Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Woodson's Return
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
daintrain28


FF Fanatic

Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 19643
Location: Bettendorf, Iowa
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A) There is no question Woodson is an important part of our defense going forward, but he will not be anywhere near his 2010 level.
B) Jerron McMillian is the future at the FS position.
C) The only way he's going to be at the level making our defense a viable contender is to get him playing time in the interim.
_________________

Thanks packerbacker87 for the sig!
I Am Rodgers wrote:
We traded MD Jennings for Julius Peppers. TT DA WHITE WIZARD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
HokieHigh


Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 1872
Location: Blacksburg
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do you think Woodson's contract is restructured for next year? He is probably worth 4-6 million to this team, MAX IMO.

We have other guys we can lock up that are bigger upgrades compared to our depth than Woodson is. If I was Mac and I felt that the team was fine without Woodson's leadership, I would have to very seriously consider letting him walk.

What are the cap changes associated with cutting him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 1923
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HokieHigh wrote:
What do you think Woodson's contract is restructured for next year? He is probably worth 4-6 million to this team, MAX IMO.

We have other guys we can lock up that are bigger upgrades compared to our depth than Woodson is. If I was Mac and I felt that the team was fine without Woodson's leadership, I would have to very seriously consider letting him walk.

What are the cap changes associated with cutting him?


Rotoworld wrote:
9/9/2010: Signed a five-year, $55 million contract. The deal included $21 million in advances and bonuses. 2012: $6.5 million (+ $4 million roster bonus due in April + $1 million in per-game roster bonuses + $1.063 million in possible incentives), 2013-2014: $6.5 million (+ $2.5 million roster bonus + $1 million in per-game roster bonuses), 2015: Free Agent


2013/2014 we should avoid the roster bonus and per-game bonus by cutting him. So we would owe him whatever the balance of his prorated signing bonus is...which I can't find since it only lists 2012-2014 of the contact signed in 2010.
_________________


The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2Bigby0


Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 626
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really think TT will let the rest of the season play out before seriously deciding what to do with Charles Woodson. Fact is, Charles is going to come back and he honestly improves the coverage from our secondary, especially at the safety position. Honestly, teams have been going after the McMillian/Jennings combo. I like Wood in this role as full-time safety. No real place for a QB to attack.

We don't really employ much of a 3-4 defense, however we will still use it against teams like Chicago, Minnesota, and San Francisco. Also, teams that use the running game as their primary offensive attack.

But the 3-3-5 is something that is really used in college, however has been incredibly successful with our defense this year. In fact, Woodson gives us a greater flexibility in the 3-3-5 defense. His ability to play on the line of scrimmage, as a hybrid linebacker and cover tight ends is imperative to our success.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 6495
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

2Bigby0 wrote:
I really think TT will let the rest of the season play out before seriously deciding what to do with Charles Woodson. Fact is, Charles is going to come back and he honestly improves the coverage from our secondary, especially at the safety position. Honestly, teams have been going after the McMillian/Jennings combo. I like Wood in this role as full-time safety. No real place for a QB to attack.

We don't really employ much of a 3-4 defense, however we will still use it against teams like Chicago, Minnesota, and San Francisco. Also, teams that use the running game as their primary offensive attack.

But the 3-3-5 is something that is really used in college, however has been incredibly successful with our defense this year. In fact, Woodson gives us a greater flexibility in the 3-3-5 defense. His ability to play on the line of scrimmage, as a hybrid linebacker and cover tight ends is imperative to our success.


We rarely if ever play a 33. We're a 24 team to the core. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that McMillian is better covering TEs than Woodson is at this point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7257
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can't play 3-3-5 without a few key pieces. If you had a JJ Watt, a Patrick Willis, and a Charles Woodson from 2009, you could play it and it would be deadly paired with our offense. We don't have the front 6 to play that defense on anything other than 2nd and 3rd and 7+.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 6495
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
You can't play 3-3-5 without a few key pieces. If you had a JJ Watt, a Patrick Willis, and a Charles Woodson from 2009, you could play it and it would be deadly paired with our offense. We don't have the front 6 to play that defense on anything other than 2nd and 3rd and 7+.


I think you're exagerrating what you'd need for a 33. Plenty of teams run a 33 nickel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7257
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nickel, sure. But not for base.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 6495
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
Nickel, sure. But not for base.


Most teams run a Nickel more than 50% of the time. The 3-3 isn't something mystical. A lot of teams just want to get their best pass rushers on the field regardless of who that is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7257
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No one lines up in 3-3-5 on "run" downs. You'd get destroyed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 14387
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
You can't play 3-3-5 without a few key pieces. If you had a JJ Watt, a Patrick Willis, and a Charles Woodson from 2009, you could play it and it would be deadly paired with our offense. We don't have the front 6 to play that defense on anything other than 2nd and 3rd and 7+.


Our best game defensively might have been last week, a game in which we didn't play one single down of 3-4 base. We have the personnel to run the 3-3-5 for the rest of the year.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 6495
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
No one lines up in 3-3-5 on "run" downs. You'd get destroyed.


But our 2-4 somehow works?????

Obviously you don't use it on the goal line
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willink


Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 11555
Location: Rochester, NY
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
Nickel, sure. But not for base.


Most teams run a Nickel more than 50% of the time. The 3-3 isn't something mystical. A lot of teams just want to get their best pass rushers on the field regardless of who that is.


FWIW iirc Packers + Giants ran nickle above or around 70% of the time in 2010.
_________________

Quote:
If I have not lost my mind I can sometimes hear it preparing to defect
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 6495
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

daintrain28 wrote:
A) There is no question Woodson is an important part of our defense going forward, but he will not be anywhere near his 2010 level.
B) Jerron McMillian is the future at the FS position.
C) The only way he's going to be at the level making our defense a viable contender is to get him playing time in the interim.


I question the first part of A
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Siman08/OH


Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 684
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said Woodson would be 2010 level, but he's still our 2nd best DB. Like mentioned, he still has a knack for the ball and he can still tackle. I wouldnt pair him up with WR #1/#2, but at S or slot he will still produce for us. His legs will be nice and fresh for the playoff run and we can use the leadership.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group