1. Dunta - and as much as we all may think Dunta is an ass, who do you think players side with in that discussion? 2. This is from Lance Z: "I think it is safe to say that Smith’s tenure as general manager of the team is not strong enough to warrant consideration in that capacity for any other team at this time and his interpersonal relationships are not what they need to be according conversations I’ve had over the years with former players and coaches, current players and coaches, agents and a couple of personnel people." http://blog.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2011/06/unsolicited-damage-control-for-rick-smith/ 3. Green said he was warned by former Texans about Smith...that he wasn't trustworthy. Green may be a liar...or he may not be. 4. Marcus Coleman called Rick Smith out, too. Marcus has spoken with players who have played under Smith and he’s still tight with a few people inside the organization who have given him info over the years. 5. Aaron Schoebel was reportedly frustrated in his dealings with Rick Smith. Again, maybe all of these are lies...I certainly don't have any personal knowledge of all this....but if we're talking about how he is perceived among players, I don't have a lot of evidence to suggest he's well thought of by players...but there seems to be a lot of smoke around the fire that there are some players not thrilled with him.
one nit, picked. no 22-year-old grew up watching the Redskins win *anything*. Unless they have an uncanny ability to clearly remember sports hype from the age of 2. The 20 intervening seasons since then have seen 10 losing seasons for the 'Skins, 4 eight-win seasons, and only four playoff appearances. Not that that's anywhere nearly as bad as the Texans, but they've pretty much been the doormat of the storied NFC East since the mid-90s, when your 22-year-olds were just starting kindergarten.
all of those examples, save #2 are pretty worthless in my opinion. Of course players will side with their own in Dunta. And i don't even know if there is a side...texans decided not to overpay for him so he went elsewhere. Of course a player would want another player to take the most $ possible. Lance Z - fair enough. He's does have good contacts and lots of them...him knowing some that don't like Rick is plausible. Note that Lance has been pretty downon the texans for a while now, understandable both from an entertainment value and personal impression. Marcus/Green/Schobel - all 3 guys at the end of their careers (schobel was already retired) that couldnt, didnt and wouldnt perform. I don't care what they say or how they felt dealing with Rick. I
Um, if you don't see the link between market size and money/exposure, I think you're being quite naive. The Redskins last won a Super Bowl in January 1992, when the current crop of young/prime NFL players were mostly between two and five years old. Since then, they've made the playoffs three times in 18 years, never even reaching a conference title game. No, the current crop of players did not grow up seeing the Redskins as a storied franchise. If you think there's a difference in perception to the average NFL player between being on ESPN's MNF and NBC's SNF, that might be the silliest thing I've ever read on this board. Be reasonable. But all things aren't equal! That's pretty much the entire point here. The Redskins are terrible. You said it yourself. And yet, they continually are able to sign elite talent when they make the best offer. Why? Because 99.9% of it for players is about the money. You're arguing that the Redskins are this storied, incredible franchise... and yet they didn't have any more primetime appearances last year than an expansion team that's only been around eight years and has never made the playoffs. Does that not speak volumes to how poorly their situation as a franchise is perceived? Networks know this, and players know it. And yet nearly every year, they're signing one of the top free agents in the class. Why? Because Snyder offers the most money, period. Whoa, wait a minute. When it comes to a Redskins/Texans comparison, you're completely shifting the measuring stick away from on-field records and overall team talent, instead spouting this "storied franchise" talk that's practically impossible to quantify. And now when it comes to Jacksonville and Houston, your measuring stick shifts back to on-field results? Really? Also, now you're going back to just primetime games as a whole? Earlier, you tried to undercut my point about the Texans and primetime with the distinction of "no NBC". Now you conveniently look at primetime alone for the Jags, ignoring the fact that none of theirs are on NBC? Convenient much? If you think the average player gives a flying **** about Super Bowls in 1987 and 1992, I think you're hopelessly out of touch. All it took was one winning season - and not even a playoff berth - for the Texans to get similar primetime exposure to the Redskins. That's how bad the Washington situation is, and has been for some time. Prior to July 8, 2010, exactly what kind of a storied history did the Miami Heat have? Yes, they won one title five years earlier with a near-prime Shaq. I get that. But they had only been around 20 years, and for most of it were the definition of mediocrity. Compare that to the Bulls, one of the most storied franchises in all of basketball, and a team that actually did win titles when LeBron James was growing up. Remember what happened? Yes, I understand it's the NBA and not the NFL. But the mentality of modern athletes is the same. It's not about the storied franchises of yesteryear. It's about money, and somewhat secondly, the chance to win. If a team can clearly offer the most in one of those categories, and at least be competitive in the other - they're probably going to sign their target. I'll go for two. I've followed the NFL a long time, yes, and interviewed quite a few players myself. That's how I've repeatedly observed free agent scenarios, to the point where I feel comfortable with how most of these guys think. If you'd pick Washington based on their history, more power to you. That's your right. But that's not how most players and agents evaluate the situations. As always, it's about the money.
