Should Tramon Williams be returning punts?

[RashanGary]

I think it's time to take Chuck off punt return duty. He's OK at it, but he's more than OK at CB and the guy behind him isn't. It's just too risky, IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I voted Yes, but my vote really is "anybody but Woodson."

[gbpackfan]

Guys, we NEED Woodson back there. I know there are injury concerns, but this is football. Shit happens. He makes such good decisions and you know he's not going to cough it up. You want Woodson on that wall, you need Woodson on that wall! (anyone get that?)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Maybe Woodson would be a good wedge buster for kickoffs.

I just don't buy that Koren Robinson or Tramon Williams or Charlie Peprah or John Kuhn or Frank Walker can't field punts.

[RashanGary]

I don't like Woodson back there. He's too good on defense to risk him at something he is average at.

[Brohm]

Woodson is back their because he loves to do it. I am sure there is some unwritten agreement to it as well. He said in an interview last week that one of the reasons he was pissed at the Raiders is they wouldn't let him return punts (or play offense). He also said he is having a blast playing for the Packers (and returning punts).

He is a "safe" returner so I would just keep him back there and let him have his fun.

[FritzDontBlitz]

Guys, we NEED Woodson back there. I know there are injury concerns, but this is football. Shit happens. He makes such good decisions and you know he's not going to cough it up. You want Woodson on that wall, you need Woodson on that wall! (anyone get that?)

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think Woodson's zigzagging return style contributes to way too many "illegal block in the back penalties" and he's too valuable to the defense to risk getting him hurt on returns. He can stay on other special teams units but not return punts. Tramon showed very good instincts on the pooch punt return, I think he earned the job hands down today.

K-Rob gets a big thumbs up for his big kickoff return as well.

[Partial]

Woodson should be back there because he enjoys it, is sure handed, and hasn't been an injury risk at all yet. I have no problems with his balls out style of play.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think Woodson's zigzagging return style contributes to way too many "illegal block in the back penalties"

Good Point. And Woodson is not effective at breaking big runs. He looks like a guy filling in while the real punt returner is hurt.

[Scott Campbell]

Woodson should be back there because he enjoys it, is sure handed, and hasn't been an injury risk at all yet. I have no problems with his balls out style of play.


He also had a fumble on a return a few weeks ago - at a critical juncture.

[Partial]

We all saw that first hand at the Chicago game. Regardless, I like him back there.

[b bulldog]

No, ball security is huge and if we lose a fumble off of a punt return, it could cost us a game. I would have rather have seen someone do it from the start other than Woody but now it is too late, too much is on the line and Chuck wants to do it and he has tremendous ball skills. I know we can't afford for him to get injured but it is simply too late to make the change.

[Pacopete4]

i like woodson.. seems to get 9-10 yrds a crack CONSISTENTLY... and he fair catches it when its supposed to be.. hes smart and thats sometimes better than a young guy that has a little more speed

[RashanGary]

The only reason I like it is because Woodson likes it. I think he really appreciates MM letting him do it.

And to be honest, I think he runs out of bounce because MM tells him he wont' be doing it if it gets too dangerous. That is pure speculation, but if you watch Chuck on punts that matter (at the end of games), he always makes something happen and doesn't run out of bounce.

[b bulldog]

Would be a stupid move by MM to put a rookie back their now.

[RashanGary]

Would be a stupid move by MM to put a rookie back their now.

If he sucked, yeah. If he was good at it and didn't matter so much to the defense it woudl be a pretty good move. Depends on how well they think Tramon (or who ever) can field punts. I'd hate to strip Woodson of it though. I'd acctually feel bad because it would look like he was being demoted because Williams is better (with Williams getting the TD today)

[Deputy Nutz]

Williams returns one kick and replace a sure handed Woodson?

Williams didn't return an actual punt for a touchdown, he returned a pooch kick that he picked off the ground. Great play but I would trust him or anyone else on this roster besides the injured Blackmon to rest under a real punt 4 or 5 times a game other than Chuck Woodson. Woodson will break one this year, mark my words.

