2019 UDFA NEWS and Signings

[Mondio]

I know what the percentages say, they've been presented yearly for the past 3 seasons going on 4 now. I think there's a lot more to be accounted for than just that and I've watched football for a long time. outside of a couple rough patches and a bad season, i've never felt he was a bad kicker or he was missing stuff he should have made outside of those stretches. Many people aren't given an opportunity to work thru things. I've seen bad kickers, Crosby has had bad stretches, but i don't think he's a bad kicker. and given when he got his contract, this was a Super Bowl team, they didn't need to be searching for a new kicker in the midst of that. He was making more than a lot of kickers, but we're talking about 1-2 million total difference, not the difference between a 1 million dollar player or 10 million dollar a year WR. I thought it was perfectly acceptable given the teams circumstances at the time. Turns out we didn't win another super bowl, but could you imagine dumping Crosby in favor Blair Walsh and getting bounced 1st round of playoffs because he missed easy ones? Everyone would be asking why didn't re-sign Crosby.

That said, It's time to find his replacement, this year or next it needs to happen.

 

[Mondio]

I'm still not a fan of using %FG's made as the only measuring stick in evaluating a Kicker. Do we only look at a punters Gross punting average? So many more variables to look at, but if people only want to keep using that one statistic in making their decisions, that is their prerogative. But I'm still going to look at:

• Kickoff duties
• Kicking under pressure/game winners/playoffs
• XP's
• circumstances behind each miss (LS, Holder, blocking issue?)
• ability to get their game back on track (mental game)
• experience

Probably a lot more that I missed. However, if you are going to say a first year guy is a "better kicker" than someone who has been in the league for 12 years and you are going to base it on the fact that he made 1 or 2 more FG's in a single season, I'm not buying it.

all very good points. I'm glad you took the time to point them out, I don't feel like doing it anymore

 

[HardRightEdge]

That's not a serious injury. Should be just fine.

Time and time again I hear injuries treated like the fading brakes on your car: roll in to the shop, apply the fix, good as new. And time and time again it does not work out that way.

Whether an injury is major or minor, for a guy on the bubble to start with, passing a physical is only the first hurdle. For guys like that losing a little of what they had is often losing too much.

It never ceases to amaze me how even major injuries are viewed this way. I saw one "professional" analyst say recently that with the medical state of the art, ACL injury recovery is nearly a given. Tell that to Nico Siragua, or the hundreds of guys who float in and then out of 90 man rosters, because of talents diminished by injury, minor or major.

If a guy's claim to developmental status on a roster is based on a 4.37 40 time, he dislocates a patella, recovers and clears a medical exam, and is now running 4.55, there's a good chance he'll get waived off a 90 man roster.

Is that the case here? I don't know, but to assume it is not would be foolish.

 

[Mondio]

Time and time again I hear injuries treated like the fading brakes on your car: roll in to the shop, apply the fix, good as new. And time and time again it does not work out that way.

Whether an injury is major or minor, for a guy on the bubble to start with, passing a physical is only the first hurdle. For guys like that losing a little of what they had is often losing too much.

It never ceases to amaze me how even major injuries are viewed this way. I saw one "professional" analyst say recently that with the medical state of the art, ACL injury recovery is nearly a given. Tell that to Nico Siragua, or the hundreds of guys who float in and then out of 90 man rosters, because of talents diminished by injury, minor or major.

If a guy's claim to developmental status on a roster is based on a 4.37 40 time, he dislocates a patella, recovers and clears a medical exam, and is now running 4.55, there's a good chance he'll get waived off a 90 man roster.

Is that the case here? I don't know, but to assume it is not would be foolish.

a dislocated patella compared to an ACL is like comparing a hangnail to chopping off a finger. Other than being in the same anatomical vicinity, they are not anything alike. Sure infection could set in on a hangnail, lead to sepsis and you could ****ing die, but it's likely you just move on with some short term discomfort like nothing ever happened. His ability should not be affected at all, and that is what is going to make or break him. I would worry about a player keeping his speed or agility with an ACL injury, I would not with a patella that moved out of its groove and back. that's hardly even going to the doctor worthy.

