Interesting take.
Packer Update
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I wrote something similar this week:
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/184844831.html
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/184844831.html
How come you don't steal ideas from X4 like the rest of the JS writers? 
Except for the fact that they aren't paying you (or are they 
) you are doing a damn good job. Keep 'em coming, bud.
At this point, I think inserting Woodson into the lineup would come with some risks. The guy hasn't played ball in a almost 2 months. We're not talking about a 28 year old player here.
I'd prefer to see him remain on the sidelines unless an injury occurs. This should be his last season in GB. I love the guy, but it's time.
I'd prefer to see him remain on the sidelines unless an injury occurs. This should be his last season in GB. I love the guy, but it's time.
I don't mind Woodson returning and taking some reps from MD Jennings, but with the emergence of Hayward, Woodson's role should be limited. It's nice not seeing any defensive holding calls on 3rd down plays against the Pack
To many DB's is never a problem
never
never
I'm guessing the medical staff may be ultra cautious in releasing him to play due to his recent medical history. He's 36 years old, and has broken his collar bone for the second time in less than two years (February 2011 and October 2012).
Still, media types covering the team say Woodson is unhappy that he is not yet playing. He may view this as the Packers foot dragging, and it likely is. With TT's bias for younger and cheaper players, he can see the handwriting on the wall. If C-Wood plans on remaining a Packer, he will have to take a cut in pay to do so. And even that may not be enough.
Still, media types covering the team say Woodson is unhappy that he is not yet playing. He may view this as the Packers foot dragging, and it likely is. With TT's bias for younger and cheaper players, he can see the handwriting on the wall. If C-Wood plans on remaining a Packer, he will have to take a cut in pay to do so. And even that may not be enough.
Disagree with this article. Broken collarbones are significant injuries and Woodson is still an impact player that brings a veteran voice to a relatively young defense.
Truth be told, he was playing a new position earlier this season and was learning new assignments. If he was 100% healthy he would be out there. I also don't think Woodson is the kind of guy that would keep his mouth shut if he was ready to go and was being held on the sideline.
Truth be told, he was playing a new position earlier this season and was learning new assignments. If he was 100% healthy he would be out there. I also don't think Woodson is the kind of guy that would keep his mouth shut if he was ready to go and was being held on the sideline.
Agreed. It's also the second collarbone injury he's had. The pain never goes away.
The young guys have been doing an excellent job but to think putting Woodson out there is a downgrade is silly. This is a guy that makes ankle tackles on RBs at the LOS and stops them in their tracks. This is a guy that not only can disguise a blitz perfectly but gets home almost every time he does blitz. Those "gambles" also produce picks.
Point being you still keep the young guys in the game but you sub all of them with Woodson according to package. Woodson is a special player even at this point in his career.
The young guys have been doing an excellent job but to think putting Woodson out there is a downgrade is silly. This is a guy that makes ankle tackles on RBs at the LOS and stops them in their tracks. This is a guy that not only can disguise a blitz perfectly but gets home almost every time he does blitz. Those "gambles" also produce picks.
Point being you still keep the young guys in the game but you sub all of them with Woodson according to package. Woodson is a special player even at this point in his career.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
To many DB's is never a problem
never
I agree. If I were GM I would field a squad of 53 dbs.
They just need to slowly integrate him back into the defense. No need to bench Hayward, McMillian and/or Jennings, they just need to put Woodson into the game where he best fits. I trust Capers to handle that.
Crazy to think that 2 years ago we were worried about replacing Woodson some day. Now, we have 4 CB's and 3 safeties that look to be above average at worst, all of which are under 30 and only 1 is over 25 (Williams). None are Woodson in his prime, but you don't always need that to win.
At best, Woodson is likely looking at a restructured contract in the offseason. He'll be 37 next year and will continue to decline, while the other 6 young DB's will only be getting better. With so many players hitting free agency after 2013, they'll need all the cap room they can get (unused 2013 cap room is carried over to 2014).
Crazy to think that 2 years ago we were worried about replacing Woodson some day. Now, we have 4 CB's and 3 safeties that look to be above average at worst, all of which are under 30 and only 1 is over 25 (Williams). None are Woodson in his prime, but you don't always need that to win.
At best, Woodson is likely looking at a restructured contract in the offseason. He'll be 37 next year and will continue to decline, while the other 6 young DB's will only be getting better. With so many players hitting free agency after 2013, they'll need all the cap room they can get (unused 2013 cap room is carried over to 2014).