[Pacopete4]

dont fix it, if its not broke.......

[b bulldog]

You can't put a rookie back their now, crazy idea.

[Carolina_Packer]

http://www.infoplease.com/images/profootball.jpg

Don't you wish they had the '96 Desmond Howard on the 2007 Packers?

[cpk1994]

Guys, we NEED Woodson back there. I know there are injury concerns, but this is football. Shit happens. He makes such good decisions and you know he's not going to cough it up. You want Woodson on that wall, you need Woodson on that wall! (anyone get that?)

Yes Sir, Col. Jessup, Sir! :)

[FritzDontBlitz]

How about we just re-sign Antonio Chatman then? Same results we get from Woodson, and you guys hated Chatman.

Woodson risks getting creamed and knocked from the game every time he fields a punt. He also contributed the the loss to the Bears when he was stripped on one return. If Woodson is lost for the year, who do we put at corner with Al Harris? Bush? and who plays third corner when Bush fills in for Woody?

If not Tramon at punt returner then run K-Rob out there to do it. We need Woodson too much on defense to risk losing him on one of his dipsy doodle returns for 5 yards net.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think Chatman was hated as a punt returner. I actually thought he was solid. More than anything, I want my punt returner to be sure-handed. Who cares if he can get an extra couple of yards. That's a lot tougher position than kick returner. KRob has never returned punts. We don't even know if he can handle it. A big problem he had in Seattle was shaky hands. I can't imagine that bodes well for him as a punt returner.

[Lurker64]

The punt he returned for a TD yesterday is hardly indicative of anything, since they were punting out of the field goal formation which is built out of a bunch of tight ends, long snappers, and backup OL who are there to block you instead of the punt team which is made up of a bunch of faster guys who are there to tackle you.

I'm sure the coaches have given or will give him a chance to return punts in practice, and they're a much better judge of this than I am.

[swede]

Guys, we NEED Woodson back there. I know there are injury concerns, but this is football. Shit happens. He makes such good decisions and you know he's not going to cough it up. You want Woodson on that wall, you need Woodson on that wall! (anyone get that?)

You use words like speed and sure-handed like punchliness at a cocktail party!

[FritzDontBlitz]

From GB Press-Gazette's blog:


Also from McCarthy ...
* RB Ryan Grant suffered a mild ankle sprain Sunday. The team is hopeful Grant will play Thursday.
* It's doubtful S Nick Collins or TE Bubba Franks, who have knee injuries, will be ready for Thursday's game.
* The Packers won't practice in pads this week. Tuesday's practice will be significantly scaled back and could be scaled back even more depending on the team's health.
* Coaches have discussed using Williams as the primary punt returner, but Charles Woodson likely will hold onto those duties for now.

Apparently the coaching staff is crazy too.

[Scott Campbell]

I think they should appease Woodson's desire to play other positions by lining him up as a WR 4 or 5 times a game. And remove him from punt return duties. The risk/reward isn't worth it in my opinion. And they lined Brett up at WR yesterday, so there wouldn't be much dropoff going from Brett to Chuck.

[Noodle]

I think they should appease Woodson's desire to play other positions by lining him up as a WR 4 or 5 times a game. And remove him from punt return duties. The risk/reward isn't worth it in my opinion. And they lined Brett up at WR yesterday, so there wouldn't be much dropoff going from Brett to Chuck.

I don't like agreeing with Scott Campbell, but since he's in a non-snarky mode, let me add an amen. I remember when the Redskins had their ace DB, Darrell Green return punts. Unlike Woodson, Green could bust some big gains (he was at that time the perennial "fastest man in the NFL") and he once scored a TD on an amazing return against Philly. But he got injured doing it, and the Skins suffered from losing their lock-down corner.

I understand that injuries are a part of life in the NFL, but I also understand that, as a general matter, teams that stay healthy are teams that win. As proof, let me present to you this year's edition of the Chicago Bears. I don't know why you would risk losing Woodson. Yes, he's sure handed, but there must be someone else who can safely field punts on the roster or who is available on some practice squad somewhere.

