Skip to content

Smoot Still Shopping

Mar 6, 2005, 1:44 AM EST

Fred Smoot was suppoed to be one of the hot commidities when the NFL free agent market opened up last Wednesday. The Redskins have had a contract offer that includes a $10 million singing bonus on the table since last year. Smoot, and others, thought that he’s be able to get considerably more up front from another team.

So far, however, he’s waiting for the phone to ring. From Len Pasquarelli on ESPN.com:

Another player we love in free agency, and who appears to be generating just tepid interest in the first week of the signing period, is Washington cornerback Fred Smoot. The four-year veteran has become a topflight corner over the past two seasons and has grown up off the field, but isn’t getting nearly the play some lesser cover guys have experienced in the opening days of the market. Smoot turned down an extension offer during the season that would have paid him a $10 million signing bonus. Lesser-known cornerback Anthony Henry of Cleveland got $10 million to sign as an unrestricted free agent in Dallas. Seattle’s Ken Lucas received a $13 million to $14 million bonus when he signed Thursday with Carolina. Those deals, one would assume, should help establish the market for Smoot, but first there has to be a market for his services. Let’s be clear: There is interest in Smoot but not yet to the level everyone felt there would be.

This begs the question: Why not? It’s possible that Smoot has over estimated his market value. Markets can differ from year to year, but last season Shawn Springs signed with the Skins for a $10 million signing bonus. Springs is considered to be the Skins’ number one corner, so why should Smoot think he’s worth more?

Smoot has made it known that he would prefer to remain a Redskin and the team’s $10 million offer is common knowledge. By making that offer know, Washington has set Smoot’s market value and it’s up to another team in increase it. So far, it appears that none are willing to do so and, as a general rule, prices go down as time goes on. Should be Redskins be in a hardball mood, they could deduct $100,000 from the signing bonus for each day that Smoot doesn’t accept it. Not that such a thing would be a good idea for future happiness, mind you, but financially the Skins could probably get away with it.

It’s far from certain that Smoot will end up returning to the Redskins, but as each day passes the chances of that happening improve.

  1. FredSoewito - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:02 AM

    One would wonder why there is no suitors for Smoot. Do you think other teams know something that the Redskins do not?

  2. FredSoewito - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:02 AM

    One would wonder why there is no suitors for Smoot. Do you think other teams know something that the Redskins do not?

  3. FredSoewito - Mar 6, 2005 at 5:02 AM

    One would wonder why there is no suitors for Smoot. Do you think other teams know something that the Redskins do not?

  4. Ur blog sux - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:07 AM

    ur blog sux ass

  5. Ur blog sux - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:07 AM

    ur blog sux ass

  6. Ur blog sux - Mar 6, 2005 at 5:07 AM

    ur blog sux ass

  7. ColoradoSkinsFan - Mar 6, 2005 at 4:40 AM

    Though a well presented argument, I must disagree.
    This blog rocks.

  8. ColoradoSkinsFan - Mar 6, 2005 at 4:40 AM

    Though a well presented argument, I must disagree.
    This blog rocks.

  9. ColoradoSkinsFan - Mar 6, 2005 at 8:40 AM

    Though a well presented argument, I must disagree.
    This blog rocks.

  10. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:08 PM

    I certainly am (pleasantly) surprised with the apparent lack of interest in Smoot. With Ty Law and Samari Rolle out there sucking up big money, Smoot may find himself in a position where there’s not a lot of teams with need at cornerback who have big $$$.

    I think the perfect way to wrap up this free agency period is to resign Smoot. This is a key. As far as I know, there are no problems with Smoot – no injuries (I believe he is better from his sternum injury), no off-field problems.

    I am perplexed as to why no one seems to be calling yet.

    And I concur, this blog rox!

  11. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 1:08 PM

    I certainly am (pleasantly) surprised with the apparent lack of interest in Smoot. With Ty Law and Samari Rolle out there sucking up big money, Smoot may find himself in a position where there’s not a lot of teams with need at cornerback who have big $$$.

