Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MCGINN STRIKES AGAIN..."TROUBLING SIGNS FROM WOODSON

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MCGINN STRIKES AGAIN..."TROUBLING SIGNS FROM WOODSON

    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.
    TERD Buckley over Troy Vincent, Robert Ferguson over Chris Chambers, Kevn King instead of TJ Watt, and now, RICH GANNON, over JIMMY JIMMY JIMMY LEONARD. Thank you FLOWER

  • #2
    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.
    Draft Brandin Cooks WR OSU!

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      Formerly known as JustinHarrell.

      Comment


      • #4
        "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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 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?
          "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mraynrand
            Originally posted by 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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Partial
                  Originally posted by mraynrand
                  Originally posted by 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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: MCGINN STRIKES AGAIN..."TROUBLING SIGNS FROM WOODSO

                      Originally posted by Bretsky
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by the_idle_threat
                        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.
                        Busting drunk drivers in Antarctica since 2006

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 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.

                          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
                          TERD Buckley over Troy Vincent, Robert Ferguson over Chris Chambers, Kevn King instead of TJ Watt, and now, RICH GANNON, over JIMMY JIMMY JIMMY LEONARD. Thank you FLOWER

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.
                            Busting drunk drivers in Antarctica since 2006

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 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.
                              That was my thought exactly as I read the article, but you have elaborated on it much better than I could have. Well said.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X