Recent years have seen significant progress in the study of dynamic graph algorithms, and most notably, the introduction of strong lower bound techniques for them (e.g., Henzinger, Krinninger, Nanongkai and Saranurak, STOC 2015; Larsen and Yu, FOCS 2023). As worst-case analysis (adversarial inputs) may lead to the necessity of high running times, a natural question arises: in which cases are high running times really necessary, and in which cases these inputs merely manifest unique pathological cases? Early attempts to tackle this question were made by Nikoletseas, Reif, Spirakis and Yung (ICALP 1995) and by Alberts and Henzinger (Algorithmica 1998), who considered models with very little adversarial control over the inputs, and showed fast algorithms exist for them. The question was then overlooked for decades, until Henzinger, Lincoln and Saha (SODA 2022) recently addressed uniformly random inputs, and presented algorithms and impossibility results for several subgraph counting problems. To tackle the above question more thoroughly, we employ smoothed analysis, a celebrated framework introduced by Spielman and Teng (J. ACM, 2004). An input is proposed by an adversary but then a noisy version of it is processed by the algorithm instead. Parameterized by the amount of adversarial control, this input model fully interpolates between worst-case inputs and a uniformly random input. Doing so, we extend impossibility results for some problems to the smoothed model with only a minor quantitative loss. That is, we show that partially-adversarial inputs suffice to impose high running times for certain problems. In contrast, we show that other problems become easy even with the slightest amount of noise. In addition, we study the interplay between the adversary and the noise, leading to three natural models of smoothed inputs, for which we show a hierarchy of increasing complexity.