By all means. Let's sign someone 4 years older than Neal, just as injury prone and twice as expensive!

Think of these 2 free agents like potential spouses. Both have physical issues. 1 is older and has much more expensive tastes. That same one was 'hotter' when he/she was younger, but has some major miles on that body now.

Which one you picking? If either?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

In my opinion, the difference in effectiveness between Woodley and Neal is substantial. I don't care what age they are. 29-30 doesn't mean his career is finished. Neal is an OK backup at best, imo. In fact, I still think his best role is rushing from the DT position on passing downs, at least in the 3-4 defense. Woodley is a talented true 3-4 OLB. I'm fine if a team pays money for an effective player at a position of need. I would expect him to produce, too, especially with Mathews is healthy (which he isn't enough). Most players are somewhat injury prone. Using that logic, Clay Mathews isn't worth his contract because he hasn't been very available the past few seasons. Nick Perry is even less available. Besides, I don't think Woodley is going to get a mega contract, although who knows.

I'd rather spend more money for better players than have extra cap space and more average players. Neal isn't a solution for the Packers defense in any other capacity other than a role player. Woodley would almost certainly earn a starting role quickly, and even if he didn't he would be a better backup than Neal. Also, as has been mentioned several times, he brings a level of passion to the field that is sorely missing on the Packers defense. That's valuable in and of itself.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Woodley would earn a starting role? Beating out Clay Matthews or Nick Perry? Really.

Woodley has played 10, 13, and 12 games in the last 3 years. Last year, he had 5 sacks and 1 FF. Nick Perry had 4 sacks and 3 FF. So basically, they produced the same amount of impact plays and we are all disappointed in Perry. So signing an older, crippled version is an improvement?

We spend all fall complaining about injuries. So why, when Free Agency hits, do we instantly want to sign every broken down, has-been that is available?

Look at Woodley's history. If you see anything that doesn't suggest he is in major decline, let me know. Otherwise he's like your grandma in a bikini. Something I don't want to see.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

I'm judging Woodley's body of work, and in that body of work, he has proven he is a big time player. No, I wouldn't expect him to beat out Clay Mathews. That's silly. I would expect him to compete with Nick Perry. Between the three of them, perhaps the Packers could get one season's worth of full time contribution from a talented OLB. Perry hasn't proven he can be available at all, so what exactly are the Packers options beyond him? What about when Mathews and Perry are out, which seems inevitable? I would feel much more comfortable having Woodley in that rotation. I'm a huge Perry fan, but I think Woodley is even better. I really don't agree with Woodley being "crippled." That's just nonsensical hyperbole. He's 29 almost 30, I think. He should have at least 3 productive seasons left, knows the scheme, and is a passionate veteran, which Dom Capers seems to love. By your same logic, Clay Mathews is "crippled", too. The Packers had better cut him, since it seems to be a safe bet that he will miss half the season at least, and makes a ton of money.

I'm not stuck on Woodley. But the Packers need some help, be it from the OLB position, or from the defensive line. I don't think the Packers pass rushers are good enough, or at least dependable enough, for the Packers defense to be anything better than average. I don't think average is enough for the Packers to make any noise in the off season. I can understand why a general manager would pass on Woodley, but I would have a hard time understanding how a team like the Packers couldn't do something in free agency to help address their weaknesses (yes, I know about the Shields signing). I don't think rookies alone are going to be enough to make much difference this season, and depending on the continued development of a few players is as big of a risk as signing a moderately priced free agent.

EDIT: Even better, how about the even more expensive Demarcus Ware? [boxing] [boxing]

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Actually, I am wondering if Clay is winding down. But Woodley has played even a couple more years than Clay. He's played 7. The first year was nothing special. Then he had 3 great years. Then he had 3 injury filled years. If you're in Vegas, you don't bet big money assuming he will get healthy and perform at previous high levels.

Body of work is useless. If signing FA's is based on body of work, why isn't Jerry Kramer playing somewhere? You sign FA's based on what you anticipate them being able to do for you this year and next. Not what they did 3 years ago. (Except for Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, anyway)

29 is old. At least in the NFL. At a quick glance, the Packers only have 6 players that are over 30. 3 of them are Free Agents and maybe not to return; Kuhn, Pickett and Jolly.

I am not against Free Agents. We need some. But I am not in favor of anyone that is high priced or in decline. Give me a 2013 Seahawks Bennett signing. Not a Tier 1 or former Superstar.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan