Charles Woodson remains the greatest
ESPN Wisconsin’s Jason Wilde shared part of his iMessage conversation with current free agent and former Packers defensive back Charles Woodson on Monday afternoon. (Wilde always does well in acknowledging the difference between a text and iMessage, because details matter in all things.)
We are known in many circles as heavily-leaning pro-Woodson enthusiasts, and are still in some ways coming to grips with the fact that the team simply released him last offseason. Let him go as if he wasn’t their best, most impactful defensive player this side of Clay Matthews, wasn’t the team’s top free agent signing on defense since the late Reggie White, didn’t earn Defensive Player of the Year honors in 2009, couldn’t make a successful transition to the safety position after playing cornerback most of his career, doesn’t hold the Packers’ all-time record for most defensive touchdowns, with 10. It was a business decision, and not a great-looking one at this point.
Now Woodson is a free agent again, and as Wilde notes, the Oakland Raiders would like to keep him for the right price. But because it’s relevant, because the safety position was actually quite harmful to the Packers’ health in 2013, Wilde asked Woodson if he thought Green Bay would look him up.
Woodson’s response, via iMessage:
“I don’t think that’s going to happen. I definitely plan on playing. But I think the Packers already have plenty of safeties. LOL.”
That “LOL.” Oh man, if that didn’t make us a little sadder still that he isn’t around these parts anymore we’d be LOL-ing ourselves. (Okay fine: we did anyway.) Woodson’s don’t-give-an-eff attitude has always, to us, been a major part of his appeal as a player. And in that light, this is classic Woodson.
With the value of time continuing to further part the present from the 2013 season, when things went decidedly not great for the Packers’ safeties, the best thing to do might be to laugh at such a ridiculous situation. The fact that Woodson threw such a perfect little jab in there might make you upset, but not us.
In that sarcasm he’s only pointing out the truth, first and foremost, but the underlying fact tagging along with Green Bay’s decline in the defensive backfield is that Woodson would still happily be here. The decision to leave wasn’t his. And no doubt he’s been paying attention to the Packers since they let him go. Knowing what he brings, and can still bring – Woodson had two sacks, an interception, three forced fumbles, and 97 tackles playing in every game for Oakland last season – then looking over at what Green Bay went with instead? That is point, Woodson.
We of course want the Packers to fix their current situation with or without him. (We agree with Woodson in assuming it’s going to be the latter.) Because of how they discarded Woodson, and because it didn’t seem to make sense at the time and certainly didn’t feel sensible when looking at play on the field in 2013, we can’t blame him for laughing. We would be too – or longer, that is – if it weren’t so damn true.