The CardBoard
Confirming what we have all discussed - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Confirming what we have all discussed (/thread-6789.html)


Confirming what we have all discussed - FarmBoy - 02-27-2014

Do sports reporters troll our discussions, or what? Link pretty much says it all.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24458114/andrew-luck-in-favor-of-bringing-jonathan-martin-to-indianapolis

I love the writer's use of "Stanford East" as well. Seriously, someone is reading this site.

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - BobK - 02-27-2014

Or reads South Florida newspapers. 

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - Bruce Wang - 02-27-2014

I've been thinking MAYBE we should move our discussions to the non-public board.

But the question is: Is he OLine UPGRADE ? - Redrum - 02-27-2014

...and if so, how MUCH?  At the collegiate level, Martin did the job for Stanford and Luck.  But what Indy needs is a dramatic upgrade on the OL.  Is Martin the guy to do (his part of) that?  Reportedly he was not playing his best ball in Miami.  Could have been the whole mental turmoil thing, but maybe not.  Maybe he's not a great NFL o-lineman.  I dunno.  But-- to the limited extent I care about the NFL-- I want Indy to protect Andrew Luck.  If that means a lineman from Oregon St.  or  Georgia instead of Martin,  get that guy.

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - FarmBoy - 02-27-2014

Quote:...and if so, how MUCH?  At the collegiate level, Martin did the job for Stanford and Luck.  But what Indy needs is a dramatic upgrade on the OL.  Is Martin the guy to do (his part of) that?  Reportedly he was not playing his best ball in Miami.  Could have been the whole mental turmoil thing, but maybe not.  Maybe he's not a great NFL o-lineman.  I dunno.  But-- to the limited extent I care about the NFL-- I want Indy to protect Andrew Luck.  If that means a lineman from Oregon St.  or  Georgia instead of Martin,  get that guy.

I totally agree with this sentiment. Some of Martin's difficult were likely triggered by, or at least magnified by, his performance on the field. Dolphins fans claim he was the 2nd worst starting tackle in the league last season. Hopefully he can have a meaningful career in the NFL, but if not, I certainly don't want the Colts to sacrifice quality to get him. However, if it was just a matter of scheme, or team situation or if the Colts can get him cheap as a back up because no one else in the league wants him and he can still contribute, I want Grigson et al to make the determination for the best of the team, not to help out an old friend of Luck's.

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - dabigv13 - 02-27-2014

It sounds like Martin can be had for about half a milkshake and a couple fries. Indy would not have to pay Oline starter prices to get him, so probably worth a flyer.

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - fullmetal - 02-28-2014

Worth at least a shot in training camp and such.  Slots of 53-man rosters are precious.  But Martin's woes may not have been just him.  The OL is a team unit.

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - theashwineffect - 02-28-2014

How much of his "subpar" (I haven't really watched him play in the pros, so I don't want to pass judgement) was a product of his workplace environment?

While it's imperfect to compare collegiate performances to the pros, Jon Martin was an elite performer during his time at Stanford and was consistently in Kiper's top 5 throughout his final season -- whatever that means. His drop to the second round was often followed with whispers of "character" and "toughness" issues, which is a potentially fair assessment if front offices were trying to assess his fit into what we now know are horrible and barbaric work environments.

I haven't played a team sport competitively since high school, but from those limited experiences I can say that respect for one's teammates was a primary factor in my drive to compete. From all of the reports, Incognito, Pouncey, and Jolly were the main instigators, but Ryan Tannehill seemed to provide no leadership in rectify an overtly hostile environment and implicitly (or maybe even explicitly) contributed to that environment. I would have felt less motivated to protect his ass, too.

However, Jon Martin thrived in what I can assume is/was a fundamentally respectful and productive environment while at Stanford. It's fair to assume that Indy's locker room is similar. So if the cost is low, what's the risk? The payoff could mean a bookend tackle for a decade or more. And if that happens, then Miami and the greater dysfunctional workplace culture of the NFL are the ones looking stupid.

