Oliver Martin Enters Transfer Portal

BillBrasky4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 10, 2013
17,534
31,875
113
I never said it was dumb for Iowa to take him. I think it's dumb for schools like us to take him

That's the difference IMO. Iowa State already has a pipeline constructed of guys that can play right away and guys that are developing. CMC already filled the holes and we simply don't need Martin right now. If this would have happened a few months back CMC would have absolutely went after Martin.
 

Thinker

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2017
3,953
309
113
38
I never said it was dumb for Iowa to take him. I think it's dumb for schools like us to take him

I can agree with you, only if ISU wrs are going to be able to replace Butler. And Campbell does a good job developing WRs.
 

Thinker

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2017
3,953
309
113
38
Hakeem's first season here he made great progressions throughout the year, and to end the year was a threat. He also had a linebacker throwing him the ball in a lot of games. David Montgomery started out as the 3rd back in the depth chart maybe? He worked his way up to the starting position and ended up running for over 500 yards, which is good considering he got less than half the snaps he got his sophomore and junior seasons.

Ok, got it.
 

CyTwins

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2010
80,179
65,792
113
Ankeny
I can agree with you, only if ISU wrs are going to be able to replace Butler. And Campbell does a good job developing WRs.

I mean we already got a transfer that's way better than Martin at the WR position. I'm just saying there's a reason nobody wants him but Iowa
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cytown12

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
21,198
27,221
113
@CyTwins Funny huh? That the lead recruiting director for 247 debunked your narrative. That is kind of funny. :rolleyes:
I mean no one is going to truly know whether or not Martin would have been the 2nd guy or not. Just because some guy says he did well in practice doesn't mean that would have carried to the field..
 

Thinker

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2017
3,953
309
113
38
Last seasons stats:

Milton: 34 rec on 38 targets; 417 yards; 1TD; 12.3 yards/rec

Martin: 11 rec on 17 targets; 125 yards; 1 TD; 11.4 yards/rec

You tell me who is the more productive receiver.

Guess the wr

28 rec 361 yards; 2 TD; 12.9 yards/ rec

23 rec 361 yards; 3 TD; 15.7 yards/ rec

Same class as Milton BTW
 

Thinker

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2017
3,953
309
113
38
I mean no one is going to truly know whether or not Martin would have been the 2nd guy or not. Just because some guy says he did well in practice doesn't mean that would have carried to the field..

They are saying the 3rd guy in a spread out system
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron