Cornerbacks: Charles Woodson and Mike McKenzie

by Brandon on Dec 3, 2009 7:00 AM CST in News Comment 17 comments

The awards keep coming in for CB Charles Woodson. He's already been named NFC defensive player of the week, and it's been reported by the Journal-Sentinel and the Press-Gazette, that he'll be named NFC defensive player of the month too.

Pro Football Talk reported that the Green Bay Packers wanted CB Mike McKenzie too, but he chose to sign with the Saints instead. He grabbed an INT in his first game back for the Saints. As for the rumor that the Packers wanted McKenzie, but apparently settled for signing CB Josh Bell instead, I don't expect that's the whole story. Maybe they did actually contact McKenzie's agent, but the whole article written by Mike Florio is without a link to another source. And Florio hasn't proven to be the most reliable source of information.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

And Florio hasn’t proven to be the most reliable source of information.

No, indeed he has not. Funny thing is, he’s a lawyer. You’d think a lawyer would be better at relying on the facts and avoiding over-speculation… NOPE. Not Foolio.

He can write a story without citing a single source! He can make statements like “rumors are flying around that [player name] is in very serious talks with [team name],” because once Foolio creates the rumor and puts it on the internet, it will begin to fly around.

He can say things like “most people agree that [insert absurd opinion here]” without ever explaining who “most people” are because he is JUST THAT DUDE.

And to think NBC gave that asshat a contract…

"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden

by jackmca on Dec 3, 2009 7:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Why is it so hard to believe that the Packers and Thompson pursued McKenzie? I don’t get it… Face it McKenzie would have been much like Harris. He is a tough, physical CB who excels in press coverage, just like Harris! Thompson has already brought back Tausch and Green to help in the stretch run, McKenzie would be in much the same position as them. He would allow Capers to continue to play Woodson in multiple roles too…

And, even though alot of fans assume it was Thompson that McKenzie had his trouble with, it was actually Sherman. The Sherman/McKenzie situation is WHY Harlan decided to go back to seperate GM and HC!!! Its not like McKenzie had ANY problems w/ THompson!

McKenzie signed w/ the team he had been playing the past 5 years, who happen to be the best shot at McKenzie getting a ring!!!

by Strohman on Dec 3, 2009 8:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Packers defense is good

Of course they need depth in the secondary. It would be foolish for the Packers not to pursue someone with experience.

I am still frustrated with the switch to 3-4. Imagine how much better the Packers defense might be if they did not switch? Then again, injuries were always the issue with this team. It may not have made much difference when I think about it. The biggest problems were on the offense (specifically the O-line). Yet, injuries in the secondary were probably the second biggest problem. That is what killed the Packers last year as well, too many injuries on defense.

While losing Harris may not be as terrible as some people might think, Green Bay cannot afford to lose anyone else. They need depth, and they need it bad. If the Packers lose another safety or CB, then it could cost the Packers a game or two and that could mean Green Bay missing the playoffs again!

I am impressed by how the Packers have turned their season around. I was wrong when I predicted they would fall apart. This next week’s game is crucial.

by starmark on Dec 3, 2009 9:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

How would our defense be better?

When was the last time we had a defense ranked in the top 10 or even top half of the league? The 90s when Reggie White was here?

by Jabooty on Dec 3, 2009 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

3-4 Ain't So Bad... Stop Crying!

Beginning of the season, everyone pretty much knew there’d be growing pains with the new defensive scheme but guess what? The Pack are a top ten defense with it. Next season? Probably even better, provided they stay healthy.

Gotta admit, McKenzie did look good his first game back. But I’ve only read good things about Bell and not just from the Packer PR team (though they are selling that one pretty hard). If they lock up a playof spot, I wonder if we’ll see him get some start time before the playoffs.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi

by AdamA on Dec 3, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

McKensie didn’t look good…he looked GREAT. He was alert, confident, and looked like a pro bowler. That said, its one game…we’ll see how he looks from here out. I didn’t think the Packers would actually show interest in him but I guess they may have. I don’t blame Mike for choosing the Saints though…they are clearly the better team and with his history here it would be tough to come back.

by TrevorR on Dec 3, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay this argument worked in week 3 when things were coming unraveled a bit, but you can’t actually watch this team and not like what you are seeing from the 3-4. The D still needs to be tested somewhat, but I really like what I am seeing and its just our first yera in the system using converted 3-4 players. Honestly take what we have now (Kampman and Harris both out) and put it back in the 4-3 and honestly we are a worse D. Losing Kampman for the year in that system would have KILLED us.

