Ed Reed?

[LEWCWA]

I'd prefer bringing Woodson back in this capacity than Reed.

[MadtownPacker]

You bitches talking that shit probably said the same thing about Woodson before he was signed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Woodson was 28 or 29 when he signed with us. Reed will be 35 soon. If you are going this route, might as well bring back Woodson instead. At least, he knows the system.

[Guiness]

Woodson was 28 or 29 when he signed with us. Reed will be 35 soon. If you are going this route, might as well bring back Woodson instead. At least, he knows the system.

And there was a fair amount of talk about Reed not being the player he was...much like Woodson. He didn't stick his nose in on run support, prefering to play center field. In that respect, Woodson is better right now.

This guy reminds me of the last 'one more year' pro-bowler we signed on defense...Hardy Nickerson!

[Fritz]

well thats great, cause a guy like goldsonis probably gonna get 8 or 9 million a year if not more.

reed has more talent and leadership ability in his left nut then either of those two and will probably cost less then half of what those two get and you might only have to give him a 1 or 2 year deal

he would be a stop-gap, he would be a good signing because he is head and shoulders better then anyone else we have at safety and any of the safties in the draft

I always wondered if talent and leadership ability were housed in the left nut.

[woodbuck27]

Woodson was 28 or 29 when he signed with us. Reed will be 35 soon. If you are going this route, might as well bring back Woodson instead. At least, he knows the system.

It looks to me as if he might be enjoying the prospects on the west coast now. There is little reasonable likelihood that Charles Woodson is returning to the Green Bay Packers.

He did very well with us and at his age it's reasonable to speculate that he wants to increase his profile (to become a HOFer) and win another Super Bowl ASAP. He may? see that opportunity is most realistic with a NFCW team.

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/sports/packers_and_nfl/safety-charles-woodson-set-to-meet-with-49ers

[pbmax]

Per PFT, Goldson's deal has:

five-year deal has a total value of $41.25 million, with $22 million guaranteed

That guarantee number will mean "any money we could remotely call guaranteed without getting arrested" whether its likely to be collected or not.

[Packers4Glory]

He's already a better option than what we have in house for next yr or anyone we would draft.

I wouldn't mind Woodson back in that capacity but he's not the safety Reed is now. Reed would bring a lil more nastiness that this defense needs. This defense needs an infusion of new culture. Seems way way too soft in my opinion.

[RashanGary]

Yep, Reed is a first ballot HOFer. He'd be a better signing than Jeff Saturday was last year. Saturday isn't one of the all time great NFL lineman. Reed is one of the all time great secondary players in NFL history. And he still plays like it.

WTF is going on here. . . . People pissing on the idea of Steven Jackson or Ed Reed. Do you guys think we're really that good?

[Packers4Glory]

Yep, Reed is a first ballot HOFer. He'd be a better signing than Jeff Saturday was last year. Saturday isn't one of the all time great NFL lineman. Reed is one of the all time great secondary players in NFL history. And he still plays like it.

WTF is going on here. . . . People pissing on the idea of Steven Jackson or Ed Reed. Do you guys think we're really that good?

Safety is a real need. It's a need that a defense can't just fill w/ anyone. It's a key spot on a football team in a passing league. miscommunication and poor instincts lead to big plays and scores.

[Bretsky]

Yep, Reed is a first ballot HOFer. He'd be a better signing than Jeff Saturday was last year. Saturday isn't one of the all time great NFL lineman. Reed is one of the all time great secondary players in NFL history. And he still plays like it.

WTF is going on here. . . . People pissing on the idea of Steven Jackson or Ed Reed. Do you guys think we're really that good?

Homerism and defend GB at all costs mentality is running a wild

I'd take either at a fair price and both would be significant upgrades. Both would be signed to a short term deal and neither will break the bank. I'd bet Burnett would learn a ton from Ed Reed.

[red]

i should add that i made this thread up out of thin air

nowhere has there been any mention of ed reed and green bay in the same sentence

if was a "how about?" thread

no need for people to get their panties all bunched up in their vaginas over this

[HarveyWallbangers]

Defend Thompson at all costs. Blah, blah, blah.

Nobody said they wouldn't want Steven Jackson. I said I wouldn't want him for $7-8M/year. My point is that I doubt it would take $7-8M/year to get him. If it did, I wouldn't want him.

Bretsky, you said you'd take Jackson at a reasonable price. How about 3y at $7-8M/year? Would you want him for that? Right now, if he were asking for that, would you give it to him?

[Bretsky]

Defend Thompson at all costs. Blah, blah, blah.

Nobody said they wouldn't want Steven Jackson. I said I wouldn't want him for $7-8M/year. My point is that I doubt it would take $7-8M/year to get him. If it did, I wouldn't want him.

Bretsky, you said you'd take Jackson at a reasonable price. How about 3y at $7-8M/year? Would you want him for that? Right now, if he were asking for that, would you give it to him?

No, I don't think he's asking near to 7-8 MIL/yr mark nor will he get it. Do you have any sources indicating thit ?

Would I take him at Reggie Bush money ? No Brainer. That sacrifices little to nothing with future signings.

On the NFL Network they make it sound like Atlanta is not interested in S Jackson because they are going young at that position.

Perhaps TT is being smart if he is bluffing; in the past when TT has went to the Poker table.....good or bad....the deals seem to not get closed

[HarveyWallbangers]

No, I don't think he's asking near to 7-8 MIL/yr mark nor will he get it. Do you have any sources indicating thit ?

Why would I need a source? I'm responding to JH's post:

If Jackson's going rate is 7M/year over 3 years, I don't know why we shouldn't match it or even beat it by a little. He's one of the greatest backs of this era, he wants to be here and he's a perfect fit.

He's saying he'd give him $7M/year or more, if that's what it takes. He's acting like we are "retarded" because most of us wouldn't give Jackson that much. Then, you come prancing on to deliver your blind homerism rant.