Art Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 So, sometimes whispers come our way that are often nothing more than stories told to scare small children. Other times, they are more meaningful. While I can not say -- having not been there -- that this is true, I have come to trust the chirps of this bird and feel it is something we could weigh as part of the Smoot situation. I have been critical of our decision not to boost our deal for Smoot because I felt as a quality four-year starter, he was a guy we had at a bargain price, so, a boost in value now seemed fair to me. The details of this story add to the issue here in a way that makes me far more understanding. Fred Smoot was cleared to play the last game of the year against the Vikings by the training staff. Apparently, he was informed not to risk getting burned by Randy Moss while being slightly injured so as to not risk any of his free agent value and so he did not play. The Redskins, if you'll recall, went OUT OF THEIR way to praise Springs in that last game for coming back out to play even after they told him not to. You'll recall a number of comments from the coaches about how our guys returned to action to play even in a lost season as evidence of their professionalism and drive. When Smoot failed to do this, it was noticed by Gibbs and others. Had he played, the team may have matched his deal. But, that he didn't, at least to some degree, caused the team NOT to go the extra distance for him, because it was felt he didn't for us. Again, this may not be the whole story and plays only part of the existing story, but, it is an interesting story to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 I think they call it 'Abrarham syndrome" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingtiger1013 Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Makes sense from a Gibb's led team. I have no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 That is interesting and very believable. I remember Gibbs praising Springs and others after that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 I can understand the logic of Smoot not playing, but it still doesn't prevent me from having a sick feeling in my stomach after reading this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by pez Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Smoot was looking out for himself. You can't blame him for doing that. That said, Gibbs demands certain things from his players and playing hurt is one of them. Taking the team before yourself is another. Smoot violated both of those things. I don't blame Smoot for looking out for himself and I don't blame the team for not increasing their offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 15, 2005 Author Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by pez Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... Agreed. But, in each of those situations, Smoot chose the team over his value. In his LAST opportunity, if the story is true, he chose his value over the team. Had he agreed to play, the team may have held him out for his own good. But, if the story is true, he didn't do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 If he had played, I wouldn't of lined a banged up Smoot against Moss anyways. I would of put Springs and I guess a Safety on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUSTINMFOX Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Interesting, if true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by pez Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... How many of those times were his last game before becoming a Free Agent? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Art, This should be the first question you ask Vinny. Dirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Sometimes lil' birdies lay nuggets of pure gold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walking Deadman Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Oh well, It gave Taylor a couple of chances to make the highlight reel instead, although he did get burned for a TD in that game as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by pez Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... He wasn't on the verge of his big payday those times, it's one thing to do it when you have time left on your deal to make up for if you have a bad game, it's another if it's your last game before you hit the free agent market. Sadly this sounds very believable to me, I always thought Smoot would be better than to pull something like that, I guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 hmmm wasn't that about the same time "stories" appeared in national media that some Skins coaches had soured on Smoot, and felt he could be replaced by Harris/Wilds etc... :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... How many times did he line up injured the game before he entered the offseason AND free agency? Answer: NONE. IMO the story, more than anything else, would point to where his priorities at that time really were at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by pez Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... but the Skins were still mathmatically in the playoff hunt up until the Vikes game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 I guess my feeling on this is bascially that decisions by management should not be based on "what have you done for me lately" type analysis. Smoot played his heart out for us on a variety of occasions (notably when he tackled opposing players with his injured shoulder this past season) and has built up (at least in my mind, maybe) a degree of flexibility such that he need not come in at every opportunity. Irrespective of the reasoning behind his not playing in the last game after he was injured, I think it's somewhat short sided to base a contract offer on one incident when the bulk of the other evidence showed that Smoot would do anything for the team. Now, with that said, it remains unclear whether this incident was the full basis or was merely the needle that made the FO's decision for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Worthy Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by pez Not trying to go against your statement, but smoot had played for us even when he was injured a multitude of times... Only when it was not a contract year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Interesting tid-bit but I think Smoot should have built up enough goodwill with the Skins to warrant a little slack. I find it hard to believe that not playing in a meaningless game ultimately lead to the Skins letting him go for essentially $300,000. I still believe that they felt the number they offered him was firm and signaled a new negotiating style with free agents... :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 I guess my feeling on this is bascially that decisions by management should not be based on "what have you done for me lately" type analysis. Smoot played his heart out for us on a variety of occasions (notably when he tackled opposing players with his injured shoulder this past season) and has built up (at least in my mind, maybe) a degree of flexibility such that he need not come in at every opportunity. Irrespective of the reasoning behind his not playing in the last game after he was injured, I think it's somewhat short sided to base a contract offer on one incident when the bulk of the other evidence showed that Smoot would do anything for the team. I can agree with that to an extent. However, it would seem that a larger problem with this organization over the past several years has been dealing with players who valued the almighty $$ over the good of the team. Obviously (if this story is true) Gibbs is making character and this issue in particular a focus in personnel matters. Idealy weeding out the players who have this focus will end then annual colapse we as fans must watch as our "paper champions" take the field. Then again taking this focus can cost you players such as Smoot. Hopefully a correct evaluation of the guy's prorities was made by Gibbs and co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBlaze Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by RonJeremy Interesting tid-bit but I think Smoot should have built up enough goodwill with the Skins to warrant a little slack. I find it hard to believe that not playing in a meaningless game ultimately lead to the Skins letting him go for essentially $300,000. I still believe that they felt the number they offered him was firm and signaled a new negotiating style with free agents... :2cents: I think it was more then just $300K. The bonus might have been that much more, but I believe Minny front loaded the deal (like the Giants did for Pierce) so that Smoot would get paid more in annual salaries in the beginning years of the deals, years he would most likely see in his time with Minny. Teams with more cap space can do that to limit what teams with less space like the Skins can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC-Fan Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Im not buying it. Great players get burned every season. Im not calling Smoot great by any means but how do you judge a players whole career on one game, or say to him your not going to resign him becouse of that game. :bsflag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.