Green Bay Packers Forum
2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline MintBaconDrivel  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:17:09 AM(UTC)
Safeties on the roster
  • FS Jennings, M.D.
  • SS McMillian, Jerron
  • SS Banjo, Chris
  • SS Burnett, Morgan
Sponsor
Offline wpr  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:28:14 AM(UTC)
1. Sure he could show Aaron what it takes to come through a broken collarbone.
2. Not really. He has a lot of savvy there is no doubt. But in his 12 games with Oakland he has not been lights out by any stretch. he may be an upgrade over a few of the Packers safeties but they are not the reason GB is looking so badly. They are merely contributing. With Charles in charge there would still be defensive issues.
Offline warhawk  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:34:58 AM(UTC)
We miss the old Woodson or the younger Woodson. However way you want to put it. I don't see the current Woodson as the player that would make a big difference back there.

We miss Collins. That's who we miss right now.
thanks Post received 3 applause.
play2win on 12/3/2013(UTC), hardrocker950 on 12/3/2013(UTC), nerdmann on 12/3/2013(UTC)
Offline Yerko  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:39:52 AM(UTC)
Yes, 100% yes. Not even because of his play but because of his leadership and the fire he lit under everyone's asses throughout the season. No one on this defense filled his leadership role and no one can get the defense fired up the way he did.

I was talking about this last night and had mentioned Woodson's name during my rant. Last night, while watching the Seahawks play (who I truly hate, aside from Russell Wilson), I was in absolute awe by how their defense was playing. Down two starting caliber CBs against the Saints and this entire defense just absolutely dominated. Not only did they dominate, but they were fired up the entire game. Bodies flying all over the place, being relentless and making sure the guy with the ball was going down and going down hard.

Word for word what I was saying last night...

As much as I hate the Seahawks, their defense can play and has a mean streak. Something I wish the Packers had. Their defense makes a lot of other NFL defenses look like a bunch of bitches. Packers defense is lackadaisical compared to this group. No ownership, no one stepping up and zero fire on the sidelines. Night and day difference. Woodson was the fire of the defense.

Seeing Seattle's defensive coaches on the sideline getting fired up with their players was something I wish we would see with the Packers. It was awesome to see the fire of that entire defense from beginning to end. Made me sick that I liked seeing something Seattle was doing.

And yes, I think the Packers defensive backfield would even need help from the PLAY of Charles Woodson. Big mistake not re-signing him, imo.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 12/3/2013(UTC)
Offline DoddPower  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:27:34 AM(UTC)
Yerko said: Go to Quoted Post
Yes, 100% yes. Not even because of his play but because of his leadership and the fire he lit under everyone's asses throughout the season. No one on this defense filled his leadership role and no one can get the defense fired up the way he did.

I was talking about this last night and had mentioned Woodson's name during my rant. Last night, while watching the Seahawks play (who I truly hate, aside from Russell Wilson), I was in absolute awe by how their defense was playing. Down two starting caliber CBs against the Saints and this entire defense just absolutely dominated. Not only did they dominate, but they were fired up the entire game. Bodies flying all over the place, being relentless and making sure the guy with the ball was going down and going down hard.

Word for word what I was saying last night...

As much as I hate the Seahawks, their defense can play and has a mean streak. Something I wish the Packers had. Their defense makes a lot of other NFL defenses look like a bunch of bitches. Packers defense is lackadaisical compared to this group. No ownership, no one stepping up and zero fire on the sidelines. Night and day difference. Woodson was the fire of the defense.

Seeing Seattle's defensive coaches on the sideline getting fired up with their players was something I wish we would see with the Packers. It was awesome to see the fire of that entire defense from beginning to end. Made me sick that I liked seeing something Seattle was doing.

And yes, I think the Packers defensive backfield would even need help from the PLAY of Charles Woodson. Big mistake not re-signing him, imo.


I agree with everything you said except the part about Charles Woodson. Woodson would have been a marginal upgrade, at best. And even with his so called motivation skills, I still don't think it would have made much of a difference. The Seahawks defense is so good because they have great talent across the board. The Packers do not, and Woodson's intangibles would have only made a slight difference, which would still lead to a crappy defense. From a talent perspective, Woodson is not that good anymore, simply because of age. Those intangibles certainly didn't help the Packers defense much last year.

