Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Leonhard?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

JKConey

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 11:22:44 AM2/2/11
to
Anyone think that his loss may have been a lot more important than just
another slow, white DB?

--

www.myconeyislandmemories.com

papa.carl44

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 12:02:15 PM2/2/11
to

"JKConey" <jkc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iic0cf$4d3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...


I think he was a huge loss...he not only was the key to getting everybody
where they belonged etc. He was very well liked by the "stars"....he was a
serious hitter and brought about some cohesion out there.


Michael

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 12:24:29 PM2/2/11
to

as apposed to a slow green guy ??? he's fast enough to play ss at a
probowl level. he was playing out of his head in the 2009-2010 season.
lots of fans were saying probowl for him. he's one of the most
valuable db's in the nfl as it relates to the rex defense.

yoyodog

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 1:56:45 PM2/2/11
to

"JKConey" <jkc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iic0cf$4d3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

His biggest loss was a possible contributing factor to not winning the
division. Against NE and Miami the Jets were beaten by having the middle
exposed to a short passing game. They got it somewhat adjusted to close out
the season but for those two games it was total disarray.


MZ

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 2:24:46 PM2/2/11
to
On Feb 2, 11:22 am, "JKConey" <jkco...@verizon.net> wrote:

Not just because he's a good player, but also because the backups at
the position were terrible. This has been one of the issues with the
Jets as a team the past couple seasons. They put together a great
starting lineup, but there have always been depth concerns. I think
we all knew that if the injury bug hit there would probably be
issues. Tannenbaum needs to stop trading picks away, because they
need to start putting together a full roster of 53 guys, not 22.

Message has been deleted

Michael

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 3:54:41 PM2/2/11
to

yep... they "targeted" both ducasse and wilson. the story is not over
yet, but the first chapter was gloomy. there is just too great of a
chance that a high pick will wind up flopping to put so many eggs in a
single basket. of all the new guys the jets have gotten through the
draft in the past two years other than sanchez, a 6th rounder wound up
making the biggest new contribution this year. that being slauson

Message has been deleted

Michael

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 7:00:42 PM2/2/11
to
On Feb 2, 4:31 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes

>
> > yep... they "targeted" both ducasse and wilson.  the story is not over
> > yet, but the first chapter was gloomy.  there is just too great of a
> > chance that a high pick will wind up flopping to put so many eggs in a
> > single basket.  of all the new guys the jets have gotten through the
> > draft in the past two years other than sanchez, a 6th rounder wound up
> > making the biggest new contribution this year. that being slauson
>
> Ducasse was a slight reach.  He was 2nd-4th but got popular after the
> combine. The best you can say is that  he didn't suck against Buffalo.
> Wilson was a top 25 pick that fell. He improved & I am holding out
> hope.  I think he was blown away by the speed of the game and his raw
> ability wasn't enough. Conner could be a starting FB for years to come
> but are they that hard to find although he was a 5th rounder. McKnight
> looked good against Buffalo so I am holding out hope. This could be a
> great draft.
>
> As for Slausson he was OK but  I hope he is working with a plyometric
> & ballet instructor this off season. Have you forgotten Shonn Greene?
> I also think Westerman might contribute one day.
>
> --

green coulda-shoulda-woulda been the top contributor if they used him
more often... as it happened, slauson played every single down this
year...far from the case with green. and yes... slauson is not fleet
of foot, but he is very good when he makes contact and he got better
as the season went on. I am happy with him as the starter.

Ritchie

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 6:59:24 PM2/2/11
to
On Feb 2, 11:22 am, "JKConey" <jkco...@verizon.net> wrote:
>   Anyone think that his loss may have been a lot more important than just
> another slow, white DB?

Losing Leonhard was HUGE! He was there because he know where to
position the defense and was the defenses driving force. This was very
evident in the Pats and the Dolphins games. The Jets is defense was
sliced up by both teams short passing game and the players were
totally lost by not having Leonhard there to tell them what to do. He
is also very well liked and respected by the other players on the
defense. His loss was pivotal in the Jets not being able to win a
couple of more games towards the end of the season.

papa.carl44

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 7:01:41 PM2/2/11
to

"MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:7154b7fe-ca78-4e12...@q14g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

And more so...they seem to think they can plug a replacement in and get the
same results, and attempt to use the replacement in the same scheme...it
does not work that way, IMHO, you do something different with the "new" guy
and scheme it to what their capabilities are. In other words, don't ask a
guy to do something he flat out can not do.


papa.carl44

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 8:53:28 PM2/2/11
to

"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2f5ebb2b-db88-41ef...@q7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

I could be way off, but Slauson is a journeyman guy, he is not a top level O
lineman and it is all his feet. IF they Jets got two more really good guys
they would improve tremendously. You have to figure at least one guy goes
down during a season, usually more, Slauson would be a good fill in...not
the go to guy. OMHO, Papa Carl


Michael

unread,
Feb 2, 2011, 9:44:04 PM2/2/11
to
On Feb 2, 8:53 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> the go to guy. OMHO, Papa Carl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Slauson is not the right guy for the jets Faneca running play book or
gratuitous Schotty line shifts. He'd be a good guy for a no frills
running play book.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

JetsLife

unread,
Feb 3, 2011, 1:56:17 PM2/3/11
to
On Feb 2, 2:24 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:

Is that so? Facts disprove your assertions.