 

[Dantés]

I'm still not a fan of using %FG's made as the only measuring stick in evaluating a Kicker. Do we only look at a punters Gross punting average? So many more variables to look at, but if people only want to keep using that one statistic in making their decisions, that is their prerogative. But I'm still going to look at:

• Kickoff duties
• Kicking under pressure/game winners/playoffs
• XP's
• circumstances behind each miss (LS, Holder, blocking issue?)
• ability to get their game back on track (mental game)
• experience

Probably a lot more that I missed. However, if you are going to say a first year guy is a "better kicker" than someone who has been in the league for 12 years and you are going to base it on the fact that he made 1 or 2 more FG's in a single season, I'm not buying it.

I take it for granted that no kicker would be kept unless they can at least kick the ball into the endzone and produce touchbacks. But far and away the most important job of any kicker is making field goals and extra points. Crosby has been a below average FG kicker and an average XP kicker.

 

[Dantés]

It will appear easy at first, but if the guy starts missing kicks early in his tenure, that Carlson moment, then you've got a problem. It's more common for teams to go with a kicker and end up firing him (or wanting to but without a viable alternative) before the year is out as it is to hit on a rookie undrafted kicker.

If you're looking for the cap savings and not better performance, the least risky place to start is with a guy with some NFL experience. The Packers brought in one of those guys, albeit with quite limited experience.

Otherwise, there are a few recognizable names on the street, though the savings wouldn't be as great as with a rookie or other minimum salary guy. Some of those recognizable names may be holding out for desperation money come pre-season failures:

https://walterfootball.com/freeagents2019KP.php

Right, but even if you bring in someone new, that person doesn't catch on, and you replace said person and try again, how much lower are you realistically going to be than ~80% as as team? The odds are very strong that the replacement kicker(s) would provide at least 75% on FG's (though I'm not saying it's impossible that the situation could be worse). I would take the savings.

And just to make sure I remain clear, I'm not saying cut him now no matter what and figure it out. I am saying they should bring more options into camp, make it a competition, and-- if he sticks for 2019-- they had better invest more in it next offseason and let him walk.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Right, but even if you bring in someone new, that person doesn't catch on, and you replace said person and try again, how much lower are you realistically going to be than ~80% as as team?

It could be pretty bad if you want to keep it cheap going from one unproven guy to another. If you fail with one and go with a decent street vet, you've at leat partially defeated the purpose by having to pay him.

Here's a thought.

From 2000 through last year's draft, 16 kickers have been taken in the 5th. round or higher. 6 of them were qualified kickers last season with a higher FG % than Crosby. Given some of those other guys may have been decent and were injured and/or retired along the way, from purely an odds standpoint drafting the best prospect you can find on day 3 should provide the best odds. The Packers went that route with a punter. You have to be careful, though. Some college kickers have never seen a snowflake in their lives.

The draft has come and gone, so there's that. We can root for Fickens to be striping 55 yarders and putting KOs 5 yards deep in preseason.

 

[HardRightEdge]

a dislocated patella compared to an ACL is like comparing a hangnail to chopping off a finger. Other than being in the same anatomical vicinity, they are not anything alike. Sure infection could set in on a hangnail, lead to sepsis and you could ******* die, but it's likely you just move on with some short term discomfort like nothing ever happened. His ability should not be affected at all, and that is what is going to make or break him. I would worry about a player keeping his speed or agility with an ACL injury, I would not with a patella that moved out of its groove and back. that's hardly even going to the doctor worthy.

You might be right Dr. Mondio, given you've seen the scans. So I appologize since I have no information on the severity of the injury, which I alread noted. I can only go by stuff like this:

https://consumer.healthday.com/fitn...-most-likely-to-end-an-nfl-career-714622.html

If you look carefully, I didn't actually compare this injury to an ACL, though it could be as severe. As noted above, a patella injury with tendon involvement can be worse than an ACL or even an Achilles. I was putting it on a scale of potential athletic diminishment. On the other hand I wouldn't compare it to a hangnail.

 

[Mondio]

I prefer "Distinguished Doctor" but I'll let it slide this time. I've dealt with these, more than once. It wouldn't concern me. your article is likely talking about Patellar tendon injuries, IE Quad tears etc. An example from GB would be Steve Warren. or damage from steroids and not a patella that has jumped it's groove and likely fixed itself before they ever even saw a doctor.

 

[gbgary]

I know what the percentages say...

That said, It's time to find his replacement, this year or next it needs to happen.

yup. four games last season could have been won, or given the Packers a chance to win, had he made his fg's.

 

[OldSchool101]

Much of football can he learned from statistics.

