Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Build offense around Doug Martin « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23415
Offline
« #15 : August 22, 2012, 03:31:59 PM »

If you trade up into the first round for any RB, you clearly have planned for this.
the colts draft two 1st round rbs during the Payton Manning era.  The rb is to complement the QB.


Naismith

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4163
Online
« #16 : August 22, 2012, 03:35:40 PM »

We got Martin because our running was becoming one-dimensional. They drafted him to essentially compliment this offense not be the cornerstone of it.

So you trade up to the first for a compliment when solid RB's were available in the 3rd and 4th?  Selling.  Cornerstone to pound the rock and play action to set up shots downfield.

Complement.

I fully expect Martin to get a ton of looks, but Blount is still going to get his share, regardless of whether the Bucs traded up. I posted this somewhere else, but KC Joyner wrote this about Martin:

"At some level, the hype for Martin just doesn’t seem to match his on-field performance. For instance, Martin was one of the 47 players in college football last year to post at least 200 rushing attempts. His 4.9 YPA ranked tied for 25th in that group. He averaged less than four yards per carry in five games last year. And these numbers weren’t posted for some middle of the road team, as the Broncos were one of the top teams in the country last year. For Martin to not come closer to posting dominant numbers is a fairly big question mark. It may not be likely that he will lose the starting job to Blount but it is possible, or at the very least this could turn into a platoon situation. Martin had issues with ball security and could be subject to the same low tolerance policy that Blount was hit with this offseason. The Bucs 2.9 offensive GBP last year ranked tied for 26th in that metric, so the offensive line improvements could take more than just one player to fix."

This has tempered my expectations, though I never expected him to be a workhorse, franchise back. I expect him to be an important cog in the offense and a good blend with Blount.

There\'s a very real chance the Bucs waive [Revis] before next season. At the very least, it will be a discussion worth having.

Bucs N Beers

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3848
Online
« #17 : August 22, 2012, 04:13:25 PM »


So you trade up to the first for a compliment when solid RB's were available in the 3rd and 4th?  Selling.  Cornerstone to pound the rock and play action to set up shots downfield.

Let's not blow the "trade up" out of proportion. We traded up like 6 slots, by swapping a 4th round pick that we didn't have when the draft started, and ended up not even using due to trading up for David. I would agree with your point if we made a blockbuster trade, but we literally lost nothing.


HOOOOOOOO!!!!

tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7663
Offline
« #18 : August 22, 2012, 04:43:13 PM »

lol, lets let the guy play a regular season game before we anoint him anything, let alone build an offense around him. Thats not even considering that there are very few franchise backs as the NFL has become a passing league.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

Biff Barker

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1463
Offline
« #19 : August 22, 2012, 04:59:05 PM »


So you trade up to the first for a compliment when solid RB's were available in the 3rd and 4th?  Selling.  Cornerstone to pound the rock and play action to set up shots downfield.

Let's not blow the "trade up" out of proportion. We traded up like 6 slots, by swapping a 4th round pick that we didn't have when the draft started, and ended up not even using due to trading up for David. I would agree with your point if we made a blockbuster trade, but we literally lost nothing.

Point taken, the 6 slots was not a quantum leap, agree there.  But there were many excellent players available in the lower spot too and still we took a RB.  Considering all the holes we needed to fill,(still do too), it's telling what the teams mindset was. 

And whomever said VJax was a decoy is sadly misguided.  The fact is you need both to be successful.  What I am sticking to is this simple.  Schiano wants to run the ball first, shots downfield later.  Not my words, just fact and Martin is the main guy.

We invest a very high pick in a bell cow, do it all back.  Not Blount and a 3rd rounder. 

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21603
Offline
« #20 : August 22, 2012, 05:17:14 PM »

You build the offense around the QB. RB's aren't what you build an offense around now or really ever in the NFL.

I have little faith Rutgers isn't a moron but hopefully the offense he wants is the Dallas 90's offense type of thing. People think it was smith but Aikman in the first half had stats like Marino and Elway it was in the second half, with the lead, he handed it over to Smith to close out. If you think you are gonna go to win that ain't gonna happen - you run because you are winning.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7663
Offline
« #21 : August 22, 2012, 05:18:47 PM »


So you trade up to the first for a compliment when solid RB's were available in the 3rd and 4th?  Selling.  Cornerstone to pound the rock and play action to set up shots downfield.

