Woodson is out the door, Peterson on the way

[Angel]

Woodson is out the door, Peterson on the way
- Nancy Gay
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Al Davis always has loved having Heisman Trophy winners on his Raiders roster. Cornerback Charles Woodson has one of those on his resume, and for eight seasons he worked that bit of leverage with the big man upstairs for all it was worth.

But at a price tag exceeding $12.6 million -- the cost of a third consecutive franchise tag for an oft-injured defensive back who hasn't played a full 16-game season since 2001 -- Woodson's value as a collector's item has expired.

And his days in a Raiders uniform are over.

The deadline for NFL teams to place franchise or transition tags on players is Thursday, and neither Bay Area team will use the designation on its roster.

So prepare to say goodbye to Woodson and, in all likelihood, 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson. Both are free-agents-to-be and 2005 franchise players who would command 20 percent raises over last year's salaries, thanks to a stipulation in the soon-to-expire collective bargaining agreement.

Woodson cost the Raiders $10.529 million in '05 and played in all of six games because of a fractured fibula. He accounted for more than one-eighth of the team's entire payroll. Once a team leader, he completely disappeared from the locker room after being injured in an Oct. 23 game against Buffalo.

"He's finally gone. There is no value in bringing him back, period,'' said an NFL source, confirming that the Raiders will not tag Woodson a third consecutive year.

Peterson, who remains an influential, stand-up player among his teammates, started 14 games in '05 -- admirable after returning from career-threatening Achilles surgery. But a hamstring injury limited him last season. And he would cost the team $8.6 million in '06, including the built-in raise.

Mike Nolan, the 49ers' coach, has been up-front about his reluctance to invest so much cash in a single player, especially on a team with so many pressing needs.

"No player will be bigger than the team,'' Nolan said Tuesday, putting it as plainly as he could. "I don't think there's someone on the roster right now who I think is bigger than the team.''

Of course, Nolan has used that reasoning as a disciplinary tool (re: Jamie Winborn).

"But it's also important from a (salary) cap standpoint,'' Nolan said. "If you put so much into one player, that player becomes more important than the team. When it comes to franchise tags, you have to be careful who you put it on. And when it comes to a first-time franchise player versus a second-time franchise player, the numbers just get out of whack.''

Add to this the uncertainty of the NFL's labor situation with its players, and the once-liberal use of the franchise tag becomes a bigger risk -- especially for teams such as the 49ers and Raiders without fancy new stadiums and huge revenue streams.

The current CBA between the NFL Players Association and the league will expire after the coming season. Both sides are working to strike a deal before March 3 to avoid postponement of the free-agency signing period and the prospect of an uncapped '07.

That would mean no spending limits for big-money franchises -- think of the Redskins' Dan Snyder becoming another George Steinbrenner -- and tough sledding for the Bay Area teams, which depend on the current CBA's revenue-sharing scheme and salary cap to stay remotely competitive.

"You have to watch how you spend your money right now,'' Nolan said.

All of this means a probable end to Peterson's career as a 49er unless management can hammer out a deal to keep him from becoming an unrestricted free agent when that period is scheduled to begin March 3.

Woodson, whom the Raiders franchised in 2004 and '05, already knows he's outta there. His representative, the elusive Carl Poston, has not contacted the Raiders' front office once this offseason.

The days of begging Davis for a long-term contract are over. Woodson and his agent know it.

When he likely ends up in Tampa Bay -- the traditional repository for discarded Raiders players -- the Raiders will get a huge chunk of the payroll back. And a clean break.

Both are long overdue.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/22/SPG10HCBCB1.DTL

 

[Crossbones]

Not much of a surprise. No way can the Raiders pay that kind of money to a guy who has been on and off the field way to much in the last 4-5 years.

The stage is yours Fabs and Nnamdi!

 

[Rupert]

Yes indeed. Don't forget your boy Stanford.

 

[Crossbones]

Yes indeed. Don't forget your boy Stanford.

D'oh.

Actaully I like Routt. (Still hated the pick at that point in time after we took Fabs).

Routt showed me a few things. His speed IS a huge asset. He can only get better IMO.

 

[Plunkett16]

D'oh.

Actaully I like Routt. (Still hated the pick at that point in time after we took Fabs).

