D.Smith Updates

[junk]

If Watkins was 1/5 th of the future hall of famer you guys are making him out to be he should have absolutely no problems beating out Smith if signed (if he's half as mediocre as you make him out to be). Let's just hope that Watkins turns out to be as "special" as Pettiti turned out to be as a rookie starter.

I don't know why anyone could be anti-competition to this position with the current cast of characters.

Not to mention opposed to depth in the secondary and special teams depth. Smith can play corner in a pinch as well too.

The reason people are anti-competition is obvious. They have favorites. They made bold predictions and they want to save face. Has nothing to do with making the team better.

Same story as Fabini and Glenn. I heard these same arguments opposing them as well.

If Watkins turns out to be the stud that everyone thinks, Smith becomes quality depth. I'd certainly hate that.

Why would you go with a 6th round rookie who has serious limitations (man coverage) when you could go with a proven vet who has a much more complete game?

My guess is that the bulk of the anti-Smith crowd hasn't seen him play....at least it'd appear that way from some of the arguments getting tossed about.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

That was the point.

Everyone is not always right.

Just because the organization is passing on Smith does not automatically mean its the right decision.

Like I said before, if Smith is asking for the moon or the Vikes are offering it to him (and I'm sure the FO has a ballpark figure what he's looking for at this point), then I agree let him go. But if he's reasonable and we are passing on him, then going into this season with Davis, Coleman and Watkins is a mistake IMO.

Everybody makes 'em.

Even Winicki, its been rumored.

You're a 100% correct. It could be a mistake by not signing him. But at some point you need to see if your young talent can take it to the next level.

And yes I do make mistakes. I replied to your first post. And look where that's gotten me.

 

[junk]

Glad to see we are on opposite sides of the fence on this one Inman...


Now I know I'm right.

I disagree with Inman on almost every topic. I agreed with him on Fabini and I agree on this.

I don't think Dallas will sign the guy, but I will never understand the resistance to cheaply fix a position that has been covered up with band-aids since Woody's departure.

I'd certainly rather roll the dice on a guy like Smith than to utterly waste a high round pick on a position like safety.

It isn't like the team is in a cap crunch.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Here is the reason we're probably not bringing in Smith, IMO...

We'll keep five safeties at most. We already have four (oops, five) safeties. So who are you going to get rid of?

Roy Williams - Of course not
Keith Davis - No, he started last year and is too good on special teams
Justin Beriault - No, he showed too much last preseason to get rid of
Pat Watkins - Obviously you don't cut a talented rookie

Marcus Coleman - He'd be the guy you'd dump, IMO. He wasn't good for a bad team last year, and he wouldn't cost anything to cut. But he's a Parcells guy. Parcells remembers Coleman playing well for him, even if he can't anymore. I don't think Parcells would cut him before he ever plays for us.

 

[Chief]

If this team is as close to the Super Bowl as many are predicting, then I think it would be a mistake to pass on a young, talented veteran who fills a huge need.

I had some initial concerns about his character, but if Tampa Bay wants him back, then that's a good sign. Just make him leave his pistols at home.

This defense may be a free safety away from being outstanding. It would be a shame to come up short in January because Keith Davis bit on a fake.

 

[ravidubey]

You folks are goofy. Building a team isn't just about "plugging bodies in" willy-nilly.

Things like the salaray cap, age and most importantly-- expected productivity for the cost. The GM/braintrust needs to ask themselves "Who else do I have that seems to have the potential this guy does" is already on my roster?

While I'm not big Davis fan, I think he's OK. Coleman I'm even less excited about.

There is no doubt in my mind that we aren't pursuing Smith because of the presence of Watkins on the roster. You give Watkins a year to fill out and learn the system and I think you'll find our FS problems solved for the next ten years.

Smith won't give us that.

Exactly. I'm sad to see Smith not part of our plans, but why even draft a pat Watkins, sign Marcus Coleman, or resign Davis if you're going to sign Smith? I know the reply will be "Smith wasn't available at the time", but au contraire he was-- the Saints have been trying to trade him for some time now-- in fact it would have been easy to trade Davis for him straight up.

