WHY OH WHY didnt we make this trade?!

[Tarlam!]

so then tell me why nobody wanted Woodson then when we picked him up? bad attitude will only carry this conversation so far.

Sorry, I don't know what your getting at. What has Woodson's attitude got to do with him stating on numerous occasions that Al Harris has helped increase his prodctivity?

Maybe you were referring to an earlier post, but I really don't get the segueway.

[twoseven]

I don't get your reference to Woodson at all. He was an all-Pro in Oakland, missed time due to broken body parts, and himself admits to having gotten a bad attitude from the environment, but his performance wasn't bad in Oakland.

when did i say it was bad?

in 34 LESS games in GB, Woodson has 28 more passes defended, 11 more picks, and 5 more touchdowns than his OAK days.

i said stats on a prior team don't always tell the whole story, and clearly his GB stats are MUCH, MUCH better. you don't understand my reference? i think it's pretty black and white.

Nope, didn't follow it at all, and still don't with respect to the discussion about Ginn. Woodson was unquestionably a very good NFL player even when he was with the Raiders, regardless of his stats. I can't say the same for Ginn, nor can I come up with a plausible reason for his lack of production except that he is what he is.

Just my opinion. Is Ginn worth the risk of a low draft pick? Sure. Is it a big deal the Packers didn't pull this one off? No, not in my opinion.

well, if you don't get it, i guess i must be wrong.

stop trying to put words into my mouth regarding Ginn. i am hardly claiming they have similar situations, i merely stated that stats don't tell the whole story from one team to another. this discussion is growing hilarious, a bunch of regular people that do not actually have a job evaluating talent for the NFL laying down stats to prove their own argument concerning a situation that will never happen in the first place i.e. what Ginn would do in a GBP uniform considering his MIA games thus far.

[twoseven]

so then tell me why nobody wanted Woodson then when we picked him up? bad attitude will only carry this conversation so far.

Sorry, I don't know what your getting at. What has Woodson's attitude got to do with him stating on numerous occasions that Al Harris has helped increase his prodctivity?

Maybe you were referring to an earlier post, but I really don't get the segueway.

i am not questioning what you bring up about harris, i agree. but still, NOBODY else wanted woodson when we signed him as a FA. why? some will say he was not packer people based on his attitude. i do not believe that somebody that was as good as Patler is claiming he was in OAK would have no other suitors, and i don't think too many teams would opt oaway from his because of his attitude (which is why i brought it up, more as a 'don't bother saying his attitude was the only reason he ws out there').

[Patler]

in 34 LESS games in GB, Woodson has 28 more passes defended, 11 more picks, and 5 more touchdowns than his OAK days.

And he'll be the first to tell you that the increased productivity comes from having Al Harris on the other corner, whereas in Oakland he had nobody, so he was never thrown at.

so then tell me why nobody wanted Woodson then when we picked him up? bad attitude will only carry this conversation so far.

Bad attitude somewhat, injuries as much or more. The talk was that he had lost his desire to play. Had some clear injuries like a broken leg, but didn't want to play through others. Missed 8, 1, 3 and 10 games the preceding four years. Many questioned if he would ever play a full season again, or if he even wanted to.

[Tarlam!]

And with that knock on Woodson, TT cut a great deal based on games he played.

Subsequently, he became a Packer People type guy as is evidenced by his attendance at voluntary OTA, which he never did previously.

[sharpe1027]

Nope, didn't follow it at all, and still don't with respect to the discussion about Ginn. Woodson was unquestionably a very good NFL player even when he was with the Raiders, regardless of his stats. I can't say the same for Ginn, nor can I come up with a plausible reason for his lack of production except that he is what he is.

Just my opinion. Is Ginn worth the risk of a low draft pick? Sure. Is it a big deal the Packers didn't pull this one off? No, not in my opinion.

Unless you are going to say that Woodson's play at Oakland was considered to be as good as his play has been since his move to GB, you should at least acknowledge the point the OP was trying to make.

Plausible reason for his lack of production: Miami's kick return unit wasn't very good. That has to at least be plausible.

[sharpe1027]

a bunch of regular people that do not actually have a job evaluating talent for the NFL laying down stats to prove their own argument concerning a situation that will never happen in the first place i.e. what Ginn would do in a GBP uniform considering his MIA games thus far.

You pretty much summed up the point of the entire thread (frankly you could say something similar about the entire board). It might be a little hypocritical to post in the thread and then make this statement, don't you think?

[Patler]

Nope, didn't follow it at all, and still don't with respect to the discussion about Ginn. Woodson was unquestionably a very good NFL player even when he was with the Raiders, regardless of his stats. I can't say the same for Ginn, nor can I come up with a plausible reason for his lack of production except that he is what he is.