The QB is the most important position on Offense, but the K is the most important on ST. The Kicker is also often the leading scorer of points on the team and that makes his role ever more critical.
5% in missed FG stats can often determine making the playoffs or not. FG % can be the deciding factor in the playoffs and many games are decided by a few missed or made FG attempts or the ability to trust a Kicker to win the game with that 50 yarder in adverse conditions etc..

When it comes to Kicker, to me it’s not about the $ (within reason) as much as getting the most reliable guy for the job. For instance if you gave me a K who was a 95% guy within 50 yards and 80% inside 60 yards? (Using an extreme example for illustration)
I’d have no problem signing him to a 10M annual.
That’s a guy who can single handily take over a game

I like Crosby, but even he knows he has to perform to remain. It’s nothing personal it’s not just sports it’s also business and life in general. What have you done for me lately?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

yup. four games last season could have been won, or given the Packers a chance to win, had he made his fg's.

Yup and how many games would have been lost had Crosby missed kicks that he made over the years?

I get it, some think he is overpaid and statistically there are better kickers in the game than he is, but people need to stop pretending that there are 32 of these guys, one for each team and available at a cheap price. Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes you don't.

I can hardly wait to see the shoutbox or chat in general when the first guy not named Mason Crosby misses a FG and the Packers lose a game because of it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Numbers are in for the 11 UDFA's. "Big" base salary guarantee for LB Greg Roberts, they must like him.

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/greg-roberts?id=3219524f-4237-4217-3a75-09694da61f3d

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Looking for a Crosby replacement is a worthy endeavor, but it is far from easy, and even if you find your guy you could get whipsawed as in the Carlson example.

It's more likely the Packers not using the cap space they would save by releasing Crosby on a veteran at another position negatively affects the team than having an inexperienced kicker though.

I'm fine with that, but I hardly ever hear the people wanting to replace Crosby acknowledge the fact that there is also a relatively high risk of replacing him with someone who is worse. IF you don't believe me, just look at the Vikings and Bears in the last 5 or so years.

While the Packers have a better field goal percentage over the last five years than any other team in the division they still rank only 20th in the league over that period. Once again, below average while paying their kicker elite money.

However, if you are going to say a first year guy is a "better kicker" than someone who has been in the league for 12 years and you are going to base it on the fact that he made 1 or 2 more FG's in a single season, I'm not buying it.

Yet most fans don't have any problem relying expecting rookies to significantly contribute on either offense or defense. But for whatever reason there's no way an inexperienced kicker could adequately replace Crosby according to some.

He was making more than a lot of kickers, but we're talking about 1-2 million total difference, not the difference between a 1 million dollar player or 10 million dollar a year WR.

The Packers could have saved $10 million in cap space over the past three years by going with Lutz instead of Crosby.

When it comes to Kicker, to me it’s not about the $ (within reason) as much as getting the most reliable guy for the job. For instance if you gave me a K who was a 95% guy within 50 yards and 80% inside 60 yards? (Using an extreme example for illustration)
I’d have no problem signing him to a 10M annual.

It wouldn't be a smart way to handle the cap to pay a kicker $10 million a season.

I get it, some think he is overpaid and statistically there are better kickers in the game than he is, but people need to stop pretending that there are 32 of these guys, one for each team and available at a cheap price. Sometimes you get what you pay for and sometimes you don't.

There aren't 32 better kickers than Crosby but the majority of the teams in the league have one. In addition most of them don't pay theirs elite money.

 

[Mondio]

Unless we're talking about extremes, it would likely have been about 1-2 million per year that we saved unless we got a cheap rookie kicker. Let's not omit the facts that the Saints will now be paying him millions more per season AND the Saints went thru 11 kickers in 11 years before they found Lutz. That part is important

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Unless we're talking about extremes, it would likely have been about 1-2 million per year that we saved unless we got a cheap rookie kicker. Let's not omit the facts that the Saints will now be paying him millions more per season AND the Saints went thru 11 kickers in 11 years before they found Lutz. That part is important

Actually having a kicker on a rookie deal is the only smart way to handle the cap. There might be some exceptions to this if you end up having a truly elite kicker but Crosby definitely isn't one of them.

FYI even though the Saints used 10 kickers during 11 seasons before they signed Lutz they had a better field goal percentage than the Packers over that period.