Once Smith & Pool were coached up and settled in as the new starting
tandem, they performed well enough. See their performance in the
playoffs where the pass defense frustrated/slowed down Manning, Brady
and Rberger. If anything, the back-up safeties *were a reason why* the
Jets were in position to make the Super Bowl. Not to mention their
solid play the final few regular season games save Chicago.

Regarding your depth assertion, it falls in to a myth perpetuated in
here by some folks. They say depth is a problem, it rebounds around
the echo chamber in here and voila, it's an actual problem. When
factually, it isn't.

Depth has not been a problem the past two years: Pouha both years, the
safeties this year, Clemens last year, Slauson last year, Hunter this
year, and other back ups have filled in fairly well thank you very
much.

A team doesn't go as far as the Jets have the past two years without
some decent depth. So we see, in point of fact, the Jets depth has
served the team during this time period.

So, your assertion that Tannenbaum must field a full roster of 53
instead of a starting 22 simply doesn't hold water.

I might add, every team has *some level* of depth concerns. That's
just the nature of the salary cap. A team can only have so much
talent. The two teams playing Sunday amassed quality depth better than
any other this year, but teams like the Jets are just a hair behind.

Harlan Lachman

unread,
Feb 3, 2011, 5:43:01 PM2/3/11
to
In article
<46bfc3e9-3c0d-4965...@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Slauson might improve, especially if he takes up ballet and practices
slides until he drops.

But he is too slow of foot to be useful on screen plays or plays where
he must slide to one side to pick up a blitzer. Too many sad outcomes.

h

Harlan Lachman

unread,
Feb 3, 2011, 5:54:09 PM2/3/11
to
In article
<2d707590-978b-4b1f...@p16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes


>
> > His biggest loss was a possible contributing factor to not winning the
> > division.  Against NE and Miami the Jets were beaten by having the middle
> > exposed to a short passing game.  They got it somewhat adjusted to close out
> > the season but for those two games it was total disarray.
>

> Yo, absolutely and don't forget the 10 man defensive package vs
> Chicago.
>
> Also MZ is correct although I think (hope?) the depth has improved.
> Look at what we had when Tanny started, even since 2008 before Rex
> turned up. The only round we don't have a pick this year is #2. He
> has to stop trying to hit a HR by trading up. Revis worked bu we need
> bodies.

I disagree about the words "has to" and "need".

The draft is funky. Sometimes there are good players when one picks
(especially for teams with lousy records). Sometimes a team suffers runs
at positions of need before their late pick and there is no value.

Sanchez, Greene, Revis, are all examples of trading up and getting
healthier. While the Browns may (or may not) be OK with McCoy, a lot of
Qbs picked after Sanchez are not so hot. He was at least good enough to
get us to two consecutive AFC Championship games.

Tanny should trade up if he can get a sure starter as he did in these
three cases and if staying put is likely to be a waste pick for us. If
he trades up, he has to get it right.

With only one pick in the first two rounds, we need to hit that pick and
land an immediate contributor. If that player is a pass rusher or a
dominant safety (a huge surprise since there are not supposed to be
any), most Jet fans would admit this was a great move.

And since all teams need better players, the implication that a team
that made it to the Championship game, beating the Colts and Pats, and
having enough key injuries to Jenkins, Leonhard, to name two, and having
Cole and Coleman (who knew?) step up, not to mention Hunter on the OL,
are ludicrous.

I would say upgrading depth will improve the team but not as much as
replacing Shott with someone much better, having Sanchez improve his
accuracy, having Rex prepare the team better, and having Ducasse,
Wilson, and Lowery get much better by next season.

harlan

papa.carl44

unread,
Feb 3, 2011, 6:25:29 PM2/3/11
to

"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:896c5e21-1594-40a2...@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
X-No-Archive: Yes

> Slauson is not the right guy for the jets Faneca running play book or
> gratuitous Schotty line shifts. He'd be a good guy for a no frills
> running play book.

Can you name an offense in the league that doesn't pull their guard
regularly?