Dallas didn't want to do that. They like Davis' special teams production and Watkins' potential . Plugging in yet another high salary (esp. after Roy and Newmans' new deals get done) would make for an outrageously expensive secondary. Right now Davis, Watkins, and Coleman together cost less than Smith by himself. Jones remembers all too well those tenuous days in the late 1990's when depth was paper thin and how quickly things could unravel.

I, like everyone else, was hoping to see Smith wearing a star, but I'm not responsible for the long-term team-building and salary structure of the Dallas Cowboys either.

 

[DLCassidy]

Why would you go with a 6th round rookie who has serious limitations (man coverage) when you could go with a proven vet who has a much more complete game?

My guess is that the bulk of the anti-Smith crowd hasn't seen him play....at least it'd appear that way from some of the arguments getting tossed about.

For what it's worth, Watkins was a 5th round pick.

And based on the scouting report below Smith has some limitations in his game also. The fact that NO wanted Davis and now has let go Smith gives me pause also.

2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc.
Grade: 66 | Key
Alert: B

Comment:
Has impressive strength and has the ability to push receivers around and take them out of their routes. He's aggressive, physical and confident. Has shown the ability to make plays from sideline-to-sideline and generally gets a good read on the ball. Has just adequate range but is generally in position to make the play due to excellent read-and-react skills. However, Smith has had some trouble in space at times. He needs to work on his technique particularly when defending the deep half. Will take some false steps and has a tendency to cross his feet over. Will be overaggressive at times, which often prohibits him from adjusting to the ball.

 

[dbair1967]

I still cant believe all the hoopla over a thug FS who just got cut by a lous team after only one season there...the guy has 14 interceptions in 5yrs, yet people talk about like he's Rod Woodson in his prime or something...Roy Williams has 12 interceptions in 4yrs, and you guys think he isnt a playmaker or sux in coverage, yet you want the gun waving thug who averages less ints per yr than he does and think he's the "answer"

David

 

[wileedog]

The fact that NO wanted Davis and now has let go Smith gives me pause also.

NO wanted Davis for special teams and depth.

Smith was being payed starter money. It was purely a financial decision.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I disagree with Inman on almost every topic. I agreed with him on Fabini and I agree on this.

I don't think Dallas will sign the guy, but I will never understand the resistance to cheaply fix a position that has been covered up with band-aids since Woody's departure.

I'd certainly rather roll the dice on a guy like Smith than to utterly waste a high round pick on a position like safety.

It isn't like the team is in a cap crunch.

But right now we just cut our cap space by a couple million with the Witten contract... plus how much for Roy's deal and maybe Brady's.

Plus I'm looking at more than this season.

At some point we're going to have to pay a QB.

And our best defender, Newman is also due soon.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I still cant believe all the hoopla over a thug FS who just got cut by a lous team after only one season there...the guy has 14 interceptions in 5yrs, yet people talk about like he's Rod Woodson in his prime or something...Roy Williams has 12 interceptions in 4yrs, and you guys think he isnt a playmaker or sux in coverage, yet you want the gun waving thug who averages less ints per yr than he does and think he's the "answer"

David

That's it exactly.

I can see the "mantra" now...


"WE DIDN'T GO TO THE SUPERBOWL BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE DWIGHT SMITH"

 

[InmanRoshi]

Here is the reason we're probably not bringing in Smith, IMO...

We'll keep five safeties at most. We already have four (oops, five) safeties. So who are you going to get rid of?

Roy Williams - Of course not
Keith Davis - No, he started last year and is too good on special teams
Justin Beriault - No, he showed too much last preseason to get rid of
Pat Watkins - Obviously you don't cut a talented rookie

Marcus Coleman - He'd be the guy you'd dump, IMO. He wasn't good for a bad team last year, and he wouldn't cost anything to cut. But he's a Parcells guy. Parcells remembers Coleman playing well for him, even if he can't anymore. I don't think Parcells would cut him before he ever plays for us.

