Steve Martin signed by Green Bay

Hobbes · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

"slkcpa3" wrote in message
> If you don't want Warren, NE will take him. Your welcome to Martin, he was
> useless last year.

They guy has been worthless since Gilde Radner died. Or was that Gene
Wilder.......

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>ne-patriots

slkcpa3 · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

wrote in message$3I1.47@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
> "slkcpa3" wrote in message
> > If you don't want Warren, NE will take him. Your welcome to Martin, he
was
> > useless last year.
>
> They guy has been worthless since Gilde Radner died. Or was that Gene
> Wilder.......
>

Wilder was her husband.

SLKCPA

Michael Falkner · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 11

"slkcpa3" wrote in message news:...
> "JK" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:47:53 GMT, "Ram"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Just a camp body?
> > >
> > >http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2003/0720/1583184.html
> > >
> >
> > Definitely not. He's a quality every down kind of player. He should
> > make the roster.
>
> Have you ever seen him play ......... I mean recently. He's a waste of
> roster space. I thought you guys might have learned your lesson with T.
> Glenn last year. If he can't play for Belichick why do you think he'd work
> out in GB?

Lemme flip that question around -- did you see GB play last year?
They couldn't stop anything between the 20's, it seemed. They need to
get ANYONE who can try to stop anything, and a few fliers may be
necessary to be taken. When you have to deal with Tomlinson, Portis,
Holmes, etc., it's going to be a long year in Packerland if they can't
stop the run...

Mike

JK · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 45

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:06:35 -0400, "slkcpa3"
wrote:

>> Like Ed said, the only reason he didn't start was because of Seymour's
>> progress. That does NOT mean that he suddenly and inexplicably lost
>> his ability to play. It means the Patsies simply used him as a
>> backup, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>Simply Wrong. Seymour played next to Martin. He Did suddenly and
>inexplicably lose his ability to play. We had to move a career DE (Hamilton)
>to cover his DT position. The failure of Martin to live up to what was
>expected of him is a major reason we had trouble stopping the run (31st
>overall). Again (we played a 4-3 last year), both Seymour and Martin were
>supposed to be on the field together. Unfortunately, Martin, without
>exaggeration, stunk - then he became belligerent.
>
>SLKCPA

We'll see, won't we? You going to be around in 6 months?

JK · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 45

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:18:03 -0400, "slkcpa3"
wrote:

>I don't hate Martin but I'm happy he's gone. Oh yes, as for Glenn .......
>thanks for the draft choices and ........ we 'Told You So'

Glenn did exactly what he was signed to do. He allowed Ferguson and
Walker to develop in a backup role rather than be thrown to the wolves
before they were ready.

Hobbes · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

"JK" wrote in message
> >SLKCPA
>
> You going to be around in 6 months?

Lookie here - a Usenet date!!!!!

slkcpa3 · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

"JK" wrote in message@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:06:35 -0400, "slkcpa3"
> wrote:
>
> >> Like Ed said, the only reason he didn't start was because of Seymour's
> >> progress. That does NOT mean that he suddenly and inexplicably lost
> >> his ability to play. It means the Patsies simply used him as a
> >> backup, nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> >Simply Wrong. Seymour played next to Martin. He Did suddenly and
> >inexplicably lose his ability to play. We had to move a career DE
(Hamilton)
> >to cover his DT position. The failure of Martin to live up to what was
> >expected of him is a major reason we had trouble stopping the run (31st
> >overall). Again (we played a 4-3 last year), both Seymour and Martin were
> >supposed to be on the field together. Unfortunately, Martin, without
> >exaggeration, stunk - then he became belligerent.
> >
> >SLKCPA
>
> We'll see, won't we? You going to be around in 6 months?
>

Sure, I'll be here. I'm a big fan fan of 'we'll see'.

SLKCPA

Arlie Rahn · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 15

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message@comcast.com...
> > So, with all that being said... we're just optimistic that Martin's
probs
> > may be left in the past... if not, the cost was minimal.
>
> It's not a matter of personality problems with Martin as much as it is a
> matter of him not being very good.

I think the point here is that we are talking about a guy who had solid
numbers in 2001 (40 tackles, 2.5 sacks, 2 fumbles and 5 passes deflected)
but never managed to fit in with New England.

It seems like you are saying that there is no chance that he just wasn't a
good fit in NE, and that it's all. But, if he is as bad as you say his is,
why did he do so well in NY the year before?

> Quite frankly, I wouldn't expect Martin to amount to anything. He was
given
> every opportunity in the world by Belichick (he was a beloved Jet), and
> failed each time.

There's a list of players a mile long that failed in one system only to
flourish in another. I think that discouting the system based on the
difference in his 2001 and 2002 numbers is being a little short-sited at
this point.

> He was perhaps the most ineffective DT I've seen on this
> team in years - and that's saying a lot. In retrospect, I think I speak
for
> evry Pats fan when I say I wish they had kept Holsey over Martin.

Fair enough, but I will wait until we see him in a uniform before calling
him a wasted sign. For all I know, he could be just insurance on Brown
returning and quickly cut in camp. Or, the team could have actual plans for
him. But, for now, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Arlie

Mark Zarella · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

> So, with all that being said... we're just optimistic that Martin's probs
> may be left in the past... if not, the cost was minimal.

