MCGINN STRIKES AGAIN..."TROUBLING SIGNS FROM WOODSON

[Bretsky]

Troubling signs from Woodson
Posted: Sept. 30, 2006
On the Packers

Bob McGinn
E-MAIL

Green Bay - For now, at least, the megabucks signing of Charles Woodson hasn't come back to haunt the Green Bay Packers.

But as the weeks and months, perhaps even seasons, of the Woodson chapter begin to unfold, the hunch is that general manager Ted Thompson ultimately will wish that he had spent his money on somebody else.

Woodson is making a king's ransom. The seven-year, $39.034 million deal that he and agent Carl Poston extracted from Thompson three days before the draft provides him with $9.9 million guaranteed this season. He counts $6.709 million against the Packers' salary cap, second only to Brett Favre at $12.6 million.

For that, the Packers hoped that Woodson would be a proverbial shut-down cornerback, a possible contributor on offense and special teams, and a positive presence in the locker room.

What they've gotten so far is a middle-of-the-road starting cornerback by National Football League standards, an adequate punt returner and someone who does his job but isn't about to make an emotional or tutorial commitment to the organization or his teammates.

Based on interviews last week with a dozen people from Woodson's past and across the NFL, the picture that emerges is Woodson as a football mercenary. The first defensive player to win the Heisman Trophy will show up and punch a clock, practice and play on Sunday. Just don't expect him to lead, take part in any non-mandatory off-season activities or expend much energy worrying about the state of the team.

"Such a complex guy," said a coach who has worked with Woodson in the past. "He's going to be Charles. He can be charming, he can be fun, he can be funny. At the same time, he can be isolated, he can be sullen, he can be a pain."

Woodson is in the twilight of his nine-year career. Although he suffered a pair of broken legs in the last four years as well as other injuries, his speed isn't bad. His short-area quickness, at least based on his inability to cover Detroit's Mike Furrey out of the slot last week, is highly questionable.

With his 30th birthday later this week, Woodson's future isn't bright. The Packers certainly didn't shell out $8.36 million in bonus money this year for one year of starting service. But after three games the jury's out. If his performance slips over the next 13 weeks, the Packers will have a decision to make regarding his future.

Some NFL officials say Woodson's future should be at safety. He has the size, and as a hard-hitting cornerback might be physical enough to handle the rough stuff inside.

But some players who have made a similar move - Ronnie Lott and Rod Woodson come to mind - were great leaders and keen students of the game. That isn't Woodson. The idea of him directing a secondary might sound good but in reality it might not work.

Signing Woodson was completely out of character for Thompson. His blueprint for rebuilding is acquiring additional draft choices, then developing them. He might have dipped his toe a time or two into unrestricted free agency but had no interest in taking the big-money plunge.

Thompson, however, probably was feeling some heat from those who saw the Packers with a load of cap room and wondered why he was managing the loot as if it were his own.

Thompson did add Ryan Pickett and Marquand Manuel in mid-March, but only after electing not to enter the big-money battles for linebacker Will Witherspoon and center-guard LeCharles Bentley in the first two days of the signing period. Both would have filled major needs.

Witherspoon, who went from Carolina to St. Louis for a $9 million signing bonus, has been a terrific player and leader thus far for the Rams. Bentley, who moved from New Orleans to Cleveland for $11.25 million in bonuses, blew out his knee in the first practice.

On March 20, the Packers watched Minnesota take advantage of the miscalculation made by Seattle in tagging guard Steve Hutchinson as a transition player rather than a franchise player. If you're going to dole out $16 million in bonus money for a guard, as the Vikings did, it needs to be the perfect player.

Hutchinson has been exceptional for the Vikings just as he would have been exceptional in Green Bay. Only his value here would have been more pronounced because of the two games against Vikings defensive tackles Kevin Williams and Pat Williams.

But Thompson wouldn't pay Mike Wahle even half that much a year earlier. If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel.

On April 22, Thompson caught a break when linebacker LaVar Arrington cast his lot with the Giants, not the Packers. Arrington has been a good leader, but his knees look shot, he seems lost in coverage and he's missing tackles. Four days later, Thompson shuffled the money from one Poston client and gave it to another, Woodson, dismissing the possibility of signing the other available veteran cornerback, Ty Law.