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - stupac2 - 02-28-2014

Does Indy actually need a tackle? All this speculation is sort of pointless if they don't. I've actually heard that their tackles are fine. I don't know where to find information on individual performance, but according to Football Outsiders Indy actually had the 6th best line at pass protection last year: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

It was also 15th and basically league average at running, too. So maybe they don't need OL as badly as common knowledge says.

Now, that's not to say that picking Martin up for a song would be a bad move, that would depend on depth, contract status, and a bunch of other things. But it's not clear to me that they could actually get him for a song.

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - washingtonismoney - 02-28-2014

It's probably hard to get statistics to separate out these things, but it seems to me Luck's ability to escape, scramble and sustain damage probably bailed out Indy's OL quite a few times, and the truer metric is Indy's league-average run blocking. (Then again, they lost a guard at the beginning of the season for the duration, so they may get a nice bounce without doing anything in particular.)

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - BostonCard - 02-28-2014

It has been said that running backs get too much credit for running stats and quarterbacks too little blame for sack statistics.

BC

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - washingtonismoney - 02-28-2014

(02-28-2014, 01:59 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:It has been said that running backs get too much credit for running stats and quarterbacks too little blame for sack statistics.

Can be very true. One of the interesting byproducts of the Nunes/Hogan switch was an increased sack rate. Here's how it went (with a quick Luck comparison):

2011 (Luck): 2.65%
2012 (Nunes): 3.3%
2012 (Hogan): 6.75%
2013 (Hogan): 4.53%

Even with the increased OL experience surrounding Hogan in 2013, he still gets sacked more frequently than Nunes, let alone Luck. Combine that with an elevated turnover rate in 2013 (Hogan accounted for 13 turnovers), and you can see why the coaches have mentioned a few times that getting Hogan's mistake rate down is a priority.

But then again a superior quarterback can also cover up for the OL, as I think Luck has for his Indy blockers. (I also thought Matt Barkley's very quick release and assured command had him hitting the ground after the play was made distressingly frequently in the 2011 SC matchup. He compensated by freaking out in 2012.)


Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - Fresbone - 02-28-2014

Sicne he is on his rookie contract, Martin's salary is currently $390K. In the NFL, that's about as little as you can pay someone. I think that Miami whould be happy to have another team pick him up, even if they had to eat part of his salary, because it would decrease the amount of damages Martin could claim if this does turn into litigation.
That's my legal opinion, straight from the probably the only person on the site who is not an attorney!

Re: Confirming what we have all discussed - socalstanfan1 - 03-01-2014

(02-28-2014, 02:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=9607.msg84684#msg84684 date=1393621175]
It has been said that running backs get too much credit for running stats and quarterbacks too little blame for sack statistics.

Can be very true. One of the interesting byproducts of the Nunes/Hogan switch was an increased sack rate. Here's how it went (with a quick Luck comparison):

2011 (Luck): 2.65%
2012 (Nunes): 3.3%
2012 (Hogan): 6.75%
2013 (Hogan): 4.53%

Even with the increased OL experience surrounding Hogan in 2013, he still gets sacked more frequently than Nunes, let alone Luck. Combine that with an elevated turnover rate in 2013 (Hogan accounted for 13 turnovers), and you can see why the coaches have mentioned a few times that getting Hogan's mistake rate down is a priority.

But then again a superior quarterback can also cover up for the OL, as I think Luck has for his Indy blockers. (I also thought Matt Barkley's very quick release and assured command had him hitting the ground after the play was made distressingly frequently in the 2011 SC matchup. He compensated by freaking out in 2012.)
[/quote]

Getting Hogan's sack rate down would be nice, but I also think at least some of that rate could be attributed to the play calling. For most of last season we pretty much abandoned the short and intermediate passing game, just airing it out on deeper routes, meaning Hogan has to hold the ball longer.

I would be more concerned about Hogan fumbling the ball when running, especially since running is such a valuable part of his game.