Who Powered Through: Chad Clifton and Charles Woodson

by Brandon on Nov 11, 2010 12:00 PM CST

Yes, this is a sponsored post, but it's a Green Bay Packers topic that I should have written about earlier. LT Chad Clifton (knee) and CB Charles Woodson (toe) have been listed on the injury report every week this season, and they are playing through injuries that have caused them pain for years. Instead of struggling with their injuries, both players are playing as well or better than they did last season.

Woodson's interception total is down, though an INT he returned for a touchdown against the Lions was the difference in that game, but all his other stats are as good as last season, or better. His aggressiveness still gets him in some trouble (he had a couple of bad penalties against the Redskins). But he remains their shutdown corner, and he's arguably the key to their blitz packages. I heard him referred to as the best run defender in the league last week, and while that might be a stretch, he's certainly a sound tackler and those skills have rubbed off on the rest of the secondary.

On offense, Clifton is playing much better. He does get beaten at times and he's no great run blocker, but QB Aaron Rodgers and the coaches trust him in pass protection. He's often left alone to take on the opponent's top pass rusher without any help from a tight end or running back. Rodgers has been sacked 17 times over the first 9 games, which is good but not great, however it's nearly one-third of the sacks they allowed through the first 9 games in 2009. Clifton missed four games due to injury early last season, and his string of 19 straight starts (playoff game included) has been a big reason why the pass protection has improved.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I know you have to do them, Brandon

But man, these “sponsored” posts seem like they’re popping up like dandelions. I can’t wait for Friday to come and all SB Nation sites get taken over by Captain Morgan…

by Danwood on Nov 11, 2010 12:26 PM CST reply actions

yeah

combined with the obnoxious background ad it kind of takes something away from the content. But keeping the blog finacially viable has to come first I suppose.

boo capitalism.

by Trent Durrington on Nov 13, 2010 11:18 PM CST up reply actions

Woodson’s not a “shut-down” corner. He’s a “good” corner, but that’s not the same. I remember when that term first started getting used (for Deion), and it’s fine, but let’s not go crazy with it.

It’s kinda’ like how Merrill Hoge likes to call RBs “factor backs” whenever they do something good. That term was first used of guys like Eric Metcalf and (the now infamous) Dave Meggett. …guys who couldn’t carry the load, but could do enough here and there to impact games. I cringe every time Hoge uses it.

by Curly Lambeau on Nov 11, 2010 4:00 PM CST reply actions

Disagree on Wood

I think he IS a shutdown CB. The fact is that he is such a playmaker in every way that it makes little sense to use him in that role! You can use him in such a broad variety of ways that he can create things, that pigeon holing him as a shutdown CB would be a disservice to him and the team! But if you said go out and shut down this player and don’t let him hurt us, he could easily do that! At the same time, he might give up a couple receptions that won’t hurt, but it’ll be toward trying to also make a game changing play!

You've been Stroh'd!!!

by Strohman on Nov 11, 2010 5:59 PM CST up reply actions

I have to agree.

Any corner who draws that much attention in a pre game scouting report is that kind of corner. Just because the sports talking heads don’t talk about him as much because Clay draws a lot of press doesn’t mean he isn’t all that.

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

by AdamA on Nov 11, 2010 8:41 PM CST up reply actions

I agree

Woodson is a shutdown cornor as he affects the entire way an offense works. The reason our blitz packages have worked so well is if woodson isnt blitzing he is the one covering the hot read and 90% of the time a QB wont throw it at woodson he would rather take his chances of finding a different reciever. Woodson makes our whole Defense go along with Clay.

And I know Tramon is playing lights out ATM but the reason Wood doesnt have as many picks is people dont mind throwing it the other corners. they would rather see someone else make a play rather than wood. Wood got a lot of picks before because the other cornor on the field was Harris and he did a rather great job at locking down recievers for a long time. Hopefully Tramon will continue his good play and will force people to go back to attacking Wood which will lead to more picks and more big plays by the Defense

by Charles Heath on Nov 12, 2010 2:06 AM CST up reply actions

no no no

guys guys guys

A shutdown corner is called that because the other team can’t complete passes to whomever he’s covering, and, if they try, the corner will intercept them. There were once players like that (Rod Woodson, Deion Sanders).

Charles has only got one interception this year, right? Teams are routinely attacking him, and he’s not able to make them pay for it. He’s still a fine player, but he’s not a shut-down corner.

by Curly Lambeau on Nov 12, 2010 11:07 AM CST up reply actions

I mean, really. Deion and Rod used to take receivers completely out of the game. Offenses accepted the fact that they wouldn’t be throwing to that side of the field that day.

by Curly Lambeau on Nov 12, 2010 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

Yup…and for a time that is how Champ was and last year Revis and the year before Nnamdi. I haven’t seen anyone play at the level consistently for as long as Deion did though.

by TrevorR on Nov 12, 2010 11:29 AM CST up reply actions

...ummm No.

I recall two that Woodson has- Lions for a TD and the Jets one.

by Darrell L on Nov 12, 2010 12:50 PM CST up reply actions

I gotta disagree here. You put Wood on an elite WR one on one and he’s not going to shut him down. He’ll do an adequate job but he’s never really been a shutdown corner for us. Heck we rarely even have him covering the best WR. His value is in his versatility. I see Wood getting burned from time to time but taht is okay…his value isn’t in being the guy who can shut someone down. This was the argument last year…jack of all trades vs shutdown and the jack won.

by TrevorR on Nov 12, 2010 11:29 AM CST up reply actions

I think Wood can do that if asked too… But as I noted earlier, his value is greater and better used in a variety of ways! If you asked him to be strictly a Shutdown CB he could do it! He gives up some receptions at times but alot of that IMO, is becuz he is baiting the QB and trying to let them think they can throw at him, which is how he gets some of his INT’s.

You've been Stroh'd!!!

by Strohman on Nov 12, 2010 11:57 AM CST up reply actions

I think a true "shutdown" corner

wouldn’t be baiting QB, he’d be on WR like a blanket so the QB doesn’t even think about throwing that way. That’s my opinion, as I think this argument really boils down to semantics.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 12, 2010 12:14 PM CST up reply actions

yeah…shutdown corners aren’t known for their INTs and baiting QBs, they are known for not even allowing the QB to make the throw. They take the WR out of the game forcing the QB to throw to the other guys. We don’t have a shutdown CB on our team and that is okay…there aren’t many out there.

by TrevorR on Nov 12, 2010 1:42 PM CST up reply actions

semantics

Yeah it is a little semantics. Still think he could just as easily completely shut down a WR though. He just tries to bait QB’s to create big plays for himself and the D. Which to me is more valuable than just shutting a WR down completely!

You've been Stroh'd!!!

by Strohman on Nov 12, 2010 2:28 PM CST up reply actions

Sterger talks to the NFL

Ok. So she’s finally talked to the NFL. IF the NFL decides to suspend Favre for a game, when do you think that game would be? IF he is suspended, it seems to me the Packer-Queens game would be the timing of it. This week would be too short of a notice, but next week wouldn’t be.