That team that never scored a touchdown :-)


Michael

unread,
Feb 3, 2011, 8:43:09 PM2/3/11
to
On Feb 3, 1:39 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > Slauson is not the right guy for the jets Faneca running play book or
> > gratuitous Schotty line shifts.   He'd be a good guy for a no frills
> > running play book.
>
> Can you name an offense in the league that doesn't pull their guard
> regularly?

i can tell you what schotty pulls regularly

MZ

unread,
Feb 3, 2011, 9:13:15 PM2/3/11
to

They do if they don't get nailed by injuries. And, for the most part,
the Jets have been one of the healthiest teams in the NFL over the
past couple years. The major hits came with Jenkins, Leonhard, and
Woody, and I think we all saw a significant downgrade at each of those
three positions (not counting Revis, because you lose him and it's a
big hit no matter who's backing him up). Maybe less so with Jenkins,
but that's because Rex's base scheme isn't very line-based (IMO).
Although they certainly could have used him against Pittsburgh.

They wouldn't be able to withstand injuries at most other positions as
well as a lot of other teams. I agree with John though that their
depth was a little better this year than in the previous two. Mostly
on the OL and secondary.

Michael

unread,
Feb 3, 2011, 9:33:13 PM2/3/11
to
> on the OL and secondary.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

hunter did a better job with peppers than woody could have done.
hunter is the better pass blocker

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Michael

unread,
Feb 4, 2011, 5:46:02 PM2/4/11
to
On Feb 4, 1:40 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > hunter did a better job with peppers than woody could have done.
> > hunter is the better pass blocker
>
> That is because Woody sucks.

he sure has been sucking as of late... i agree on that... he's had a
good long productive career, but may be time for the jets to throw him
a retirement bash... i forgot what the cap/dead money on woody was,
but i cant apply that to my reasoning here given the cba unsertainty

Harlan Lachman

unread,
Feb 4, 2011, 8:49:10 PM2/4/11
to
In article
<bb49a12a-39f3-4eff...@u17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am not down on Ducasse or last years draft. I think there is a
> chance that it could be a great draft for us. All 4 could start or
> contribute within 2 years.

How could one be down on a project pick? Rex has been wrong on Eric S.
and others but he sure taught something useful to Drew C so maybe there
is hope for Lowery too.

I hope you are right about all four starting. I suspect with low draft
picks being the norm for a while, we need to hit the ones we got, trade
up for real value, or get affordable FA.

I doubt we repeat in the AFC championship, although at my age we had
better, but imagine what if...

harlan

papa.carl44

unread,
Feb 4, 2011, 11:49:34 PM2/4/11
to

"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3bb1f2b-743f-4ee3...@r21g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes

>
>> Can you name an offense in the league that doesn't pull their guard
>> regularly?
>>
>> That team that never scored a touchdown :-)
>
> LOL, you are getting funny in your old age!
>
> Amazing how some things haven't changed that much since the 60''s. I
> am sure you saw the HBO special on Lombardi and where he would do
> coaching seminars & spend 8 hours on that one play.

I worked in a program where the offense would practice their versions of
that sweep for 15 minutes at the end of every single practice. They had to
be able to run it against anything thrown up at them. And when they were
bogged down, having problems...they would go to that play and "hurry up" run
it in all of the variations and it always got something going. There once
was a time when guards and fullbacks were the same :-) I know first hand.


JetsLife

unread,
Feb 10, 2011, 10:58:48 AM2/10/11
to

Inaccurate. Perhaps no two teams were nailed more by injuries than
Green Bay and Pittsburgh, in order, and we all know where they ended
up.

It's unknown if the Jets go as far as they do the past two years if
they sustained more injuries. Logic indicates they wouldn't have, but
logic isn't always right in football as Parcells once said. Sometimes
when certain players go down their replacements can out-perform and/or
change the dynamic of the position/unit. Woodhead is a perfect
example. And one should never discount the 'circling of the wagons'
effect that lots of injuries can have on a team. It can increase a
team's toughness and individual players and coaches' level of
commitment/performance.

> And, for the most part, the Jets have been one of the healthiest teams
> in the NFL over the past couple years.

Yes, the Jets were among the healthiest teams the past two years.
Knock on wood that continues.

> The major hits came with Jenkins, Leonhard, and
> Woody, and I think we all saw a significant downgrade at each of those
> three positions (not counting Revis, because you lose him and it's a
> big hit no matter who's backing him up).
>

Mostly incorrent:

Yes on Jenkins's position.

But less so on Leonhard's position. As several games went by the
safety position more than solidified. Just ask Manning, Brady and
Rberger in the playoffs.

Even less so on Woody's position. Hunter was very solid in the regular
season and the playoffs.

>  Maybe less so with Jenkins,
> but that's because Rex's base scheme isn't very line-based (IMO).
> Although they certainly could have used him against Pittsburgh.
>

Definitely. A friend/ fellow Jets fanatic and I were discussing this
the other day. Jets defense also could have used some better tackling
against Pittsburgh.

