| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
daintrain28
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 19161
Location: Bettendorf, Iowa
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
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!
Green Bay Packers: Super Bowl XLV Champions!
| packfan4 wrote: | | I hate 50% of Packer fans, I really do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HokieHigh
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 1652
Location: Blacksburg
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
blankman0021
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 1426
Location: Eau Claire
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
^^.flash
Read More. Post Less. Unless you're on Twitter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2Bigby0
Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
ChaRisMa
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 5331
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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+.
_________________
| 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 |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
ChaRisMa
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 5331
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Nickel, sure. But not for base.
_________________
| 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 |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
ChaRisMa
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 5331
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
No one lines up in 3-3-5 on "run" downs. You'd get destroyed.
_________________
| 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 |
|
|
Packerraymond
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 11826
Location: UW Oshkosh
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Willink
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 10975
Location: Albany, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Siman08/OH
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 402
Location: Chatham, Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
