Jonathan Martin Is Not An NFL Starting Caliber OT

[dcnr226]

And yet you get frustrated when people give their honest assessment of Martin who spent most of last season looking as if he literally had 2 left feet lol.

Nice cliche, but his foot work was actually a strength of his. His strength, from legs to core to upper body, are what needs emphasis.

[LandShark13]

If you don't honestly see the difference between a rookie and the possibility for improvement, VS Long and the certain erosion of his playing skills and body as proven by 3 years of constant injuries I don't know what to tell you.

I could just as easily reverse that. If you don't see the difference between a player who in his first three years was clearly the best or at least in the top three at his position and a rookie who spent most of last year looking like he doesn't belong then I don't know what to tell you =)

[russianbear]

I could just as easily reverse that. If you don't see the difference between a player who in his first three years was clearly the best or at least in the top three at his position and a rookie who spent most of last year looking like he doesn't belong then I don't know what to tell you =)

You can reverse them, but it doesn't change the message of each. The difference is that 3 years of injury continuity speaks for a downward trend on Long's long term ability, and should leave you more weary on committing to him financially as if he's a top 3 LT in the league, because we don't know if he ever will be again. A ROOKIE, being the key word, has time to develop, and a ceiling that hasn't been seen yet, AND won't cost an arm and a leg. Yes, he could be a liability if he doesn't improve, but so can an injured Jake Long, only DIFFERENCE is that we won't have 10 mil sunk into contract.

That's the difference.

[LandShark13]

You can reverse them, but it doesn't change the message of each. The difference is that 3 years of injury continuity speaks for a downward trend on Long's long term ability, and should leave you more weary on committing to him financially as if he's a top 3 LT in the league, because we don't know if he ever will be again. A ROOKIE, being the key word, has time to develop, and a ceiling that hasn't been seen yet, AND won't cost an arm and a leg. Yes, he could be a liability if he doesn't improve, but so can an injured Jake Long, only DIFFERENCE is that we won't have 10 mil sunk into contract.

That's the difference.

Again I never once said we should give up on the rookie. Just saying we shouldn't give up on Jake either. There are all sorts of clauses that could go into a contract that would make it team friendly. For pete's sake Jakes only 27 years old.