    I think the perfect way to wrap up this free agency period is to resign Smoot. This is a key. As far as I know, there are no problems with Smoot – no injuries (I believe he is better from his sternum injury), no off-field problems.

    I am perplexed as to why no one seems to be calling yet.

    And I concur, this blog rox!

  12. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 6, 2005 at 5:08 PM

    I certainly am (pleasantly) surprised with the apparent lack of interest in Smoot. With Ty Law and Samari Rolle out there sucking up big money, Smoot may find himself in a position where there’s not a lot of teams with need at cornerback who have big $$$.

    I think the perfect way to wrap up this free agency period is to resign Smoot. This is a key. As far as I know, there are no problems with Smoot – no injuries (I believe he is better from his sternum injury), no off-field problems.

    I am perplexed as to why no one seems to be calling yet.

    And I concur, this blog rox!

  13. Muccman - Mar 6, 2005 at 8:13 PM

    I am also pleased at the fact that no other team has really taken the initiative to go after Smoot, and as each day goes by I find myself a little more relieved. I would have to say the Redskins offseason has gone rather smoothly so far, with the resigning of Samuels, the signing of Rabach, and a great solution to our WR problem (Moss & Patten = a less bitchy and more refreshing #1 & #2 receiver set). So the resigning of Smoot would definitly keep the offseason going on a very high note.

    And yea, this blog is sweet.

  14. Muccman - Mar 6, 2005 at 8:13 PM

    I am also pleased at the fact that no other team has really taken the initiative to go after Smoot, and as each day goes by I find myself a little more relieved. I would have to say the Redskins offseason has gone rather smoothly so far, with the resigning of Samuels, the signing of Rabach, and a great solution to our WR problem (Moss & Patten = a less bitchy and more refreshing #1 & #2 receiver set). So the resigning of Smoot would definitly keep the offseason going on a very high note.

    And yea, this blog is sweet.

  15. Muccman - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:13 AM

    I am also pleased at the fact that no other team has really taken the initiative to go after Smoot, and as each day goes by I find myself a little more relieved. I would have to say the Redskins offseason has gone rather smoothly so far, with the resigning of Samuels, the signing of Rabach, and a great solution to our WR problem (Moss & Patten = a less bitchy and more refreshing #1 & #2 receiver set). So the resigning of Smoot would definitly keep the offseason going on a very high note.

    And yea, this blog is sweet.

  16. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:10 AM

    Hi, just wanted to say I’ve been reading your blogs for a while now, and they’ve been great! I look forward to reading about your take on any Redskins situation.

    About the Smoot deal, do you think teams are holding out on signing him because they want to see his market value drop first before they jump all over him?

  17. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:10 AM

    Hi, just wanted to say I’ve been reading your blogs for a while now, and they’ve been great! I look forward to reading about your take on any Redskins situation.

    About the Smoot deal, do you think teams are holding out on signing him because they want to see his market value drop first before they jump all over him?

  18. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 4:10 AM

    Hi, just wanted to say I’ve been reading your blogs for a while now, and they’ve been great! I look forward to reading about your take on any Redskins situation.

    About the Smoot deal, do you think teams are holding out on signing him because they want to see his market value drop first before they jump all over him?

  19. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:20 AM

    I think Smoot had a great year last year. Prior to last year, he was good, but not stellar. Do teams risk spending a bunch of money on someone who had one great year? It’s a risk. Who knows if he isn’t one of these guys who has a great year, takes the money, and reverts to his previous level of play? I’m not saying it will happen, but if you’re paying big bucks, you want Smoot as he was last year, not Smoot as he was in prior years.

    Also, as with Pierce, how much of his value should actually be credited to Greg Williams and his system? We don’t know, but it will at least be interesting to see how Pierce fares in New York, and how Smoot does with his new team if he departs.

  20. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:20 AM

    I think Smoot had a great year last year. Prior to last year, he was good, but not stellar. Do teams risk spending a bunch of money on someone who had one great year? It’s a risk. Who knows if he isn’t one of these guys who has a great year, takes the money, and reverts to his previous level of play? I’m not saying it will happen, but if you’re paying big bucks, you want Smoot as he was last year, not Smoot as he was in prior years.

