Comments on: Packers won't move Woodson to safety this year

By: joetoronto

joetoronto — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:58:35 +0000

Woodson would be an awesome safety.
I remember the Raiders would put him at SS when playing against Gonzo and the Chiefs.
The guy is an excellent tackler, he’s strong, smart as hell, and strips the ball like nobody else.

By: packers4life

packers4life — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:59:28 +0000

“Woodson’s cover skills have always been grossly exaggerated. If not for all of the contact he used to get away with, he would have been average at best, which is what he was in Oakland, where he actually got flagged, like he is again now. And we all see his struggles when forced to play by the rules.”
What exaggerated? I have never heard people call Woodson a good cover corner. People pay as much attention to him as they do because he is a playmaker.

By: JamaicanCheeseHead.Bmore

JamaicanCheeseHead.Bmore — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:54:13 +0000

A move to safety is good if and when al come back.

By: Neverend

Neverend — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:01:08 +0000

His skill set fits safety
He’s excellent against the run
He reads and anticipates routes very well
Has good play recognition
Very good backpeddal and hips
His only bad thing is that he’s bad at the line of scrimmage. So why not move him to safety?

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:02:54 +0000

A “guesser with great anticipation and instincts”… for where to go when the opposing team throws a pass? Sounds to me like he can still cover pretty well.

By: 2MuchTime

2MuchTime — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:31:58 +0000

Tonight won’t be dull

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:31:16 +0000

Woodson’s cover skills have always been grossly exaggerated. If not for all of the contact he used to get away with, he would have been average at best, which is what he was in Oakland, where he actually got flagged, like he is again now. And we all see his struggles when forced to play by the rules.