Great point CU...who woulda thunk it. TT with another great draft.
I have two thoughts on this:
1. It's hard to justify not having Woodson on the field, but everyone is correct that it's also difficult to justify taking one of the young DBs off the field who are playing well. If I'm Capers, I'm not changing the status quo at DB. If I'm Capers I get a little creative with the packages I use Woodson in. I look at Woodson often times coming in while Hawk or Pickett or another DL comes out. 4 DBs in the base, Jones at ILB, 5 on the line, and Woodson as a hybrid OLB/Safety Rover. In Nickel take a DL off the field and put another DB in. But leave Woodson in there.
2. A win on Sunday will send GB to the 2nd seed. If things come together like I anticipate, we will end up hosting San Fran in the playoffs. I don't know about you all, but I would feel much better about Woodson terrorizing a rookie QB and supporting the run than any of the other DBs other than Williams. He has a knack for punishing rookies (Kaepernick is essentially a rookie starter) and he is an excellent tackler. Now, if we host any of the other teams, I wouldn't feel the same, but San Fran's power run game is tough.
1. It's hard to justify not having Woodson on the field, but everyone is correct that it's also difficult to justify taking one of the young DBs off the field who are playing well. If I'm Capers, I'm not changing the status quo at DB. If I'm Capers I get a little creative with the packages I use Woodson in. I look at Woodson often times coming in while Hawk or Pickett or another DL comes out. 4 DBs in the base, Jones at ILB, 5 on the line, and Woodson as a hybrid OLB/Safety Rover. In Nickel take a DL off the field and put another DB in. But leave Woodson in there.
2. A win on Sunday will send GB to the 2nd seed. If things come together like I anticipate, we will end up hosting San Fran in the playoffs. I don't know about you all, but I would feel much better about Woodson terrorizing a rookie QB and supporting the run than any of the other DBs other than Williams. He has a knack for punishing rookies (Kaepernick is essentially a rookie starter) and he is an excellent tackler. Now, if we host any of the other teams, I wouldn't feel the same, but San Fran's power run game is tough.
I've been thinking Dom would use Chuck in the ways you mention, GD. Another advantage would be giving opponents the dreaded "unscouted look". With RGIII, Wilson and Kaep all potential playoff opponents the more surprise the better.
Just like Driver....don't underestimate Woodsons value in the locker room.
I think he'll be a force in the playoffs too
I think he'll be a force in the playoffs too
I agree with the articles, but the Dude is Savvy - as Boris suggested, Woodson has some pretty good value - at least for the rest of this season. He's just one of those players, like Driver, that you just do not want to see let go - even when it MAY BE best for the team.
Should Woodson return? This should answer it: Woodson > M.D. Jennings. I don't really see how anyone can debate that. Jennings isn't a bad player, and even though he is younger and faster, Woodson is one of the best players in NFL history and a guy who brings 15 seasons of NFL experience into the equation. To suggest that he can't take at least a few plays from Jennings, House and McMillian here and there as they work him back into the lineup is just stupid. Giving him a minimum of 10 plays (and letting that number rise based on how he looks) in the first playoff game is perfectly sensible.
Didnt Leroy Butler have a similar fracture that Packer team doctors didnt clear either.
I think that the Playoffs will be Woodson's last playing time with GB if he plays at all.
I think that the Playoffs will be Woodson's last playing time with GB if he plays at all.
quote:Originally posted by Esox:
I agree with the articles, but the Dude is Savvy - as Boris suggested, Woodson has some pretty good value - at least for the rest of this season. He's just one of those players, like Driver, that you just do not want to see let go - even when it MAY BE best for the team.
I appreciate DD as much as the next guy, but I don't think he should have made the final roster. Woody has a little bit left, but there's no way in hell GB can pay his salary next season... and they shouldn't. Integrating him back into the lineup in the post season is going to be tedious IMO. If it comes at the expense of CH, I want nothing to do with it.
Should Woody play when he's ready?
Definately. Without a doubt.
I have a theory. Why play him and risk it when the kids are winning and getting valuable experience. The plus side of this, is that there will be whole new packages to put in for the playoffs with Chuck featured. There will be no tape to study. There will be no gameplan that can account for it. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Definately. Without a doubt.
I have a theory. Why play him and risk it when the kids are winning and getting valuable experience. The plus side of this, is that there will be whole new packages to put in for the playoffs with Chuck featured. There will be no tape to study. There will be no gameplan that can account for it. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
quote:Originally posted by Pack-Man:
Woodson > M.D. Jennings.
Truth. Woodson is still one of the Packers' 5 best DBs. I wouldn't take Hayward off the field for him at this point, but I'd take him over MD Jennings in a second. Jennings isn't exactly a world beater in coverage and comparing his tackling to Woodson's is laughable. Add in Woodson's game savvy an on field leadership, and The choice is easy.
No question Woodson is not what he once was, but I think some of you are exaggerating his decline a bit. His biggest weakness at this point is his ability to run with receivers in coverage, and at safety he won't have to do too much of that.
Now that the Packers have the corners they need for man coverage, just think of all the ways Capers can use Woodson. You're not going to get that kind of versatility from Jennings.
When the defense is on the field, and the Packers need a game changing play, no way I'd want to see Jennings out there instead of Woodson. No way.
quote:Originally posted by Pakrz:quote:Originally posted by Esox:
I agree with the articles, but the Dude is Savvy - as Boris suggested, Woodson has some pretty good value - at least for the rest of this season. He's just one of those players, like Driver, that you just do not want to see let go - even when it MAY BE best for the team.
I appreciate DD as much as the next guy, but I don't think he should have made the final roster. Woody has a little bit left, but there's no way in hell GB can pay his salary next season... and they shouldn't. Integrating him back into the lineup in the post season is going to be tedious IMO. If it comes at the expense of CH, I want nothing to do with it.
Understood Big Guy! Just sayin: "I am on the fence on this one."
quote:Originally posted by Cavetoad:
Should Woody play when he's ready?
Definately. Without a doubt.
I have a theory. Why play him and risk it when the kids are winning and getting valuable experience. The plus side of this, is that there will be whole new packages to put in for the playoffs with Chuck featured. There will be no tape to study. There will be no gameplan that can account for it. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
I agree. Woodson would be getting some playing time if he were ready. I'm pretty sure the x-rays must show a collar bone that is not totally healed. We don't want to see Woodson putting his shoulder into AP with the risk of injuring a bone that is not healed.
quote:Originally posted by boxedup:quote:Originally posted by Pack-Man:
Woodson > M.D. Jennings.
Truth. Woodson is still one of the Packers' 5 best DBs. I wouldn't take Hayward off the field for him at this point, but I'd take him over MD Jennings in a second. Jennings isn't exactly a world beater in coverage and comparing his tackling to Woodson's is laughable. Add in Woodson's game savvy an on field leadership, and The choice is easy.
No question Woodson is not what he once was, but I think some of you are exaggerating his decline a bit. His biggest weakness at this point is his ability to run with receivers in coverage, and at safety he won't have to do too much of that.
Now that the Packers have the corners they need for man coverage, just think of all the ways Capers can use Woodson. You're not going to get that kind of versatility from Jennings.
When the defense is on the field, and the Packers need a game changing play, no way I'd want to see Jennings out there instead of Woodson. No way.
I agree with you on Jennings. Woodson is definately better, but remember Woodson was having trouble running with TE's.
I think having Woodson in there on early downs would help shore up the Run D. I also think it'd be nice to send him on some blitzes, he's pretty good at rushing the passer.
As far as coverage though, I'd rather have the younger guys. They've been excellent.
As far as coverage though, I'd rather have the younger guys. They've been excellent.
How many years left on his deal? I am guessing that's how many years Woody's in GB...
Admittedly this is an uneducated fanboy hunch, but methinks if the secondary had been playing poorly and a spot in the playoffs were on the line, then Woody would be playing this weekend.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
How many years left on his deal?
One, and he's going to have to restructure if he wants to stick around.
They'll work Woody into the defensive mix but his role will be limited.
Play Woodson, but don't ask him to cover anybody. It's ridiculous how many drives he's extended with penalties the past few seasons.
After what we saw from Williams today, yes they need Woodson.
Agreed, at least we know that Woody likes to tackle.
Maybe Woodson helps a little more in run support. The Safeties didn't play run support very well and the tackling was atrocious.
This secondary is the worst tackling group I have ever seen. They might have good coverage skills, but they just don't want to tackle.
the secondary shouldn't have to tackle so much