Please Keep Charles Woodson At Cornerback

by Brandon on Jan 19, 2012 10:00 PM CST in Green Bay Packers Analysis

Can Woodson make the transition to safety? | National Football Post. Green Bay Packers CB Charles Woodson is a smart player who would transition just fine if he were asked to move to safety. He'd have some growing pains, but I think they'd be short lived. However I'm not sure who started this discussion. Is this even something the Packers are seriously considering?

Defensive coordinator Dom Capers was hesitant to support the move because of Woodson's ability to play the run. For a defense that spends so much it's time in their nickel package, it's important to have a cornerback who's good in run support.

I don't want Woodson to be shifted to safety because I think he'd lose a lot of his big play ability. He led the league in interceptions last season, and many of those were within a few yards from the line of scrimmage. He's very good at jumping routes, though sometimes he guesses wrong. He'd certainly make some interceptions playing as a deep safety, but I think that number would decline. I'd rather he stay at cornerback.

Poll

Which position should Charles Woodson play in 2012?

Cornerback

488 votes

Safety

191 votes

679 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd qualify my answer...

…with how Shields/Bush/House/Williams/Lee handle the vacant CB spot. If they hold up then I’d say let Chuck roam. If not, keep him at CB…

by soliman on Jan 19, 2012 10:06 PM CST reply actions

it all hinges on them finding/developing a solid replacement to play opposite Williams

but I wouldn’t mind him playing safety at all (if Collins really isn’t able to come back that is). He’s got a nose for the ball, is a good tackler, and can cover almost anyone.

I have a feeling he could be for the Packers what Ed Reed is for the Ravens, and that would be huge.

Basically, would you rather have Williams, Woodson, Burnett, and Shields/replacement, or Williams, Peprah, Burnett, and Woodson?

I’m not real sure which way to lean on that, but if Shields can make some strides in his third year with the team, or House, or someone in the draft… Then I think it’d be a pretty good idea. Should certainly help curb a lot of the big plays given up by blown coverages/missed tackles involving Peprah.

football does not build character, it reveals character.

by sheehan on Jan 19, 2012 10:13 PM CST reply actions

this must be really bad news

concerning Nick Collins

by StevieV17 on Jan 19, 2012 10:13 PM CST reply actions

well there's a strong possibility he's done with football

by rip_city_swagger on Jan 19, 2012 10:33 PM CST up reply actions

I don't think we're strong enough at CB to move him yet

Williams seemed to struggle this year, and Sam Shields isn’t quite ready for full #2 status. I don’t know about how Devon House is looking, but I don’t think any of the other corners are starting material. If Williams an Shields had been awesome this season, i’d be more open to it, but their struggles have me hesitating.

If Collins can’t play anymore, then we are going to have find a solution at that position though

by rip_city_swagger on Jan 19, 2012 10:36 PM CST reply actions

I think their struggles had more to do with the lack of a pass rush than anything...

But that’s just my opinion. I think they’d be able to handle it just fine. I think Collins is the key of whether or not to move him.

*Proud Packers shareholder*
With my last breath, I curse Zoidberg!

by RaY210 on Jan 20, 2012 9:03 AM CST via mobile up reply actions

if he plays at safety

he cannot jump routes and guess wrong, because he is the last line of defense. This takes away a huge part of his game. Plus he is the only player in the league that can play the position that he does for us. He is so versatile that putting him at safety alone is a terrible waste

REPORTER: What do you think is happening to the team?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: The ship be sinking.
REPORTER: How far can it sink?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: Sky's the limit.

by uofmike on Jan 19, 2012 10:56 PM CST via Android app reply actions

3-4 = Safety. 2-4-5 = CB unless they draft another hybrid DB

They cannot run that 2-4-5 with the liabilities they have at LB right now PLUS Sam Shields at that hybrid DB position.

I wish they’d just run 3-4 on run downs.

by Zah on Jan 19, 2012 11:17 PM CST reply actions

2-4-5 = Woodsonback

Eagle Totem - Comprehensive EMU coverage.

by cmadler on Jan 20, 2012 5:11 AM CST up reply actions

Indifferent

There are pros and cons either way, so there’s no real correct answer. If we move Charles Woodson to Safety, we wouldn’t give up nearly as many big plays on defense. On the contrary, we would lose his vital services at the CB position as Brandon mentioned. Either way, Woodson will help our defense. So whatever decision is made, it will help us one way or another. I guess I prefer to keep him at CB considering his role in the Nickel D, but wouldn’t be upset if he moves to Safety knowing we’ll be in a better position to cover the deep ball.

It appears McCarthy and Collins are optimistic for a safe recovery, so hopefully that turns into good results. With the medical advances made in recent years, it’s still a possibility that Nick Collins returns. I believe we’ll find out in March whether or not he’ll return. Hopefully that is not delayed and our Front Office prepares for the next season knowing whether or not he’ll return.

One game at a time...

by Jabooty on Jan 20, 2012 1:36 AM CST reply actions

I am with you

Its a toss up. I think he’d be a very good safety, but I dont’ know that we are ready to lose him back in the CB position.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Jan 20, 2012 9:52 AM CST up reply actions

That's a tough one

I’m a little indifferent myself. He’s so good at jumping short routes. His run support is often overlooked. He’s been one of the best tacklers on the team and has no problem taking down RB’s that try to get to the edge.

With that said, we need help at the safety position if Collins does not return. Our safeties were undisciplined all year, even if you factor in the poor d-line play. I cannot stand to see another year of our DBs giving up huge play after huge playon third and long. I have no doubt that Chuck Woodson would make a great transition to safety much like Rod Woodson did in Pittsburgh. I can see the argument for waiting a year as well.

by Icebowler on Jan 20, 2012 3:29 PM CST up reply actions

Adds a new dimension

I think a move of Woodson to could have a greater impact on the D than keeping him at CB.

I think the timing is right to move him, only if Shields progresses enough during the offseason. It would allow Capers to play a more traditional 3-4; hence fewer plays where only 2 down linemen are on the field and he could move Woodson back to the slot on 3rd down and obvious passing situations.

However, this is contingient upon TT drafting heavily on the defensive side of the ball and grabbing a playmaker early (move up) either DE or OLB.

by Rme MSG on Jan 20, 2012 8:48 AM CST reply actions

CB next year

After the year we can come back to this discussion. If he is wearing down, move him to S for one or two more years.

by Chief Oshkosh on Jan 20, 2012 11:44 AM CST reply actions

I say safety

BUT it would require either A- moving up in the draft and getting a stud CB to replace him or 2- signing a free agent CB as i dont think we have anyone on the team now good enough to be the #2 CB…..and if Tramon doesnt get back to his 2010 form then we would need a #1 CB as Tramon showed this year at least (hopefully just a slump) he cant be counted on as an island CB

by tim24601 on Jan 22, 2012 1:29 PM CST reply actions