling Smoot a shutdown DB.

I'm saying that with a good pass rush, he could be our #1 DB. At least until Rogers gets through his maturation process.

A good pass rush will make Jimoh look good and thats what we need. We could have Bailey, D. Green, D. Sanders, R. Lott and Superman in our secondary, if we keep our current pass rush ability, they'd get burnt too.

I just believe Smoot could be a good player for a good price, especially if we get the defensive front where they should be.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm not calling Smoot a shutdown DB.

I'm saying that with a good pass rush, he could be our #1 DB. At least until Rogers gets through his maturation process.

A good pass rush will make Jimoh look good and thats what we need. We could have Bailey, D. Green, D. Sanders, R. Lott and Superman in our secondary, if we keep our current pass rush ability, they'd get burnt too.

I just believe Smoot could be a good player for a good price, especially if we get the defensive front where they should be.

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't really give me a warm fuzzy. I don't think we're really disagreeing here then.

I just think we have had the best D's when we have had at least one guy like Green, Springs and Bailey who can be a shut down guy. That takes away the other team QB's favorite target away giving you an extra half second to a second because they are used to looking to them first and if they're always covered it really helps the rest of the D.

I am not down on Rogers like many on the site. I think he's talented. I clearly see he had a bad sophmore year but I am optimistic he will bounce back as so many do who play well as rookies and struggle their second year. At this point though I'm not thinking he's a #1 guy.

So I really think we need one really good corner and then with a better pass rush can live with the Rogers, Smoots and Jimoh's behind them.

You're not actually arguing against that, just you are thinking maybe we get by awhile if we can't get plan A. I just think at this point we should be looking for plan A. I love Springs, but he's not staying healthy and not getting younger.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I just think we have had the best D's when we have had at least one guy like Green, Springs and Bailey who can be a shut down guy. That takes away the other team QB's favorite target away giving you an extra half second to a second because they are used to looking to them first and if they're always covered it really helps the rest of the D.

But is this the position to sell the barn for at the moment? We have hardly any picks and the CAP may or may not be an issue. Right now, I say lets get someone serviceable and MAJORLY upgrade the position (DE/DT) that impacts the DB position.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I am not down on Rogers like many on the site. I think he's talented. I clearly see he had a bad sophmore year but I am optimistic he will bounce back as so many do who play well as rookies and struggle their second year. At this point though I'm not thinking he's a #1 guy.

I find it hard to accurately evaluate any of our DB's until we get an acceptale/CONSISTENT pass rush. It's simply not fair to dog these guys out when they're being placed behind the 8-ball from the jump.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:So I really think we need one really good corner and then with a better pass rush can live with the Rogers, Smoots and Jimoh's behind them.

I agree 100%, but I think right now we should focus soley on the pass rush and get someone serviceable. I'd expect improved play from our current group of "average" players with a good rush.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You're not actually arguing against that, just you are thinking maybe we get by awhile if we can't get plan A. I just think at this point we should be looking for plan A. I love Springs, but he's not staying healthy and not getting younger.

Yep.