Charles Woodson

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Random, but I just realized he is a free agent...Should the packers bring him back if he comes back cheap? If he's willing to sign a cheap one year deal why not? Would at least be a good insurance policy in case we can't land a decent safety in the draft. Even at 37 he can't be worse than MD Jennings.

His stats last year:

97 tackles, 2 sacks, 3 FF, 1 int (4 turnover plays for Woodson > 0 for Burnett/Jennings). That's pretty impressive at his age and learning a new defense. I just miss his presence on the team.

[Patler]

Random, but I just realized he is a free agent...Should the packers bring him back if he comes back cheap? If he's willing to sign a cheap one year deal why not? Would at least be a good insurance policy in case we can't land a decent safety in the draft. Even at 37 he can't be worse than MD Jennings.

His stats last year:

97 tackles, 2 sacks, 3 FF, 1 int (4 turnover plays for Woodson > 0 for Burnett/Jennings). That's pretty impressive at his age and learning a new defense. I just miss his presence on the team.

I am surprised by his stat line. I saw some articles early in the year that said he was playing poorly.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I am surprised by his stat line. I saw some articles early in the year that said he was playing poorly.

Maybe in coverage? But looking at his stats I see a player who still knows how to create turnovers and knows how to tackle. Two things MD Jennings can't do. And he can't be worse than Jennings in coverage.

[hoosier]

Random, but I just realized he is a free agent...Should the packers bring him back if he comes back cheap? If he's willing to sign a cheap one year deal why not? Would at least be a good insurance policy in case we can't land a decent safety in the draft. Even at 37 he can't be worse than MD Jennings.

His stats last year:

97 tackles, 2 sacks, 3 FF, 1 int (4 turnover plays for Woodson > 0 for Burnett/Jennings). That's pretty impressive at his age and learning a new defense. I just miss his presence on the team.

Maybe as a coach....If the choices at safety for the 2014 Packers boil down to Woodson or MD Jennings then I think I will opt to take a year's hiatus from watching the Pack.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Maybe as a coach....If the choices at safety for the 2014 Packers boil down to Woodson or MD Jennings then I think I will opt to take a year's hiatus from watching the Pack.

Lol really.... Well you aren't giving Woodson enough respect. He is 100 X better than Jennings even at 37 imo. Honestly, the way TT operates its either Jennings or a rook. The safety position is not the deepest position in the draft so you might want to start preparing for the 2015 season. Decent chance he doesn't take a safety high or find one good enough to start as a rookie. I'm hoping he signs a free agent safety and Woodson would be as good as any after the top 2 or 3 are signed (chances are players he probably isn't going after).

[pbmax]

Does the best player on a terrible defense get inflated stats as a result?

[Guiness]

Abscence makes the heart grow fond...

He was pretty bad his last year with the Pack, the risk taking was still there, but the athleticism to pull it off and any hint of catch-up speed when the gamble failed was a fading memory. After another year, it can only be worse.

[Patler]

Does the best player on a terrible defense get inflated stats as a result?

Good point. Usually, a lot of tackles by a DB is more of an indictment of the front 7 than credit to the DB. A single interception for a safety isn't much of an accomplishment, unless you are a Packer safety. Forced fumbles is a knack that some have, and Woodson is one who does. He might still have played poorly, yet caused a few fumbles.

[mraynrand]

I'm shocked Woodson had that many tackles, except that the d-line and LBs were pretty poor. I watched about 4-5 Raiders games on DirecTV 'shortcuts' and Woodson turned down a ton of tackles. He was late to a lot of piles. 22 of those 97 are assists - the highest of his career (but makes sense playing safety). Like I said in 2012, he was better than McMillian, but not much else. Look, the dude broke his collar bone twice and you can just see he doesn't want to throw his body in there, and I don't blame him. It's a young man's game and the guy, because of his amazing physical skills and toughness, hung around a lot longer than people at his position normally do. Charles, the Russian River is calling. Enjoy the grapes.

[red]

I am surprised by his stat line. I saw some articles early in the year that said he was playing poorly.

yup, he had a not so great year

and it looks like age has caught up with him in a big way

with that said, he would have been by far our best safety last season

[smuggler]

He really played poorly in the first four weeks or so, and then rebounded with a nice stretch before fading back into mediocrity at the end of the season.

This may or may not have had something to do with his competition. Please recall that the AFC is damn horrible, and Woodson would (more consistently) face better QBs in the NFC and probably just better teams overall. Just look at the NFC West. Monster division.

[Smeefers]

Does the best player on a terrible defense get inflated stats as a result?

So what you're saying is... he'd have a stellar year here?

[pbmax]

So what you're saying is... he'd have a stellar year here?

Either that or he would break the bank in comparison.

[bobblehead]

I am surprised by his stat line. I saw some articles early in the year that said he was playing poorly.

And I saw one around week 15 that said he had a surprisingly effective season. The author came across as credible, citing his poor play with GB the season before. Didn't catch a single Raider game all year though.