Routt showed me a few things. His speed IS a huge asset. He can only get better IMO.

Wow! I am impress crossbones. I remember you really didn't like this kid and wow. see even fabian showed he wants to be raider

 

[Rupert]

D'oh.

Actaully I like Routt. (Still hated the pick at that point in time after we took Fabs).

Routt showed me a few things. His speed IS a huge asset. He can only get better IMO.

Routt was pretty good at man coverage. He just needs to learn how to play the ball better. Instincts. I think he thought he was in over his head and played a little desperate. Do you really need to swat the receiver when you're practically in his shirt? I don't think so. He's got to believe he belongs.

 

[TommyGirl]

Good point, Rupert, but until the Raiders can gel a defense where I can definitively say, "Yeah, they're in Cover-2...Now they're in 6-1, Cover 0," it ain't gonna matter who they have at corner.

In addition, aside from a solid pass rush, the safeties are a definite weak point on this defense. (I know, Crow. I shouldn't get started.) Until this glaring weakness is addressed, they could have Chris McAlister and Nate Clements back there and it still wouldn't matter.

 

[Crossbones]

Our pass rush sucks (sorta)!

This is exactly why I want Mario Williuams in the worst way. Sure Burgess was great last season but can we expect that kind of production from him again this year? And furthermore, when Derrick wan't harassing the QB most times nobody was and the safeties and corners were the ones being harassed!

Make that passs rush more effective and our secondary as a whole will be better.

Get me Archulta to play SS and that will help some too.

 

[Rupert]

TommyGirl: Let's get this started. Why don't you think having the best corners in the game wouldn't matter?

 

[Angel]

I imagine for the kind of money Woodson wants, most Raider fans are more than happy to watch him go!!

 

[TommyGirl]

TommyGirl: Let's get this started. Why don't you think having the best corners in the game wouldn't matter?

In my opinion, it wouldn't matter if the Raiders had the best corners in the game because they have mediocre safeties (at best). Until the safeties we have get some hella good coaching or until they get some with instincts, the secondary is still going to suck. I should, however, preface the following criticisms by saying that my standards for safeties are nearing the point of being unreasonable and unless the Raiders picked up the love child of Steve Atwater and Troy Polamalu, I'd probably not be happy.

But I digress. It's my belief that safeties are getting increasing responsibilities on the field and that the position is requiring some amount of intelligence and instinct. Teams can (and should) no longer scout someone who's simply a hard hitter. Those days have passed. I believe defenses have become more complicated, partly in response to offenses becoming more complicated, but probably equally because defensive philosophies have shifted. What I mean to say is that offense used to almost solely dictate how defenses were run. The philosophy has shifted to a degree. Now, defenses know they can often dictate what the offense does. We see offensive coordinators that have to plan for defenses instead of vice-versa. The best example I can give of this is probably Pittsburgh. You can pretty well bet that Holmgren's staff damn well had to account for Pittsburgh's D. Same thing with the Bears. This, of course, is a broad generality, but the point I'm trying to make is that the defensive scheming has become more complicated and if there are any weak links, the whole system fails.

In addition, I believe that we're seeing more and more complicated zone packaging in comparison to even five years ago. Five years ago, the most exotic and effective defense we saw was in Tampa with that notorious "Tampa-2." The safeties were critical in that scheme and other teams have followed suit. Why wouldn't they? Tampa's D dictated the offensive schemes being played against them. However, since then, the weaknesses in the Tampa-2 have been discovered. In essence, if you run straight at it and reconcile yourself to taking dumpoff passes, then it's less effective. That makes sense. When you have corners playing the run and safeties primarily in deep zone, there's some vulnerabilities. Consequently, defenses have evolved even in the past five years. Many teams are still using Cover-2 as their base package (Colts, Rams, Bears, Tampa, Baltimore, etc.), but there are multiple fronts and alignments that are thrown in for good measure not to mention that lots of teams are swapping in and out of 3-4 and 4-3. It takes a lot of smarts, particularly for linebackers and safeties since they have to read run and pass.

More directly to your request, Rupert, relates to my the last sentence. Corners almost exclusively read pass first as they respond solely to the opposing receiver. They only read run when the run has developed and the runner has penetrated to the secondary level (broad statement, but mostly true unless we're accounting for corner blitzing gone awry). Safeties, no matter WHAT package, have to read both. Not only that, how many times do you see a safety lined up against a slot receiver? I'd wager many. It's not a position where they can have a weakness and still be effective anymore. Imagine Cliff Harris in today's NFL...See my point?

