Let’s have a serious conversation…aka ditch Anders

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,130
Reaction score
1,599
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I hope he gets out of the slump.
I know that it's just semantics, but I wouldn't call this a slump. I think that a slump is a mental thing. He does not miss multiple kicks in a row. He is missing one kick per game recently, and mostly the XPs. I'm not making excuses, but think that this is a consistency issue that Rich Bisachia can help him overcome.
 

gatorpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
235
Location
Florida
Why can't he kick the ball deep into the end zone in a dome on kickoffs? Don't tell me it's strategy. There is no way we would kick short to Dallas right before halftime. Dallas ended up with a good return to the 45 and ended up with a touchdown. His kickoffs look like Mason Crosby's towards end of his career
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
There is no rational strategy for not kicking deep. Average NFL starting field position is greater than the 25. The odds of allowing them to break a big return or even score outweigh whatever miniscule benefit you might gain from an extra 5-10 yards of field position IF everything is executed perfectly.

And again, the returning team can opt to get it at the 25 no matter where you kick it to by fair catching, making the strategy all the more baffling.

You can argue "but they're not fair catching it". Well yes. That's pretty telling, isn't it? They're not fair catching because the strategy is bad and they're gaining against the average by returning. If it was advantageous to fair catch a short kick, they'd be coached into doing that.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,289
Reaction score
5,683
Definitely gotta bring in competition. At Kicker. Carlson and Rich have Offseason and Preseason and then whoever wins that wins the job.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
The problem with the Packers approach to roster building (and don't get me wrong, most of their approaches are very good), is that they treat every position like a damn developmental spot.

Kicker is NOT that position. It's ok to get rid of a kicker who can't make kicks, because there's no shortage of next men up.

Not every single position on your roster is worth being patient and taking your lumps at in hopes of a payoff in a couple years.

It's like they're afraid to lose out on the next Justin Tucker.
 

pacmaniac

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
571
The problem with the Packers approach to roster building (and don't get me wrong, most of their approaches are very good), is that they treat every position like a damn developmental spot.

Kicker is NOT that position. It's ok to get rid of a kicker who can't make kicks, because there's no shortage of next men up.

Not every single position on your roster is worth being patient and taking your lumps at in hopes of a payoff in a couple years.

It's like they're afraid to lose out on the next Justin Tucker.
Carlson is no Justin Tucker that's for sure. Tucker in his rookie season was over 90% FGs and 100% on XPs.
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
2,744
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
Carlson is no Justin Tucker that's for sure. Tucker in his rookie season was over 90% FGs and 100% on XPs.
They snapped the XP from the 2 during Tucker's first few seasons. Have to take the move to the 15 a few years back into account.
ETA: All of Tucker's rookie FG misses were beyond 40 yards. Lo and behold, all of Anders FG misses have also been beyond 40 yards.
 

games

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2021
Messages
250
Reaction score
134
Location
Iowa
Carlson is fine. His FG% of over 80% is better than Mason Crosby's rookie year. Give him time and a long snapper that doesn't roll the ball back to the holder.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,187
Reaction score
1,506
The problem with the Packers approach to roster building (and don't get me wrong, most of their approaches are very good), is that they treat every position like a damn developmental spot.

Kicker is NOT that position. It's ok to get rid of a kicker who can't make kicks, because there's no shortage of next men up.

Not every single position on your roster is worth being patient and taking your lumps at in hwell saidopes of a payoff in a couple years.

It's like they're afraid to lose out on the next Justin Tucker.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,187
Reaction score
1,506
Correct. Punter, kicker, holder and longsnapper have to be ready made. Those positions are not usually impacted by the opposition.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,355
Reaction score
1,740
There is no rational strategy for not kicking deep. Average NFL starting field position is greater than the 25. The odds of allowing them to break a big return or even score outweigh whatever miniscule benefit you might gain from an extra 5-10 yards of field position IF everything is executed perfectly.

And again, the returning team can opt to get it at the 25 no matter where you kick it to by fair catching, making the strategy all the more baffling.

You can argue "but they're not fair catching it". Well yes. That's pretty telling, isn't it? They're not fair catching because the strategy is bad and they're gaining against the average by returning. If it was advantageous to fair catch a short kick, they'd be coached into doing that.
Ever see the receiving team fumble or get called for a 10 yard. Happens a lot more often than returns for TD's.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,187
Reaction score
1,506
Ever see the receiving team fumble or get called for a 10 yard. Happens a lot more often than returns for TD's.
Interesting that when we faced the Bucs Bowles opted to start at the 25 on every one of our kickoffs including the returnable ones. Nixon did have a big return and a big fumble but we had a big recovery.
 

RepStar15

"We're going to relentlessly chase perfection."
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
265
Location
Cranston, RI
At a bare minimum you bring in two other guys to compete for the job in the offseason. Carlson had no business stepping on to the field in post season. We knew what he was.
 

JKramer64

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
189
Reaction score
158
They let Crosby go for cap reasons. He stayed unemployed for over half the season until the Rams signed him to their practice squad. The Packers could have resigned him for the vet minimum and had him available for the stretch run. They could have moved Carlson to the practice squad. Crosby was unemployed for a reason. He had lost some of his length strength for longer FG's and his kickoffs were short. I still would have trusted him over Carlson to hit a 41 yarder with the season on the line.
 

Latest posts

Top