Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Charles Woodson effect..
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 640278" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p>Hindsight is great. As I’ve posted before, we’d all be great GMs if we could go back in time knowing what we know today. Don’t get me wrong, I wish the Packers would have retained Woodson’s services in 2013 (the names M.D. Jennings and Jerron McMillian still send a chill up my spine) but at the time the decision was anything but clear-cut. According to a jsonline story, here’s what Woodson’s contract called for in 2013: <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/agent-hoping-packers-keep-woodson-gi8lqql-189954001.html" target="_blank">http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/agent-hoping-packers-keep-woodson-gi8lqql-189954001.html</a></p><p></p><p>Also keep in mind contract extensions had to be done for Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews in the spring of 2013. And more important than that, IMO some here need to be reminded of the context of Woodson’s career during that off season. Keep in mind he was going to be 37-years old in October of that year and here’s part of a jsonline story written at the end of January 2013: In addition to a recurring injury for a 36-year old: <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/woodsons-future-is-a-key-question-for-packers-pk8grn7-188934491.html" target="_blank">http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/woodsons-future-is-a-key-question-for-packers-pk8grn7-188934491.html</a></p><p></p><p>One thing that made Woodson great was his instincts which led to his freelancing, playmaking ability. But since Woodson had to switch back to safety, Darren Perry expressed a concern about the need for greater discipline at the safety position. Put it all together: A soon to be 37 year old player who looked to be declining “just” had his collar bone broken again; a huge money and cap expenditure on Rodgers and Matthews, and concerns about whether or not Woodson would be disciplined enough to start at safety full time. But here’s the mistake I think the Packers made: Certainly they weren’t going to keep his current contract intact but they should have waived him and told him to bring back the best offer he received in UFA. That deal was about a $4.3M one-year contract with less than a $1M signing bonus. Matching that would have given the Packers insurance at the spot opposite Burnett. But hindsight is 20/20: what if Woodson would have suffered another broken collar bone in 2013?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 640278, member: 4300"] Hindsight is great. As I’ve posted before, we’d all be great GMs if we could go back in time knowing what we know today. Don’t get me wrong, I wish the Packers would have retained Woodson’s services in 2013 (the names M.D. Jennings and Jerron McMillian still send a chill up my spine) but at the time the decision was anything but clear-cut. According to a jsonline story, here’s what Woodson’s contract called for in 2013: [URL]http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/agent-hoping-packers-keep-woodson-gi8lqql-189954001.html[/URL] Also keep in mind contract extensions had to be done for Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews in the spring of 2013. And more important than that, IMO some here need to be reminded of the context of Woodson’s career during that off season. Keep in mind he was going to be 37-years old in October of that year and here’s part of a jsonline story written at the end of January 2013: In addition to a recurring injury for a 36-year old: [URL]http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/woodsons-future-is-a-key-question-for-packers-pk8grn7-188934491.html[/URL] One thing that made Woodson great was his instincts which led to his freelancing, playmaking ability. But since Woodson had to switch back to safety, Darren Perry expressed a concern about the need for greater discipline at the safety position. Put it all together: A soon to be 37 year old player who looked to be declining “just” had his collar bone broken again; a huge money and cap expenditure on Rodgers and Matthews, and concerns about whether or not Woodson would be disciplined enough to start at safety full time. But here’s the mistake I think the Packers made: Certainly they weren’t going to keep his current contract intact but they should have waived him and told him to bring back the best offer he received in UFA. That deal was about a $4.3M one-year contract with less than a $1M signing bonus. Matching that would have given the Packers insurance at the spot opposite Burnett. But hindsight is 20/20: what if Woodson would have suffered another broken collar bone in 2013? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Today at 12:29 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Cornelius Weems
Today at 12:05 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:29 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 7:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:52 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Charles Woodson effect..
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
