JangoFett Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 With the acquisition of Molden today, Smoot seems to be sliding closer and closer to the trading block. We know Rodgers is on the block too and that the Lions love Smoot and inquired about him before. We need DL help, as it is the weakest third of our defense and Rodgers has been a beast in the past. Yes losing Smoot would sting, but how hard is it to get a potentially dominant young D-lineman? This would be a taker for me. Straight up, do you make this trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I brought this trade possibility up about a month ago. But it was strictly speculation on my part, in putting 2 + 2 together. I saw where the Lions were shopping Rogers and then there were the rumors that Smoot was on the block. If Smoot truly is being shopped, this trade would make sense to me for both teams. Both players are about the same age; both were drafted the same year in the 2nd round; both probably have similiar contracts; and both teams hint that they are dissatisfied in some way. Both players also had good rookie years, followed by the sophomore jinx. Both players would also fill a need on both teams. Washington also reportedly offered Smoot when they discussed moving up in the draft to take Andre Johnson. There is some risk in every thing, but I would make this trade myself. P.S. I think it is more likely then ever now, because we have a logjam at CB, with the acquisition of Molden. We have Bailey, Smoot, Molden, Bauman and Harrison. Then the UDFA's rookies Jimoh and Mance are not stiffs either. Something's got to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Yea. Then we can cut BDW after June 1, save $3.5 million, and re-sign Champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Nay:gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Yea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSkipper Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Nay! Corner is the hardest position to accumulate. Plus, Smoot is so young that you have to give him time to mature. How stupid would we look if we got rid of him and he came back to be a pro bowler. He would never stop talking smack about us! Besides what did he do that was so wrong? :high: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Nay. I'd like Rogers. But not for Smooty. We don't have a logjam at corner any more than we had one last year with Darrell Green. We have appropriate depth and that should help us. We are now somewhat protected against injury and that should help us. But, let's not do anything stupid here. Trading Smoot would be stupid. Rogers has potential and had a dominating rookie year, as Smoot did. I'll just stick with the corner over the tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaping lizzy Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 :shutup: Nay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 HELL NO! i have a strong feeling that smoot will have a big year now that he's going to be covering the other teams' #2 receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Nay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasseh Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 I say Nay as well. It's amazing how quick we are to give up on a guy. Last year at this time, we were all singing his praises like he was the next Champ Bailey. So the guy didn't have as good a year. He was still better than most CBs in the league IMO. If BDW is in shape, I would rather keep what we have and look to pick up a DT or DE after June 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankRizzo Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 NAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 nay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69 YARDS Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 IMO, We need to give Smoot a chance. He could be a great one, if he gets past this phase.....whatever this phase is. Hopefully, all this attention and threats of a trade will be a wake up call to him, and he'll correct whatever's been perceived to be hurting the team. ( :high: ???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Well I am basing my opinion on what I read on Extremeskins within the last week or two. One of the posters here said that he had met Smoot and that he knew for a fact that Smoot used some drugs. I don't recall the name of the poster, but he gave some specific details and seemed knowledgeable, in that he and Smoot had a mutual friend. It shouldn't be that hard to find the post for anyone with the time to find it, as it dealt with Smooty. Did the poster make this up? I can't know for sure, but he seemed to know what he was talking about, having worked near Redskins Park. If this poster is telling the truth, then I'm sure the Skins Security staff must also have heard something through the grapevine. Which might explain why the Skins have been shopping Smoot. If Smoot is in fact using drugs and it becomes public knowledge, then his trade value will become almost worthless. I don't know where the truth lies, but if it is true it would be better to trade him now, before it becomes public knowledge. And the easiest way to trade him, would be a straight swap for another player who also has some alleged "baggage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Yea. C'mon.... Smoot's just OK . He is always getting burnt and I curse his name at least twice a game... how easily we forget... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Like I say I don't know whether Smoot uses drugs or is a pot head or what. But this situation reminds me of when Al Davis snookered the Skins and took us to the cleaners. Back in the 80's the Skins made two trades with the Raiders for two of their fast wide receivers. I can't recall their names offhand, but both were coming off fastastic seasons. But one of the players who we gave up a 2nd round draft pick for, bombed with us and was cut a few months after we acquired him. And although he was young and in his prime, he never played a single down after that. You can't tell me Al Davis was not privy to this young man's drug problem before he made the trade. Al Davis would never have traded a 25 year-old speed burner coming off a fantastic season, unless he knew he could get something before his drug problem became public knowledge. Bulldog can probably recall who these two receivers were. The other receiver had a couple very good years with Joe Theismann, but then had a medical condition and took up a career in music. I just remembered the players: Calvin Muhammad. And Malcom Barnwell was the WR we gave up a 2nd round draft pick for in 1985 and he turned out to have an addiction problem and never played again in the NFL. The point of all this being: If the Skins FO "really" knows Smoot has a drug problem, they should trade him while they can get something of value in return for him. :shootinth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 I think most people are looking at this the wrong way. It seems most are against this just because they don't want to lose Smoot for some reason. But the question you have to ask yourself is, how much ability would the defense lose in the secondary by using Bauman or Molden over Smoot, but gain on the line by having S. Rogers in there instead of B. Noble (assuming they hang onto Wilkinson). I think its worth it. Wilkinson and Rogers in the middle of that defense would be reminiscent of the Ravens defense with Siragusa and S. Adams. The LBs would be much more effective with two fat b@astards like that clogging the middle. I'd love to see what Trotter, Arrington, and Armstead could do with those two guys in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 I would be wary of Rodgers (just as I would be wary of Smoot if I were a Lions fan). Teams just don't routinely go and get rid of promising young players w/o a reason. It wouldn't crush me if it were to happen, but I'm more of a devil-you-know type of person, unless I KNOW I don't want the devil I know. I was like that with Frerotte - I didn't want any part of the guy by '97. I'm not at that point with Smoot yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 and for my 1st post... I vote Nay This is the best site around... thanks everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishhead Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 This is a toughie. Especially when your baked. As much as we need a playmaker on the DL, it'd be really hard to deal Smoot. I'm not even sure Rodgers is a good player. I get the idea from folks around here that he's solid, though. Yay, or Nay... Nay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Invisible Poster Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Howdy partner . For my 600th post I say nay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 yeah, make the trade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorEye Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 nay - if God forbid something happened to Champ, we'd be in big trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.