    Also, as with Pierce, how much of his value should actually be credited to Greg Williams and his system? We don’t know, but it will at least be interesting to see how Pierce fares in New York, and how Smoot does with his new team if he departs.

  21. Doug - Mar 7, 2005 at 1:20 PM

    I think Smoot had a great year last year. Prior to last year, he was good, but not stellar. Do teams risk spending a bunch of money on someone who had one great year? It’s a risk. Who knows if he isn’t one of these guys who has a great year, takes the money, and reverts to his previous level of play? I’m not saying it will happen, but if you’re paying big bucks, you want Smoot as he was last year, not Smoot as he was in prior years.

    Also, as with Pierce, how much of his value should actually be credited to Greg Williams and his system? We don’t know, but it will at least be interesting to see how Pierce fares in New York, and how Smoot does with his new team if he departs.

  22. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 7, 2005 at 11:04 AM

    OK, let’s assume the worst here (and after reading the Post this morning, that seems like a safe assumption).

    If Smoot leaves, that puts Walt Harris as our #2 corner. Followed by who? Garnell Wilds? Ade Jimoh?

    Harris is an average corenerback now – he used to be quite an impressive corner, but with his age and injuries, I don’t know how effective he will be.

    Garnell Wilds played well in the last game against the Vikings – he was often set up one-on-one with Randy Moss and did well. I just am not sold on him yet.

    And Ade Jimoh? I was one of the most fervent detractors of Mr. Jimoh. Although he improved last year – especially in special teams. But is he ready to be a #2 cornerback yet? Time will tell.

    Does anyone else feel as pessimistic about this situation as I do? Without 2 strong corners (and I know we have Springs, who is an outstanding cover guy), we are not nearly as flexible on safety blitzes.

  23. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 7, 2005 at 11:04 AM

    OK, let’s assume the worst here (and after reading the Post this morning, that seems like a safe assumption).

    If Smoot leaves, that puts Walt Harris as our #2 corner. Followed by who? Garnell Wilds? Ade Jimoh?

    Harris is an average corenerback now – he used to be quite an impressive corner, but with his age and injuries, I don’t know how effective he will be.

    Garnell Wilds played well in the last game against the Vikings – he was often set up one-on-one with Randy Moss and did well. I just am not sold on him yet.

    And Ade Jimoh? I was one of the most fervent detractors of Mr. Jimoh. Although he improved last year – especially in special teams. But is he ready to be a #2 cornerback yet? Time will tell.

    Does anyone else feel as pessimistic about this situation as I do? Without 2 strong corners (and I know we have Springs, who is an outstanding cover guy), we are not nearly as flexible on safety blitzes.

  24. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 7, 2005 at 3:04 PM

    OK, let’s assume the worst here (and after reading the Post this morning, that seems like a safe assumption).

    If Smoot leaves, that puts Walt Harris as our #2 corner. Followed by who? Garnell Wilds? Ade Jimoh?

    Harris is an average corenerback now – he used to be quite an impressive corner, but with his age and injuries, I don’t know how effective he will be.

    Garnell Wilds played well in the last game against the Vikings – he was often set up one-on-one with Randy Moss and did well. I just am not sold on him yet.

    And Ade Jimoh? I was one of the most fervent detractors of Mr. Jimoh. Although he improved last year – especially in special teams. But is he ready to be a #2 cornerback yet? Time will tell.

    Does anyone else feel as pessimistic about this situation as I do? Without 2 strong corners (and I know we have Springs, who is an outstanding cover guy), we are not nearly as flexible on safety blitzes.

  25. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:15 PM

    It is conceivable that Laverneous Coles cost the Redskins –

    A first round pick. Number 13 overall.

    15 plus million dollars.

    And Fred Smoot.

    In return, we got two good years from him — good not great — and a lesser receiver in Santana Moss.

    That’s a fantastic front office we have. And I don’t want to hear any crap about new coaches need new players — it’s part of the front office’s job to hire a coach that isn’t going to quit or get fired every year.

