Peterson or Woodson interest ?

[Denver_Bronco]

Woodson is out the door, Peterson on the way
- Nancy Gay
Wednesday, February 22, 2006



Al Davis always has loved having Heisman Trophy winners on his Raiders roster. Cornerback Charles Woodson has one of those on his resume, and for eight seasons he worked that bit of leverage with the big man upstairs for all it was worth.
But at a price tag exceeding $12.6 million -- the cost of a third consecutive franchise tag for an oft-injured defensive back who hasn't played a full 16-game season since 2001 -- Woodson's value as a collector's item has expired.

And his days in a Raiders uniform are over.
The deadline for NFL teams to place franchise or transition tags on players is Thursday, and neither Bay Area team will use the designation on its roster.

So prepare to say goodbye to Woodson and, in all likelihood, 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson. Both are free-agents-to-be and 2005 franchise players who would command 20 percent raises over last year's salaries, thanks to a stipulation in the soon-to-expire collective bargaining agreement.

Woodson cost the Raiders $10.529 million in '05 and played in all of six games because of a fractured fibula. He accounted for more than one-eighth of the team's entire payroll. Once a team leader, he completely disappeared from the locker room after being injured in an Oct. 23 game against Buffalo.

"He's finally gone. There is no value in bringing him back, period,'' said an NFL source, confirming that the Raiders will not tag Woodson a third consecutive year.

Peterson, who remains an influential, stand-up player among his teammates, started 14 games in '05 -- admirable after returning from career-threatening Achilles surgery. But a hamstring injury limited him last season. And he would cost the team $8.6 million in '06, including the built-in raise.

Mike Nolan, the 49ers' coach, has been up-front about his reluctance to invest so much cash in a single player, especially on a team with so many pressing needs.
"No player will be bigger than the team,'' Nolan said Tuesday, putting it as plainly as he could. "I don't think there's someone on the roster right now who I think is bigger than the team.''
Of course, Nolan has used that reasoning as a disciplinary tool (re: Jamie Winborn).

"But it's also important from a (salary) cap standpoint,'' Nolan said. "If you put so much into one player, that player becomes more important than the team. When it comes to franchise tags, you have to be careful who you put it on. And when it comes to a first-time franchise player versus a second-time franchise player, the numbers just get out of whack.''

Add to this the uncertainty of the NFL's labor situation with its players, and the once-liberal use of the franchise tag becomes a bigger risk -- especially for teams such as the 49ers and Raiders without fancy new stadiums and huge revenue streams.

The current CBA between the NFL Players Association and the league will expire after the coming season. Both sides are working to strike a deal before March 3 to avoid postponement of the free-agency signing period and the prospect of an uncapped '07.

That would mean no spending limits for big-money franchises -- think of the Redskins' Dan Snyder becoming another George Steinbrenner -- and tough sledding for the Bay Area teams, which depend on the current CBA's revenue-sharing scheme and salary cap to stay remotely competitive.

"You have to watch how you spend your money right now,'' Nolan said.
All of this means a probable end to Peterson's career as a 49er unless management can hammer out a deal to keep him from becoming an unrestricted free agent when that period is scheduled to begin March 3.
Woodson, whom the Raiders franchised in 2004 and '05, already knows he's outta there. His representative, the elusive Carl Poston, has not contacted the Raiders' front office once this offseason.

The days of begging Davis for a long-term contract are over. Woodson and his agent know it.

When he likely ends up in Tampa Bay -- the traditional repository for discarded Raiders players -- the Raiders will get a huge chunk of the payroll back. And a clean break.
Both are long overdue.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/22/SPG10HCBCB1.DTL
 

[Phishfan]

I don't have much interest. I am not impressed with the current (injury prone) version of Woodson and linebacker is not a pressing need.

[Sunstroke]

I'd like to see J-Pete re-sign with the 49ers...but I think the lower leg injuries he's had (ankle, foot, achilles) have taken a good step-and-a-half away from J-Pete's wheels. Those wheels and J-Pete's overall physical gifts are what made him a star LB, so I'm not sure he'll ever regain that form again.

I still want him though...he's been a great 49ers defender his whole career, and I like to see those guys stay with the club if they can still perform.

[AZ Fins Fan 55]

Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that Nolan says he doesn't want to dump all that money into one player, yet didn't he do just that with an unproven Alex Smith last season? If you are going to spend money on someone spend it on someone that has proven themselves as a solid member of your team. I just found that comment to be a little hypocritical after last season with Smith!!!!