| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
skibrett15
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1042
Location: nibelheim
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: Woodson's Return |
 |
|
|
My prognostication would be that he sticks at S in the nickle/dime and we continue to use guys like heyward and house and shields closer to the LOS.
I know the thinking is that woodson is a force near the LOS, but when isolated in coverage he cannot cover a TE or a WR. I like the idea of him off the line and looking at the play develop.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Packerraymond
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 11854
Location: UW Oshkosh
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: Woodson's Return |
|
|
|
| skibrett15 wrote: | My prognostication would be that he sticks at S in the nickle/dime and we continue to use guys like heyward and house and shields closer to the LOS.
I know the thinking is that woodson is a force near the LOS, but when isolated in coverage he cannot cover a TE or a WR. I like the idea of him off the line and looking at the play develop. |
I think the guy who might be affected most by Woodson's return is Brad Jones. I don't think there is any reason to be a 3-4 anymore. We didn't play a single snap of 3-4 against Detroit. From here on out we should be a 3-3-5 defense. Tramon, Shields, Hayward, Woodson and Burnett should start in the secondary. Then throw House on the field when we play our raven package. Dom should be licking his chops with how well our young guys are playing and the versatility it allows him.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pollino14
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 15264
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Is there anyone else who doesn't really want Woodson back? I think our guys are doing fine right now and I'd like to give our younger guys some more playing time.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Packerraymond
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 11854
Location: UW Oshkosh
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| pollino14 wrote: | | Is there anyone else who doesn't really want Woodson back? I think our guys are doing fine right now and I'd like to give our younger guys some more playing time. |
Woodson is a safety now, he's not going to take PT away from Heyward or House. McMillian has been average to below average recently and MD Jennings has played better, but Im going to take Woodson there 10 times out of 10.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skibrett15
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1042
Location: nibelheim
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Packerraymond wrote: | | pollino14 wrote: | | Is there anyone else who doesn't really want Woodson back? I think our guys are doing fine right now and I'd like to give our younger guys some more playing time. |
Woodson is a safety now, he's not going to take PT away from Heyward or House. McMillian has been average to below average recently and MD Jennings has played better, but Im going to take Woodson there 10 times out of 10. |
I think this is how I feel. But prior to injury we were going with jennings/mcmillian and woodson in the 335 or 245. 245 caters to the slot blitz better (or has been a staple in the past at least) by disguising who is rushing more than a 335 where you declare 3 guys right away. I tend to agree that a 335 with woodson deep is preferable to anything with Jennings/McMillian AND woodson 236, 326 etc.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
{Family Ghost}
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1032
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure what to do with Woody .. I think Hayward should be on the field at all times, he's been excellent on the outside and in the slot. I think House has shown himself to be an up and comer as well. I guess the best spot for Woody is strictly safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNPackfan32
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 5712
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| pollino14 wrote: | | Is there anyone else who doesn't really want Woodson back? I think our guys are doing fine right now and I'd like to give our younger guys some more playing time. |
I said it when the injury happened and got blasted for it but Woodson is done. The guy was playing like he was old and slow. Keep the young guys on the field, they keep getting better, I see no reason for Hayward, House or McMillian to lose snaps to Woodson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChaRisMa
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 5487
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
2011- 1st INTs (by 8!), T-18th FFs.
2010- 2nd INTs, T-15th FFs.
2012 T-6th INTs, T-31st FFs.
Playmaker. Turnover machine. Missing Link.
_________________
| Ted Thompson wrote: | | I'm new school. |
| Santana Dotson wrote: | | "I've always told people that you had your mom and dad looking out for your best interests, and then you had Reggie White. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pollino14
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 15264
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Packerraymond wrote: | | pollino14 wrote: | | Is there anyone else who doesn't really want Woodson back? I think our guys are doing fine right now and I'd like to give our younger guys some more playing time. |
Woodson is a safety now, he's not going to take PT away from Heyward or House. McMillian has been average to below average recently and MD Jennings has played better, but Im going to take Woodson there 10 times out of 10. |
I think McMillian is playing pretty darn good. No big plays as far as I remember, no significant missed tackles and not many penalties.
