Right, I just wanted to clarify that I don't think Alex Smith really had much say in the matter given his contract status. He was under contract next year and had previously been traded for by Dorsey--I think things would've been fine had we brought him on. I don't think his willingness to sign an extension with us or not was a factor we cared about anyway.I don't disagree. From Smith's prospective though, a year wasted in Cleveland does nothing. From our perspective, Dorsey didn't want him in KC, why would he want to extend him now? From Washington's perspective, they decided to move on from Cousins (or Cousins decided he wasn't going to sign there long-term). Washington paid quite a bit, but they were looking goodlast year before a TON of injuries including to what's-his-name DT from Alabama who looked really good (game 3 or 5?), and their offensive line.
We don't know who else was bidding for Smith, but initially it looks like Washington gave up a bit too much. This is a team in the same division as the Eagles and the Zeke-drama-free Cowboys. However, they are getting a good QB and for a long time. The pundits will talk but it feels a bit like everyone won.
I also think giving up 33 or 35 for Alex Smith would've been a horrible move for Cleveland.Right, the Redskins offered a great deal: Elite 22 year old CB (owed ~$1.4m over the next 2 years) and the #78 pick in the draft
What do people expect the Browns could've offered to trump that? The only player on the roster the Redskins would value over Fuller would probably be Garrett. Obviously he's off the table, as are #1 and #4. I doubt 33 and 35 would've been enough with that Redskins offer on the table.
Smith wasn’t the right fit for multiple reasons.
Personally, I didn’t want to give up a 2nd round pick for a guy with one year left on his deal who would likely walk at the end of the season.
On the flip side...
I also didn’t want to give 70M guaranteed to a guy so he could block the kid we draft No. 1 overall.
It just wasn’t the right fit. No knock on Smith the player, just the situation wasn’t really suitable.
I won’t really hit Dorsey hard for missing on Smith but the people calling him old, as a justification for not overpaying for him, are Dorsey aplogists in this instance IMO.
We’re operating in a league where two of the best QB’s, today, are 40 and 39. Saying Smith is 34, so we shouldn’t be overpaying for him, for a franchise that hasn’t won shit and been a disaster at the position forever is laughable.
Our answer to why we didn’t acquire him for damn sure should not be “he was 34”. If it is, then this regimen isn’t going to be any better than any of the others in the graveyard.
There are valid reasons for not acquiring him. His age, given the longevity we have seen at the position, is not one of them.
I won’t really hit Dorsey hard for missing on Smith but the people calling him old, as a justification for not overpaying for him, are Dorsey aplogists in this instance IMO.
We’re operating in a league where two of the best QB’s, today, are 40 and 39. Saying Smith is 34, so we shouldn’t be overpaying for him, for a franchise that hasn’t won shit and been a disaster at the position forever is laughable.
Our answer to why we didn’t acquire him for damn sure should not be “he was 34”. If it is, then this regimen isn’t going to be any better than any of the others in the graveyard.
There are valid reasons for not acquiring him. His age, given the longevity we have seen at the position, is not one of them.
Age is always a consideration. What world are you living in? Brady & Brees are the exception, not the rule.I won’t really hit Dorsey hard for missing on Smith but the people calling him old, as a justification for not overpaying for him, are Dorsey aplogists in this instance IMO.
We’re operating in a league where two of the best QB’s, today, are 40 and 39. Saying Smith is 34, so we shouldn’t be overpaying for him, for a franchise that hasn’t won shit and been a disaster at the position forever is laughable.
Our answer to why we didn’t acquire him for damn sure should not be “he was 34”. If it is, then this regimen isn’t going to be any better than any of the others in the graveyard.
There are valid reasons for not acquiring him. His age, given the longevity we have seen at the position, is not one of them.
The best QBs are 39 and 40. But Brees and Brady were also 2 of the best QBs when they 29 and 30. Smith has had a very uneven career even in his prime. Projecting him to age like Brees/Brady seems off.Age is always a consideration. What world are you living in? Brady & Brees are the exception, not the rule.
Now, is that the only reason to not give up more than the Redskins did for him? Hell no. There are plenty of those to go around. But age always plays a part.
Age is always a consideration. What world are you living in? Brady & Brees are the exception, not the rule.
Now, is that the only reason to not give up more than the Redskins did for him? Hell no. There are plenty of those to go around. But age always plays a part.
The best QBs are 39 and 40. But Brees and Brady were also 2 of the best QBs when they 29 and 30. Smith has had a very uneven career even in his prime. Projecting him to age like Brees/Brady seems off.
Thinking a Rodgers or Luck ages well would be a better comparison.
It amuses me how Brady and Brees are playing at a level, at age 39 and 40, that we haven't really seen at that age before and now people are trying to pass it off like it's the norm.