It's not a matter of personality problems with Martin as much as it is a
matter of him not being very good. As was pointed out earlier in the
thread, BB had to use Bobby Hasmilton in the middle of the D line. That's
like asking Terry Glenn to play safety. It was a disaster, but in hindsight
was still probably the best strategy considering that there were no NFL
caliber DTs on the roster other than Seymour and the LB depth was too thin
to attempt a permanent move to a base 3-4.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't expect Martin to amount to anything. He was given
every opportunity in the world by Belichick (he was a beloved Jet), and
failed each time. He was perhaps the most ineffective DT I've seen on this
team in years - and that's saying a lot. In retrospect, I think I speak for
evry Pats fan when I say I wish they had kept Holsey over Martin.

Mark Zarella · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

> >Hey Major Tom, this is ground control .......... last year (2002) he had
13
> >tackles, 4 assists and no sacks. He was Not injured. I don't care about
how
> >he used to play.
>
> Like Ed said, the only reason he didn't start was because of Seymour's
> progress. That does NOT mean that he suddenly and inexplicably lost
> his ability to play. It means the Patsies simply used him as a
> backup, nothing more, nothing less.

You do realize that the Pats used TWO DTs last season, and not one, correct?
So pop question: if Seymour was one (he was slated as the unchallenged
starter from the beginning, by the way - it was not a surprise
"progression"), who was the other?

Give up?

Hobbes · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
> You do realize that the Pats used TWO DTs last season, and not one,
correct?
> So pop question: if Seymour was one (he was slated as the unchallenged
> starter from the beginning, by the way - it was not a surprise
> "progression"), who was the other?

Bernard Holsey?

Kent Thaler · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 43

Mark Zarella wrote:

>>So, with all that being said... we're just optimistic that Martin's probs
>>may be left in the past... if not, the cost was minimal.
>
>
> It's not a matter of personality problems with Martin as much as it is a
> matter of him not being very good. As was pointed out earlier in the
> thread, BB had to use Bobby Hasmilton in the middle of the D line. That's
> like asking Terry Glenn to play safety. It was a disaster, but in hindsight
> was still probably the best strategy considering that there were no NFL
> caliber DTs on the roster other than Seymour and the LB depth was too thin
> to attempt a permanent move to a base 3-4.
>
> Quite frankly, I wouldn't expect Martin to amount to anything. He was given
> every opportunity in the world by Belichick (he was a beloved Jet), and
> failed each time. He was perhaps the most ineffective DT I've seen on this
> team in years - and that's saying a lot. In retrospect, I think I speak for
> evry Pats fan when I say I wish they had kept Holsey over Martin.
>
>

- martin did not play for BB when BB was witht he Jets. he came from KC
after herm took over. he was brought in by terry bradway.

Kent Thaler

James_ · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"Arlie Rahn" wrote in message$Ye.868@fed1read02...
>
> I remember hearing the same thing from Jacksonville when GB added Andre
> Rison back in 1996. Yet, when he came to GB, he ran very good routes and
did
> a nice job for the Pack. Not all NFL players are "pros". Some sulk and
> others don't give 100% when they don't think it matters. Sometimes a
change
> of scenerio gives them a fresh start, which they take advantage of.
>

Rison was always a very good performer and athlete. I think they were mainly
concerned if he would be a clubhouse problem.

Arlie Rahn · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 15

"James_" wrote in message@corp.supernews.com...
> "Arlie Rahn" wrote in message
> $Ye.868@fed1read02...
> >
> > I remember hearing the same thing from Jacksonville when GB added Andre
> > Rison back in 1996. Yet, when he came to GB, he ran very good routes and
> did
> > a nice job for the Pack. Not all NFL players are "pros". Some sulk and
> > others don't give 100% when they don't think it matters. Sometimes a
> change
> > of scenerio gives them a fresh start, which they take advantage of.
> >
>
> Rison was always a very good performer and athlete. I think they were
mainly
> concerned if he would be a clubhouse problem.

He had averaged about 3 catches and 45 yards a game (with only 2 TDs in 10
games) on Jacksonville in 1996. This newsgroup was spammed to a new high
with Jag fans saying how worthless he was on the field. The same thing
happened to him again in 1999 in KC, when he had only 21 catches in 14
starts. But, he went to Oakland in 2000 and had 600 yards and 6 TDs as their
third WR.

Rison was one of those guys that sulked when he wasn't happy, yet often took
advantage of a new start (first seasons at GB, KC and Oakland). Maybe Martin
is in the same mold.

Arlie

Ralph Hickok · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"Mark Zarella" wrote in@comcast.com:

>> So, with all that being said... we're just optimistic that Martin's
>> probs may be left in the past... if not, the cost was minimal.
>
> It's not a matter of personality problems with Martin as much as it is
> a matter of him not being very good. As was pointed out earlier in
> the thread, BB had to use Bobby Hasmilton in the middle of the D line.
> That's like asking Terry Glenn to play safety. It was a disaster,
> but in hindsight was still probably the best strategy considering that
> there were no NFL caliber DTs on the roster other than Seymour and the
> LB depth was too thin to attempt a permanent move to a base 3-4.
>

Actually, he played very well in the five or six games he started, when
Seymour was out. But, after Seymour came back and Martin was relegated to a
backup role, his play declined very badly. He also did very well as a
starter for the Jets, which is a big reason for Belichick's grabbing him.
It could be he's one of those guys who has to be a starter to play well.
Some players simply don't function well as backups.

--
Ralph Hickok
http://www.hickoksports.com/