[Packers4Glory]

he should have never walked. He should have been planted at safety here. end of story. TT's love affair with being one of the youngest teams has cost this team the past couple years.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that he had an effective season. He was healthy. If he's healthy he was going to be somewhat effective. a lot more so than any stiff we lined up at safety. He knew the defense. he would have been in the right places and not blowing coverages left and right or missing tackle after tackle.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

he should have never walked. He should have been planted at safety here. end of story. TT's love affair with being one of the youngest teams has cost this team the past couple years.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that he had an effective season. He was healthy. If he's healthy he was going to be somewhat effective. a lot more so than any stiff we lined up at safety. He knew the defense. he would have been in the right places and not blowing coverages left and right or missing tackle after tackle.

I understand why they didn't want to pay him 10 million dollars last year, I don't think anyone thinks he's worth that anymore. But after leaving for a year and knowing his best years are behind him, I would think he would prefer to come back here and compete for a title rather then play for a team not going anywhere. Unless TT drafts a safety high or surprises and signs a starting caliber safety in free agency, I would think Woodson would easily be an upgrade over MD Jennings. Factor that in with a much reduced salary plus the respect he has in the locker room and I don't see why not.....

[red]

I understand why they didn't want to pay him 10 million dollars last year, I don't think anyone thinks he's worth that anymore. But after leaving for a year and knowing his best years are behind him, I would think he would prefer to come back here and compete for a title rather then play for a team not going anywhere. Unless TT drafts a safety high or surprises and signs a starting caliber safety in free agency, I would think Woodson would easily be an upgrade over MD Jennings. Factor that in with a much reduced salary plus the respect he has in the locker room and I don't see why not.....

yes, 10 million seems like a lot, especially if we used that money to improve in other areas. but we didn't use the money we saved by cutting him

in fact, we sat on almost that whole 10 million this year

just like you look at the almost 10 million tramon will count against the cap, and the first thought is, "he's probably not worth that." but we don't really need the cap space, and until we do need that space, i see no reason to cut him to just replace him with another rookie, or undrafted rookie and sit again on the cap space we saved

and IMO, a slower, weaker woodson who was less inclined to hit, would have been WAAAAAAYYYYYY better then any of the pieces of complete shit we had playing safety this year

[Teamcheez1]

"He's probably not worth that."

There is no "probably", Woodson isn't even worth $5M. I'm not sticking up for the safeties on our current roster, but to even entertain paying an aging, injury-prone safety in the neighborhood of $10M is delusional.

[mraynrand]

"He's probably not worth that."

There is no "probably", Woodson isn't even worth $5M. I'm not sticking up for the safeties on our current roster, but to even entertain paying an aging, injury-prone safety in the neighborhood of $10M is delusional.


Hear Hear! I love Woodson, but he's done people. Plus: Injury Prone!

[Joemailman]

Hear Hear! I love Woodson, but he's done people. Plus: Injury Prone!

Your sick.

[mraynrand]

Your sick.

mraynrand your a trolling/stalking, flaming, rotten/terribly bad mannered and angry/envious/jealous 'low esteemed' no decent account member at Packerrats, mraynrand. Your game is sick. You parade through this place like some fool. I want him forever gone from Packerrats

[Rastak]

mraynrand your a trolling/stalking, flaming, rotten/terribly bad mannered and angry/envious/jealous 'low esteemed' no decent account member at Packerrats, mraynrand. Your game is sick. You parade through this place like some fool. I want him forever gone from Packerrats


Quick question, did you end up killing Woody in a fight to the death?

[bobblehead]

Quicker question, do you dispute everything Woody said, or just some of it?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Charles Woodson: Retirement a 'serious consideration'

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000329761/article/charles-woodson-retirement-a-serious-consideration

[bobblehead]

mraynrand your a trolling/stalking, flaming, rotten/terribly bad mannered and angry/envious/jealous 'low esteemed' no decent account member at Packerrats, mraynrand. Your game is sick. You parade through this place like some fool. I want him forever gone from Packerrats

you forgot subhuman mongrel.

[red]

i found one line very interesting from an article pft did a few days ago

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/24/charles-woodson-wants-to-play-knows-wont-be-in-green-bay/

it talks about woodson wanting to continue playing, but saying its probably not going to be in green bay

here's the line that got my attention


“I don’t think that’s going to happen,” Woodson said. “I definitely plan on playing. But I think the Packers already have plenty of safeties. LOL.”

i took this as being the line green bay told him when they let him go. sorry charles, we can't keep you, we have too many safeties already

and if thats the case, it shows just how poorly green bay judged the talent they had on their roster last off season. it also, imo, shows why we didn't draft a safety last year or go after any free agent help, even though many of us saw it as a position of weakness.

apparently, the team (TT, M3) really did think the answer was burnett, mcmillian, and jennings.. yuck

so just because we think we have obvious needs this year at safety, ILB, DL and TE, doesn't mean management feels that way and will do anything about those spots

[Teamcheez1]

i found one line very interesting from an article pft did a few days ago

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/24/charles-woodson-wants-to-play-knows-wont-be-in-green-bay/

it talks about woodson wanting to continue playing, but saying its probably not going to be in green bay

here's the line that got my attention



i took this as being the line green bay told him when they let him go. sorry charles, we can't keep you, we have too many safeties already

and if thats the case, it shows just how poorly green bay judged the talent they had on their roster last off season. it also, imo, shows why we didn't draft a safety last year or go after any free agent help, even though many of us saw it as a position of weakness.

apparently, the team (TT, M3) really did think the answer was burnett, mcmillian, and jennings.. yuck

so just because we think we have obvious needs this year at safety, ILB, DL and TE, doesn't mean management feels that way and will do anything about those spots


The answer may not have been Burnett, McMillian, and Jennings, but it sure as hell wasn't Woodson either.

[woodbuck27]

he should have never walked. He should have been planted at safety here. end of story. TT's love affair with being one of the youngest teams has cost this team the past couple years.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that he had an effective season. He was healthy. If he's healthy he was going to be somewhat effective. a lot more so than any stiff we lined up at safety. He knew the defense. he would have been in the right places and not blowing coverages left and right or missing tackle after tackle.

or

Too often pause to look at the other DB to decide who makes the tackle !

Woodson would have put 'the opponents ass' on the ground.

[woodbuck27]

Quick question, did you end up killing Woody in a fight to the death?



killing - fight - death.

DRAMA ! DRAMATIC !

mmmm .... a skookum prospect?

Ahh ... no ! Eh !!

[red]

The answer may not have been Burnett, McMillian, and Jennings, but it sure as hell wasn't Woodson either.

woodson, would have been an upgrade over any of our 3 guys this year. even at his advanced age and having an bad year compared to what he had been doing

and from reading more about this, it looks like the packers told woodson he would be cut, and woodson offered to take a pay cut to stay with the team. the team didn't even want to talk, and that's probably where the team told him that they have enough safeties without him.

[pbmax]

I don't know about that. He would have had a few more big plays. But he was of no help versus Kapernick in the playoffs.

I think he is a pretty mixed bag of problems/highlights right now.

[mraynrand]

I'm perfectly fine with Woodson ridiculing the Packers. They got smoked big time for lack of competent safety play. At the same time, Woodson's lost a step and he can't come close to where he was. The games I saw, he refused a lot of tackles. He played like a guy who had broken his collarbone twice - and I don't blame him. Hey what is that sound of flowing water I hear? It is the Russian River. Charles, the river is calling you....

http://cache.wine.com/labels/121959d.jpg

[woodbuck27]

Charles Woodson wa on NFL Access today and he talked about the prospects of retiring vs playing another season in the NFL.

He seemed ready/confident to play; plans on playing if he gets something fr. Oakland in terms of a contract he would agree to. I wonder if Charles Woodson would accept the vet minimum without incentive/bonus clauses?

Charles Woodson said that NFL teams "look at a players age", more than proven ability talent/experience /leadership in terms of the bottom line contract offer, That as the player advances in age there's a corresponding decline in the value of the contract that will be offered no matter what positives he has in store for the team. That's 'a fact of life' in Pro Sports it seems to me.

With age comes decline and that's "a fact of life", that's more so emphasized in the NFL. Thye average age of retirement for pro athletes in the major pro Sports is 33 years of age but in the NFL it's at 28 years. There are negatives and retirement from pro Sports.

Here's Charles Woodson and the possibility of being forced to not play again:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000329761/article/charles-woodson-retirement-a-serious-consideration

"When you get past a certain age, it's no longer about what you do on the field," Woodson said. "It's about your age. They look at the age first and then what you do on the field second. There's no rush for any team to sign a veteran player. It's not just a Raiders situation. It's a league-wide deal." Charles Woodson

Even if Charles Woodson gets that last again one year contract!? He has to be aware of the facts and retirement as a Pro athlete. Aware of very alarming facts and what actions make a transition into "a normal life" easier:

http://elitesportsretired.com/

GO PACK GO !

[smuggler]

Fuck it. I'd bring him back for a cool mil.

[woodbuck27]

Fuck it. I'd bring him back for a cool mil.

The problem with that is that move provides little for our future.

Next season is a time to assess the team. We need to see TT and MM et all move forward not backward.

GO PACK GO !

[KYPack]

Fuck it. I'd bring him back for a cool mil.

The NFL minimum for 10+ is 955,000.

Charles made 3.3 last season, hitting all or most of the incentives in his contract.

I doubt he'd sign for the minimum.

[woodbuck27]

The NFL minimum for 10+ is 955,000.

Charles made 3.3 last season, hitting all or most of the incentives in his contract.

I doubt he'd sign for the minimum.

I'd be very surprized if Charles Woodson returned to Green Bay and the 'only way that happens is if TT gets to "a little wild with the money" and that's not likely.