Let's not blow the "trade up" out of proportion. We traded up like 6 slots, by swapping a 4th round pick that we didn't have when the draft started, and ended up not even using due to trading up for David. I would agree with your point if we made a blockbuster trade, but we literally lost nothing.

Point taken, the 6 slots was not a quantum leap, agree there.  But there were many excellent players available in the lower spot too and still we took a RB.  Considering all the holes we needed to fill,(still do too), it's telling what the teams mindset was. 

And whomever said VJax was a decoy is sadly misguided.  The fact is you need both to be successful.  What I am sticking to is this simple.  Schiano wants to run the ball first, shots downfield later.  Not my words, just fact and Martin is the main guy.

We invest a very high pick in a bell cow, do it all back.  Not Blount and a 3rd rounder.

Holes...you dont think RB wasnt one of the biggest holes on this team? We had Blount and Madu on the roster.....thats it. Secondly, since Schiano said they wanted to run the ball, what makes you think a single RB could carry a heavy load?....something thats extremely rare in todays NFL.

You along with several others read way too far into Schianos words. A 1st round RB and a desire to run the ball doesnt mean that Martin is the starter, the guy getting all the carries, or the focus of the offense.

All of those things are left to be decided by performance in TC, preseason, and the regular season. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. We are not talking about a QB drafted in the top 5 here. We are talking about a RB at the bottom of the 1st.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
« #22 : August 22, 2012, 05:22:46 PM »

I hope Martin turns out to be a good player, but in 2012 there's no such thing as a franchise running back. You build around your quarterback or you get a top 5 pick to try again.

Joe Flacco is average at best. The Ravens have been very successful basing their offense around Ray Rice and playing great defense. The 49ers had a great success last year with an offense based on Frank Gore and great defense. It can still be done, you just need a great defense.


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21603
Offline
« #23 : August 22, 2012, 05:24:42 PM »

Joe Flacco is average at best. The Ravens have been very successful basing their offense around Ray Rice and playing great defense. The 49ers had a great success last year with an offense based on Frank Gore and great defense. It can still be done, you just need a great defense.

You can leave out the Ray Rice/Frank Gore part. If you have a great defense you can be successful. The running back doesn't matter since what Gore and Rice are there to do is burn clock not score points.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
« #24 : August 22, 2012, 05:28:45 PM »

The two of them combined had 23 TDs and 3300 yards last year. Little more than clock burners.


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21603
Offline
« #25 : August 22, 2012, 05:32:03 PM »

The two of them combined had 23 TDs and 3300 yards last year. Little more than clock burners.

TD's are about when you get the ball. FFL measures but not all that useful. 3300 yards? Combined they had just slightly more yards than Alex Smith. In other words what drives even the most run heavy teams is still the passing game.

Plus, again, rushing yards are about touches. Gore was no better running than our boy Blount for example per carry.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
« #26 : August 22, 2012, 05:36:25 PM »

And? Blount didn't have a bad year last year. That is a myth.

You seem to only look at certain stats and ignore the obvious.


tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7663
Offline
« #27 : August 22, 2012, 05:41:10 PM »

And? Blount didn't have a bad year last year. That is a myth.

You seem to only look at certain stats and ignore the obvious.

quoted for irony.

nevermind those teams had great Ds right? it was the bell cow RBs.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
« #28 : August 22, 2012, 05:42:49 PM »

And? Blount didn't have a bad year last year. That is a myth.

You seem to only look at certain stats and ignore the obvious.

quoted for irony.

nevermind those teams had great Ds right? it was the bell cow RBs.

Dude. I see posters ripping on you for your reading comprehension or lack there of, and I assumed they were being trolls or whatever....but I'm really starting to wonder if they are right.


My post two spots up....

"It can still be done, you just need a great defense."


tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7663
Offline
« #29 : August 22, 2012, 05:51:22 PM »

And? Blount didn't have a bad year last year. That is a myth.

You seem to only look at certain stats and ignore the obvious.

quoted for irony.

nevermind those teams had great Ds right? it was the bell cow RBs.

Dude. I see posters ripping on you for your reading comprehension or lack there of, and I assumed they were being trolls or whatever....but I'm really starting to wonder if they are right.


My post two spots up....

"It can still be done, you just need a great defense."

so you shot your own argument down for me? thanks.

pretty sure you mentioned Rice and Gore and their teams offenses being built around them. Pretty sure their QBs had more production and they were carried by great Ds. Did I comprehend? Or did i miss a point? please point out if I did.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.
  Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Build offense around Doug Martin « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools