5.175 - Kamal Martin [LB; Minnesota]

[Dubz41]

21 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

If you never try to improve on the issues which kept you from the previous SB, you'll never make another one.  GB doesn't, and that's why they haven't.  Not simply because of how difficult it is, but because of how complacent and satisfied they were with the non-results that they were getting

It's the difference between proactive and reactive.  reactive will be chasing its tail, always a step behind.  The Packers are playing chess and you're pissed because they lost a checker game.

(I hope)

[coachbuns]

45 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

If you never try to improve on the issues which kept you from the previous SB, you'll never make another one.  GB doesn't, and that's why they haven't.  Not simply because of how difficult it is, but because of how complacent and satisfied they were with the non-results that they were getting

Just responded in a different post from you regarding the ignore button.  Didn't know they had one; certainly can see why it should be used in your case.

[Deps]

1 hour ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

 Most of those prospects were drafted where they were predicted to go and how they were universally valued.  I don't think it's accurate to say that we were following a league trend by grouping the prospects that we selected with those who were more highly regarded.  I'm sure that we're probably the only team who drafted a QB who will sit 3 years, a 2 down RB and glorified FB with our first 4 picks.  Definitely not a league-wide strategy in the draft.

Unless you’re really getting into the semantics of late second vs. early third it is tough to see where you’re coming from on Dillon. He was generally considered part of the next tier after the top five and that is where he went. Personally I thought that none of that group would go before round four because of positional value. Turns out they were all gone by the time the Packers picked in the third round and outside of Benjamin, who apparently teams weren’t as high on as the prognosticators, the next tier was all gone by the end of the fourth.

As for tight end, you are telling me the consensus had the two guys the Patriots picked (one of whom is also generally considered an h-back) leap-frogging Trautman and the Bryants? The two guys generally considered h-backs were the two biggest surprises, which might be a sign the prognosticators were cooking into their rankings a positional value that for whatever reason did not apply this year. Another guy who has gotten the h-back label, Woerner, also leap-frogged a lot of higher ranked players to be picked late. 
I am not that the Packers draft wasn’t weird positionally, but for whatever reason some of the things you’re criticizing them for were devalued across the NFL. I’m not saying that it is right or wrong, but no, the rest of the draft didn’t simply go as expected at those positions.

[Patriotplayer90]

NE addressed 3 positions before they even made the moves that you are speaking of.  Adding a RB and HB earlier than they were anticipated to go isn't really the problem, it's making those moves and absolutely no others during the first 4 rounds which could benefit the team next year or really for a while.  It's taking things a bit too far out of context if you're simply looking at similar positions drafted by other teams, without looking at what they did with their other picks.  That's why GB's draft is universally viewed in such a negative light, because they got very little value out of the draft.

[Deps]

1 hour ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

NE addressed 3 positions before they even made the moves that you are speaking of.  Adding a RB and HB earlier than they were anticipated to go isn't really the problem, it's making those moves and absolutely no others during the first 4 rounds which could benefit the team next year or really for a while.  It's taking things a bit too far out of context if you're simply looking at similar positions drafted by other teams, without looking at what they did with their other picks.  That's why GB's draft is universally viewed in such a negative light, because they got very little value out of the draft.

So your argument is immediate impact, rather than positional value? Because when you were snidely mentioning the positions they took it sounded more like positional value. And truthfully, while there might have been a handful of defenders that would have had more immediate impact in rounds 2 and 3 (although not a ton, especially in round 3), you could make a case that far more conventional picks would likely have made less of an impact this year (Peart probably wouldn't beat out Wagner; Gandy-Golden probably isn't going to be ready to be more than a No. 4 as a rookie, if that; etc.).

You keep coming back to the concept that they went earlier than expected, and that was a large part of the point I was making: the expectations were based on premises that just proved to be flat out wrong. The second and third tiers of running backs, in general, went higher than expected. The class' top H-backs went higher than expected. When it's not just one team, it might be time to question the assumptions more than the picks.

If you're saying that overall it felt that the Packers draft lacked something, that's fine and it isn't far off from my personal view on it (all of the picks are understandable and defensible but the lack of any kind of infusion of young talent along the defensive line and at offensive tackle is worrisome). I'm just saying that there is more value in those picks and positions than you are giving them credit for.