Woodson showed up for the mandatory minicamp but then let the Packers know who was in charge by leaving town immediately and not returning until the start of training camp. He reported in shape, practiced and made just enough plays to lull the Packers into thinking they might have struck it rich.

That all changed on the Monday night in Cincinnati. Not only was Woodson embarrassed by T.J. Houshmandzadeh, he brought shame to himself by quitting on two plays after being beaten.

Two scouts said it looked like Woodson wasn't even trying that night. As alarming as his refusal to finish plays was, it was only an exhibition game. But then almost the same thing happened in the fourth quarter at Ford Field, when Furrey burned Woodson by 5 yards with a stutter step on a shallow crossing route.

Woodson actually broke stride as Furrey approached the sideline, in effect letting teammates get him down. Fortunately for the Packers, a late lunge by Brady Poppinga got Furrey out of bounds or the 25-yard gain might have been a lot more.

Woodson's actions fly in the face of what all NFL coaches hold near and dear. One scout said Woodson has never been much in catch-up and chalked it up to almost being in a fog. Others who have seen the plays in question say they go right to what makes Woodson an enigma and the pernicious effect money can have on some aging players.

By year's end, Woodson will have been paid about $50 million for playing football.

"You've got to give him time," a personnel director for a recent Packers' opponent said. "But he doesn't play with a motor. He kind of just drifts. Does he like football?"

It's hard to say. Woodson had some fine years early at Oakland. Jon Gruden challenged him, and he responded. He was never as good as Mike Haynes, but with his phenomenal talent and youthful exuberance few of Woodson's contemporaries played the position better.

But later, under coaches Bill Callahan and Norv Turner, Woodson almost seemed to be bored on the field. The Raiders hit the skids. Injuries befell him.

He had some off-field problems as well. Sources say Woodson was a "semi-malcontent" who broke curfew more than once for alcohol-related violations.

"He's the type of guy who was so gifted that he never really kept in shape and worked hard," another personnel director said. "He's just not a go-getter. He's got all the typical stuff you don't really want to deal with unless you're a good team and he has no choice but to conform. Like Baltimore."

The staff in Green Bay also has been finding out how stubborn Woodson can be when it comes to his role in certain coverages and defenses. Let's just say that he was and never will be an easy player to coach. He much prefers doing things his way.

As far as taking young players under his wing, that definitely isn't Woodson. The Packers hoped that a blood-and-guts competitor such as Al Harris would bring his running-mate into the mix. Instead, Woodson seems to have little interaction with Harris or any other players, for that matter.

Woodson is a polite loner. He will remove his headphones to answer questions. But as Mike McCarthy put it last month, "He's kind of real to himself."

For a $37 million investment, all teams would seek someone that impressionable young players could look to emulate. Woodson isn't that guy and doesn't pretend to be that guy.

To a degree, he was the same way at Michigan. Great player, below average teammate.

It's hard to say if the Packers made the right phone calls last spring. Not to minimize Thompson's role as the decision-maker, but he's also reliant on his pro scouting department for sound background information.

But there should have been no surprises.

Six months ago, the plus column on Woodson would have included rare size, good hitter and rare athletic ability, at least at one time. The minus column should have included poor off-season work habits, long injury history, tough to coach and a potential problem in the locker room.

Maybe the Packers are satisfied. They don't have to start Ahmad Carroll. Woodson has stayed healthy and plays every down, generally at respectable level. And the money had to be spent on someone.

A veteran team needing one more cover guy to win it all probably would have been the ideal fit for Woodson. Coming off 4-12 and with rebuilding on the brain, the Packers didn't seem to fit then and really don't now.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Only been 3 games played and on top of that we have bad secondary coach, it is to early to judge how good or bad this signing was.

[RashanGary]

Sure doesn't get my vote for best artical of the week.

You can only pull the "punch a guy in the scrotum" trick once every month or so. He just got done using Shottenheimer's sack as a speed bag. Sure, it was cutting edge the first time, but if you've seen one sack get punched, you've seen them all.