I agree that losing another corner or safety would kill them, but heck, what team wouldn’t be hurting missing 2 starting dbacks? The key is that they lost two of their highest paid, highest performing players from the last 5 years and they are still looking very good. This week will be a real test…they’ve come on strong but if they can beat Bmore I think it will send a real message to the league…and on primetime TV.

Give this D some time, its our first year in it and its only going to get better!!

by TrevorR on Dec 3, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Um...

“I am still frustrated with the switch to 3-4. Imagine how much better the Packers defense might be if they did not switch?”

Bwahahahaha.

hahaha.

haha.

ha.

Ok I’m done.

by Archibaldcrane on Dec 3, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if we wanted Mckenzie

I don’t think he’d even consider playing for us. Didn’t he absolutely hate the packers organization when he demanded that trade? I understand that most of the pieces have changed, but I would have been shocked if we got him

Friends don't let friends be cub fans

by BIGPAMPERINO on Dec 3, 2009 1:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I have to laugh

Our defense this year is far, far better than last year————- boring numbers from NFL.com : Total Def - 2008 :20th 2009 : 1st Pass Def—- 2008 :12th 2009 : 6th Rush Def - 2008 : 26th 2009 : 4th. You would have to be seriously smoking some good stuff to think that the 4-3 would be better for our team. We had basically the same players from last year with the exception of clay mathews being an impact player. Keep in mind we STILL, yes still have the youngest team in the NFL. What is killing us this year (just my opinion) is special teams. I think aging CB issues and OL issues will be addressed in next years draft or free agency. I don’t believe that signing players who have a year or 2 in em is the answer either so I can’t say I am disappointed in not signing McKenzie.

by turd on Dec 3, 2009 4:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

What ever happened to Patrick Lee?

Selgy

by mittens on Dec 3, 2009 6:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

He’s on IR. He actually has shown some promise and I’m hoping he’ll turn into a serviceable CB for us in the future. It certainly helps that he has what is probably the best CB in the league to learn from.

by packallday555 on Dec 3, 2009 10:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope the Bears keep winning so they don't wind up with Bill Cowher

battlekow: Bill is having an oppo-gasm

by Michael M on Dec 3, 2009 7:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm worried about that too.

I think he would be a perfect fit for them. I could see them becoming a scary team under him. It would be so sweet if we still kicked their a$$ twice a year though :-D

by Shamalamadingdong on Dec 4, 2009 1:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think they really need a new coach. Keep in mind that did lose Urlacher and Pina the whole season..The LBs are the most important part of their defense because they play mainly cover 2, and Urlacher is excellent at dropping back into coverage, and their LBs are usually crucial in stopping the run as they like to line up in the gaps.

Their WRs are inexperienced and this has hurt Cutler and Pace needs to retire. All they really need is the hurt guys back, a LT, an experienced WR, and maybe another Cb. I know they got killed by the Bengals and Vikes but they played Atlanta and the Eagles very close and could have won both games.

I don’t know, it seems like people feel like their at the same status as the Lions and that just isn’t the case. And I’m not sure why I’m defending the Bears…

by packallday555 on Dec 4, 2009 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think they really need a new coach.

I don’t think that most of the Bares fans over at Windy City Griddle agree with you on that one. – ;)

The glass is more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Dec 5, 2009 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think they do either but every team talks about getting a new coach when they are struggling just like we did after our loss to the Bucs.

Just think about how different things would be if they had Urlacher and Pina. Their pass rush has been good but they’ve been getting torched over the middle in the passing game and running game. Having Urlacher playing up in that A gap, and being able to drop back deep into coverage would significantly improve their defense as well as having Pina back.

by packallday555 on Dec 5, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs