Do we really know how much differnt Smith V. Coleman are? Unless Smith gets the same type of opportunies Coleman has had. I'd like to keep them both regarless for a good rotation, but the best 2 should be starting...
How would you ever know what Smith could be become if you stunt his growth if he deserves to start and you put him in a backup role?
Smith will replace Coleman as the starter by mid-season , if not sooner...barring injury & he willl be a bigger hitter in the box.
Sometimes players that were considered injury prone in college end up being very reliable as far as physical health goes in the NFL. Just look at Frank Gore. The guy tore both his ACLs and had tears in both his labrems during his college career. Compared to Gore Smith was Mr. Reliable in college. If I'm not mistaken Gore played every game last season. If he can do it then Smith can too. However, a lot of it comes down to luck. It doesn't matter who the player is or what his history is like, every single player out on the field is vulnerable to injury at any given time.
And broke his hand in the first contact scrimmage this year, BUT your point is valid: Curtis Martin was kind of considered injury prone coming out of college and well, nuff said.
Look, if the difference between Coleman and Smith is as big as the difference between Poteat and Dyson (other poster's example) then I'm all for starting Smith. Even if he's not quite yet, but has the potential to grown into that level of starter, then go ahead and start him while you still ahve Coleman on the roster and capable of stepping in if Smith gets hurt, BUT my point is simply that coaches will always opt for the guy they know they can trust to be in the lineup and IF Smith can't stay healthy then I wouldn't start him. It's all conjecture. He has not played enough for us to know if he is injury prone or not, but all I'm saying is that IF HE IS INJURY PRONE then I would be hesitant to make him my starting safety long-term.
This is exactly what happened to "glass jaw" McGraw he had talent but got hurt all of the time. I think that a lot of people are jumping the gun on eric smith, the guy looks like he is a good player but that was only in limited action. When you are in 20% of the D plays (ES) compared to 80% (EC) you are going to be fresher which gives you the ability to make some high energy plays when you finally get in. Who know if this guy would be able to get more snaps without decreasing his ability to make plays. Also after Erik Colemans rookie season everyone was ready to put him in the hall of fame and now people want to cut this guy. Lets see if Eric S can improve on his limited playing time last year and if he has the stamina to get more snaps before handing him the starting job. At this point Eric S isnt better then Erik C as an all around player and that is what is going to be the difference. ES does some things better then EC (like he hits harder) but at this point isnt better in coverage and ES is better at making reads. Coleman is still a very good saftey that hasnt reached his peak yet and most of the time is in the right position to make plays. If he isnt in the right position he has the recovery speed to get back in position to make a play. What I saw of ES last year he doest have the deep recovery speed to makeup for any mistakes that he makes which is a big deal. If he is in the right position he wil make a play but if he gets beat its eather a big play or 6 on the scoreboard. Eric Smith is the flashier player (big ST hits) but flashier isnt always better.