[the_idle_threat]

"If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel." --- Bob McGinn

Bob's full of shit on this one. One guard would not make this team over to the degree this sentence indicates. Especially since the only lineman who seems to be performing at or above expectations is Scott Wells. The worst offenders have been our veteran tackles, who have been unable to make the cut blocks called for in the scheme. Hutchinson would certainly be better than the one guy he would be replacing in the lineup, but he could not possibly be a one-man solution to this line's problems. With Hutchinson instead of a rookie at left guard, we would still have no running game, and the pass defense would not be much better, considering Brett has had time to throw both of the past two weeks.

[mraynrand]

"If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel." --- Bob McGinn

Bob's full of shit on this one. One guard would not make this team over to the degree this sentence indicates. Especially since the only lineman who seems to be performing at or above expectations is Scott Wells. The worst offenders have been our veteran tackles, who have been unable to make the cut blocks called for in the scheme. Hutchinson would certainly be better than the one guy he would be replacing in the lineup, but he could not possibly be a one-man solution to this line's problems. With Hutchinson instead of a rookie at left guard, we would still have no running game, and the pass defense would not be much better, considering Brett has had time to throw both of the past two weeks.

I have to agree on this one. How the *uck does McGinn know that Hutch would be able to zone block. Clifton is for shit at the backside cutoff block, and Tauscher is only so-so. An those are the best linemen we had going in.

Tons of growing pains when you change coaches, schemes, and players. When you don't really address a problem at RB. Oh, yeah - and when you start 5 rookies, you usually are going to suck - at least for a while - and that may have nothing to do with one FA you blew cash on.

Still, the criticisms of Woodson are mostly accurate. But if you ever wonder why McGinn only gets quotes from scouts and execs. you need to look no further than pieces like this - what player would want to talk to him?

[Partial]

"If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel." --- Bob McGinn

Bob's full of shit on this one. One guard would not make this team over to the degree this sentence indicates. Especially since the only lineman who seems to be performing at or above expectations is Scott Wells. The worst offenders have been our veteran tackles, who have been unable to make the cut blocks called for in the scheme. Hutchinson would certainly be better than the one guy he would be replacing in the lineup, but he could not possibly be a one-man solution to this line's problems. With Hutchinson instead of a rookie at left guard, we would still have no running game, and the pass defense would not be much better, considering Brett has had time to throw both of the past two weeks.

I have to agree on this one. How the *uck does McGinn know that Hutch would be able to zone block. Clifton is for shit at the backside cutoff block, and Tauscher is only so-so. An those are the best linemen we had going in.

Tons of growing pains when you change coaches, schemes, and players. When you don't really address a problem at RB. Oh, yeah - and when you start 5 rookies, you usually are going to suck - at least for a while - and that may have nothing to do with one FA you blew cash on.

Still, the criticisms of Woodson are mostly accurate. But if you ever wonder why McGinn only gets quotes from scouts and execs. you need to look no further than pieces like this - what player would want to talk to him?

'cause Hutch is a rare guard where as Tauscher and Clifton are solid but not rare tackles.

[Tarlam!]

This seems to be a fair assessment of Woodson, ignoring the "what ifs" on other players.

His heart is not into Gree Bay football. He punches his card and goes to work.

The signing might be wrong. But TT showed he is willing to role the dice and that's a good thing. So many teams have been burned with FA signings, so why should we get off scott free?

And, if we cut him, the damage is minimal. The cap hit stays in this year only.

I am disappointed he hasn't worked out, but I give TT credit for building in an emergancy ripcord.

[the_idle_threat]

I have always appreciated the way Cliffy and McGinn rely so much on the actual football experts---NFL scouts and personnel execs---to form the basis of their reporting. It lends a great deal of credibility. That's why the Hutchinson comment struck me as it did. McGinn went off the reservation on that one ... I'll bet he didn't hear that opinion from a scout or a GM.

[the_idle_threat]

"If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel." --- Bob McGinn

Bob's full of shit on this one. One guard would not make this team over to the degree this sentence indicates. Especially since the only lineman who seems to be performing at or above expectations is Scott Wells. The worst offenders have been our veteran tackles, who have been unable to make the cut blocks called for in the scheme. Hutchinson would certainly be better than the one guy he would be replacing in the lineup, but he could not possibly be a one-man solution to this line's problems. With Hutchinson instead of a rookie at left guard, we would still have no running game, and the pass defense would not be much better, considering Brett has had time to throw both of the past two weeks.

