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
What to do with Mason Crosby?
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: 474474"><p>Let me help out here...it was <strong>20</strong> for 27 for 74% in 2005.</p><p> </p><p>2001 was Longwell's worst year, 20 for 31 for 65%, including 7 for 14 from 40-49 yards.</p><p> </p><p>In his other 7 seasons with the Pack, his yearly averages ranged from 80 - 89%.</p><p> </p><p>His two best years were with the Vikes...93% and 94%.</p><p> </p><p>Longwell's 82% for his career with the Pack was quite good for an outdoor kicker. He was 86% with the Vikes. That 4% difference sounds like a good rule-of-thumb-adjustment for outdoor vs. indoor comparisons.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/longwrya01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/longwrya01.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>I wouldn't call any of Crosby's seasons outstanding except for last year, his only season over 80%. 2007 and 2008 were decent at 79+. I'd say he's been on balance, over 6 seasons, about an average outdoor kicker at 78%...maybe a bit better than average excluding this season.</p><p> </p><p>Longwell, on balance, was the better kicker, especially if you put aside that 40-49 slump in 2001.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CrosMa20.htm" target="_blank">http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CrosMa20.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>On the general issue of FG %, I'd look at the stats for 31-49 yards to gauge general effectiveness.</p><p> </p><p>Even the worst kickers make nearly everything from 30 on in (the league is 160 out of 161 this season from that range). Some kickers get more chip shots to pad their %. From 50 on out, stats get distorted as well...kickers without big legs are not asked to try the long ones as often (fewer misses raising overall %), whereas kickers with big legs are asked to kick the long ones more often (more misses dropping overall %).</p><p> </p><p>Further, regarding long kicks, even the best kickers with extended resumes...guys like Akers, Vinatieri, Janakowski...are at about 50% from 50+. Which raises the question of the wisdom of even trying those kicks unless the clock is running down, especially if you have a decent punter or short yardage to go.</p><p> </p><p>31 - 49 is where you expect your kicker to earn his pay.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 474474"] Let me help out here...it was [B]20[/B] for 27 for 74% in 2005. 2001 was Longwell's worst year, 20 for 31 for 65%, including 7 for 14 from 40-49 yards. In his other 7 seasons with the Pack, his yearly averages ranged from 80 - 89%. His two best years were with the Vikes...93% and 94%. Longwell's 82% for his career with the Pack was quite good for an outdoor kicker. He was 86% with the Vikes. That 4% difference sounds like a good rule-of-thumb-adjustment for outdoor vs. indoor comparisons. [url]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/longwrya01.htm[/url] I wouldn't call any of Crosby's seasons outstanding except for last year, his only season over 80%. 2007 and 2008 were decent at 79+. I'd say he's been on balance, over 6 seasons, about an average outdoor kicker at 78%...maybe a bit better than average excluding this season. Longwell, on balance, was the better kicker, especially if you put aside that 40-49 slump in 2001. [url]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CrosMa20.htm[/url] On the general issue of FG %, I'd look at the stats for 31-49 yards to gauge general effectiveness. Even the worst kickers make nearly everything from 30 on in (the league is 160 out of 161 this season from that range). Some kickers get more chip shots to pad their %. From 50 on out, stats get distorted as well...kickers without big legs are not asked to try the long ones as often (fewer misses raising overall %), whereas kickers with big legs are asked to kick the long ones more often (more misses dropping overall %). Further, regarding long kicks, even the best kickers with extended resumes...guys like Akers, Vinatieri, Janakowski...are at about 50% from 50+. Which raises the question of the wisdom of even trying those kicks unless the clock is running down, especially if you have a decent punter or short yardage to go. 31 - 49 is where you expect your kicker to earn his pay. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
mradtke66
gopkrs
CarryTheG14
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
13 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Badgers Football 2025-2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 10:10 AM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 10:09 AM
Movies and Entertainment
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:48 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Cornelius Weems
Today at 9:25 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
What to do with Mason Crosby?
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