    Unbelievable.

  26. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:15 PM

    It is conceivable that Laverneous Coles cost the Redskins –

    A first round pick. Number 13 overall.

    15 plus million dollars.

    And Fred Smoot.

    In return, we got two good years from him — good not great — and a lesser receiver in Santana Moss.

    That’s a fantastic front office we have. And I don’t want to hear any crap about new coaches need new players — it’s part of the front office’s job to hire a coach that isn’t going to quit or get fired every year.

    Unbelievable.

  27. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 4:15 PM

    It is conceivable that Laverneous Coles cost the Redskins –

    A first round pick. Number 13 overall.

    15 plus million dollars.

    And Fred Smoot.

    In return, we got two good years from him — good not great — and a lesser receiver in Santana Moss.

    That’s a fantastic front office we have. And I don’t want to hear any crap about new coaches need new players — it’s part of the front office’s job to hire a coach that isn’t going to quit or get fired every year.

    Unbelievable.

  28. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:27 PM

    While Springs had, by all accounts, a really good season, relatively free of injury, I’m not certain that the “injury bug” is something that he has completely shaken. Should we lose Smoot, I’m worried about an awful sitution in which Springs goes down right before a game against the Iggles and we’re caught with our pants down and are torched by McNabb / Owens. Maybe this never happens, but I’m worried about it nonetheless. Again, I’ve been immesely pleased with Springs, but I am wary of future injuries. Without Smoot, we’ll have a real weakness at CB.

  29. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:27 PM

    While Springs had, by all accounts, a really good season, relatively free of injury, I’m not certain that the “injury bug” is something that he has completely shaken. Should we lose Smoot, I’m worried about an awful sitution in which Springs goes down right before a game against the Iggles and we’re caught with our pants down and are torched by McNabb / Owens. Maybe this never happens, but I’m worried about it nonetheless. Again, I’ve been immesely pleased with Springs, but I am wary of future injuries. Without Smoot, we’ll have a real weakness at CB.

  30. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 4:27 PM

    While Springs had, by all accounts, a really good season, relatively free of injury, I’m not certain that the “injury bug” is something that he has completely shaken. Should we lose Smoot, I’m worried about an awful sitution in which Springs goes down right before a game against the Iggles and we’re caught with our pants down and are torched by McNabb / Owens. Maybe this never happens, but I’m worried about it nonetheless. Again, I’ve been immesely pleased with Springs, but I am wary of future injuries. Without Smoot, we’ll have a real weakness at CB.

  31. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:59 PM

    Just watch. Plexico Burress is going to sign for less money than we give Santana Moss. We should have just cut LC, used the five mil he gave back to us to resign Smoot and sign Plexico. Hell, we might even had enough money to keep Pierce.

  32. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 12:59 PM

    Just watch. Plexico Burress is going to sign for less money than we give Santana Moss. We should have just cut LC, used the five mil he gave back to us to resign Smoot and sign Plexico. Hell, we might even had enough money to keep Pierce.

  33. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 4:59 PM

    Just watch. Plexico Burress is going to sign for less money than we give Santana Moss. We should have just cut LC, used the five mil he gave back to us to resign Smoot and sign Plexico. Hell, we might even had enough money to keep Pierce.

  34. oneampoet - Mar 7, 2005 at 3:48 PM

    Plexico? Do you mean Plaxico? Yeah thats just the player the Redskins need…and I guarentee that Burress signs for more than Moss.

    And the skins didnt not sign pierce or Smoot because they couldn’t afford them, they did it because they didn’t think they are worth the dollars they are asking in relation to the Salary cap as a whole.

    First people that complain about Dan spending to much, now were complaining that he isn’t spending enough.

    As much as I like Smoot as a player, I think he isn’t generating a lot of attention because he is a little on the short side and regardless of what he says he is really only a second CB.

  35. oneampoet - Mar 7, 2005 at 3:48 PM

    Plexico? Do you mean Plaxico? Yeah thats just the player the Redskins need…and I guarentee that Burress signs for more than Moss.

