things are starting to look a little better in the packers' immediate future. woodson can still play, and it'll be so nice not having to put up with ahmad carroll's endless penalties. i guess they're letting woodson play some offense too.
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:48 pm Posts: 2783 Location: Boston, MA
Spike wrote:
things are starting to look a little better in the packers' immediate future. woodson can still play, and it'll be so nice not having to put up with ahmad carroll's endless penalties. i guess they're letting woodson play some offense too.
but for 7 years? The Raiders didn't even want the guy.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:44 am Posts: 14671 Location: Baton Rouge Gender: Male
Dr. Gonzo wrote:
Spike wrote:
things are starting to look a little better in the packers' immediate future. woodson can still play, and it'll be so nice not having to put up with ahmad carroll's endless penalties. i guess they're letting woodson play some offense too.
but for 7 years? The Raiders didn't even want the guy.
NO SIGNING BONUS FOR WOODSON
A league source tells us that cornerback Charles Woodson's contract with the Packers includes a signing bonus of . . . zero dollars, zero cents.
The reason for the team's decision not to pay Woodson has less to do with his skill and more to do with the fact that the Packers have plenty of cap room for 2006. By funding Woodson's first-year pay through a roster bonus and base salary, $10.5 million can be handed to him with no proration in future years.
As a practical matter, this makes it easier for the Packers to cut ties with Woodson in any future season, since there would be no acceleration due to the portion of the signing bonus that applies to future years.
We're also told that, although the deal is being characterized as a seven-year, $52 million arrangement, it is as a practical matter a three-year, $18 million package. Depending on Woodson's performance, he could be gone by 2007 or 2008.
Not a huge deal, but not bad for an aging, injury-prone cover man as to whom only one other team expressed serious interest.
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:48 pm Posts: 2783 Location: Boston, MA
Mitchell wrote:
Dr. Gonzo wrote:
Spike wrote:
things are starting to look a little better in the packers' immediate future. woodson can still play, and it'll be so nice not having to put up with ahmad carroll's endless penalties. i guess they're letting woodson play some offense too.
but for 7 years? The Raiders didn't even want the guy.
NO SIGNING BONUS FOR WOODSON
A league source tells us that cornerback Charles Woodson's contract with the Packers includes a signing bonus of . . . zero dollars, zero cents.
The reason for the team's decision not to pay Woodson has less to do with his skill and more to do with the fact that the Packers have plenty of cap room for 2006. By funding Woodson's first-year pay through a roster bonus and base salary, $10.5 million can be handed to him with no proration in future years.
As a practical matter, this makes it easier for the Packers to cut ties with Woodson in any future season, since there would be no acceleration due to the portion of the signing bonus that applies to future years.
We're also told that, although the deal is being characterized as a seven-year, $52 million arrangement, it is as a practical matter a three-year, $18 million package. Depending on Woodson's performance, he could be gone by 2007 or 2008.
Not a huge deal, but not bad for an aging, injury-prone cover man as to whom only one other team expressed serious interest.
That makes more sense. 3/$18 is a decent deal for him.
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:58 pm Posts: 1148 Location: Green Bay
Electromatic wrote:
So does this mean Ahmad Carroll will go to nickleback?
or maybe Al Harris?
It may mean that Ahmad Carroll just gets cut. Al Harris will start opposite Charles Woodson for sure. He's had an unbelievable couple of seasons.
_________________ When the last living thing Has died on account of us, How poetical it would be If Earth could say, In a voice floating up Perhaps From the floor Of the Grand Canyon, "It is done. People did not like it here.''
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:43 am Posts: 18418 Location: Anytown, USA Gender: Male
_________________
stip wrote:
In five years, when you get laid and grow up, you should go back and read some of these posts and if you've turned into a decent person you'll realize how much of an asshole you sound like right now
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am Posts: 5575 Location: Sydney, NSW
energystar wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
So does this mean Ahmad Carroll will go to nickleback?
or maybe Al Harris?
It may mean that Ahmad Carroll just gets cut. Al Harris will start opposite Charles Woodson for sure. He's had an unbelievable couple of seasons.
He sure has. This is a good signing. Sorely needed.
_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.
In five years, when you get laid and grow up, you should go back and read some of these posts and if you've turned into a decent person you'll realize how much of an asshole you sound like right now
i think unless he has a terrible preseason, the packers will hold on to carroll. i'm not saying he'll be the nickel, but he has too much talent to send him packing yet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