 

[Mondio]

Actually having a kicker on a rookie deal is the only smart way to handle the cap. There might be some exceptions to this if you end up having a truly elite kicker but Crosby definitely isn't one of them.

FYI even though the Saints used 10 kickers during 11 seasons before they signed Lutz they had a better field goal percentage than the Packers over that period.

That's fine, 11 kickers in 11 seasons. I'm not breaking down every kick, but games and situations matter. So does the fact the Superdome is a dome. Lambeau is not. There's a reason they went had 11 different kickers. it wasn't because they were solid.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's fine, 11 kickers in 11 seasons. I'm not breaking down every kick, but games and situations matter. So does the fact the Superdome is a dome. Lambeau is not. There's a reason they went had 11 different kickers. it wasn't because they were solid.

I agree there was a reason that Lutz was the Saints 11th kickers in 11 years. It's mind-boggling the Packers have had only one since 2007 though.

Especially when taking a look at this chart, ranking the teams according to field goal percentage since Crosby entered the league in 2007. I wasn't aware that it was actually that bad before looking it up. Please note that there are several cold weather teams among the top 10 as well.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Mondio]

I'm not going to argue stats. outside of a a season and a couple bad moments Crosby has been largely good. Even last year. Outside of 1 game he would have been at or above 90%. he was signed to a bigger contract at a time this team was all set to go win a super bowl. I'm fine with it. We didn't need to start looking for kickers during that time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not going to argue stats. outside of a a season and a couple bad moments Crosby has been largely good. Even last year. Outside of 1 game he would have been at or above 90%.

It doesn't make any sense to ignore Crosby's bad days though. Otherwise we would have to not consider his good ones either.

 

[Mondio]

It doesn't make any sense to ignore Crosby's bad days though. Otherwise we would have to not consider his good ones either.

I'm not ignoring them. I also know that some of these guys that were "better" were only better for a season or 2 and at the first sign of adversity were canned and then the team went thru 2,3,4 more kickers in a single season to find someone suitable. Meanwhile likely changing their philosphy on kicking. They didn't trot someone out for a 57 yarder in crap weather. They probably passed on some 47 yarders because they didn't trust them yet. Situations and games matter.

I'm not arguing that mason has been the elite kicker, i'm saying I don't mind what he was paid when he was paid under the circumstances. and I don't think all these other kickers are better, they just had better stats and there are a lot that go into kicker stats that don't get accounted for when just arguing the numbers.

ETA: and I know it wasn't a regular thing for Crosby to go out and try 15 57 yarders a season, it was very few. I'm just illustrating a point.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not ignoring them. I also know that some of these guys that were "better" were only better for a season or 2 and at the first sign of adversity were canned and then the team went thru 2,3,4 more kickers in a single season to find someone suitable. Meanwhile likely changing their philosphy on kicking. They didn't trot someone out for a 57 yarder in crap weather. They probably passed on some 47 yarders because they didn't trust them yet. Situations and games matter.

I'm not arguing that mason has been the elite kicker, i'm saying I don't mind what he was paid when he was paid under the circumstances. and I don't think all these other kickers are better, they just had better stats and there are a lot that go into kicker stats that don't get accounted for when just arguing the numbers.

ETA: and I know it wasn't a regular thing for Crosby to go out and try 15 57 yarders a season, it was very few. I'm just illustrating a point.

30 out of 31 teams have done better kicking field goals since Crosby became the Packers kicker in 2007. Actually that's all I need to know.

 

[Mondio]

That’s fine, I’d need to know the game situations and such too. We’re talking about the difference in 1,2,3 kicks per season to arrive at such “shocking” stats like 30 of31 have been better. A simple thing like a botched snap could be the difference. It’s important.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That’s fine, I’d need to know the game situations and such too. We’re talking about the difference in 1,2,3 kicks per season to arrive at such “shocking” stats like 30 of31 have been better. A simple thing like a botched snap could be the difference. It’s important.

In my opinion a sample size of over 300 kicks for most teams is large enough to make a decent evaluation. Other teams have had botched snaps and other mishaps over that period as well.

 

[Mondio]

In my opinion a sample size of over 300 kicks for most teams is large enough to make a decent evaluation. Other teams have had botched snaps and other mishaps over that period as well.

Maybe. Maybe they went for it on 4th and 1 instead of kicking a 50 yarder. A good number of those guys kick in a dome almost exclusively. So many things matter.