Packers overflowing with young candidates to step in for injured Jake Ryan

Status
Not open for further replies.
kingkoopa said:
A guess? No, it's common sense. If your defense can't get off the field(especially on third down) you end up getting more opportunities to tackle people. Here's some more common sense. The Packers didn't tackle people well last year, and had a lot of missed tackles. His teammates inability to tackle well, opens up even more opportunities for Martinez to make some tackles and pad those stats.

Also, as TW pointed out, he's in a role specifically designed to get tackles. It's going to be interesting to see how he does this year in a different defense. He definitely took a step up from his rookie campaign though.

I'm not saying he's a bad player by any means. He can tackle well for sure, and he appears durable. But everyone seems to have a raging hard-on for him that just isn't warranted IMO. I read an article that called him a, "building block". That's an extreme take. He hasn't shown he's a difference maker. He's just piled up some stats on an awful Packers defense. Color me unimpressed at this point.
Click to expand...


So your common sense says he had more chances when the snap counts are the same for the other ilber mentioned? That holds no water sorry. Which inside guys do you think are all that in the league? Like i pointed out the kid was in the top of important categories. I would agrue that someone standing out on this shit d is even more impressive. Im not saying hes kuechly. Hes not but he was better then the average claim you stated as a 2nd yr pro. Yea we missed tackles.... Alot of them were not in front of him so to say he padded his stats is a pure guess not common sense.
 
So your common sense says he had more chances when the snap counts are the same for the other ilber mentioned?
Click to expand...

He was 11th in the NFL in snaps played by a LB despite only playing 93.0 percent of the defensive snaps. That's lower than all the top 11 guys except one. He clearly played a lot of snaps, more so than just about any LB in the NFL, that is my point, and it's proven by the numbers. He played more, and therefore had more opportunities to make tackles.

I don't understand why you're arguing that my point was that he played more than the top ILBs in the NFL. That was never my argument. My point is that he's been on the field more than most LBs in the NFL and therefore that is a big part of why he had so many tackles.

Interesting comment regarding his tackles:

Yea we missed tackles Alot of them were not in front of him so to say he padded his stats is a pure guess not common sense.
Click to expand...

Do you have a stat on this? If not, it's as baseless as my claim supposedly is.

Bottom line,

What does Blake Martinez do that makes him an above average LB?
 
eyecatcher said:
He is above average in INTs for LBs,
He is above average for forced Fumbles for LBs
He is above average for Passes Defended for LBs
He is above average for Fumbles Recovered for LBs
Click to expand...

Based on what ? What does the "average " linebacker get for fumbles and INT each year? It's all semantics and conjecture really.
 
It looks to me like they forgot to include the word "not" in-between the words "Packers" and "overflowing" in the title.

Or perhaps a better title would be "Packers roster affords schematic flexibility to account for injured Jake Ryan"

IMO it's just factually incorrect to suggest there are options to replace what Ryan offers at ILB. He and Blake are kind of cut from the same cloth, and the other guys are just built differently. I don't see any plug and play options to keep everything else the same, but they do have plenty of options to adjust the D to make this a non-issue. And one could argue that a schematic change to keep Ryan off the field would be beneficial even if he wasn't injured.
 
Mark87 said:
Based on what ? What does the "average " linebacker get for fumbles and INT each year? It's all semantics and conjecture really.
Click to expand...
Statistically he was top 20 in all those categories. Therefore he is above average in all those categories. There are at least 75 lbs that got as many snaps as he did that I would count into the group he is averaged in. There are at least that many more LBs that were reserves and didn’t get as many snaps.
 
eyecatcher said:
Statistically he was top 20 in all those categories. Therefore he is above average in all those categories. There are at least 75 lbs that got as many snaps as he did that I would count into the group he is averaged in. There are at least that many more LBs that were reserves and didn’t get as many snaps.
Click to expand...

It's kinda weird that there's a disagreement here over calling a player on the Packers "above average." It's like saying that a woman at the bar isn't completely hideous, and then having your buddy slam his fist on the bar and insist she's the ugliest woman on earth. I mean, "above average" isn't even a compliment.
 
Agree "rp".

It's all just semantics. Are we saying above average is top half? If so, I agree, but that's not saying all that much. If you are grading LB on a classic bell curve with grades of A-F then being ranked at #20 or so would make you part of the "average" group with a grade of C though maybe being more toward the top of that group.

I'll say that he's serviceable and is not a reason the defense/team is not capable of winning a Super Bowl. Every team has solid guys like him that allow them to win games and even championships.
 
rpiotr01 said:
It's kinda weird that there's a disagreement here over calling a player on the Packers "above average." It's like saying that a woman at the bar isn't completely hideous, and then having your buddy slam his fist on the bar and insist she's the ugliest woman on earth. I mean, "above average" isn't even a compliment.
Click to expand...

rofl( Which gives credence to that old saying; "The girls get prettier at closing time."
 
kingkoopa said:
He was 11th in the NFL in snaps played by a LB despite only playing 93.0 percent of the defensive snaps. That's lower than all the top 11 guys except one. He clearly played a lot of snaps, more so than just about any LB in the NFL, that is my point, and it's proven by the numbers. He played more, and therefore had more opportunities to make tackles.

I don't understand why you're arguing that my point was that he played more than the top ILBs in the NFL. That was never my argument. My point is that he's been on the field more than most LBs in the NFL and therefore that is a big part of why he had so many tackles.

Interesting comment regarding his tackles:



Do you have a stat on this? If not, it's as baseless as my claim supposedly is.

Bottom line,

What does Blake Martinez do that makes him an above average LB?
Click to expand...


but he didn't play more you are completely wrong there man.
( snaps, tackles, tfl, sacks, )

Marty 979 144 10 1
Wagner 1022 133 13 1.5 more snaps we would agree hes better
Deion Jones 1018 138 11 1 more snaps. many say hes a playmaker
C.J Mossley 1077 132 11 1 more snaps
Joe Schoberet 1068 144 ? 3 couldn't find tfl but it was less then 9
Preston Brown 1098 144 9 0 more snaps less production in sacks and tfl
Luke Kuechly 915 125 7 1.5 less snaps but close in #s. hes the best by a mile
Eric Kendricks 967 113 10 1
L David 813 101 14 0 IMO a top 3 off ball backer but hes not ilb


these are just some ILB and there numbers. If you want me to add anyone else I will. Marty also had 9 pass break ups, tied with 3 above and only behind jones.

Im not sure where you got the number of snaps these guys played but he didn't play more than all the top inside backers. That's just a false statement. And going by the number he fit right in with some of the guys that are the best in the league, unless these guys are not the best but I would say some of these are.

Bottom line,

Numbers don't lie. Blake Martinez played above average football and he put up top 10 stats for an ILB last year. Now its cool if you think hes average, nothing wrong with that but I don't see anything to back that up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top