Just my opinion. Is Ginn worth the risk of a low draft pick? Sure. Is it a big deal the Packers didn't pull this one off? No, not in my opinion.

Unless you are going to say that Woodson's play at Oakland was considered to be as good as his play has been since his move to GB, you should at least acknowledge the point the OP was trying to make.

Plausible reason for his lack of production: Miami's kick return unit wasn't very good. That has to at least be plausible.

The Ginn/Woodson thing is getting a bit overboard. I understand what was trying to be said, I just don't think it is closely enough related to support an argument. For that reason, I don't get it.

I acknowledge that maybe Miami's kick return units weren't good, but kick returns is one area in which a really talented performer can make quite a showing in spite of his supporting cast. It might be the best "freelance" opportunity in football, although a great team around will make it even better. I don't know that Ginn showed that.

Must be the off-season, for us to discuss this for so long!

[Patler]

I don't get your reference to Woodson at all. He was an all-Pro in Oakland, missed time due to broken body parts, and himself admits to having gotten a bad attitude from the environment, but his performance wasn't bad in Oakland.

when did i say it was bad?

in 34 LESS games in GB, Woodson has 28 more passes defended, 11 more picks, and 5 more touchdowns than his OAK days.

i said stats on a prior team don't always tell the whole story, and clearly his GB stats are MUCH, MUCH better. you don't understand my reference? i think it's pretty black and white.

Nope, didn't follow it at all, and still don't with respect to the discussion about Ginn. Woodson was unquestionably a very good NFL player even when he was with the Raiders, regardless of his stats. I can't say the same for Ginn, nor can I come up with a plausible reason for his lack of production except that he is what he is.

Just my opinion. Is Ginn worth the risk of a low draft pick? Sure. Is it a big deal the Packers didn't pull this one off? No, not in my opinion.

well, if you don't get it, i guess i must be wrong.

stop trying to put words into my mouth regarding Ginn. i am hardly claiming they have similar situations, i merely stated that stats don't tell the whole story from one team to another. this discussion is growing hilarious, a bunch of regular people that do not actually have a job evaluating talent for the NFL laying down stats to prove their own argument concerning a situation that will never happen in the first place i.e. what Ginn would do in a GBP uniform considering his MIA games thus far.

Best we drop this one. I don't think either of us is understanding the other at this point!

I know most of what I have been trying to say has been misinterpreted.

[pbmax]

so then tell me why nobody wanted Woodson then when we picked him up? bad attitude will only carry this conversation so far.

Sorry, I don't know what your getting at. What has Woodson's attitude got to do with him stating on numerous occasions that Al Harris has helped increase his prodctivity?

Maybe you were referring to an earlier post, but I really don't get the segueway.

i am not questioning what you bring up about harris, i agree. but still, NOBODY else wanted woodson when we signed him as a FA. why? some will say he was not packer people based on his attitude. i do not believe that somebody that was as good as Patler is claiming he was in OAK would have no other suitors, and i don't think too many teams would opt oaway from his because of his attitude (which is why i brought it up, more as a 'don't bother saying his attitude was the only reason he ws out there').

His asking price is what you may be missing to solve the puzzle.

[sharpe1027]

His asking price is what you may be missing to solve the puzzle.

Wasn't GB also one of the few (or only) that wanted him at CB rather than safety?

[Bretsky]

His asking price is what you may be missing to solve the puzzle.

Wasn't GB also one of the few (or only) that wanted him at CB rather than safety?

Actually I think we were the only one

It came down to us versus Tampa Bay, and they wanted him as a safety.

And REMEMBER....only reason we were bidding on him was because Lavar Arrington shunned us and took less money to play elsewhere.

THANK YOU LAVAR

[Tarlam!]

And REMEMBER....only reason we were bidding on him was because Lavar Arrington shunned us and took less money to play elsewhere.

I forgot that completely, Bretsky, but you're 100% correct. I remember being realled POed about it, because I wanted that guy badly.

Shows you how little I know!

Don't they have the same agent?

[twoseven]

You pretty much summed up the point of the entire thread (frankly you could say something similar about the entire board). It might be a little hypocritical to post in the thread and then make this statement, don't you think?

oh, it was definitely that. now all we need to do is coin a term for relentlessly arguing back and forth, trying to prove yourself right (is that what is going on?) concerning opinion, of all things.

[sharpe1027]

oh, it was definitely that. now all we need to do is coin a term for relentlessly arguing back and forth, trying to prove yourself right (is that what is going on?) concerning opinion, of all things.

I believe the term you are looking for is an "online forum."