If Woodson feels the need for speed, then have him run a few go routes for the O. But for the love of God, does anyone want to see Bush lined up in the base defense at this point?

[Scott Campbell]

1. snarky


A word that should be googled to find the definition as per direction from Dane Cook. It means short tempered or irritable.

"He was being very snarky with me. Yeah, snarky. Its a word, google it." -Dane Cook

[the_idle_threat]

snarky
One entry found.

snarky



Main Entry: snarky
Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
Date: 1906
1 : crotchety, snappish
2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>
— snark·i·ly \-kə-lē\ adverb

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/snarky

What's wrong with Scott in snarky mode? :?:

[Scott Campbell]

snarky
One entry found.

snarky



Main Entry: snarky
Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
Date: 1906
1 : crotchety, snappish
2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>
— snark·i·ly \-kə-lē\ adverb

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/snarky

What's wrong with Scott in snarky mode? :?:


Not a god damned thing.

[Scott Campbell]

I sound like Tex.

[FritzDontBlitz]

I kinda wonder what those 10 people who voted to keep Woodson as the return man are feeling right now.... :soap:

[b bulldog]

It's the NFL, guys get hurt. I voted to keep him back there and what am I feeling?? I'm feeling anger towards Bush for not blocking his guy so Chuck would have scored a TD and wouldn't have gotten hurt, that is what I'm feeling.

[FritzDontBlitz]

It's the NFL, guys get hurt. I voted to keep him back there and what am I feeling?? I'm feeling anger towards Bush for not blocking his guy so Chuck would have scored a TD and wouldn't have gotten hurt, that is what I'm feeling.

LMAO

Please tell me you aren't the guy who dogged out Bush in the postgame chat.....

[Brohm]

I voted to have Woodson back there. I think it is a sound decision (roll the tape of Philly's loss to us).

He is a playmaker and wants the ball in his hands. He was making a play when he got hurt. What if it was an interception return and not a punt return? Would it make a difference then? No. It's football and injuries happen.

No remorse about the decision here and MM feels the same way (see other thread). I did shudder last week (was it last week?) when he got leveled catching a punt, but that's the risk/reward.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I feel the same way as brohm. If Woodson is the best punt returner we have, I say put him out there. Now, if Tramon Williams is just as capable of doing it, then get him out there.

[RashanGary]

I feel the same way as brohm. If Woodson is the best punt returner we have, I say put him out there. Now, if Tramon Williams is just as capable of doing it, then get him out there.

If Tramon Williams is 80% of the punt returner that Woodson is, he shoudl be out there. I'll bet Favre would be a more versitile weapon on FG holds. It would probably leave options of fakes and such. Shoould we have Favre as the FG holder because it would be best for that one game? NO!!

This is all hindsight. Chuck really wanted to do it, and he gives his heart to this team partly because the team respects him. I wish he wasn't doing it, but if he really really wanted it, I'm not going to point fingers. He loves to have the ball in his hands. I'm glad he got the oppertunity and I hope he gets healthy for the playoffs. Next weeks game just got a lot harder, but there are more important goals this season and those are not lost yet. I hope Woodson is done with PR duty. This season is just too important to gamble on just because he really likes doing it.

[FritzDontBlitz]

I voted to have Woodson back there. I think it is a sound decision (roll the tape of Philly's loss to us).

He is a playmaker and wants the ball in his hands. He was making a play when he got hurt. What if it was an interception return and not a punt return? Would it make a difference then? No. It's football and injuries happen.

No remorse about the decision here and MM feels the same way (see other thread). I did shudder last week (was it last week?) when he got leveled catching a punt, but that's the risk/reward.

I can live with that assertion. I just double over laughing when people claim its Bush's fault Woody got hurt because he couldn't make an impossible block on a guy that was behind him, yet everyone fails to notice that AJ Hawk had a clear shot at the guy and completely whiffed on blocking him a second or two before he got near Woody...