I would look at Bariault as a nice, unexpected surprise if he returns from his injury. Not someone you write in as a sure thing before he's even been through his first two-a-day, much less a 5 week preseason.

Also, you have to take into account nickel packages. Last year we kept Nate Jones on the roster just because he could backup the nickel positioin. Dwight Smith, having played the nickel, makes his roster spot expendible.

Not only does adding Smith not take up a roster spot, he frees one up.


Just a question ... if we don't add Smith, how does Dallas handle a major injury to Roy Williams? Are people just banking that Justin Bariault can not only be the first player in history to return from this injury, but that he can play 10 games at 60 snaps on it? Do you entirely reshuffle your secondary and make Keith Davis the SS, and shove Watkins out there to FS before he's ready to suffer the same fate as Pettiti last year?

 

[2233boys]

If this team is as close to the Super Bowl as many are predicting, then I think it would be a mistake to pass on a young, talented veteran who fills a huge need.

I had some initial concerns about his character, but if Tampa Bay wants him back, then that's a good sign. Just make him leave his pistols at home.

This defense may be a free safety away from being outstanding. It would be a shame to come up short in January because Keith Davis bit on a fake.

I agree. Smith needs to be added, to not do so would be a mistake...

As for the odd safety out, it is going to be Berry-o. Coleman offers too much in depth...

 

[DLCassidy]

NO wanted Davis for special teams and depth.

Smith was being payed starter money. It was purely a financial decision.

Wrong. Smith was cut because he had a bad year. KC Joyner: "To be perfectly blunt, he had a terrible season. He had to move to strong safety after Bellamy got hurt. He didn't adjust well to the new position and ranked dead last among strong safeties in a large number of categories. Add to this that Josh Bullocks did so well at FS and he ended up being an overpriced backup".

NO took a 2.8m cap hit to cut him. Even if they opted to divide that hit over 2 seasons they only saved 500k this year by cutting him and it would have left them with 1.4m in "dead money" for next year. The offer sheet they signed Davis to called for Davis to earn 2.1m in 2006, which would have meant a cap # of around 1.1 million. If they had kept Smith, his cap # this year would only be about 1.9m. So it would appear they cut Smith because they didn't want to play him, not for financial reasons.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I would look at Bariault as a nice, unexpected surprise if he returns from his injury. Not someone you write in as a sure thing before he's even been through his first two-a-day, much less a 5 week preseason.

Also, you have to take into account nickel packages. Last year we kept Nate Jones on the roster just because he could backup the nickel position. Dwight Smith, having played the nickel, makes his roster spot expendable.

Not only does adding Smith not take up a roster spot, he frees one up.


Just a question ... if we don't add Smith, how does Dallas handle a major injury to Roy Williams? Does Justin Bariault play 10 games this season on a chronically damaged knee? Do you entirely reshuffle your secondary and make Keith Davis the SS, and shove Watkins out there to FS before he's ready to suffer the same fate as Pettiti last year?

I think Davis goes to SS and put Watkins out there. Hey why not? I think Davis is the second best SS we have now anyway.

And don't give me the "Watkins-Petitti" fate stuff...

Petitti was an injured (coming into camp), overweight LT who had to shed pounds and learn a new position.

I don't think Watkins has those challenges. PLUS Watkins had a much better pedigree coming out of college than Rob P. did. Maybe you didn't read all the posts in this thread but many draft publications had Watkins as a second rounder. His 5th round selection was a shock-- it wasn't expected.

You're grasping "at straws" and have gotten a pretty short one there mate.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Wrong. Smith was cut because he had a bad year. KC Joyner: "To be perfectly blunt, he had a terrible season. He had to move to strong safety after Bellamy got hurt. He didn't adjust well to the new position and ranked dead last among strong safeties in a large number of categories. Add to this that Josh Bullocks did so well at FS and he ended up being an overpriced backup".

