Bullshit argument imo... the guys that played in his place had to learn how to play without him telling them WHERE to play and what to do. Now they have learned how to do it by themselves and it shows...
I just disagree. I've just seen him make to many plays. You have under-valued his talent. Like I said he's not a perennial pro-bowler but I would take him over Lowery at starting all day. I will agree that he hasn't had the same impact as he did last year but it's a different D altogether.
The whole thread is a bullshit argument, imo. Can you really compare the Jets secondary- with or without Leonhard- when they are blitzing all the time and dropping 4 back to cover, vs. when they are rushing 3 and dropping 8? It's apples & oranges anyway, and we're sitting here arguing about the types of oranges. The team is better when it plays well, vs. who ever the F*&%, regardless of Leonhard being in or not. Arguing about Leonhard being in or out without acknowledging the scheme is useless, and, as the recent games show, without him we can be very good (Pats, Colts), or very, very bad (Pats in Dec., Bears). So, whatevs. I like Leonhard, personally, but, I don't really give a flying crap who is or isn't out there, as long as we keep winning.
How about the Jets defense played a total game. It isn't on one person/player. Sorry but this thread is nonsense.
While I agree with the bolded part... does that mean it's impossible to compare players since every game we play a different game plan thus the assignments are different? All I'm saying is... everyone was crazy that without Leonhard there woul'd be bad communication in the back 4/5/6... instead I'm seeing a team that is very competent in what it's doing back there...
"All I'm saying is... everyone was crazy that without Leonhard there woul'd be bad communication in the back 4/5/6... instead I'm seeing a team that is very competent in what it's doing back there..." No argument there.
