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.

"55sandman" wrote:

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.

I'm saying, I am not going to think the dude speaks Gospel because he stated something that was already written on the wall, in my opinion.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I am surprised how easily the Packer Nation is fooled and is taking the corporate line on why Smith was cut. How often do you hear from a team as to why the release a player? For money reasons yes, for injuries yes, not good enough yes...

Each player is graded after each game. You all know that I am certain. Their are + and - on the scorecard.

I cannot change your opinion, just believe what you saw on the field and not what you are hearing after the cut.

Last point, with all the Packers insiders that cover the team did you read about Smith screwing up assignments as bad as they want you tpo believe now? I didn't, but I don't read their stuff anyway so maybe someone talked about it all during camp.

"55sandman" wrote:

I cannot change your opinion, just believe what you saw on the field and not what you are hearing after the cut.

Last point, with all the Packers insiders that cover the team did you read about Smith screwing up assignments as bad as they want you tpo believe now? I didn't, but I don't read their stuff anyway so maybe someone talked about it all during camp.

"55sandman" wrote:

You'd have done well to put that out before then, with all due respect.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

If that was the case then Charles Woodson would have been cut because he had a REAL rocky relationship with Mike McCarthy the first couple of years, in which Charles himself has said he was fined by McCarthy numerous times.

I just think there is some more to the decision than Smith's bad fit in the lockerroom, although I am sure that played a role in the decision.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

Use the search.

"Zero2Cool" wrote: