Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2019 UDFA NEWS and Signings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 833809"><p>Right, Crosby's data says "reliably average" and overpaid. That's not the argument, though.</p><p></p><p>The point was that comparing Crosby's 12 year record of 80.4% to last year's qualifed kickers (26th. ranked) is a misrepresentation given the improving state of the art (and Crosby's record) over the years. Reliably average is the overall picture.</p><p></p><p>That wasn't the point, though. The point is that anybody can cite a single instance of a correct prediction. I've got a bunch but I'm not going to beat you over the head with them.</p><p></p><p>In fact, I agreed with you at the time that Crosby was overpaid. I reckoned there was a consolation, and just a consolation, that with kicker money escalating at the time he might end up in the middle of the pack by year 3. That did not happen. With the exception of Tucker's deal and Gould's franchise tag, top pay has flatlined around $4 mil per year. In the final analysis, Crosby has been overpaid about $1.5 mil per year over "reliably average". With $3 mil in cap savings now over a minimum replacement, the gap is a bit narrower. Even so, there are considerable risks in trying to get cheaper for the same or better performance, which I'll touch on below.</p><p></p><p>There are a few obvious reasons for that, even among those of us who consider Crosby an average kicker.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There's the amount of overpayment which, while not something to be ignored, pales in comparison to recent position player examples. Were you on the record that the Graham deal was a bad reach? I was. The amount he's being overpaid in one year is about equal to 3 years worth of Crosby's overpayment. There are and have been bigger fish to fry in the pay-for-performance evaluations.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There's the "who else ya got?" factor. I think I was first around here to put Daniels on the potential cut list before FA and the draft. He was at the bottom of my list at that time in the "who else ya got?" calculation, but on the list nonetheless. Every roster is going to have somebody overpaid for lack of alternatives. Now, with a lot of capital spent on a couple of lengthier, ligher, more athletic OLB/3-tech swing men, the argument for cutting Daniels is getting more compelling. There are options for replacing many of Daniels' snaps which makes him a poor value proposition as a rotational player. That may yet come to pass once we get into camp or even final cuts when the "who else ya got?" gains clarity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">With kickers, once the roster is set, there is nobody else in the "who else ya got?" calculation. All the eggs are in one basket. Actually, it's one egg in one basket. The cost of failure is high. "Reliably average" gets you, for about the 7th. time, an overpaid Crosby yet some premium must be granted in the risk/reward calculation of substituting him for one unproven egg. The gross dollar amounts in the overpayment are meaningful but not substantial compared to other players under examination. The Daniels situation, in comparison, has many alternatives, not just the two high profile acqusitions but the other guys on the roster who might serve adequately in his otherwise reduced capacity. With a kicker replacement there is no plan B other than the slim pickings off the street.</li> </ul><p></p><p></p><p>That's the "who else ya got?" calculation. Funny, though, you're ready to throw in the towel on Ficken. I'm not. On the one hand you believe the highly-paid scouting department should be able to find a replacement needle in the unproven haystack of kickers. Then when they do bring one in you're throwing in the towel before you've seen him in preseason. Or the next kicker they bring in before that if they go that way. Ficken kicked for 2 games for the Rams in 2017 when LaFleur was there. Maybe he saw something not reflected in his miniscule 3 for 6 professional record. He may be as good a judge as any with no kicking gurus on the staff.</p><p></p><p>I never said it was impossible. That would be stupid since it has been done. However, you have portayed it as easy. It is not easy. So, how many undrafted kickers yielded that 83.5% over those 3 years? Very few out of the hundreds of kickers coming out every year.</p><p></p><p>The Bears front office has done a pretty good job at roster building with a "win now" tilt. Who knows what might have happened without the double doink. They evidently have a highly paid scouting staff earning their money. And yet they found they needed to stage a cattle call for kickers, raking in a chunck of the haystack in search of the needle. It is <strong>not easy</strong> to find a kicker out of the undrafted ranks. It's easier if you draft one, but even then it is more like a 50/50 proposition. It also helps to have somebody on the staff with some knowlege of placekicking other than by osmosis. That's uncommon. Judging from Nagy's comments and approach he's no exception depite being highly paid. I see nothing in the backgrounds of our coaches and scouts to say there is a kicking guru among them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 833809"] Right, Crosby's data says "reliably average" and overpaid. That's not the argument, though. The point was that comparing Crosby's 12 year record of 80.4% to last year's qualifed kickers (26th. ranked) is a misrepresentation given the improving state of the art (and Crosby's record) over the years. Reliably average is the overall picture. That wasn't the point, though. The point is that anybody can cite a single instance of a correct prediction. I've got a bunch but I'm not going to beat you over the head with them. In fact, I agreed with you at the time that Crosby was overpaid. I reckoned there was a consolation, and just a consolation, that with kicker money escalating at the time he might end up in the middle of the pack by year 3. That did not happen. With the exception of Tucker's deal and Gould's franchise tag, top pay has flatlined around $4 mil per year. In the final analysis, Crosby has been overpaid about $1.5 mil per year over "reliably average". With $3 mil in cap savings now over a minimum replacement, the gap is a bit narrower. Even so, there are considerable risks in trying to get cheaper for the same or better performance, which I'll touch on below. There are a few obvious reasons for that, even among those of us who consider Crosby an average kicker. [LIST] [*]There's the amount of overpayment which, while not something to be ignored, pales in comparison to recent position player examples. Were you on the record that the Graham deal was a bad reach? I was. The amount he's being overpaid in one year is about equal to 3 years worth of Crosby's overpayment. There are and have been bigger fish to fry in the pay-for-performance evaluations. [*]There's the "who else ya got?" factor. I think I was first around here to put Daniels on the potential cut list before FA and the draft. He was at the bottom of my list at that time in the "who else ya got?" calculation, but on the list nonetheless. Every roster is going to have somebody overpaid for lack of alternatives. Now, with a lot of capital spent on a couple of lengthier, ligher, more athletic OLB/3-tech swing men, the argument for cutting Daniels is getting more compelling. There are options for replacing many of Daniels' snaps which makes him a poor value proposition as a rotational player. That may yet come to pass once we get into camp or even final cuts when the "who else ya got?" gains clarity. [*]With kickers, once the roster is set, there is nobody else in the "who else ya got?" calculation. All the eggs are in one basket. Actually, it's one egg in one basket. The cost of failure is high. "Reliably average" gets you, for about the 7th. time, an overpaid Crosby yet some premium must be granted in the risk/reward calculation of substituting him for one unproven egg. The gross dollar amounts in the overpayment are meaningful but not substantial compared to other players under examination. The Daniels situation, in comparison, has many alternatives, not just the two high profile acqusitions but the other guys on the roster who might serve adequately in his otherwise reduced capacity. With a kicker replacement there is no plan B other than the slim pickings off the street. [/LIST] That's the "who else ya got?" calculation. Funny, though, you're ready to throw in the towel on Ficken. I'm not. On the one hand you believe the highly-paid scouting department should be able to find a replacement needle in the unproven haystack of kickers. Then when they do bring one in you're throwing in the towel before you've seen him in preseason. Or the next kicker they bring in before that if they go that way. Ficken kicked for 2 games for the Rams in 2017 when LaFleur was there. Maybe he saw something not reflected in his miniscule 3 for 6 professional record. He may be as good a judge as any with no kicking gurus on the staff. I never said it was impossible. That would be stupid since it has been done. However, you have portayed it as easy. It is not easy. So, how many undrafted kickers yielded that 83.5% over those 3 years? Very few out of the hundreds of kickers coming out every year. The Bears front office has done a pretty good job at roster building with a "win now" tilt. Who knows what might have happened without the double doink. They evidently have a highly paid scouting staff earning their money. And yet they found they needed to stage a cattle call for kickers, raking in a chunck of the haystack in search of the needle. It is [B]not easy[/B] to find a kicker out of the undrafted ranks. It's easier if you draft one, but even then it is more like a 50/50 proposition. It also helps to have somebody on the staff with some knowlege of placekicking other than by osmosis. That's uncommon. Judging from Nagy's comments and approach he's no exception depite being highly paid. I see nothing in the backgrounds of our coaches and scouts to say there is a kicking guru among them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Firethorn1001
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: milani
42 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
44 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
44 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
49 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: DoURant
Today at 2:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2019 UDFA NEWS and Signings
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