Offline warhawk  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:47:28 AM(UTC)
I never pictured Woodson as a "fiery" player that pumped players up throughout a game. Yes, in his day, he made plays that pumped the team up but that ability was definitely diminishing when he left here.

I just don't recall a real vocal Woodson on the field.

I think your defensive leader must be a guy that's in there making impact plays and thumping people. I don't disagree this defense doesn't have that kind of player.

I would love to see them pick up an ILB that matches his ILB'er Coaches intensity. A thumper that is putting RB's on their back and making the QB's life miserable.

That's the kind of player that jack's a team up and keeps the intensity level high throughout a whole game.






Offline steveishere  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:06 AM(UTC)
No, Woodson has missed a lot of tackles and hasn't defended many passes or made many big plays. He's a minimal upgrade to Jennings at best and he was set to make 10m dollars. Is the leadership thing a big deal? It's impossible to say so who knows, I don't think it really makes too big a difference though. Leadership or not it's not worth paying more for a guy who doesn't upgrade your teams talent level over a cheaper player.
Offline DarkaneRules  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:17:21 AM(UTC)
Leadership maybe but I have not been impressed with him in Oakland. He is no longer attacking like he used to.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 12/3/2013(UTC)
Offline Yerko  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:54:46 AM(UTC)
warhawk said: Go to Quoted Post
I never pictured Woodson as a "fiery" player that pumped players up throughout a game. Yes, in his day, he made plays that pumped the team up but that ability was definitely diminishing when he left here.

I just don't recall a real vocal Woodson on the field.

I think your defensive leader must be a guy that's in there making impact plays and thumping people. I don't disagree this defense doesn't have that kind of player.

I would love to see them pick up an ILB that matches his ILB'er Coaches intensity. A thumper that is putting RB's on their back and making the QB's life miserable.

That's the kind of player that jack's a team up and keeps the intensity level high throughout a whole game.



I think the Packers would have had this with Des still in the middle but we all know how that story is being played out right now. Again, misfortune with injury. Des would have been this guy though...he WAS that guy.
Offline play2win  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 12:30:02 PM(UTC)
Yerko said: Go to Quoted Post
I think the Packers would have had this with Des still in the middle but we all know how that story is being played out right now. Again, misfortune with injury. Des would have been this guy though...he WAS that guy.


He was, and so was Woodson. Both their days are unfortunately done now.
Offline El3ment12  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 1:18:48 PM(UTC)
Well, woodson was on the roster when Kaepernick set records last year.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:12:04 PM(UTC)
MintBaconDrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
Safeties on the roster
  • FS Jennings, M.D.
  • SS McMillian, Jerron
  • SS Banjo, Chris
  • SS Burnett, Morgan


You're slipping Mint. You forgot my giuy Sean Richardson and also McMilian has been released.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 12/3/2013(UTC)
Offline Dulak  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:46:07 PM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
No, Woodson has missed a lot of tackles and hasn't defended many passes or made many big plays. He's a minimal upgrade to Jennings at best and he was set to make 10m dollars. Is the leadership thing a big deal? It's impossible to say so who knows, I don't think it really makes too big a difference though. Leadership or not it's not worth paying more for a guy who doesn't upgrade your teams talent level over a cheaper player.


While I agree that he may or may not be a big upgrade for what we have ... what we do know is that our secondary; especially the S position is poorly lacking in ability and knowledge. IMO woodson brought knowledge to our team and IMO would of helped the younger guys get into better position. Not worth 10 mil but something ... I mean we are paying brad jones is it 8 mil? or 9?

Offline nerdmann  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:57:39 PM(UTC)
I do believe we miss his leadership. I feel like there's a void there, especially on defense.

But I for one do NOT miss the DPIs and the big plays. He was a great tackler though.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Dulak on 12/3/2013(UTC)
Offline steveishere  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:58:08 PM(UTC)
Dulak said: Go to Quoted Post
While I agree that he may or may not be a big upgrade for what we have ... what we do know is that our secondary; especially the S position is poorly lacking in ability and knowledge. IMO woodson brought knowledge to our team and IMO would of helped the younger guys get into better position. Not worth 10 mil but something ... I mean we are paying brad jones is it 8 mil? or 9?



less than 4
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann


Tweeter