NO took a 2.8m cap hit to cut him. Even if they opted to divide that hit over 2 seasons they only saved 500k this year by cutting him and it would have left them with 1.4m in "dead money" for next year. The offer sheet they signed Davis to called for Davis to earn 2.1m in 2006, which would have meant a cap # of around 1.1 million. If they had kept Smith, his cap # this year would only be about 1.9m. So it would appear they cut Smith because they didn't want to play him, not for financial reasons.

So let's start Coleman who Joyner deemed to be even worse.

Smith currently has 3 teams bidding to bring him in as their starting free safety, including all of his former coaches who he played for at Tampa. How many teams do you think would be bidding on Davis right now to be their starting free safety if he were released today?

Just because another team deems a player to be expendible doesn't mean he's not an upgrade over what we have on this team. Considering the NFL grants teams every opportunity to keep and retain talent they've developed with franchise and transition tags, every player that hits the market is deemed expendible or not worth the money.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Wrong. Smith was cut because he had a bad year. KC Joyner: "To be perfectly blunt, he had a terrible season. He had to move to strong safety after Bellamy got hurt. He didn't adjust well to the new position and ranked dead last among strong safeties in a large number of categories. Add to this that Josh Bullocks did so well at FS and he ended up being an overpriced backup".

NO took a 2.8m cap hit to cut him. Even if they opted to divide that hit over 2 seasons they only saved 500k this year by cutting him and it would have left them with 1.4m in "dead money" for next year. The offer sheet they signed Davis to called for Davis to earn 2.1m in 2006, which would have meant a cap # of around 1.1 million. If they had kept Smith, his cap # this year would only be about 1.9m. So it would appear they cut Smith because they didn't want to play him, not for financial reasons.

Yeah, Smith sounds like the "missing piece" to me. Yawn.

 

[AbeBeta]

Wrong. Smith was cut because he had a bad year. KC Joyner: "To be perfectly blunt, he had a terrible season. He had to move to strong safety after Bellamy got hurt. He didn't adjust well to the new position and ranked dead last among strong safeties in a large number of categories. Add to this that Josh Bullocks did so well at FS and he ended up being an overpriced backup".

What sort of year would you expect an FS to have if you moved him to SS after 3 games? It isn't like they let him practice at SS during camp and pre-season or anything.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

So let's start Coleman who Joyner deemed to be even worse.

Smith currently has 3 teams bidding to bring him in as their starting free safety, including all of his former coaches who he played for at Tampa. How many teams do you think would be bidding on Davis right now to be their starting free safety if he were released today?

Just because another team deems a player to be expendible doesn't mean he's not an upgrade over what we have on this team. Considering the NFL grants teams every opportunity to keep and retain talent they've developed with franchise and transition tags, every player that hits the market is deemed expendible or not worth the money.

Who says we're starting Coleman?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I would look at Bariault as a nice, unexpected surprise if he returns from his injury. Not someone you write in as a sure thing before he's even been through his first two-a-day, much less a 5 week preseason.

Also, you have to take into account nickel packages. Last year we kept Nate Jones on the roster just because he could backup the nickel positioin. Dwight Smith, having played the nickel, makes his roster spot expendible.

Not only does adding Smith not take up a roster spot, he frees one up.


Just a question ... if we don't add Smith, how does Dallas handle a major injury to Roy Williams? Are people just banking that Justin Bariault can not only be the first player in history to return from this injury, but that he can play 10 games at 60 snaps on it? Do you entirely reshuffle your secondary and make Keith Davis the SS, and shove Watkins out there to FS before he's ready to suffer the same fate as Pettiti last year?

No, I would sign Smith if it were up to me. I'm just trying to think through the thought process Bill and Jerry might be going through.

You're probably right about Beriault, but I do think Bill likes him and I doubt you quit on him already.

BTW, I think Nate Jones is the very definition of spare and if I had my way he'd have been replaced a long time ago... But that's a subject for another thread.