As much as I had my issues with Smith, I think he was better than mediocre. I think he was average. What prowess he had on D, he lacked on O. The 85 D was simply superior no matter how much the latest era invested in it. The D line was superior with 2 HoF'ers, Mongo who was pro bowl, and Fridge and a rotation that complimented those 3 wonderfully. The LB corps were better. One could argue Url was better than Samurai, but Otis and Wilber were better than Briggs and Hunter. Tillman is probably better than the CB's...and when Mike Brown was healthy, he was as good/if not better than Fencik. But Fencik was rock steady and not injury prone. And with the front 7 the 85 team had, the DB's didn't need to all be amazing...
I agree that he was not the right man for the job, but for a period, we owned D in the NFL...and that was because of Smith. We could have been stuck with worse.
Average overall, but not mediocre. Maybe it's just semantics, but I always felt mediocre is less than average.
Damn...never thought I'd be defending Smith!