Jump to content

Now that Pettine is gone, who should be the new DC?


BluePacker

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rodjahs12 said:

My point about him being a hometown favorite still stands. His name wouldn’t have been mentioned in here if he coached anywhere but UW but I digress. I hope I’m wrong about him and like I said I easily could be, but I really don’t understand how the lot of you are so confident that the guy is going to work out.

And that's flat out bull****. Someone here has mentioned Brent Venables. We've had a beat writer suggest Iowa State's DC. My buddy literally just texted me "too bad Chris Petersen isn't still HC at Washington because I'd be interested in Jimmy Lake for DC." Automatically going for the "you're just being a homer" stance is about as lazy as it gets.

And nobody is "so confident" that he'd work out. We all just pointed out your flawed logic as to why he'd be a bad choice. Every point you made prior to the "I just don't like college DC's making the jump" was something that could be attributed to every single candidate, yet you isolated it to Leonhard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

And that's flat out bull****. Someone here has mentioned Brent Venables. We've had a beat writer suggest Iowa State's DC. My buddy literally just texted me "too bad Chris Petersen isn't still HC at Washington because I'd be interested in Jimmy Lake for DC." Automatically going for the "you're just being a homer" stance is about as lazy as it gets.

And nobody is "so confident" that he'd work out. We all just pointed out your flawed logic as to why he'd be a bad choice. Every point you made prior to the "I just don't like college DC's making the jump" was something that could be attributed to every single candidate, yet you isolated it to Leonhard.

One mention of venables and your friends texting you about other randoms doesn’t matter in the context of this thread lol. No one is mentioning  guys like Jeremy Pruitt or Bob Shoop, and it’s very easy to argue that their resume is just as impressive as Leonard’s despite playing in the SEC. You don’t have to like it, but it’s blatantly obvious people have an emotional reason to want Leonhard to succeed. 
 

Also I never said Leonhard would be an outright bad choice. I said it would be a massive risk. I don’t see how that’s arguable considering going from the big ten to the NFL. 

Edited by Rodjahs12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rodjahs12 said:

My point about him being a hometown favorite still stands. His name wouldn’t have been mentioned in here if he coached anywhere but UW but I digress. I hope I’m wrong about him and like I said I easily could be, but I really don’t understand how the lot of you are so confident that the guy is going to work out.

I believe his name was mentioned for other teams, but he has expressed that he won't leave WI (home state).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Seriously, you know enough about football and players.  You are telling me you can't tell the Badgers secondary was average at best?  LOL.  The talent they have had on D except for LB was average at best and it was evident from the games they played.  

Not what I said at all. Try reading.

Just because the secondary was bad at Wisconsin and they played off doesn't mean that with a talented secondary they're going to play on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Of course, I've even gone ahead ITT I believe and said I'd prefer to get away from the Rex Ryan tree, so it's not like I'm pounding the table for Leonhard. I just take ****ty arguments to heart. Things like "he could be in over his head" can be said about every single candidate. We don't know how any of their schemes will look. This isn't an argument solely to be made against Leonhard.

I'm not saying Leonhard is a bad choice either. My issues with it is that people seem to think he's a perfect candidate without doing any thinking or analysis because he's a Badger guy.

See: Watt, JJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The argument against Leonard is really simple. We don't have any idea what his scheme looks like in the NFL. 

Wisconsin's personnel groupings aren't applicable to the NFL. 11 personnel doesn't mean base defense. 10 personnel doesn't mean nickel. 

We don't know anything about his coverage scheme in the NFL. Was the off coverage he played religiously due to not having talent in the secondary, or was it because he believed in it as a methodology. 

We don't have any idea how varied his schemes are. Was it simple because that's all college players can remember and execute or was it simple because that's how he prefers to play?

You can say the same thing about a guy who is a safeties coach or a LB coach.

This makes it seem like a retread is the only option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

I'm not saying Leonhard is a bad choice either. My issues with it is that people seem to think he's a perfect candidate without doing any thinking or analysis because he's a Badger guy.

See: Watt, JJ

And I don't see anyone saying he's a perfect candidate. I see people that think he's a viable one. Not a fan of the hyperbole that's coming from this entire conversation because I don't think it has anything to do with solely being a Badger guy. That's lazy analysis.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rodjahs12 said:

Also I never said Leonhard would be an outright bad choice. I said it would be a massive risk. I don’t see how that’s arguable considering going from the big ten to the NFL. 

Any unproven candidate that's never called plays is a massive risk. Again, none of what you're saying is isolated to Jim Leonhard lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rodjahs12 said:

Ah yes, another one off example to distract from the overall point that Leonhard is an obvious homer choice being propped up by personal convictions lol 

You're barking up the wrong tree, dude. I don't care about Jim Leonhard. I'm on record saying I want to get away from the Rex Ryan tree. You're argument just doesn't hold any water because you're attributing things to Jim Leonhard, and only Jim Leonhard, that can be attributed to literally every single person we bring in.

Also, people are talking about Jim Leonhard, now, because he's on the ******* interview list lol. But, yes, it's homerish personal convictions that are driving this entire conversation, not your generic arguments.

Edited by beekay414
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beekay414 said:

You're barking up the wrong tree, dude. I don't care about Jim Leonhard. I'm on record saying I want to get away from the Rex Ryan tree. You're argument just doesn't hold any water because you're attributing things to Jim Leonhard, and only Jim Leonhard, that can be attributed to literally every single person we bring in.

Also, people are talking about Jim Leonhard, now, because he's on the ******* interview list lol. But, yes, it's homerish personal convictions that are driving this entire conversation, not your generic arguments.

I’ve already said that this same argument would be true of pretty much any college DC, so the point you’re trying to make about this being a personal grudge for me against Leonhard is just not what’s being said here. And yeah, Leonhard is getting an interview. That doesn’t change the fact that fans are excited about him primarily due to the UW connection. You can deny that all you want, but it’s clear to see. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rodjahs12 said:

I’ve already said that this same argument would be true of pretty much any college DC, so the point you’re trying to make about this being a personal grudge for me against Leonhard is just not what’s being said here. And yeah, Leonhard is getting an interview. That doesn’t change the fact that fans are excited about him primarily due to the UW connection. You can deny that all you want, but it’s clear to see. 

Sure it is, because you didn't bring that up initially, I drew it out of you. Your whole stance started with the homer argument and provided zero context beyond that. You even said you don't know a damn thing schematically about Leonhard so, yes, it's 100% been about Leonhard for you.

Whatever though, I'm not interested in this merry-go-round with you anymore. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, beekay414 said:

Sure it is, because you didn't bring that up initially, I drew it out of you. Your whole stance started with the homer argument and provided zero context beyond that. You even said you don't know a damn thing schematically about Leonhard so, yes, it's 100% been about Leonhard for you.

Whatever though, I'm not interested in this merry-go-round with you anymore. 

Stay mad. Have a nice day 🙂 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...