By Far: Our Weakest Position

[El Guapo]

You can be the worst kicker in the league and still have a slump. That's not making excuses for anything. I think that I clearly pointed out that Crosby is below average in kicking over 40 yards. Why some of you get so worked up over this is beyond me though.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I only get worked up when Crosby hits one wide right...or left. Happens tooooooo often for my non-statistical eye.

 

[mradtke66]

I only get worked up when Crosby hits one wide right...or left. Happens tooooooo often for my non-statistical eye.

So that's part of the problems. Humans are so good at finding patterns, we find them even when there isn't one. Similarly, we tend to ignore or forget evidence that counters our viewpoints and latch onto the parts that confirm our viewpoints.

In short, we need objective statistics with their context. Because we as a species absolutely SUCK, beyond all measure, doing it any other way.

 

[Dan115]

I would rather fix the O line and have a decent qb behind Rodgers. We will have a good fg kicker.

 

[fanindaup]

1 - No one is dismissing FG percentage. Simply pointing out that Marcol of the 1970's isn't comparable to the kickers of today. Kickers of today are the most accurate ever. See for yourself. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/fg_perc_career.htm

As you can see, 75%, 3 out of 4, is not impressive in today's game. 80% is the standard now. Even after Akers had a horrible year (and was cut), he is still over 81% in his career.

2 - Kind of weird that you would get so defensive at the end there. This isn't a respect issue. You stated your opinion and people stated their reasons that they disagreed with it. That's it.

I had multiple posters accusing me of cherry picking data, typing in caps, saying I was calling their examples imaginary, reading things into what I was saying, and when I posted an example of stats that showed the exact reasons why I don't believe FG % is a good indicator of determination, then that was discounted. if you really read what was said back to me it got a little more heated than just stating their opinion. my 'opinion' was that I was basically holding out on having an opinion until I saw good evidence.i was never given that evidence.

 

[FrankRizzo]

I had multiple posters accusing me of cherry picking data, typing in caps, saying I was calling their examples imaginary, reading things into what I was saying, and when I posted an example of stats that showed the exact reasons why I don't believe FG % is a good indicator of determination, then that was discounted. if you really read what was said back to me it got a little more heated than just stating their opinion. my 'opinion' was that I was basically holding out on having an opinion until I saw good evidence.i was never given that evidence.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding?
As far as I know, nobody said anything about the Mason's "determination". We just said he sucked, and has been below-average for quite some time.

FG% is a pretty relevant statistic. For kickers at least. Maybe not for punters or QB's. But for kickers, I propose the idea that FG% is quite relevant, and accurate, in evaluating a kicker's performance.

 

[adambr2]

I had multiple posters accusing me of cherry picking data, typing in caps, saying I was calling their examples imaginary, reading things into what I was saying, and when I posted an example of stats that showed the exact reasons why I don't believe FG % is a good indicator of determination, then that was discounted. if you really read what was said back to me it got a little more heated than just stating their opinion. my 'opinion' was that I was basically holding out on having an opinion until I saw good evidence.i was never given that evidence.

But you were given evidence. I gave you a couple different examples of more successful cold-weather kickers, showed you a link demonstrating that the majority of current kickers in the NFL today kick at well over 80% accuracy, and noted that Crosby has only had one successful season in that regard, not just one unsucessful season.

That's about all the evidence anyone can give you. No one has a database with the wind speed, temperature, and field condition on every Crosby FG attempt in history compared with other kickers.

 

[mradtke66]

So interesting adjustment--Crosby is a career ~83.2% kicker if you exclude his 50+ kicks. Excluding 50+ kicks from all kickers in 2012, the average is ~87.6%.

From this, I conclude that his 50+ kicks are bringing down his average. Do we agree?

Next I must ask, does Crosby kick more 50+ kicks, which have the lowest chance for success, thus unnecessarily hurting his average?

143 50+ kicks were attempted last year, an average of 4.7 per team. Crosby, admittedly struggling last year, attempted 8. A sub-par kicking average is predictable, based solely on that detail. Continuing to send him out for those strikes me as a bad idea. (using top 30 kickers numbers from earlier in the thread)

Over his career, has attempted 32 50+ kicks in his career, average of 5.3 per year. Or 32 vs 28career kicks.

If we adjust the total number of 50+ kicks down to the 4.7 average, but keep his accuracy the same on 50+ attempts, his career average increases an entire percentage point.

