http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football ... htm?csp=34
Great homage to our badass corners, Harris and Woodson, and some great quotes overall.
Absolutely Great USA Today Article on GB D
Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation
Absolutely Great USA Today Article on GB D
-
LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,762
- And1: 6,963
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
-
-
ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 107,808
- And1: 42,120
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact:
-
LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,762
- And1: 6,963
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
-
DrugBust wrote:Wow. I think we have a fine defense and all, but holy balls. I don't know that the Ravens ever had an article like this written about their defensive unit.
I'm sure they did, but I get your point. I think the main tone of the article is surprise and just paying notice to the D and that it's up and coming.
The scary part? Woodson and Harris are the only starters on our D over 27 years old.
-
El Duderino
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,545
- And1: 1,328
- Joined: May 30, 2005
- Location: Working on pad level
The scary part? Woodson and Harris are the only starters on our D over 27 years old.
That's good for the most part except that both corners could drop in skills pretty quickly and i don't see a young corner on the roster that i'm confident could step in and be a quality starter.It has surprised me somewhat at how few corners Thompson has drafted given the importance of the position and need for multiple ones on the roster.
One thing that is pretty amazing to me is how well Woodson still plays even though it looks to me that he isn't fast at all to my eyes.Seeing him return punts and even that fumble return vs the Skins makes me wonder what his 40 time is now?He had trouble outrunning the Redskins QB on that run after the fumble.It's true Campbell had an angle on Woodson,but a guy like Collins would have made it to the end zone with ease.He obviously has great instincts and smarts to help compensate for his wheels leaving him some.I just wonder how much longer he can be very effective if/when he loses even more speed.
-
LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,762
- And1: 6,963
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
-
Agreed on DB's behind Woodson and Harris, Dude. That is why I think we draft a DB high this year, in a pretty solid DB draft. The DL is set for years to come, as are the LB's (although I think some could argue we need to replace Popps, but I like him). We could use a stud safety, but I think we're solid there.
A guy like Cason would look good in a Packer uniform.
A guy like Cason would look good in a Packer uniform.
-
eagle13
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,145
- And1: 107
- Joined: Feb 15, 2007
- Location: san diego
I've said our DB depth sucked since before camp. Wanted a 1st day CB pick in draft but...
Dude is right Harris & Woodson could erode real fast. Watch if they get more and more penalites. A few are OK since they are aggressive. Many says they cannot adjust or keep up anymore.
Blackmon is fragile and besides has never proved anything yet at CB.
Bush looks more and more like a fast Dendy.
Drafting one high is no guarantee. Rookie CBs bust as much or more than any other position plus they often need a year or two to get it together.
IF a good vet FA CB is available next year - I pay the price to get him. AND draft one.
Next year 1st day = 3 of these 4 = CB, RB, TE, LT.
2nd day need starting SSLB and more CBs.
Dude is right Harris & Woodson could erode real fast. Watch if they get more and more penalites. A few are OK since they are aggressive. Many says they cannot adjust or keep up anymore.
Blackmon is fragile and besides has never proved anything yet at CB.
Bush looks more and more like a fast Dendy.
Drafting one high is no guarantee. Rookie CBs bust as much or more than any other position plus they often need a year or two to get it together.
IF a good vet FA CB is available next year - I pay the price to get him. AND draft one.
Next year 1st day = 3 of these 4 = CB, RB, TE, LT.
2nd day need starting SSLB and more CBs.
-
xTitan
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,135
- And1: 2,283
- Joined: Mar 03, 2006
-
Ayt wrote:CB is definitely high on my list. I hope we take one in the 1st and then again in the 3rd or 4th. Bush has been decent and we still don't know what we have in Blackmon, but we need some fresh blood there since our D relies so heavily on quality corners.
Great article overall.
Couldn't agree with you more...definitely would love a DB in the first round.....I believe GB really wanted the CB out of Pitt who I think the Jets drafted, his name eludes me, but he was picked right before Harrell.