> They wouldn't be able to withstand injuries at most other positions as
> well as a lot of other teams.

How do you know this? This is all hypothetical.

Othewise we can go on other evidence: the several Jets back-ups who
were forced in to duty the past two seasons performed well. They
weren't better than the starters they replaced, but they weren't major
downgrades save the Jenkins position.

>  I agree with John though that their
> depth was a little better this year than in the previous two.  Mostly
> on the OL and secondary.
>

Agreed.

Overall, facts demonstrate the Jets "lack-depth mantra" espoused by
you and some others in here as a myth. Since the Jets were mostly
healthy it's only a small sampling of facts, but they are facts
nonetheless.

MZ

unread,
Feb 10, 2011, 1:52:49 PM2/10/11
to

That's because they were deep teams.


> Mostly incorrent:
>
> Yes on Jenkins's position.
>
> But less so on Leonhard's position. As several games went by the
> safety position more than solidified. Just ask Manning, Brady and
> Rberger in the playoffs.
>
> Even less so on Woody's position. Hunter was very solid in the regular
> season and the playoffs.

We'll agree to disagree. I thought the safety position remained poor,
even through to the New England game.

Hunter was ok, but Woody's performance had already fallen off a lot.
Woody should have been replaced long before he was. But, like I
mentioned previously, the Jets built pretty good depth on the OL, so
that supports my point more than anything.


> > They wouldn't be able to withstand injuries at most other positions as
> > well as a lot of other teams.
>
> How do you know this? This is all hypothetical.

Of course it's hypothetical. So is about 90% of what we talk about in
here.

JetsLife

unread,
Feb 12, 2011, 3:53:32 PM2/12/11
to

Right, and the small piece of actual evidence indicates the Jets have
had some degree of quality team the past two years. The few back ups
performed well enough to help the Jets get to the AFC Championship two
years in a row. (And not that that's impressive. Winning it all one or
both years would make it impressive).

As for GB and Pitts, I suspect most folks including yourself were
unaware just how deep those teams were until starters started going
down.

> > Mostly incorrent:
>
> > Yes on Jenkins's position.
>
> > But less so on Leonhard's position. As several games went by the
> > safety position more than solidified. Just ask Manning, Brady and
> > Rberger in the playoffs.
>
> > Even less so on Woody's position. Hunter was very solid in the regular
> > season and the playoffs.
>
> We'll agree to disagree.  I thought the safety position remained poor,
> even through to the New England game.
>
> Hunter was ok, but Woody's performance had already fallen off a lot.
> Woody should have been replaced long before he was.  But, like I
> mentioned previously, the Jets built pretty good depth on the OL, so
> that supports my point more than anything.
>

Hmm. Operative word here in your safety statement is "thought." I'm
trying to evaluate strictly on results/performance, not what I think.
Based on actual performance, the safety position held up way more than
fine in the playoffs. Without its solid play the Jets likely don't get
by Indy or NE.

Again, incorrect - regarding Woody. You gotta get your facts straight.
Woody was good the past two years. He was an anchor on the right side
along with Moore, helping to pave the way for prodigious rushing
totals and providing solid pass protection. He certainly wasn't
perfect, but he was very solid.

Then also, your sweeping statement "Woody should have been replaced
long before he was" makes your incorrection that much starker.


> > > They wouldn't be able to withstand injuries at most other positions as
> > > well as a lot of other teams.
>
> > How do you know this? This is all hypothetical.
>
> Of course it's hypothetical.  So is about 90% of what we talk about in
> here.
>

Indeed. So it makes your sweeping conclusion-making here - that the
Jets "wouldn't be able to withstand injuries at most other positions
as well as a lot of other teams" - and overall that much more
ridiculous.

No one knows how a team's back ups will perform until they get the
chance. A team appearing deep on paper turns out not to be deep; and
vice versa.

The small sample of evidence from the past two years demonstrates the
Jets had some degree of quality depth. To what extent you nor I will
ever know. So for you to conclude the Jets haven't had a deep roster
the past two years is ridiculous.

MZ

unread,
Feb 13, 2011, 5:00:12 PM2/13/11
to

This is why I mostly just lurk here now.

cd

unread,
Feb 14, 2011, 7:04:51 PM2/14/11
to
> This is why I mostly just lurk here now.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I think Hunder and Slauson did well, as did Devito and Pouha last year
for Jenkins. The safeties were also ok, but the secondary and the
LB's are slower than the competition. I couldn't get over, how slow
they were. Leonard has adequate speed, and is great overall, but his
height was a limitation and it was exploited often by the TE
position. The Jets if they are to do better, need speed at defense
and more a 3-4 pash rusher, desperately. Tired of seeing DE in
coverage, that tells me they are not good enough to be get to the QB
on a consistent basis.

0 new messages