[Patriotplayer90]

I was probably drinking when I wrote that and backed myself into a corner (not the first time).  I probably bought into the pre draft narrative too much about him and thought some team would get a steal in round 4 or 5.  After using the 1st and 4th pick, I think they could have used a "steal" in round 2 or 3.  But I see your point, that the board is unpredictable.  At least they got two players with a very low possibility of disappointing, as opposed to a DL or someone almost sure to do just that

Edited May 4, 2020 by Patriotplayer90

[craig]

Going to be lots of changes.  Last year we had Martinez, then Burks and Bolton seemed like ILB's 2 + 3, then both were gone.  So then it was Raven Greene trying to be safety playing some linebacker, and he was gone too.  

Totally different room now, with Martin, Kirksey, Burks presumably back healthy, Bolton presumably back healthy, with Summers not being a rookie, Barnes...  It will be interesting to see how that all shakes out.  But just having more than one healthy guy might help an awful lot.  

I assume there will be some schematic changes in terms of run defense.  

And I hope that there is some improvement, both in terms of personnel and schematics, regarding the interplay of DL and linebackers.  Keke isn't a raw rookie now; hopefully he factors in.  Adams got hurt in like week 2; it's not inconceivable that coming back healthy he'll make some progress in the anti-awful direction.  So hopefully both Keke and Adams provide some greater help this year than last.  

[ThatJerkDave]

I don't recall if this was posted yet.  But I like what I see from Martin.

 

[HighCalebR]

Think kamal gets a shot at kylers drop backer spot? He's got experience on the edge and dropping..

[incognito_man]

i actually forgot about him until this got bumped

[Joe]

On 5/28/2020 at 8:17 PM, HighCalebR said:

Think kamal gets a shot at kylers drop backer spot? He's got experience on the edge and dropping..

Nope.

I've watched his film, it doesn't look good. Some people said look at 2018 pre-injury. Nope, we're in a post-injury environment from him. He's going to need to find more athleticism in order to prevent him from being a liability or a JAG IMHO.

 

On the other hand, he's a 5th round pick so...lottery ticket...

[craig]

20 hours ago, Joe said:

Nope.

I've watched his film, it doesn't look good. Some people said look at 2018 pre-injury. Nope, we're in a post-injury environment from him. He's going to need to find more athleticism in order to prevent him from being a liability or a JAG IMHO....

Not sure I'm tracking, Joe?  Lots of guys find more athleticism when they're healthy than when playing hurt.  I'm not sure I'm expecting him to be athletic enough.  But the injury factor certainly justifies at least the possibility that his 2019 film isn't representative of what his 2020 athleticism will be.  

[festiveonion]

That’s the most I’ve seen from him. 
Looks like a solid fifth rounder. Did a little bit of everything there huh? 
 

Obviously, it’s a highlight tape but he looks like he has really good hands for an LB

[Joe]

On 5/30/2020 at 8:51 PM, craig said:

Not sure I'm tracking, Joe?  Lots of guys find more athleticism when they're healthy than when playing hurt.  I'm not sure I'm expecting him to be athletic enough.  But the injury factor certainly justifies at least the possibility that his 2019 film isn't representative of what his 2020 athleticism will be.  

Tramon Williams got a nasty shoulder injury early in 2011 and just wasn't the same after that. 

Below is the scouting report from TDN.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/player/kamal-martin/UnFZhXnuFY

Harris' cons section worries me. I could see where some would want him to take over Fackrell's responsibilities, but I just don't see the athleticism there. I also don't see much aggression TBH. I went back and re-watched the Nebraska film, which is supposed to be his best. I saw a mediocre player who wasn't around the ball all too much and kinda sauntered around.

[MrBobGray]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

Tramon Williams got a nasty shoulder injury early in 2011 and just wasn't the same after that. 

Below is the scouting report from TDN.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/player/kamal-martin/UnFZhXnuFY

Harris' cons section worries me. I could see where some would want him to take over Fackrell's responsibilities, but I just don't see the athleticism there. I also don't see much aggression TBH. I went back and re-watched the Nebraska film, which is supposed to be his best. I saw a mediocre player who wasn't around the ball all too much and kinda sauntered around.

I'm not sure I'm following.  Tramon was a mess through 2011 due to the shoulder, but I disagree it's long-term affected his play.  He's still playing at a starter level at 36; that's crazy for a CB and doesn't show signs of diminished athleticism or capability.

And again, Martin's athleticism was MIA in 2019 with the knee.  You aren't going to see that athlete on tape unless you go back to 2018 or earlier, and unfortunately I can't find any available tape for him from those years.