I have to agree on this one. How the *uck does McGinn know that Hutch would be able to zone block. Clifton is for shit at the backside cutoff block, and Tauscher is only so-so. An those are the best linemen we had going in.

Tons of growing pains when you change coaches, schemes, and players. When you don't really address a problem at RB. Oh, yeah - and when you start 5 rookies, you usually are going to suck - at least for a while - and that may have nothing to do with one FA you blew cash on.

Still, the criticisms of Woodson are mostly accurate. But if you ever wonder why McGinn only gets quotes from scouts and execs. you need to look no further than pieces like this - what player would want to talk to him?

'cause Hutch is a rare guard where as Tauscher and Clifton are solid but not rare tackles.

Even the rarest guard cannot make the blocks for his tackles, not to mention for the other guard. Clifton is the tackle on Hutch's side, and Clifton never was a great run blocker. Hutch can't make Clifton better, especially in a new scheme that all of them are learning on the fly.

[red]

the entire secondary has looked like shit, not just woodson

i said it before, and i'll say it again, our secondary is whats holding us back right now

we have 2 pro bowl cb's that both look like shit, a 2nd year saftey that looks much worse then he did his first year, another saftey that started half the season last year and started in the super bowl, you now looks completely lost, and a young CB that could be called on every single play he's in the game for illegal use of hands, or pass interference.

the rest of the d, except pop, look pretty solid.


and all those guys have one thing in common, the secondary coach

[Harlan Huckleby]

What they've gotten so far is a middle-of-the-road starting cornerback by National Football League standards, an adequate punt returner

A "middle of the road starting cornerback" is still pretty valuable. If Woodson is better than half the starters at his position, that is not a disaster, especially since they had nothing better to spend the money on.

I don't know how to evaluate how well Woodson is playing corner, since no news is good news. You have to be at the game to see the secondary.

He has been useful as a punt returner. He may just be "adequate", but the Packers have had a hell of a time finding somebody adequete. Probably that is a reflection of the quality of the rest of the ST players.

I didn't like the Woodson signing from the get-go. But the money is irrelevant, they had the cap space, and the free agent market was barren.

[falco]

Even the rarest guard cannot make the blocks for his tackles, not to mention for the other guard. Clifton is the tackle on Hutch's side, and Clifton never was a great run blocker. Hutch can't make Clifton better, especially in a new scheme that all of them are learning on the fly.

i think you underestimate how one (and especially 2) bad lineman can drag down the rest of line. having hutchinson, or bentley, or wahle, lining up with wells and spitz(?) would make this a whole new line.

[Bretsky]

This seems to be a fair assessment of Woodson, ignoring the "what ifs" on other players.

His heart is not into Gree Bay football. He punches his card and goes to work.

The signing might be wrong. But TT showed he is willing to role the dice and that's a good thing. So many teams have been burned with FA signings, so why should we get off scott free?

And, if we cut him, the damage is minimal. The cap hit stays in this year only.

I am disappointed he hasn't worked out, but I give TT credit for building in an emergancy ripcord.


I'll admit I was fine with the Woodson signing. BUT

My liking for this signing was related to the fact that I thought TT was a miserable failure in free agency and still have around 15-20MIL left and the talent was dried up. So he had to use it.

Will Witherspoon; that was the #1 guy I wanted.

B

[falco]

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article is the comparison to Ty Law...not sure what he ended up signing for, but I'm sure we could have made a move for him. I think he'd be much better than Woodson.

[Terry]

"If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel." --- Bob McGinn

Bob's full of shit on this one. One guard would not make this team over to the degree this sentence indicates. Especially since the only lineman who seems to be performing at or above expectations is Scott Wells. The worst offenders have been our veteran tackles, who have been unable to make the cut blocks called for in the scheme. Hutchinson would certainly be better than the one guy he would be replacing in the lineup, but he could not possibly be a one-man solution to this line's problems. With Hutchinson instead of a rookie at left guard, we would still have no running game, and the pass defense would not be much better, considering Brett has had time to throw both of the past two weeks.

That was my thought exactly as I read the article, but you have elaborated on it much better than I could have. Well said.