Now, to show how and why I think the Raiders could have Clements and McAlister to no avail, I'll just point out the year that the Raiders started Dorsett and (gulp) Pope at safety. How good did Woodson and Eric Allen (arguably VERY good corners) look that year? When your corners have more tackles than your safeties, there's a problem. BIG problem. I can't tell you how many times I saw Woodson seemingly reluctant to release to the safeties and they were playing WAY deeper zone than they should've been in order to account for the weak-ass safety product the Raiders put on the field that year.

If another example is needed, look at Cincinnati last season. When Madieu Williams went down, the run defense and relative inexperience of the linebackers (rookies) was exploited. Add a good safety or two into that mix in Cincinnati and you have a Superbowl team. That's how important they are.

Anyway, I've gone a long way about simply stating that the Raiders have got to scout their safeties a whole lot better. It's a thorn in my side and has been for the past ten years or so. Rod Woodson was the only bright spot that lightened my bitching in that respect. Can I live with what's there now? Not really. Schweigert is fairly good in pass coverage, but is a horrible tackler. Jarod Cooper is better at tackling, but sucks in pass coverage. Until they're coached or until the Raiders get themselves some better-rounded safeties, it won't matter how well Scrabble and Fabian Washington play, not to mention that Scrabble's potential has been hindered by the bonehead decision to play him at corner, then safety, then corner. Ugh.

*Tommy crawls off soapbox*

Did this get it started?

Edit: P.S. I would be happy with Kenoy Kennedy at SS (too bad he's not available), but will settle for Adam Archuleta. They need depth. Ain't none now. And I will become a fan of the Arizona Cardinals if Al drafts Huff. So let it be written.

 

[Crossbones]

Oh, this was very good...

First..."rep" for that one Dr. Tommy! Solid stuff there.

I can't tell you how many times I saw Woodson seemingly reluctant to release to the safeties and they were playing WAY deeper zone than they should've been in order to account for the weak-ass safety product the Raiders put on the field that year.

This is sooooo very true.

Woodson would seemed trapped trying to look over his left shoulder to see if the safety was really there before releasing the receiver and in the mean time we get burned in the middle of the field or that side of the zone because C-Wood couldn't rely on the safety doing his job. Saw that a lot!

 

[TommyGirl]

You know, some of this stuff is better not seen live. Seriously. I went to the Minnesota game in Oakland that year (my first game at the HOT) and Woodson shut Moss down. And yet...I still wasn't happy because I saw the reluctance we just mentioned. Wow, we've had some bad safeties.

Then, the second game I see at the HOT was last year's Dolphins game. In that one, I was mad when I left because Collins and his inability to see wide open receivers all...day...long.

I think I'll never go to the HOT again.

 

[Crossbones]

I think I'll never go to the HOT again.

Never say never...

If I get my second wind there may be another "Journey to the House of Thrills" in 2006! Stay tuned.

 

[Rupert]

TommyGirl: I agree, but I don't think you need great safeties to be successful, and in many zones, a common twist (to confuse the offense) is to use corner force with either a rotation or inversion.

As far as defenses dictating. That's a perception that's become almost universally true because of WCO principles, in other words - take what the defense gives you. The idea is to expect the defense to cover the deep and medium routes and give you the underneath route. When you have an offense that doesn't (or can't) throw deep, the Tampa-2 can shut it down because they can stop dropping Mike deep (just like they did against us in the Bowl).

Regarding the corners, particularly ours, releasing receivers to the safeties, there were waaaaaaaay too many double-takes and deep drifts by our corners because of the worthless safeties we've had back there.

Safeties don't have to be smart. Check the Wonderlic stats to see that. They simply have to be disciplined because they tend to be much farther from the LOS than the backers unless they have to split out and cover a slot receiver, when they essentially become CB's. Because they're farther back, they get more time to read the play and have a greater lattitude for errors than backers do.