Whether it's fair/warranted/whatever...it doesn't matter. If that's his reputation among players, that's his reputation among players. If they all believe he's a mass-murderer it doesn't matter if he is or not...it impacts their feelings about dealing with him and the organization. He's not exactly done much with free agents to warrant an argument to the contrary, frankly.
Smith apparently had a reputation IN DENVER for being a weasel and was not liked by the players. Lance has great sources and he has blasted Smith with some damning info. I know that the Texans fanboys like to pretend now that Schobel was an unmotivated loser who wasn't even able to contribute (lol), but the fact is he apparently was livid with Rick Smith and made the statement he would never attempt to do anything with the Texans again after his dealings with Rick. The Dunta situation was ridiculous I grant. I don't care about Dunta and I think he went too far, but anyone who looks back at that situation has to realize that for Dunta to do what he did indicates that an inappropriate relationship exists between Smith and the players. He's not seen as a professional. Now, how much any of it actually matters is questionable in my mind because I don't believe Rick is anything more than the man who handles the dirty work for Kubiak. Kubiak is the guy who decides who he wants and he and Wade will do the recruiting. They'll leave the paperwork to Rick.
yes, rick smith sucks because we couldn't sign some over the hill d end who retired and didn't sign anywhere else and he was disliked by a cb everyone in any other discussion admits was overrated and didn't fully come back from injury. hilarious
well, it is the impression of a select few players who sucked or where retired. Hardly enough to sell it as a widespread belief. I'm sure there are negative views circulating about all GMs, coaches, owners, etc. If AJ, Schaub, Demeco, etc started making comments on Rick being so bad...then that would certainly pull more weight then a bunch of guys who were given money to perform and didnt (or in schobel's case, thought he was worth more than he was/is) And pointing to lack of high profile FA signings isnt a good example of proof either. Between capspace issues in the past to resigning current players to being used as leverage in other players deals (e.g Leigh Bodden)... there are just too many variables.
It can matter, if it's a common complaint that's true of virtually every GM in the league. The likes of Ahman Green and other veterans - these guys have pride. Immense pride. When their bodies break down from peak form, they don't know how to accept it. It's always someone else's fault, usually the GM or coach that has to keep them in check. The most high-profile case, of course, is Favre in Green Bay... but this kind of stuff happens all over the league with every GM and every team. You just hear about it more with the Texans because we're in Houston and they're the hometown team, and fans desperately want scapegoats. You're right that Lance Z has great sources, and it's an issue of at least some concern. But from a national standpoint, I don't think there are enough prominent examples for that reputation to be out there.
there's a common theme here, rick smith told these guys they weren't what they thought they were, apparently rick was right.
Lance's biggest criticism of him is that he doesn't have the relationships you need to do this job...that he's not well connected with personnel guys or other GM's. He has this criticism for the entire Texans front office, frankly. I don't know if he's right or not...but I have no doubt that Lance has been told that by other people in NFL positions.
i didn't say it was an example or evidence to make the point....i said there aren't many examples or pieces of evidence counter the point.