[Bretsky]

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article is the comparison to Ty Law...not sure what he ended up signing for, but I'm sure we could have made a move for him. I think he'd be much better than Woodson.

Can't remember the exact figured, but I'm pretty sure Law signed for a heck of a lot less

[KYPack]

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article is the comparison to Ty Law...not sure what he ended up signing for, but I'm sure we could have made a move for him. I think he'd be much better than Woodson.

Can't remember the exact figured, but I'm pretty sure Law signed for a heck of a lot less

Every year, Ty Law goes late & goes for cheap. Every year I figure he's just a little too old. & every year, 31 GM's kick themselves for not signing a HOF DB.

I was at the Cincy Pack Pre Season game. It was scary. Woodson looked like he was on his way to the electric chair before every play. I went to the game with a buddy, an old teammate, a safety & CB. His first comment was how terrible the DB's looked. He was actually more shocked by the youth of the back-up DB's. I stole a line from him that he said that nite.

As he watched our DB's warm-up (right in front of us), he said, "These aren't kids, they're embryo's". He wanted to know why we had so many 21 yr old kids as back-ups. When I told him about TT's love of kids and how we are rebuilding, but not re-building, he said exactly what I knew he'd say..."He's goofy then, you can't win with this many rookies".

Our secondary now consists of two guys who have no confidence and are scared out of their wits (Manual & Collins) and two guys who may or may not give a shit (Woodson & Harris).

The ironic thing is proper coaching could possibly straighten the whole deal out, but I don't have any confidence that these coaches could do things necessary to correct the problem.

As far as Bobby McGinn directing some shots at nut sacks, I think MORE shots are needed.

They just need to be properly aimed.

By the coaching staff.

[Fritz]

To me, the sum of this article is basically that free agency is a crap shoot. TT spent a lot on a guy who may only be a middle of the road player, and he passed on a guy (Witherspoon) who's been great. But TT also didn't land another linebacker who lots of folks here were clamoring for (Arrington) and has since sucked, and he didn't go after an expensive center (Bentley) who got hurt right away and is out for the year.

And good points were made in posts by folks who pointed out that it's no slam dunk that Hutchinson would have made Green Bay a much, much better offense.

So it seems that thw whole thing is educated guesswork plus some dumb luck. Yeah, I wish Woodson was more passionate, or at least I wish he were playing better, but it's a deal that pays him up front, so if he's only here for one or two years and GB can bring in someone better, then it's not a huge deal for me. At least his money won't be floating on our cap for the next eight years.

[Scott Campbell]

At least his money won't be floating on our cap for the next eight years.


To me, that was the reason Ted signed him. He had to spend the money somewhere, and the Woodson deal allowed him to retain future cap flexibility. I never bought in to the shut down corner hype.

[RashanGary]

I agree w/ everyone above that thinks it was an OK to below average signing. Sure, Woodson isn't some star player or great person but he plays his position OK and he's not getting burned any more often than our other guy. He's also got some value as a Safety for the next couple of years while he comes cheap to us.

I would love a DE because pass rush makes your CB's look better but there are a couple really good DB's in this up coming draft and I think I would be just as happy with Leon Hall as I would be with anyone.

[run pMc]

It's as much the coaches as the players. Woodson has talent but no motor; Schottenheimer is a laid back guy. You think that's a good match for bringing out the best in your CB? I don't think we have the right coach for the secondary.

Having said that, the secondary is a mess. Woodson & Harris are getting old, and while he can play bump-and-run/man coverage, Harris has never been a burner. Carroll seems to be a good fit at nickel CB, but who does GB have to replace the starters? Don't say Blackmon until he's been on the field. Manuel is a flop, and Collins is having a sophomore slump.

Granted, it's still early, and they have SOME talent so if it's just "communication problems" they might work that out and be a middlin' secondary. Still, I'm betting the pass D will be the Achilles heel of GB this year, and a new secondary coach will be coming to town next year. Rebuilding the D needs to continue.

[HarveyWallbangers]

"If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel." --- Bob McGinn

Bob's full of shit on this one. One guard would not make this team over to the degree this sentence indicates.

Yeah, on top of that, Minnesota isn't exactly running the ball well with a leftside of McKinnie, Birk, AND Hutchinson.