    And the skins didnt not sign pierce or Smoot because they couldn’t afford them, they did it because they didn’t think they are worth the dollars they are asking in relation to the Salary cap as a whole.

    First people that complain about Dan spending to much, now were complaining that he isn’t spending enough.

    As much as I like Smoot as a player, I think he isn’t generating a lot of attention because he is a little on the short side and regardless of what he says he is really only a second CB.

  36. oneampoet - Mar 7, 2005 at 7:48 PM

    Plexico? Do you mean Plaxico? Yeah thats just the player the Redskins need…and I guarentee that Burress signs for more than Moss.

    And the skins didnt not sign pierce or Smoot because they couldn’t afford them, they did it because they didn’t think they are worth the dollars they are asking in relation to the Salary cap as a whole.

    First people that complain about Dan spending to much, now were complaining that he isn’t spending enough.

    As much as I like Smoot as a player, I think he isn’t generating a lot of attention because he is a little on the short side and regardless of what he says he is really only a second CB.

  37. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 7, 2005 at 6:29 PM

    Looks like Rolle just signed for a $10.5m bonus:

    http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8265108

    Maybe we weren’t crazy to offer Freddy the money we have?

    I would have thought that Rolle could have signed for more.

  38. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 7, 2005 at 6:29 PM

    Looks like Rolle just signed for a $10.5m bonus:

    http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8265108

    Maybe we weren’t crazy to offer Freddy the money we have?

    I would have thought that Rolle could have signed for more.

  39. Brian "Poundcake" Browning - Mar 7, 2005 at 10:29 PM

    Looks like Rolle just signed for a $10.5m bonus:

    http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8265108

    Maybe we weren’t crazy to offer Freddy the money we have?

    I would have thought that Rolle could have signed for more.

  40. Rich Tandler - Mar 7, 2005 at 6:33 PM

    Unlike in previous year, Poundcake, the Redskins are letting the market come to them.

  41. Rich Tandler - Mar 7, 2005 at 6:33 PM

    Unlike in previous year, Poundcake, the Redskins are letting the market come to them.

  42. Rich Tandler - Mar 7, 2005 at 10:33 PM

    Unlike in previous year, Poundcake, the Redskins are letting the market come to them.

  43. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 8:36 PM

    What a disaster the Coles for Moss trade was. If we’re very lucky, we’ll somehow end up keeping Smoot. If not, let’s sum up our offseason –

    We traded our leading receiver for a speedster who’s had one good year, isn’t very tough, and wants a new good contract on the Derrick Mason scale, which for some crazy reason, we’re apparently going to give him! The entire league is laughing at that one.

    By trading Coles, we took a cap hit that severely limited our ability to resign Pierce and Smoot. This is true no matter what the view through your burgundy and gold glasses tells you.

    We signed another fast receiver, who at best, will be a decent number two. In other words, he’s Rod Gardner without the bad attitude, but also without the size, upside, or knowledge of the offense.

    We have one great corner in Springs, who is getting old and has a history of getting hurt. Behind him, we have some guys with some decent potential (maybe) and… well, that’s really it.

    We. Need. A. GM.

  44. Anonymous - Mar 7, 2005 at 8:36 PM

    What a disaster the Coles for Moss trade was. If we’re very lucky, we’ll somehow end up keeping Smoot. If not, let’s sum up our offseason –

    We traded our leading receiver for a speedster who’s had one good year, isn’t very tough, and wants a new good contract on the Derrick Mason scale, which for some crazy reason, we’re apparently going to give him! The entire league is laughing at that one.

    By trading Coles, we took a cap hit that severely limited our ability to resign Pierce and Smoot. This is true no matter what the view through your burgundy and gold glasses tells you.

    We signed another fast receiver, who at best, will be a decent number two. In other words, he’s Rod Gardner without the bad attitude, but also without the size, upside, or knowledge of the offense.

    We have one great corner in Springs, who is getting old and has a history of getting hurt. Behind him, we have some guys with some decent potential (maybe) and… well, that’s really it.

    We. Need. A. GM.