Woodson on the other hand has a lot of PIs, a lot of missed tackles and is too slow to cover guys anymore. McMillian should get the majority of the snaps.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNPackfan32
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 5712
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ChaRisMa wrote: | 2011- 1st INTs (by 8!), T-18th FFs.
2010- 2nd INTs, T-15th FFs.
2012 T-6th INTs, T-31st FFs.
Playmaker. Turnover machine. Missing Link. |
Ill take our stats from 2012 every freaking day of the week if it meens we aren't playing like our 2011 defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Packerraymond
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 11854
Location: UW Oshkosh
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| pollino14 wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | pollino14 wrote: | | Is there anyone else who doesn't really want Woodson back? I think our guys are doing fine right now and I'd like to give our younger guys some more playing time. |
Woodson is a safety now, he's not going to take PT away from Heyward or House. McMillian has been average to below average recently and MD Jennings has played better, but Im going to take Woodson there 10 times out of 10. |
I think McMillian is playing pretty darn good. No big plays as far as I remember, no significant missed tackles and not many penalties.
Woodson on the other hand has a lot of PIs, a lot of missed tackles and is too slow to cover guys anymore. McMillian should get the majority of the snaps. |
Guess I disagree, he plays the ball about 1/20th as well as Woodson, that 53 yarder to CJ was under thrown but McMillian never turned to play the ball and it was an easy catch. Same as how Cobb got that TD in the 4th, if a DB doesn't play the ball your just asking for trouble. Im comfortable with McMillian playing whats in front of him but he needs more practice before Im ready to have him be a last line of defense.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ugLymayNe
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 10796
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The thing about Woodson that scares me is that he has been letting up plays since the beginning of 2011. Our defense hasn't missed him on the field whatsoever in my opinion. He is a great leader, played very well for us in the past, but he wasn't this playmaking machine in the seven games he played in this year.
However, which of the starting four right now is the weakest link? McMillian or Tramon(He has been aggravating this year)? I guess the rook, but I'm still disappointed with the way Tramon has played.
_________________
@PJHotel_
| jfinley88 wrote: | | All I drink is capri suns, sunny delight, and womenly alcoholic drinks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramonesfan
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 1402
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ugLymayNe wrote: | | However, which of the starting four right now is the weakest link? McMillian or Tramon(He has been aggravating this year)? I guess the rook, but I'm still disappointed with the way Tramon has played. |
I'll take Woodson's experience over McMillan's at this point. Our young guys could be even better once we get our leader back out there. No other D player is the leader that Woody is.
_________________
| Title Town USA wrote: | I doubt Ted gets any sleep tonight. He'll still be working the phones. Obviously nobody will be answering.
|
NFC North Champions once again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatZepp
Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Brookfield, WI
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
As long as Capers doesn't tamper with what's working having Woodson back is nothing but a good thing. He can play the ball better then anyone, I don't want him taking a lot of time at corner right now though. Full time safety role would be ideal to me.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pollino14
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 15264
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ramonesfan wrote: | | ugLymayNe wrote: | | However, which of the starting four right now is the weakest link? McMillian or Tramon(He has been aggravating this year)? I guess the rook, but I'm still disappointed with the way Tramon has played. |
I'll take Woodson's experience over McMillan's at this point. Our young guys could be even better once we get our leader back out there. No other D player is the leader that Woody is. |
He shouldn't be on the field because he's a "great leader". Fact of the matter is he gambles way too much which leads to many big plays for the other team, and when he gets beat, he holds on to their jerseys like no other.
McMillian hasn't been great, but he certaintly hasn't had costly plays against him like Chuck routinely has.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
