clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Mike Martz Approval Rating: Round Three

New, comments

In what is now a weekly feature here at WCG, we're interested in knowing how you feel about offensive coordinator Mike Martz.

Here is the very first poll we had, right after the loss to the Giants.

Here is the next poll, right after the loss to the Seahawks.

We've put some statistics after the jump, which I'd encourage you to take a look at before voting, to help you in your perspective. Plus, there's some neat stuff in there to spur discussion.

There's a lot of disconnect over the Martzfense right now. Disconnect between Martz and the Head Coach. Disconnect between Martz and Cutler. Disconnect between Cutler and the receivers. There were, however, plenty of connections with D. Hall.

But the Bears knew what they were getting themselves into, right? They were aware of his past, many of them had worked with him before. Surely, someone somewhere mentioned that problems could be ahead. (Besides the fans, of course.)

Just a heads up, all stats come from Pro Football Reference, which, if you're a numbers dork, is the only place you'll ever want to go.

Passing Statistics by Team (Best Overall Record)
Year Team Rec. Comp. Att. Comp. % Yards TD Int. Y/C Y/G Sacks Yds/S
2010 Bears 4-3 126 215 58.6 1606 7 12 12.7 229.4 31 193
2008 49ers 7-9 309 509 60.7 3724 21 19 12.1 232.8 55 345
2007 Lions 7-9 368 587 62.7 4216 19 22 11.5 263.5 54 338
2001 Rams 14-2 379 551 68.8 4903 37 22 12.9 306.4 40 240

So as we can see above, no offense was as explosive as the Rams was, but that's largely based on personnel. The later teams fall into a range not unlike what the Bears are in right now. So for fun, let's extrapolate the current season averages across a full season.

Season Projections(based on current averages)
Year Team Rec. Comp. Att. Comp. % Yards TD Int. Y/C Y/G Sacks Yds/S
2010 Bears ? 288 491 58.6 3671 16 27 12.7 229.4 71 442

So what does this tell us? At current averages, the offense is under traditional pace, but realistically, they mean nothing.

But why, Kev? They're obviously on pace to get 71 sacks. Well, yes and no. 10 sacks came out of that game against the Giants. The average without that game is about 3.5. While still a very bad number, not quite as bad as the numbers suggest, as that'd round out to about the mid 50s.

Yes, by and large, looking at the numbers from other teams simply won't matter. However, if the Bears offense can generate something around those numbers, they're actually in pretty good shape. Why is that? Those other teams didn't have something the 2010 Bears have. They didn't have this defense. They didn't have these special teams players.