I just don't think safeties need to be that good, but you definitely can't get away with crap back there. If you defense swarms, you don't need a big hitting safety because he'll wrap the guy while the rest of the D converges. Unfortunately, I don't remember a single Raiders D in recent memory that swarmed the ball. Do the Raiders play too much man? Possibly, and that could be part of the reason for a lack of swarming.

I think Schweigert will come around with his tackling. Dude has a lot of fire and pride, and I don't think he'll let that aspect of his game limit his performance on the field. But SS is a serious hole, and while Cooper played with a lot of heart, he didn't play with a lot of smart. And while Hill played with a lot of heart and smart, I think he'd eventually wear down because of his size if he had to stick his nose in too many times against the run. Now if we could transplant Hill's brains and heart into a guy like Gibson, we'd have something. Too bad that's not an option.

 

[TommyGirl]

Safeties don't have to be smart. Check the Wonderlic stats to see that.

I did check the Wonderlic stats. Derrick Gibson's told me all I need to know. Safeties have to be smart and instinctive. I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

If you defense swarms, you don't need a big hitting safety because he'll wrap the guy while the rest of the D converges. Unfortunately, I don't remember a single Raiders D in recent memory that swarmed the ball. Do the Raiders play too much man? Possibly, and that could be part of the reason for a lack of swarming.

So...what you're saying is that safeties don't have to be smart and you can have a mediocre safety IF you have a swarming defense, which the Raiders do not have. I'm confused. If that's the case, then the Raiders need smart safeties. Plus, I'm not always one on "big hitting" safeties. Dorsett was a big hitter. He just couldn't tackle. Give me a sure-tackler any day of the week.

I think Schweigert will come around with his tackling. Dude has a lot of fire and pride, and I don't think he'll let that aspect of his game limit his performance on the field.

I don't disagree with this. If he's well-coached, I think he'll come along. Until he does, whomever he's paired with at corner is going to have to account for his poor tackling ability. I'll again refer you to Woodson's reluctance to release to Dorsett or Pope.

But SS is a serious hole, and while Cooper played with a lot of heart, he didn't play with a lot of smart.

B-b-b-but...Safeties don't have to BE smart, remember? Hill at safety? Ugh. Double ugh.

 

[Crow]

Rupe, old boy...you are so gonna lose this one.

 

[Rupert]

Rupe, old boy...you are so gonna lose this one.

How so? Tommy Girl dissected my reply and did not reply to it in whole. So I guess it's easy to lose on someone elses terms. Just like I never defeated you on your terms, but always won on mine.

 

[Rupert]

TG: You blew it regarding, "Safeties don't have to be smart..." Read the whole paragraph, it's not an isolated thought. I talk about them playing at the 3rd level and not the 2nd. It's a direct comparison between safeties and backers. You also add "instinctive", and that's what I mean by "disciplined". If he makes his reads properly and doesn't jump the gun or take false steps he's where he needs to be and looks "instinctive". We use a different term, but mean the same thing. I still don't see smart as very necessary because of the distance a safety is from the LOS.

I'm not doubling back on Cooper. Cooper played rolled up like a backer more than a safety. Playing at the 2nd level requires better thinking than the 3rd level. And a true safety plays at the 3rd level. A SS rolled up is playing more of a rover role which requires that he think faster and therefore be smarter but also larger to take on the likelihood of larger blockers. So playing at the second level requires more smart. See what I was saying?

I also switched gears when I said safeties "don't need to be that good" in a swarming defense. Good is different than smart. It's a specific difference, and why I used a different word. Don't go Crow on me. Eddie Anderson wasn't very fast at all, but he played a good safety because he wasn't overly aggressive and let the play develop. He didn't take too many false steps or bad angles. Eddie Anderson was a very good safety but he wasn't "that good" as far as players go. Do you see how I meant that?

So...what you're saying is that safeties don't have to be smart and you can have a mediocre safety IF you have a swarming defense

I didn't say that. Why does everyone assume if you're not great you're mediocre? Did you read what I said:

but you definitely can't get away with crap back there.

And when did I ask for Hill at safety?

 

[Crossbones]

The Wonderlic test seems to be in the news lately.

According to the rumor, Sean Taylor scored something like "8" on the test. Now I'm not sure that means he's smart or not.

But the point here is that I'd want Taylor playing safety on my team every day and twice on Sunday. Just some thoughts.

Include this into the debate however you think it fits. Carry on!