First, I never said he was an every down back. However, I was making the point that it's worth a shot. Where do you think that weight is, in his ass? 5'8 203 isn't as small as you think it is. Plus the guys center of gravity is insane. How many times have you seen him squeeze through alittle hole for 2-3 yards when TJ would get 0? Let's not discount the fact that Washington can get sideline-sideline, and can stop on the dime to make a move. The main problem many people have is this...We all knew Washington as a 3-4 touch per game back. When he spells TJ, you better believe everyone on the opposing defense knows where Leon is located on the field. The fact that he even broke one play last year is good. Let's be honest, we know he's not in there to pass block on third down. That being said, you give this guy 10-15 touches, and ADAPT him into the offense as a REGULAR, teams will have problems with him. Let's stop being narrow minded, and start thinking creatively. Would you rather pound the rock 25-30 times a game with TJ? He's a good back, but that's way to obvious. We don't have enough weapons to rely on one guy. Therefore, Washington HAS to develop into a regular. So whether you think he's big enough or not, you better get used to it.
How the heck do you know who has more mass or fat. You think Leon is fat? He weighs the same as Sanders and a few pounds less than Smith. This argument is spurious at best.
This is the most convincing post I read. It makes me question things. Great post:up: Oh, well I just saw the additional 4th on wiki so i figured...
Really startin to like you man. I remember reading that post awhile ago and I strongly agreed but don't think I said anything. That post is partially what inspired me to make this thread.
Haha thanks man, good to have allies on this board with so many bashers running around. I just wish I could get this kind of love in my American Idol thread in the Bullshit Forum haha.
how anyone could think this team DOESN'T need a wide receiver is beyond me. heck, we probably need more than one.
To be clear I don't believe we DON'T need a WR. Sure we do need one. However I don't think it's a big deal, a.k.a. I won't lose sleep over not getting one.
How, may I ask, is it possibly not a "big deal" if we don't get another WR, if, in your own words, you concede that we "need" another WR??? Surely, if you don't think it's a big deal whether we get another WR or not, then you don't think we NEED another WR. Right?
That's what this thread is about. We don't NEED a WR. (a.k.a. we can win the big one without a #1 WR) However we do need a WR. (a.k.a. it is a weakness on the team)
Ummmmmm...ok, so we are in agreement that we do need a WR. The thread title says otherwise! Just sayin'! Look, clearly this team has a big problem at the position. The most overlooked aspect of the 2008 Jets was the inability of our WRs to get open. It was truly hard to watch. Coles was finished (and gone now, obviously), Brad Smith should be released because he's terrible, Clowney and Stuckey have potential, but have proven nothing. The thought of a double teamed Cotchery in '09 makes me rather ill. I love the guy, but he's slow and can't do it on his own. He needs a more dynamic player opposite him, which we currently do not have. Therefore, WR is not only a need...it is a NECESSITY. Also, I'm sick and tired of finding every excuse in the book to not draft a skill position player year after year after year. Its time to address WR. I wouldn't mind adding Holt and a 1st/2nd rd WR, or just drafting two WRs.
LOL, my only point was a linguistic one: If we can "win the big one" without another receiver, than we don't actually NEED a receiver. (In other words, we don't NEED a player who we CAN manage to win a Superbowl without - Of course, we may WANT to add a player(s) to alleviate a particular weakness, however, every team that has ever won the Superbowl has done so despite known weaknesses.) Basically, I was just pointing out that you were misusing the word NEED and it's misuse made the wording of your post illogical and contradictory. I understand what the thread is about and I fully comprehend the intended meaning of your post. Now, the notion that we can "win the big one" with our current group of receivers is one I do not endorse and, in fact, vehemently dispute.
you're currect, re reading this sober my argument was perhaps, a bit weak. however, nfl defensive players are bigger now than they were when sanders and smith were running the ball. also if in any of my posts you seen anywhere where i am saying leon is not a good player, you are wrong. i think leon should get more touches, but if you guys are thinking without thomas jones to carry most of the load our run game would be fine, i believe you are mistaken. and the fact that we do not have an air attack to speak of (cotchery is not a legit #1) and stuckey and clowney will not be feared. Keller can stretch the field but with our weak receivers, sliding a safety to help the lb cover keller will not be a problem. we will see a lot of 8 in the box making it harder for our running game. Not having a legit #1 does more than effect our passing game, it will effect our offense as a whole, running game, time of possesion and so forth.
I don't know if it is fair to say no pick will contribute greatly. It doesn't take hitting full stride for someone to come here and make a contribution. I do agree with the notion that it takes time, though, and that most teams do not start rookie wideouts, but the talent level, as you suggest in referring to Nicks, is obviously higher the higher up in a draft you go, as Nicks apparently is likely to be an example of. The Jets need help at wideout, and FA does not appear to present a reasonable prospect for a deep threat. The circumstances are such that using a high pick to get someone in who would maybe not be hitting their full stride but who can immediately contribute is an attractive concept, and ftr I do not think Clowney and Stuckey should be relied upon to in effect be the #2 and #3 wideouts after Cotch. That is too thin a group, and arguably wideout is the thinnest corps on the team right now.
You're right, I meant to say #1 back since he got the most touches. 151 isn't enough touches to call him an every down back. That being said I don't see any reason to believe that he couldn't carry the ball 20 times a game. He hasn't had any durability issues and even though we call him "Little" Leon he seems to be really stronger than his 200 lb frame would lead you to believe. I believe he got team MVP in 06 as well.
The concept of a starting, "every-down" back who gets virtually all of the carries for a particular team is A) grossly overhyped and B) Becoming quickly antiquated in today's NFL. Most teams rely on a committee of running backs (2 to 3), of which, one guy tends to get the clear majority (or plurality if it's between 3 running backs) of the carries. Right now, the Jets are, in point of fact, one of those teams. TJ gets the clear majority of the carries, while Leon is the change-up back who gets far fewer. There is no good reason why, as TJ gets older and begins to wear down, we shouldn't expect to see Leon getting more and more of TJ's carries. This, along with the fact that Rex Ryan has already supposedly hinted at giving Leon more carries next year (Plus, taking away his punt returning duties will naturally lead to 4 to 5 more touches for Leon on offense per game), means to me that this argument about whether Leon can be an "every down" back is misguided at best, and more likely completely unnecessary. In today's NFL, if you build your team correctly, your featured runner should almost never NEED to carry the ball more than 15-17 times. And when he does occasionally, it's because he is having a big day and you want to keep feeding him the ball. Now, for everyone to agree with my basic premise, we would probably have to be willing to accept that Leon could handle 15 carries a game. I have a feeling that the vast majority of us on this board fully endorse the idea that Leon would have no issues with 15 carries a game. I personally think he can handle 20 and I tend to think the arguments that he can't be a heavily featured back are patently absurd. There have been several uber-talented running backs of comparable size to Leon who have gone on to have great (even all-time great) careers as heavily featured, "every-down" backs, who averaged well more than 15 carries a game in their respective primes: Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Warrick Dunn, etc. And for those of you who don't think Leon could handle 15 carries a game, I have two questions for you: 1) Can he handle 10? If you say no, then I suggest brain surgery. 2) Uhm . . . REALLY???
there is no doubt he would carry the ball 20 times a game, but we will be running the ball much more than that, we need tj on this roster until we draft his replacement.