[Rastak]

"If Hutchinson was in Green Bay, the Packers would have a running game and the entire offense would have a different feel." --- Bob McGinn

Bob's full of shit on this one. One guard would not make this team over to the degree this sentence indicates.

Yeah, on top of that, Minnesota isn't exactly running the ball well with a leftside of McKinnie, Birk, AND Hutchinson.


Understatement Harv.....understatement.....

[Joemailman]

Woodson is in the twilight of his nine-year career. Although he suffered a pair of broken legs in the last four years as well as other injuries, his speed isn't bad. His short-area quickness, at least based on his inability to cover Detroit's Mike Furrey out of the slot last week, is highly questionable


If this part of the article is accurate, it would seem that Woodson might be better suited to safety in this defense. Whatever happens with Woodson, it doesn't appear there will really be any long-term negative consequences. If he's not a big-time contributor, that will be a disappointment, but not a disaster.

[pbmax]

I am sorry I caught this thread so late. I find that McGinn's assessment rings true, and I am curious if Woodson's lack of flexibility has been one of the contributing factors to bad communication.

But if Wahle, Hutchinson and ::genuflect:: LOGAN MANKINS aren't testimony to the way a guard can't put you over the top, then I don't know what is.

It took a rookie and a bad opposition run D and a punch and judy WR corp for New England to put together a dominating run game. Others have reflected on the Vikings struggles.

And Carolina has struggled mightily (until this week) to find it running game, probably as much to do with the health of its RB and WR than with Wahle. But making the point that the guard can't do this alone.

And can someone tell me who you bench to play Witherspoon? And who plays the SAM? And if the answer is to draft Vernon Davis, should we carry 5 TEs?

I think Woodson signed beacuse he would take a lot of cash up front and no guaratees he would be around for the remainder of the contract.

And it might be a good idea to remember than the structure of the contract could explain why so many FAs didn't stop in GB for long. Not just the cash total.

[KYPack]

I am sorry I caught this thread so late. I find that McGinn's assessment rings true, and I am curious if Woodson's lack of flexibility has been one of the contributing factors to bad communication.

But if Wahle, Hutchinson and ::genuflect:: LOGAN MANKINS aren't testimony to the way a guard can't put you over the top, then I don't know what is.

It took a rookie and a bad opposition run D and a punch and judy WR corp for New England to put together a dominating run game. Others have reflected on the Vikings struggles.

And Carolina has struggled mightily (until this week) to find it running game, probably as much to do with the health of its RB and WR than with Wahle. But making the point that the guard can't do this alone.

And can someone tell me who you bench to play Witherspoon? And who plays the SAM? And if the answer is to draft Vernon Davis, should we carry 5 TEs?



You'd play Witherspoon at SAM. He's one of those rare ones who can play all 3 effectively. He's a MIKE at St Lou and played both weak & strrong at Carolina. Played all 3 at UGA.

I really didn't moan when they didn't get him, I'm never in favor of super high dollar FA's. But with the idea we were going to spend all that cake on Woodson, we shudda signed WW and let Carroll try one last time at CB.

That's second guessing to the max, tho.

[SkinBasket]

'cause Hutch is a rare guard where as Tauscher and Clifton are solid but not rare tackles.

Now if only we could find a unique guard. Or maybe collect a set so that they enhance each other's abilities, that would be ideal. But set collecting is an arduous task outside the MP setting. :wink:


I agree that the assesment of Hutch was a reach at best, but I think he's right on about most of what he says about Charles.

[Zool]

'cause Hutch is a rare guard where as Tauscher and Clifton are solid but not rare tackles.

Now if only we could find a unique guard. Or maybe collect a set so that they enhance each other's abilities, that would be ideal. But set collecting is an arduous task outside the MP setting. :wink:


I agree that the assesment of Hutch was a reach at best, but I think he's right on about most of what he says about Charles.MTG nerd.

[SkinBasket]

I'll pit my Broken Tauscher of Fire +5 against your unique Hutch anyday.

[Zool]

Ah hah, but I've got the Birk of defence and the Mt McKinley fort with regen.

[SkinBasket]

Ah hah, but I've got the Birk of defence and the Mt McKinley fort with regen.

