What Potential Charles Woodson Signing Would Mean for Oakland Raiders
Just because it's unlikely, though, doesn't mean it's impossible.
After Josina Anderson of ESPN tweeted last week that Woodson had received an offer from Oakland last week, hopes in Raiderland began to rise.
Then, Woodson left a visit with the Denver Broncos without a deal.
And then, as if things couldn't get any better, Woodson scheduled a visit to Oakland for next Tuesday to meet with team and front office officials, according to his agent:
Agent Carl Poston tells reporters Charles Woodson is visiting #Raiders on Tuesday; says Woodson has offer from Broncos, interest from Giants— Vic Tafur (@VicTafur) May 17, 2013
But with all of this news coming down the wire, is Woodson returning to Oakland really a good thing?
Can he really still help the team?
In short, the answer is a definitive yes.
Obviously, the biggest reason many want Woodson back is because of the name recognition and because of the memories many have of No. 24 in the silver and black.
On a greater scale, however, I think the biggest thing Woodson offers Oakland is hope.
Ever since general manager Reggie McKenzie took over two years ago, Oakland has been in rebuild mode—and it's not McKenzie's fault.
With massive contracts littering the roster, McKenzie has cut big names and signed no-names. Of course, some, like Phillip Wheeler from last season, panned out spectacularly.
The point, though, is that McKenzie hasn't had the chance to ink a difference-maker, but this would give him a chance to sign a guy we've heard of and to give the fanbase some hope.
Despite his age, that's exactly what Charles Woodson represents.
It's a short-term reminder that the Oakland Raiders are, in fact, interested in winning football games and not just saving money.
It's a reminder that this is a franchise capable of signing big-name players and making an impact on the league.
Of course, Charles Woodson won't make the Raider defense great; in fact, he might not even make them good.
The good news, though, is that Oakland has a desperate need at free safety—a position Woodson would be most comfortable playing—and they are desperate for some veteran leadership.
Imagine Woodson mentoring young guys like DJ Hayden and it's easy to see why this move makes a ton of sense.
Of course, "sense" isn't really the object of concern for McKenzie and Co. as much as "cents."
What's it going to cost the Raiders?
In my opinion, I think Oakland should offer Woodson something like a two-year deal guaranteed—not for big money but just to show him they're committed to him beyond the veteran's minimum on a one-year deal.
Would that be enough to lure him away from a contender like Denver?
Then again, if it did?
Safe to say Woodson's place in Raiders lore would be safely secured.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?