  45. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 12:36 AM

    What a disaster the Coles for Moss trade was. If we’re very lucky, we’ll somehow end up keeping Smoot. If not, let’s sum up our offseason –

    We traded our leading receiver for a speedster who’s had one good year, isn’t very tough, and wants a new good contract on the Derrick Mason scale, which for some crazy reason, we’re apparently going to give him! The entire league is laughing at that one.

    By trading Coles, we took a cap hit that severely limited our ability to resign Pierce and Smoot. This is true no matter what the view through your burgundy and gold glasses tells you.

    We signed another fast receiver, who at best, will be a decent number two. In other words, he’s Rod Gardner without the bad attitude, but also without the size, upside, or knowledge of the offense.

    We have one great corner in Springs, who is getting old and has a history of getting hurt. Behind him, we have some guys with some decent potential (maybe) and… well, that’s really it.

    We. Need. A. GM.

  46. udelax - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:52 PM

    Hey i like what you’ve done with the blog, I actually have to make one for a class. Mine’s at hogbloggin.blogspot.com if you want to link to it for any reason (It’s a skins blog too of course).

  47. udelax - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:52 PM

    Hey i like what you’ve done with the blog, I actually have to make one for a class. Mine’s at hogbloggin.blogspot.com if you want to link to it for any reason (It’s a skins blog too of course).

  48. udelax - Mar 8, 2005 at 1:52 AM

    Hey i like what you’ve done with the blog, I actually have to make one for a class. Mine’s at hogbloggin.blogspot.com if you want to link to it for any reason (It’s a skins blog too of course).

  49. Dave - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:53 PM

    Hey i like what you’ve done with the blog, I actually have to make one for a class. Mine’s at hogbloggin.blogspot.com if you want to link to it for any reason (It’s a skins blog too of course).

  50. Dave - Mar 7, 2005 at 9:53 PM

    Hey i like what you’ve done with the blog, I actually have to make one for a class. Mine’s at hogbloggin.blogspot.com if you want to link to it for any reason (It’s a skins blog too of course).

  51. Dave - Mar 8, 2005 at 1:53 AM

    Hey i like what you’ve done with the blog, I actually have to make one for a class. Mine’s at hogbloggin.blogspot.com if you want to link to it for any reason (It’s a skins blog too of course).

  52. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 11:36 AM

    Smoot visiting Minnesota today — they have 31 million of cap room and need another corner. Look for him to end up there as our offseason just gets worse and worse.

    But it’s okay: now we’ll have enough money to give Santana Moss a Derrick Mason like deal.

    WE NEED A GM!

  53. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 11:36 AM

    Smoot visiting Minnesota today — they have 31 million of cap room and need another corner. Look for him to end up there as our offseason just gets worse and worse.

    But it’s okay: now we’ll have enough money to give Santana Moss a Derrick Mason like deal.

    WE NEED A GM!

  54. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:36 PM

    Smoot visiting Minnesota today — they have 31 million of cap room and need another corner. Look for him to end up there as our offseason just gets worse and worse.

    But it’s okay: now we’ll have enough money to give Santana Moss a Derrick Mason like deal.

    WE NEED A GM!

  55. Rich Tandler - Mar 8, 2005 at 11:46 AM

    I have argued that the Skins need a real GM here since day one. But please realize that teams with real GM’s lose players to free agency all the time. The Skins are being smart in not overpaying Smoot.

    And where does the notion of a “Mason-like deal” for Moss come from? Is this something that you know or something that you’re speculating about? From what I hear, Moss won’t get anything close to the $7 million SB and $20 million overall value that Mason got.

  56. Rich Tandler - Mar 8, 2005 at 11:46 AM

    I have argued that the Skins need a real GM here since day one. But please realize that teams with real GM’s lose players to free agency all the time. The Skins are being smart in not overpaying Smoot.

    And where does the notion of a “Mason-like deal” for Moss come from? Is this something that you know or something that you’re speculating about? From what I hear, Moss won’t get anything close to the $7 million SB and $20 million overall value that Mason got.

  57. Rich Tandler - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:46 PM

    I have argued that the Skins need a real GM here since day one. But please realize that teams with real GM’s lose players to free agency all the time. The Skins are being smart in not overpaying Smoot.

    And where does the notion of a “Mason-like deal” for Moss come from? Is this something that you know or something that you’re speculating about? From what I hear, Moss won’t get anything close to the $7 million SB and $20 million overall value that Mason got.

  58. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 2:12 PM

    We’ve supposedly pulled our offer off the table. Why? Most likely because we realized we just don’t have the money to resign Smoot, sign our draft picks, and give Santana an extension. Just watch: Smoot is going to sign somewhere for less than our original offer because of the debacle that was the Coles trade!

    I really, really hope I’m wrong.

  59. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 2:12 PM

    We’ve supposedly pulled our offer off the table. Why? Most likely because we realized we just don’t have the money to resign Smoot, sign our draft picks, and give Santana an extension. Just watch: Smoot is going to sign somewhere for less than our original offer because of the debacle that was the Coles trade!

    I really, really hope I’m wrong.

  60. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 6:12 PM

    We’ve supposedly pulled our offer off the table. Why? Most likely because we realized we just don’t have the money to resign Smoot, sign our draft picks, and give Santana an extension. Just watch: Smoot is going to sign somewhere for less than our original offer because of the debacle that was the Coles trade!

    I really, really hope I’m wrong.

  61. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:05 PM

    Lets get something straight here. Fred Smoot is NOT a shut down corner. Don’t get me wrong, I love Smoot. He’s got the heart of a lion and he’s a very good corner, but he is NOT a shut down corner. Everybody is acting like its the end of the world b/c the Redskins might lose Smoot. Do you think its simply coincidence that so many defensive players had their best year ever after the arrival of Greg Williams? Nonames came out of nowhere and played respectable and sometimes great football. That’s Greg Williams, not Smoot who caused that to happen. So stop with the histrionics, will you? I’m thrilled with the idea that for the first time in recorded Snyder history, we are not going to break the bank to sign a player we want, who, by the way, is NOT a shut down corner.

  62. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:05 PM

    Lets get something straight here. Fred Smoot is NOT a shut down corner. Don’t get me wrong, I love Smoot. He’s got the heart of a lion and he’s a very good corner, but he is NOT a shut down corner. Everybody is acting like its the end of the world b/c the Redskins might lose Smoot. Do you think its simply coincidence that so many defensive players had their best year ever after the arrival of Greg Williams? Nonames came out of nowhere and played respectable and sometimes great football. That’s Greg Williams, not Smoot who caused that to happen. So stop with the histrionics, will you? I’m thrilled with the idea that for the first time in recorded Snyder history, we are not going to break the bank to sign a player we want, who, by the way, is NOT a shut down corner.

  63. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 7:05 PM

    Lets get something straight here. Fred Smoot is NOT a shut down corner. Don’t get me wrong, I love Smoot. He’s got the heart of a lion and he’s a very good corner, but he is NOT a shut down corner. Everybody is acting like its the end of the world b/c the Redskins might lose Smoot. Do you think its simply coincidence that so many defensive players had their best year ever after the arrival of Greg Williams? Nonames came out of nowhere and played respectable and sometimes great football. That’s Greg Williams, not Smoot who caused that to happen. So stop with the histrionics, will you? I’m thrilled with the idea that for the first time in recorded Snyder history, we are not going to break the bank to sign a player we want, who, by the way, is NOT a shut down corner.

  64. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:09 PM

    Lets get something straight here. Fred Smoot is NOT a shut down corner. Don’t get me wrong, I love Smoot. He’s got the heart of a lion and he’s a very good corner, but he is NOT a shut down corner. Everybody is acting like its the end of the world b/c the Redskins might lose Smoot. Do you think its simply coincidence that so many defensive players had their best year ever after the arrival of Greg Williams? Nonames came out of nowhere and played respectable and sometimes great football. That’s Greg Williams, not Smoot who caused that to happen. So stop with the histrionics, will you? I’m thrilled with the idea that for the first time in recorded Snyder history, we are not going to break the bank to sign a player we want, who, by the way, is NOT a shut down corner.