-
ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 107,808
- And1: 42,120
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact:
I agree that a DB, is there's a good one available, would be a nice addition in round one.
But I don't agree that that Woodson and/or Harris are legit risks to drop in terms of ability all that quick. Neither relies on speed. They're physical technicians that succeed because of what they do at the line and because they don't take false steps.
If these two were guys that got by based upon their speed I'd be worried.
That said, I'm basically all for BPA next spring. I could see the Packers going with a OLB, CB, S, TE, OG, OT, or RB. The only positions I doubt they go are D-Line, WR and QB. It's pretty early, of course, but if they're picking in the 20's my personal wish list would probably be:
1 - Keith Rivers - OLB
2 - Reggie Smith - CB/S
3 - Dan Connor - OLB
4 - Felix Jones - RB
5 - Justin King - CB/Ret
I don't really have an opinion yet on a lot of other players that could go in that range. But I've seen the above extensively and any of 'em would be great in Green and Gold.
But I don't agree that that Woodson and/or Harris are legit risks to drop in terms of ability all that quick. Neither relies on speed. They're physical technicians that succeed because of what they do at the line and because they don't take false steps.
If these two were guys that got by based upon their speed I'd be worried.
That said, I'm basically all for BPA next spring. I could see the Packers going with a OLB, CB, S, TE, OG, OT, or RB. The only positions I doubt they go are D-Line, WR and QB. It's pretty early, of course, but if they're picking in the 20's my personal wish list would probably be:
1 - Keith Rivers - OLB
2 - Reggie Smith - CB/S
3 - Dan Connor - OLB
4 - Felix Jones - RB
5 - Justin King - CB/Ret
I don't really have an opinion yet on a lot of other players that could go in that range. But I've seen the above extensively and any of 'em would be great in Green and Gold.
-
TheGhostDog
- Senior
- Posts: 639
- And1: 2
- Joined: Mar 05, 2007
A good read, but one quote by McCarthy really alarms me:
"I find [Woodson] remarkable on punt returns. He always makes good decisions. He doesn't fair catch. He always advances the ball 6, 8, 10 to 12 yards. At the end of the day, he's responsible for another 60 to 70 yards of field positions."
Well yes, but ...
1, Woodson no longer has the speed to break a big return, and
2, because he isn't a true home run threat - heck his 7.5 yard average this year (8.0 lifetime) is just that, average, and he's NEVER returned a punt for a TD in his NFL career - the small benefit we get from having Woodson return punts in no way comes close to justifying the injury risk we run by exposing an irreplaceable (given our current roster) cornerback to unnecessary hits every Sunday. And should I add that Woodson had a crucial return fumble that helped cost us the Bears game and that he missed 22 games over his final 4 Raider seasons to injury and he's only getting older?! I am generally in TT and McCarthy's corner on most of their decisions but every week that passes without a replacement for Woodson at punt returner feels like another foolhardy spin at Russian roulette.
"I find [Woodson] remarkable on punt returns. He always makes good decisions. He doesn't fair catch. He always advances the ball 6, 8, 10 to 12 yards. At the end of the day, he's responsible for another 60 to 70 yards of field positions."
Well yes, but ...
1, Woodson no longer has the speed to break a big return, and
2, because he isn't a true home run threat - heck his 7.5 yard average this year (8.0 lifetime) is just that, average, and he's NEVER returned a punt for a TD in his NFL career - the small benefit we get from having Woodson return punts in no way comes close to justifying the injury risk we run by exposing an irreplaceable (given our current roster) cornerback to unnecessary hits every Sunday. And should I add that Woodson had a crucial return fumble that helped cost us the Bears game and that he missed 22 games over his final 4 Raider seasons to injury and he's only getting older?! I am generally in TT and McCarthy's corner on most of their decisions but every week that passes without a replacement for Woodson at punt returner feels like another foolhardy spin at Russian roulette.