The W
Views: 99341589
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.9.14 0858
The W - Football - Was this Fred Smoot's last year with Redskins?
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 3.90
Pages: 1
(1513 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (1 total)
XPacArmy
Frankfurter








Since: 13.5.03
From: Woodbridge, VA

Since last post: 328 days
Last activity: 325 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.90
I was just watching "The Redskins Report" here on my local NBC with host George Michael and regular guests Sonny Jurgensen, John Riggins, and Michael Wilbon. In the show Michael brought up that this might be Smoot's last year with the 'Skins. Then they aired a quick taped interview with Smoot which he says basically "its up to the front office if he returns or not." I just wanted to know, any other 'Skins fan think this is a bad move if they get rid of Smoot?

Now I am not saying that Skins are getting rid of Smoot but they really implied that it might happen.

Also, just to note, on the show Riggins brought up to help the 'Skins they should trade away Mark Brunell, LaVar Arrington, and Clinton Portis in the off season. That I did not understand.

Riggins case about trading Portis was he doesn't think he plays "Joe Gibbs' style" football and maybe he was better off in Denver.





05-10, #4 in NFC East
Promote this thread!
Thread rated: 3.90
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Anyone interested in a Buffalo RB?
Next thread: Week 16 Playoff Seedings & Draft order
Previous thread: There it goes
(1513 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Today, ESPN Radio's Dan LeBatard had on a newspaper writer from one of the Miami newspapers (Herald, perhaps?). They talked about how weird Boston is.
Related threads: Redskins - Election Predictors - Deadskins - Clinton Portis = highest paid running back - More...
The W - Football - Was this Fred Smoot's last year with Redskins?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.093 seconds.