Charles Woodson's Playmaking Ability Would Be Ideal Fit for San Francisco 49ers
Gbajabiamila (@Akbar_Gbaja) March 15, 2013
With safety Dashon Goldson lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, bringing in Woodson makes tons of sense for the reigning NFC champions. Not only would the veteran fill a need in San Francisco's defensive backfield, but his playmaking ability would be an ideal fit with a defense that only recorded 14 interceptions in 2012 (three of which came via Goldson).
Woodson has picked off 55 passes and forced 29 fumbles since his rookie season with the Oakland Raiders in 1998.
The former Heisman Trophy-winner and AP NFL Defensive Player of the Year is a playmaker above all else. Although there is risk involved with signing Woodson at age 36, just months after he suffered a broken collarbone, the possible reward is too good to pass up if you're Jim Harbaugh, who watched a playmaking safety in Ed Reed make a big play against his team in Super Bowl XLVII last February.
Which player would make a bigger impact for the Niners in 2013?
San Francisco is not a team in rebuilding mode, but a legitimate Super Bowl contender that needs to retool this offseason to ensure that it gets back to the big game in 2014.
Losing Goldson isn't a huge loss for the 49ers, unless they fail to replace him with a proven playmaker this offseason.
While San Francisco boasts one of the top five defenses in football, it doesn't excel at forcing turnovers. The 49ers ranked ninth among 16 NFC teams last season in takeaways, forcing just 25 in 16 regular-season games.
In Woodson, San Francisco would be bringing in a player who has forced 30 turnovers by himself since the start of the 2009 season. He may have lost a step, but it's difficult to argue that Woodson has lost his knack for changing the game.
If Woodson wants to play for a contender and the Niners want to contend, this move has to happen.
Follow Bleacher Report Featured Columnist Patrick Clarke on Twitter.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?