Woodson returns to the Raiders: Gear up the Hate Train
Holy crap, what a great day it is to be a Raiders fan. Not only did the Raiders sign Charles Woodson on Tuesday, but it turns out that he chose the Raiders OVER the Denver Broncos, which caused the internet bloggers to collectively pee their pants. How in the world could Woodson sign with the Raiders, who everybody is pegging as the worst team in the league right now on May 22, over the almighty Denver Broncos, who everybody is already handing the Superbowl to even though–again–it’s only May 22nd?
Let’s take a look at some of the hate, shall we?
From Evan Silva, everyone’s favorite hater of everything, of Rotoworld: “He’s chosen the Raiders over the Broncos despite the fact that Denver is on the cusp of the Super Bowl, and Oakland is one of the worst teams in the league. However Woodson spins it, money was almost certainly the determining factor.”
And when it turned out a few hours later that the Raiders in fact only offered Woodson $600,000 more than the Broncos (I use the world ‘Only’ because Woodson has made millions), here is what Silva had to say: “Unless the Broncos’ base offer was dramatically lower, it’s definitely surprising Woodson chose the cellar-dwelling Raiders over Denver based on a theoretical extra $600,000. Money talks.”
Yes. Money talks. So do the 100 fans who showed up at the Raiders headquarters to welcome Woodson back to Oakland, so does the fact that he has a long and storied history with the Raiders, and so does the fact that the man runs a winery located in Napa Valley–which is where the Raiders hold training camp.
Saying that Woodson chose the Raiders over the Broncos for just a wee bit more money is ridiculous.
Another nice internet blogger who hates on everything is the guy over at Walterfootball (I’m guessing his name is Walt). Here’s what he had to say about the signing: “I don’t really understand this signing for either side in terms of a pure football perspective. The Raiders have one of the least-talented rosters in recent memory. Sure, Woodson is an upgrade over what they already have (Usama Young), but when it comes down to it, his presence will do one of two things: 1) Make Oakland win enough games to take the franchise out of contention for Teddy Bridgewater and some of the other top quarterbacks, yet still keep them out of the playoffs. 2) Have no impact because he’ll be 37 soon, meaning it’ll just be a waste of money.
For Woodson, the best scenario for him would have been to go to a Super Bowl contender like the Broncos or 49ers to give him a chance for another Super Bowl ring. By signing with Oakland, it shows that Woodson’s No. 1 priority is money. Free agents who chase big contracts almost never pan out. It’s very fair to question whether Woodson’s heart is still in the game.”
Hate hate hate hate hate. So Walt’s theory is that it is bad for the Raiders to sign Woodson because doing so will make them win more games (which is, you know, kind of the POINT OF PLAYING PROFESSIONAL SPORTS) and take them out of contention for a QB who may–or may not be–the number one pick a year from now. Sound. Logic. That’d be like saying the Chiefs should’ve tanked last year to put them in a position to draft Matt Barkley–who at the time was considered a number one pick and we all know how that turned out.
The Denver Post, naturally, was not on board with the decision either: “If money, not winning the Super Bowl, was clearly Charles Woodson’s top priority, why would the Broncos want him anyway? ‘There’s no freaking way he’d want to go to Oakland,’ Broncos corner Champ Bailey told 102.3 FM ESPN on Tuesday. It is hard to believe, Champ, but once again the almighty dollar prevailed.”
Peter King got in on the action as well: “I guess personal history mattered to Woodson. Maybe his wine business. But unless Denver made a horse dung offer, it’s a strange decision.”
Or how about, it’s a perfectly normal decision. A guy with one more season left in his career wanted to finish it out with the team that brought him into the league. Isn’t that how it should be?