We can shoot my theory out of the water. Maybe.

Anthony Smith told Drew Smith that he is not a teacher and he leaves that up to the coaches.


Kind of blows my theory out of the water, unless, the Packers were hoping he would help teach the scheme and it was obvious he wasn't trying to teach them, but instead was taking chances to boost his own stock instead of what was best for the team. ????

---

Zero2Cool,

Sometimes just believe your lying eyes... by that I mean did you see Smith's play on the field? He made plays and was deserving of making the team. NFL teams don't sign guys just to give "looks" they sign guys that they feel are going to make their team. They draft and invite players to camp to give looks. That being said, did Smith outplay the other players?

I report what I'm told from people I know shoot straight. You'll never read anything from me that is speculation. Everything I share will come from credible resources... it's America Baby, you can believe it or not.

Here's to a great football season ladies and gentleman!!!!!!

---

So we cut a decent veteran to pick up another Derrick?

I hope this doesn't go down like the last one we took in.

---

It appears that Smith was cut because he was a gambler and not disciplined enough to keep to his assignments. You can see that in his spectacular one-handed interception. He runs across the field, cutting in front of another Packers defender (can't read the number), and snatches the ball from the air. He was seemingly supposed to be covering the left side of the field, but he ended up on the right side.

Ironically, it may have been the very plays that captured the public's imagination that sealed his fate.

---

That's spin NSD... don't believe that. Do you think Bishop takes chances? What about Woodson or Harris? Playmakers all take chances, that how big plays are made. People don't get cut for making big plays in the NFL... just doesn't happen.

---

They do get cut for being reckless, undisciplined, and not staying within the scheme, however. Gambling on an assignment is like playing a 7-2 offsuit in Texas Hold'em. Sometimes you'll get lucky and draw a full house on the flop, as I did once. Far more often you'll lose money on that hand.

---

It's one thing to make plays, but it's another to continuously gamble even when you shouldn't.

The first two pre-season games Smith openly admitted to getting beaten by his man, and having to commit penalties to keep his mistake from costing the team a touchdown.

Capers himself said his 3-4 zone D is susceptible to big plays - better not to have a player who leaves you even more open by straying from his assignment.

---

Do you know football well? I do not mean this in an insulting nature, but in a serious tone. There's a difference between making plays and doing what is required to make the defense work. Just because one has stats, does not mean he is helping the team. Take Rodgers, great stats, but six wins. Am I saying he's at fault for 10 losses? No, but you should be getting the point by now.

Did Smith outplay others? Yeah, he outplayed the other ones who were cut with him, but not the ones who were not. 🙂 j/k ... If the Packers were ABLE to take the top 4 safeties, I think Smith may have been kept. But, when you're in the NFL, you have more than just defense to think about with your 53 man roster. There's special teams and that's a big part of the game. (see '96 Packers season).

I am not going to anoint someone a genius because they 'heard' Smith was going to be cut (which I expected) for a reason that no one can prove or disprove.

I'm not saying I don't like reading what you have to say, I think it's pretty awesome you share your information with us. The impression I was getting from LTF was I should believe YOU because you said it over thinking on my own. I will NEVER let someone think for me. I'm not a fly on Ted's wall, but I do know plenty enough than to let others make my thoughts for me.

You said Smith would be cut. You were right. You said it was because McCarthy did not like Smith (or something to that effect) and I think the main reason was something different.


Onto your statement "NFL teams don't sign guys just to give "looks" they sign guys that they feel are going to make their team." that is a crock of bullshit. Teams are KNOWN to sign players for the sole purpose to tap their minds on the upcoming opponent. It's happened quite often. And in the off season many teams, if not all, sign players to give them a looksee to see how they mesh with their team. You don't know if the piece fits in your puzzle until you try to put it in. And more to the point of your statement I did say they signed him with the thought he could make the team. I simply feel the primary objective was to to help the secondary speed up the learning process, insurance on Collins status and to see if he was worth a roster spot.

If you're assuming I think they went and signed Smith for the sole purpose of training the other safeties with NO intention once so ever of keeping him on the roster, that's a sad mistake that I feel I've made clear now, in my FOURTH post stating as such.

---

They don't get roster spots for beating up 2nd and 3rd stringers either. lol

You are right, playmakers take chances, but consider this. If a player is consistently taking chances, how can the rest of the team have confidence in said player to be assignment sure when they know said player is going to be taking chances every other snap?

Don't you dare say that doesn't matter because Woodson AND Harris have said its HUGE knowing that a player is going do as expected. They both threw Marquand (sp) Manuel under the bus for that very thing.

---

I don't know how you can believe this. Sandman provided two coaches names before they were even MENTIONED anywhere before that time. You can't piece anything together like Arrigo does when there's nothing to base it off of. 3 out of the 4 rumors completely came out of left field with no other sources knowing or reporting anything (including beat writers/insider reporters).

I don't care if Sandman provides names. He obviously has a very inside source (maybe a coach?) with these tips.

When has Sandman been wrong? The Vick rumor could have easily been true, but we will never know because the Eagles pulled the trigger. The Packers could have extended him a deal, but Vick could have taken the better deal or better team situation.

My theory on this is that they maybe thought Smith could be brought in to scare Collins back to this team without worrying about his contract issue. Take this tidbit:

http://www.packerupdate.com/pu/2009/05/index.html 



Using Smith as the guy that could take his spot could have been a legitimate threat if he didn't report.

Take this with a grain of salt, but it makes some sense to me. McCarthy probably never liked the signing and saw the same things Pittsburgh saw in him.

---