If we similarly adjust his best years, ie, exclude 2012, his average is 79.63.

Okay, that's the math, here's what I conclude.

1) Crosby attempts too many long field goals
2) Those attempts hurt his over all average
3) Adjusted, he still isn't a great kicker, but he isn't terrible. He falls just short of the magic 80% mark.
4) 2012 appears to be a statistical anomaly, both in terms of over all accuracy and the large number of 50+ yard attempts
5) Probably worth another year. We need to determine which year(s) are the true oddball.

More Questions:

1) Lambeau is considered the toughest place to kick, assuming I remember the study correctly. Does a kicker who kicks there 'deserve' a 'bonus' to his percentage? IE, for ever 25 kicks attempted at Lambeau, should we just add 1% to your accuracy numbers to account for difficulty? Would that make for a more-fair comparison?

 

[fanindaup]

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding?
As far as I know, nobody said anything about the Mason's "determination". We just said he sucked, and has been below-average for quite some time.

FG% is a pretty relevant statistic. For kickers at least. Maybe not for punters or QB's. But for kickers, I propose the idea that FG% is quite relevant, and accurate, in evaluating a kicker's performance.

I apologize for not being clear with using the word determination. I didn't mean Crosby's determination, I meant determining the variable factors of kicking field goals in conditions.

 

[fanindaup]

But you were given evidence. I gave you a couple different examples of more successful cold-weather kickers, showed you a link demonstrating that the majority of current kickers in the NFL today kick at well over 80% accuracy, and noted that Crosby has only had one successful season in that regard, not just one unsucessful season.

That's about all the evidence anyone can give you. No one has a database with the wind speed, temperature, and field condition on every Crosby FG attempt in history compared with other kickers.

Actually, there was a study done that ThxJackVanisi referenced which did include those variables which showed a) Crosby is the fifth underrated kicker in the league and b) Lambeau Field is the second hardest place in which to kick a field goal. http://www.sloansportsconference.co...eld Goal Success with Logistic Regression.pdf
Also, again just giving a few random examples of times Crosby choked is not acceptable proof that he sucks. I gave a few examples of times he was dead on accurate such as in 2011. Those were dismissed by the 'missing' Crosby crowd. You can't have it both ways. It is unscientific to dismiss stats that don't fit your theory and only accept those that do. I've since observed some posters having different takes on the data I have found interesting, such as removing the attempts from over 50 yards which then gives Crosby a % over 80. Perhaps that suggests he just is not accurate from that distance, which would indicate MM should go for it or punt in lieu of attempting a FG from that distance.

 

[fanindaup]

So interesting adjustment--Crosby is a career ~83.2% kicker if you exclude his 50+ kicks. Excluding 50+ kicks from all kickers in 2012, the average is ~87.6%.

From this, I conclude that his 50+ kicks are bringing down his average. Do we agree?
agreed.

Next I must ask, does Crosby kick more 50+ kicks, which have the lowest chance for success, thus unnecessarily hurting his average?

143 50+ kicks were attempted last year, an average of 4.7 per team. Crosby, admittedly struggling last year, attempted 8. A sub-par kicking average is predictable, based solely on that detail. Continuing to send him out for those strikes me as a bad idea. (using top 30 kickers numbers from earlier in the thread)
agreed. I had the same feeling during the season last year. it was almost as if MM was trying to force Crosby out of his slump.

Over his career, has attempted 32 50+ kicks in his career, average of 5.3 per year. Or 32 vs 28career kicks.

If we adjust the total number of 50+ kicks down to the 4.7 average, but keep his accuracy the same on 50+ attempts, his career average increases an entire percentage point.

If we similarly adjust his best years, ie, exclude 2012, his average is 79.63.

Okay, that's the math, here's what I conclude.

1) Crosby attempts too many long field goals
2) Those attempts hurt his over all average
3) Adjusted, he still isn't a great kicker, but he isn't terrible. He falls just short of the magic 80% mark.
4) 2012 appears to be a statistical anomaly, both in terms of over all accuracy and the large number of 50+ yard attempts
5) Probably worth another year. We need to determine which year(s) are the true oddball.
that is also my conclusion.

More Questions:

1) Lambeau is considered the toughest place to kick, assuming I remember the study correctly. Does a kicker who kicks there 'deserve' a 'bonus' to his percentage? IE, for ever 25 kicks attempted at Lambeau, should we just add 1% to your accuracy numbers to account for difficulty? Would that make for a more-fair comparison?

Actually it's second. But it is tougher than Soldier Field, where Robbie Gould kicks. The study I referenced actually does give a percentage by which Crosby is underrated, 14. Im not sure exactly what to do with that number, but if one were to add it as a bonus to his make percentage (1.14 multiplied by his career make percentage which it lists as 79.89% that gives him a make percentage of 91.07% after taking his kicking conditions into account). I think the study was done prior to last year so that might not take the slump into account.

 

[13 Times Champs]

So that's part of the problems. Humans are so good at finding patterns, we find them even when there isn't one. Similarly, we tend to ignore or forget evidence that counters our viewpoints and latch onto the parts that confirm our viewpoints.

In short, we need objective statistics with their context. Because we as a species absolutely SUCK, beyond all measure, doing it any other way.

I think there's a pattern and it isn't a good one. I don't think the guy is a dependable kicker. I cringe when he comes on the field to attempt a field goal.

What I've seen in the stats posted regarding Crosby is a lot of cherry picking of data. Spinning stats makes some feel better. They often use them in a biased manner to confirm their point of view. Still they will steadfastly hold to them as being objective.

 

[adambr2]

My argument isn't so much that Crosby doesn't deserve another chance or isn't an NFL-caliber kicker. It's the fact that he is paid at the level of an elite kicker, but is not an elite kicker. That seems like a waste of salary cap and resources to me.

I love TT, but Crosby and Kuhn combined eat up about 6M of salary cap space, and could probably be replaced by late round or UDFA rookies making less than 1M combined, with no noticeable dropoff from last year. That's 5M extra in saved space. 5M will buy you a pretty darn good player, or can be carried over into the next season.

 

[mradtke66]

So with the new CBA, having Kuhn and Crosby "eat cap space" might not be a bad idea. Part of the deal (super, duper over simplified) is that teams have a higher "minimum" cap number to payout. IIRC, it's 95%. The result is that some less than elite players are going to be over paid to reach the 95% number.

 

[TJV]

IMO adambr2 made the best point on this thread. No matter where you stand on the issue of Crosby’s retention, does anyone here believe Crosby’s performance has matched his compensation? That’s why I posted if there is a “tie” between Crosby and Tavecchio through preseason, Tavecchio should win the job.

I disagree with mradtke66’s idea that overpaying players is not a bad idea because teams are now required to pay at least a minimum amount of cash. (BTW, I believe the CBA requires teams have to spend 89% of the salary cap number in cash over four seasons beginning this season – so it’s not a season by season rule but is cumulative over four seasons). Overpaying players would only be justified IMO if a team is so bereft of talent there are no younger vets worth extending. That’s certainly not the case in Green Bay. If Kuhn can be adequately replaced more cheaply by a younger FB or by TEs and if Crosby can be replaced adequately by Tavecchio, that money, along with the cap space the Packers still have this season, could be used to extend whoever the staff decides is next in line in importance to the team.

 

[adambr2]

So with the new CBA, having Kuhn and Crosby "eat cap space" might not be a bad idea. Part of the deal (super, duper over simplified) is that teams have a higher "minimum" cap number to payout. IIRC, it's 95%. The result is that some less than elite players are going to be over paid to reach the 95% number.

It's actually 89%, over a 4 year period, with 2013 being the first year. So they could be well under 89% this year and still catch up. There's no need or desire under the new CBA to overpay anyone to reach it.

Even on the off-chance you were under the 89% threshold after 4 years (which would involve being under the cap by an average of $14M or so every year from 2013 to 2016, not happening), you could easily take that opportunity to extend an important player like Cobb, Shields, etc (for example).

Even failing that, you could renegotiate a deal like Rodgers to frontload salary to the current year to reach the minimum, I'm sure he would be happy to oblige.

With Cobb, Nelson, Jones, Shields, among many others who will need new contracts in the next few years, I'd be pretty furious if they are deliberately overpaying mediocre kickers and fullbacks with the salary floor in mind.

 

[fanindaup]

I doubt the Packers would deliberately overpay under performers just to make the cap floor.

 

[mradtke66]

You do have to consider that with the new CBA, rookie contract cannot be renegotiated until after the 3rd (4th?) year. If you have a rookie deal you want to re-sign early, you can't. You have to wait. One of the oddities of the new rules. We don't know exactly the best game-theory that will be applied, but I could see this.

And part of it is also when your deal comes due. Flacco is paid more than is probably appropriate. But he was a free agent at just the right time. Had the Ravens not paid him what he did, some other team would have.

 

[TJV]

You do have to consider that with the new CBA, rookie contract cannot be renegotiated until after the 3rd (4th?) year. If you have a rookie deal you want to re-sign early, you can't. You have to wait. One of the oddities of the new rules. We don't know exactly the best game-theory that will be applied, but I could see this.

And part of it is also when your deal comes due. Flacco is paid more than is probably appropriate. But he was a free agent at just the right time. Had the Ravens not paid him what he did, some other team would have.

None of that justifies purposely overpaying players. And all but the most poorly managed teams would have players worth extending who aren't in their rookie seasons. Even "renting" an expensive UFA would make more sense than overpaying players.

BTW, I believe the CBA says draftees can't renegotiate until after their 3rd season and undrafted players can renegotiate after their 2nd season.

Flacco was overpaid because he was about to become a UFA, not because the Ravens were concerned about meeting the minimum cash requirement. BTW, what do you mean by "We don't know exactly the best game-theory that will be applied, but I could see this."?

 

[Vltrophy]

Isn't Crosby making like 2 mill next year or something? smh thank your boys TT and MM for sticking with him..don't be mad at him be mad at those two.

If Jimmie Johnson was the head coach he would've been off the team as soon as they got home

 

[mradtke66]

BTW, what do you mean by "We don't know exactly the best game-theory that will be applied, but I could see this."?

I find explaining game theory hard to explain. I suggest taking a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

 

[adambr2]

You do have to consider that with the new CBA, rookie contract cannot be renegotiated until after the 3rd (4th?) year. If you have a rookie deal you want to re-sign early, you can't. You have to wait. One of the oddities of the new rules. We don't know exactly the best game-theory that will be applied, but I could see this.

And part of it is also when your deal comes due. Flacco is paid more than is probably appropriate. But he was a free agent at just the right time. Had the Ravens not paid him what he did, some other team would have.

All of this is true. None of it would ever make it wise to deliberately overpay a player.

 

[TJV]

I find explaining game theory hard to explain. I suggest taking a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

LOL, I know what game theory is, maybe I didn't ask the question correctly: Are you saying applying game theory somehow justifies overpaying players because of minimum spending requirements?

Every team probably has overpaid players, but I can't think of an excuse to purposefully over pay a player.

 

[fanindaup]

I have a theory about Crosby's current compensation. Might fit Kuhn too. Their deals may have come up when there just weren't any better options out there. In 2011 Crosby did perform like an elite kicker, 24 of 28 I believe. I don't want to rehash all the other tuff posted about him. Im not saying he is an elite kicker, just that for that season he earned it. Kuhn was the last option when we had no RB, again filling in there adequately for some games in 2010 and 2011 when there was no one else. I liked Brandon Jackson but let's face it, the guy couldn't find a hole in a block of Swiss cheese. Maybe TT figured he could get by for a while with what he had in house because he didn't have any other options. Maybe this is the year he moves on. If the Italian kid looks like a viable kicker I can almost guarantee he gets the job. If Lacy can make a yard on third and one and pick up a blitzer, why keep Kuhn? Remember TT cut Ryan before he found a punter and special teams suffered. Perhaps he was willing to spend a little in order not to repeat that mistake. Just a thought.

 

[mradtke66]

Are you saying applying game theory somehow justifies overpaying players because of minimum spending requirements?

Potentially. I am merely suggesting there is a potential benefit or constraint that makes paying Crosby his current salary advantageous. We might not be aware of it. Or at the very least, the pain that it is causing is insufficient to cut him just because of his salary vs. production.

I'm actually very neutral on Crosby staying or going. I think he's fine, but not great. His long attempts skew his numbers, but that alone doesn't adjust him to be great.

I'm simply trying to predict what TT will do and speculate what his motivations might be. They aren't cap constrained and the accelerated cap hit + paying his replacement might end up being a wash if they cut him, so it probably won't happen unless he's cleanly beaten in training camp.

It's also possible the FO is concerned after what happened with Jon Ryan. Okay specialist, a touch erratic, but a strong leg and a fair bit of potential. Cut. He goes on to go good things and his replacement falls on his face. Kickers are an odd lot. If they believe 2012 to be the outlier, they're probably getting a good deal.