Your opinion--which of the two is better in coverage?
Your opinion--which of the two is better in coverage?
I get the argument that woodleys play hasn't met his contract, no beef with that.
but to say woirlds is the answer, well I just can't go there.
For a converted player Wood is good in zone. Has to be the reason he drops in zone so much or that is the game plan from the other team to keep him from rushing so much. Is that what we just seen in the game today no need to game plan for Worilds? Worilds is a good player at times. Tough call who is really better. Still think Woodley is or can be the better pash rusher.
Woodley seems to grade out very well with the experts this year. He is expensive, though.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust & sweat & blood...
That's the thing: If he wasn't a $60 Million Man, people would have no problem with him. At $60M, we expect prime James Harrison-like impact... and he's obviously not that. If we could cut ties with him and his contract, I'd be all for it. But I don't think we can (or anything near). So we're stuck I think.
But... if this injury lingers for him (he misses a few more games), we can lump him in with Polamalu, Ike, and the rest of the vets on contract who are going to be asked to take a paycut.
why would woodley agree to a pay cut?
will never happen.
Could Worilds be becoming a late-bloomer like James Harrison was (not that he will be James' caliber of player). He played well today, was disruptive, and also played STs.
At the very least, Worilds makes Woodley want to be a better man.... er player.
Bookmarks