  65. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:09 PM

    Lets get something straight here. Fred Smoot is NOT a shut down corner. Don’t get me wrong, I love Smoot. He’s got the heart of a lion and he’s a very good corner, but he is NOT a shut down corner. Everybody is acting like its the end of the world b/c the Redskins might lose Smoot. Do you think its simply coincidence that so many defensive players had their best year ever after the arrival of Greg Williams? Nonames came out of nowhere and played respectable and sometimes great football. That’s Greg Williams, not Smoot who caused that to happen. So stop with the histrionics, will you? I’m thrilled with the idea that for the first time in recorded Snyder history, we are not going to break the bank to sign a player we want, who, by the way, is NOT a shut down corner.

  66. Anonymous - Mar 8, 2005 at 7:09 PM

    Lets get something straight here. Fred Smoot is NOT a shut down corner. Don’t get me wrong, I love Smoot. He’s got the heart of a lion and he’s a very good corner, but he is NOT a shut down corner. Everybody is acting like its the end of the world b/c the Redskins might lose Smoot. Do you think its simply coincidence that so many defensive players had their best year ever after the arrival of Greg Williams? Nonames came out of nowhere and played respectable and sometimes great football. That’s Greg Williams, not Smoot who caused that to happen. So stop with the histrionics, will you? I’m thrilled with the idea that for the first time in recorded Snyder history, we are not going to break the bank to sign a player we want, who, by the way, is NOT a shut down corner.

  67. mbarnes202 - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:40 PM

    Rich,
    I was interested in where you got YOUR information from when you wrote,

    “And where does the notion of a “Mason-like deal” for Moss come from? Is this something that you know or something that you’re speculating about? From what I hear, Moss won’t get anything close to the $7 million SB and $20 million overall value that Mason got. “

    All I have found in my regular sites is Moss’ agent saying, “I anticipate a lucrative extension” for Moss. I actually would not be surprised we do sign him for something close to what Mason got, after all, he is a lot younger.

    For comparison purposes, Patten, as the clear #2 between he and Moss, received a $3.5MM SB and a 5-year $13MM deal. Jerry Porter, who fares similiarly in terms of production to Moss, received $10MM in guaranteed $. Moss could easily come in closer to Porter than to Patten, $7MM does not sound unlikely to me.

  68. mbarnes202 - Mar 8, 2005 at 3:40 PM

    Rich,
    I was interested in where you got YOUR information from when you wrote,

    “And where does the notion of a “Mason-like deal” for Moss come from? Is this something that you know or something that you’re speculating about? From what I hear, Moss won’t get anything close to the $7 million SB and $20 million overall value that Mason got. “

    All I have found in my regular sites is Moss’ agent saying, “I anticipate a lucrative extension” for Moss. I actually would not be surprised we do sign him for something close to what Mason got, after all, he is a lot younger.

    For comparison purposes, Patten, as the clear #2 between he and Moss, received a $3.5MM SB and a 5-year $13MM deal. Jerry Porter, who fares similiarly in terms of production to Moss, received $10MM in guaranteed $. Moss could easily come in closer to Porter than to Patten, $7MM does not sound unlikely to me.

  69. mbarnes202 - Mar 8, 2005 at 7:40 PM

    Rich,
    I was interested in where you got YOUR information from when you wrote,

    “And where does the notion of a “Mason-like deal” for Moss come from? Is this something that you know or something that you’re speculating about? From what I hear, Moss won’t get anything close to the $7 million SB and $20 million overall value that Mason got. “

    All I have found in my regular sites is Moss’ agent saying, “I anticipate a lucrative extension” for Moss. I actually would not be surprised we do sign him for something close to what Mason got, after all, he is a lot younger.

    For comparison purposes, Patten, as the clear #2 between he and Moss, received a $3.5MM SB and a 5-year $13MM deal. Jerry Porter, who fares similiarly in terms of production to Moss, received $10MM in guaranteed $. Moss could easily come in closer to Porter than to Patten, $7MM does not sound unlikely to me.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter