Really? I was not aware of that. I find that interesting. Now we know why Woodson doesn't have to practice, lol.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I never said Sandman was wrong. I even said I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy's dislike played a role in it. I just don't think it was THE role.

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. What the hell is so hard to understand about this? Am I now not allowed to have my own opinion on what happened because someone who was right about a few transactions stated something different? Because of that I should fore go THINKING on my own and just put a banner up that said "In Sandman I Trust", no fucking way and I don't mean that in any disrespect to Sandman. I enjoy thinking and being a curious soul far too much to just blindingly believe something said by someone else.

I enjoy what Sandman brings to us and I think we are fortunate for it. But right or wrong, that's not going to stop me from thinking about accusations and what not on my own.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Two coaches?

Of course not. The fact remains that nobody saw this happening. A few days ago, beat writers were talking about Smith starting our first game! Smith may have been a long shot to make the team earlier in the year, but he obviously played well enough this spring to be a backup. I wouldn't put it past Sandman that this cut had to with locker room chemistry, likability with coaches, or just used as filler for Collins' contract situation. Sandman could be right about Mike McCarthy not liking him. You can believe what you want to believe, but his performance, in my opinion, showed that he should have received a roster spot.



Darren Perry, Kevin Greene

Ahh yes, no one predicted that Darren Perry or Kevin Greene could have landed with their former DC as assistants. That was one helluva great guess (err inside information) and he was dead on!

I think theres more credit to go to him having the BALLS to say said rumors than being right or wrong.

As for Smiths performance, do you have the stats on his blown assignments or his penalties? I'm just curious because I'd like to see those matched up with his INT's and Forced Fumbles, etc ...

Wait, no one saw this happening because a writer at JSOnline said that Smith could be pushing Bigby for a starting spot? NO ONE saw it happening? NO ONE? I really do not like blanket statements like that. Why? Because you just grouped ME with people like, dhazer... ewwwwwwwwwwwww :)

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Perry has a relationship with Capers as well. This is a done deal!

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.

"55sandman" wrote:

I like you Zero... I do know football well, very well in fact. I don't take your opinion(s) as an insult... just reading your posts makes me believe you think you understand the game better than you do. The game is more than what you see on tv and read online.

"55sandman" wrote:

Sandman55 called it. Just like he called the coaching hires.

Well done Sandman...

Zero, give the guy some fricken credit, and stop subliminally shooting him down.

I would not blame Sandman if he never posted one of his sources information again, and I would not blame him if he did not.

Hell you pushed me away from being a regular poster here with your arrogance. But I still come here to read... And now as more of a reader, and less of a poster, I would hate to lose a poster like Sandman to read.

Advice: Take the best and leave the rest.

Go back to being the appreciative, nice, humble guy you were before this site took off and everyone jumped over here with help from many regular posters here who promoted this site for you.

I will go back to reading now... and limit my posts for fear of being ridiculed by the site owner with the huge ego.

I would not doubt it if this post is edited or removed.

"RaiderPride" wrote: