Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deleted member 6794" data-source="post: 833786">First of all here's the table with teams ranked in field goal percentage since the 2013 season:[ATTACH=full]4398[/ATTACH]I posted Crosby's numbers compared to other teams, therefore the improvement in overall field goal percentage doesn't make any difference evaluating those.I'm not using hindsight in criticizing the Packers signing Crosby to that deal as I voiced my displeasure with it as soon as details became available though.That's true for every other position though, yet Packers fans don't have any issue advocating for the team to replace underperforming veterans on offense or defense for some incomprehensible reason that doesn't apply to Crosby.The Packers have a highly-paid scouting department which should be competent enough of finding a college kicker capable of replacing a below average kicker. Actually it's not smart to hold on to Crosby for this season but because of a lack of an adequate replacement the Packers will most likely be forced to. But it would be a terrible idea to re-sign him once again.The bottom line is that since the Packers signed Crosby to his current deal in 2016 undrafted kickers who played in the league for the first time have a higher field goal percentage (83.5%) than him (82.6%), yet you want to convince it's impossible to find a cheap replacement for him. Mind-boggling.</blockquote>

Total: 2,641 (members: 2, guests: 2,639)