Crap.

[woodbuck27]

the entire secondary has looked like shit, not just woodson

I said it before, and I'll say it again, our secondary is whats holding us back right now

We have 2 pro bowl cb's that both look like shit, a 2nd year saftey that looks much worse then he did his first year, another saftey that started half the season last year and started in the super bowl, you now looks completely lost, and a young CB that could be called on every single play he's in the game for illegal use of hands, or pass interference.

the rest of the d, except pop, look pretty solid.


and all those guys have one thing in common, the secondary coach

We knew prior to the regular season opening, that if we could establish an offense early in games, that would force the opposition's game plan to revert to tackling OUR weakness if any in the secondary.To go to "the pass" more often than was necessary in 2005.

Yes OUR secondary is terrible.

Last season, it only appeared that we had a secondary that could defend against the pass, because it wasn't necessary for the oppposition to go there. We are all aware of that fact.

Teams last season opened fast on us and then only had to play it safe; reverting to the run as a primary means of controlling the battle of the clock.

We are seeing the statistical analysis call into question, the play of all four starters in OUR secondary.

Our starting Safety's

Nick Collins who as a sophomore isn't playing as well as he did primarily in the second half of 2005. Isn't Collins feeling "the heat" to do too much? Statistical analysis clearly shows, that the safety team of Collins and Marquand Manuel is clearly inferior to Collins and experienced Vet. Mark Roman, who in my way of seeing it, was cut prematurely with the leap we saw in Marviel Underwood's development.

The sudden release (timing aside) of S Mark Roman, may have appeared prudent to Ted Thompson but with Underwood going down for the season we are experiencing a "hindsight is 20/20 situation".

Many here criticized Roman's overall play, but that man made alot of tackles and again we may point to the fact we had to primarily defend against "the Run". It is fair to assess Romans coverage against "the Pass" when called to task there.

Ted Thompson brought in S Marquand Manuel, a player with limited experience that was going to be "the cats ass". I was led to believe that he would even call OUR defensive allignments on the field? Marquand Manuel hasn't demonstrated anything approaching what we trusted T2 for in his play.

We may elect to factor in "the fact", that Manuel hasn't been at 100% health and is still learning OUR system. How patient are we going to be with this safety? We have no other alternative as he's one of Ted Thompson's guys.

We are also experiencing Manuel's argument that he's being called to task and in his observation others arn't playing in their proper position.

I paraphrase... "He can't be at two places at once" Marquand Manuel

We read that Nick Barnett feels that OUR Team is failing on "D", as people are playing out of position or otherwise failing in assignment. Barnett hints to improper direction or Leadership on the field. Who is calling the Defensive plays as far as re-allignment on the field?

Who is BOSS on the field for OUR "D"?

It looks to me like 1999 and 2004 all over again.

In 2004 we saw the running game set aside somewhat for more offense via "the air". That means the opposition has to deal with "in your face Brett Favre". That as we're seeing the past two outings leads to a shootout. That pits our teams ability to defend the pass against the other teams pass "D", and this season we see OUR secondary play is JUST HORRIBLE.

Part of the blame lies in OUR Teams inability to pressure the QB with a proper pass rush. Our DE's talent and ability is called into question. Last season and this, the middle of OUR DL had been adequate but we need to see more focus on heat on the opposition's QB to set up for the pass.

OUR starting CB's

We are seeing OUR CB's play less than satisfactory.

How can that be? When T2 brought in LCB Charles Woodson as an upgrade over last season's LCB Ahmad Carroll, at a huge expense and with a return, that to date isn't paying off?

Lets get REAL here.

Charles Woodson is what he is /has been before landing another huge payday with us. I read McGinn and cannot refute his plain language on Charles Woodson.

McGinn tells us "the straight up facts". Yes, it may annoy some here to see his in OUR face TRUTH. Charles Woodson is all about Charles Woodson. Charles Woodson hasn't been nor may ever be "a Team player". We need an entire starting allignment on "D" and "O" of just that...Team players.

Otherwise, deficiencies in player talent level and attitude takes center stage.

To date, to say that FA Charles Woodson is failing is an understatement. Oh... but he's one that loans the coaching staff versatility.

Decent punt returner?

Check out C. Woodson's average punt return? We had a member here (yesterday) putting down Rookie Reggie Bush and his ONLY 8 yard punt return average? Charles woodson has never demonstrated exceptional skills as a punt returner in his NFL Career, as I recall researching his potential there.

Yes. We must see C. Woodson in all his many aspects of value to us. What value are you seeing in his regular season to date? I'm not impressed considering his over the top cost to us against OUR CAP. He's second in cost to OUR CAP to only Brett Favre.

Brett Favre or Charles Woodson....Uhhh !

Al Harris.

We are aware of his hard work in a extra curricular sense in the past, with long hours reviewing tape to refine his craft. The signing of C.Woodson, at what the two make comparitively in 2006.. a clear slap in the puss to Al Harris.

Yet, that is ...what's on Al Harris's plate for the remainder of this season. Al's upset and the media classifies it... as Al's annoyance with what Ted Thompson dole'd out to retain a man who works his butt off, just as Al Harris did, LDE Aaron Kampman.

I say baloney to that.

Al Harris is annoyed with the money dole'd out to Charles Woodson, when Al Harris feels he's a superior CB. How can these two CB's be a Team and do a proper job in OUR secondary, if they don't have their heads together, if they don't communicate?

That's right.

Wrap Up.

So what is before us Packer fans?

What I see is a mess in OUR secondary with questions regarding Leadership, REAL skill sets, less than desirable attitudes and opinions on other members of the secondary or scapegoating and only 3 games into the schedule. Not cool.

We are seeing too much talk ..not enough, even decent play on the field. We are seeing blame shifted here and there from one player to the other's , we see plain and simple blown or droped assignments, laziness (no hussel) particularly with Daddy Warbucks..."Charles Woodson", who we can say... needs more time... but COME ON!

Charles Woodson has been in the NFL and played very well years earlier in his career, that is in effect shutting down. Not much in the tank !If he still had it then he would be calling it "Old HOME Season" down in Tampa Bay... with his old HC John Gruden.

If he was such a playa, wouldn't John Gruden have scooped him up for "the BUCS"?

What we are seeing is a secondary that has a multitude of doing too many things wrong, at a time in a season, where the play of Favre is calling upon them to get it done and they are failing miserably against "the Pass".

What are we giving up via the pass? Something like 310 yards a game. Good grief. That sucks, and be prepared for Donovan McNabb to kill us with the pass, even if we have decent success in operating within a game plan to STOP Eagles RB Brian Westbrook.

We need a Game Plan that does two things:

a) containd Brian Westbrook within reason.

b) Puts heat on QB Donovan McNabb, to not allow his comfort level or we see the shootout lean to "the Eagles", as clearly their "D" is better than OURS from a talent standpoint. That means they will "in fact" game plan to disrupt Favre.

Tonight comes down to their "D" Vs our "D".

Back to the Packer Secondary:

Is it coaching? It certainly is a BIG factor. Because it's up to "the Coaching" staff, to prepare the players from a basis of understanding the defensive schemes. Then with solid attitudes gained in practise, applying that with confidence in one another in game situations.

Is it all on poor coaching?

NO ! It's a two way street.

Every member of the Packer secondary starting Team, must be entirely committed to the plan to stop the pass. That Secondary team also must possess the talents, attitude to work ethic, the TEAM PLAYER attitude...the professional pride...

To reduce the opposition's impact against "the Green Bay Packers" via the air. All four starters and the Coaching staff must have a philosophy and plan, as to how to get the ball back for "the "O" ASAP.

Ted Thompson needs all four members of OUR starting Secondary with it , in regards to committment to "the Packers", as a first FIRST priority.

** Players with a committed hard work ethic. An excellent attitude and confidence belief in one another.

CB Charles Woodson hardly fits that mold.

That ** hasn't been the case obviously, or otherwise OUR secondary needs a complete assesment for hard truth's to turn it around... and get there really soon. Otherwise... expect the onslaugh via "the pass" from any decent QB to embarass us.

I'm not going to say:

Toss anybody as yet. Especially given... that the blame for the condition of OUR secondary... falls in so many directions.

The Packers have work to do, and they need a gut check. They havw a ways to go.