2019 UDFA NEWS and Signings

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

Taking a look at the list with the Patriots leading the way, the Giants in second and Seattle, Baltimore and Pittsburgh within the top 8 I consider fans using the Packers playing in cold weather as a major reason for them being ranked second-to-last as a lame excuse.

 

[Mondio]

Taking a look at the list with the Patriots leading the way, the Giants in second and Seattle, Baltimore and Pittsburgh within the top 8 I consider fans using the Packers playing in cold weather as a major reason for them being ranked second-to-last as a lame excuse.

it's not my "excuse" BTW, Mason was over 90% outside last season. how does that rank him? Again, we're talking about 1-2 kicks a season to get the "shocking" stat of 2nd to last. ANyone watching football can see that Crosby is not the 2nd worst kicker in the NFL.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, we're talking about 1-2 kicks a season to get the "shocking" stat of 2nd to last. ANyone watching football can see that Crosby is not the 2nd worst kicker in the NFL.

Once again, the sample size is definitely large enough to fairly evaluate the numbers. I don't consider Crosby having been the second worst kicker in the league since 2007 but the Packers hit a lower percentage of field goals over his tenure than all but one team while paying their kicker elite money.

I really have no idea how Packers fans are fine with keeping Crosby while a lot of them don't have any patience with draft picks or a ton of players at other positions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Patriots have employed Stephen Gostkowski since 2006 and have been paying him as much if not more than Crosby. He is considered one of the top kickers in the league, right? His lifetime average is 87.4%, Crosby's is 80.4%. The difference between the 2 kickers, about 2 made FG's/year.

Oh and Crosby has a 89.6% on FG's and 100% on XP's in the Playoffs.

Gostkowski: 88.6 and 98.6


Belichick is an idiot for just resigning him!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Patriots have employed Stephen Gostkowski since 2006 and have been paying him as much if not more than Crosby. He is considered one of the top kickers in the league, right? His lifetime average is 87.4%, Crosby's is 80.4%. The difference between the 2 kickers, about 2 made FG's/year.

Oh and Crosby has a 89.6% on FG's and 100% on XP's in the Playoffs.

Gostkowski: 88.6 and 98.6


Belichick is an idiot for just resigning him!

Nice try, the Patriots rank first in field goal percentage in the league since 2007 though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Nice try, the Patriots rank first in field goal percentage in the league since 2007 though.

Yes, Gostkowski has averaged a little over 2 more made FG's/year than Crosby, in the regular season, he hasn't been as good in the playoffs. I acknowledged that.

I love stats too, but you are using one number, that can swing quite a bit in either direction with one made or missed FG to try and make a point. There is so much more to just plugging Player X into the position.

Saying the Packers made a mistake with not signing Lutz is the same thing as saying the Packers were smart not to draft Daniel Carlson or sign.....fill in 100 names here.

 

[Mondio]

Yes, Gostkowski has averaged a little over 2 more made FG's/year than Crosby, in the regular season, he hasn't been as good in the playoffs. I acknowledged that.

I love stats too, but you are using one number, that can swing quite a bit in either direction with one made or missed FG to try and make a point. There is so much more to just plugging Player X into the position.

Saying the Packers made a mistake with not signing Lutz is the same thing as saying the Packers were smart not to draft Daniel Carlson or sign.....fill in 100 names here.

Exactly, we could be in the midst of an 11 kickers in 11 seasons run. and when he signed, we had a super bowl roster. Saving a million or 2 per season to start a kicker search wasn't the road to travel in my mind.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

Yet you are willing to anoint an undrafted kicker who has never kicked one kick in the NFL as the heir apparent to Crosby, because he will be cheaper and chances are he will be equal to or better?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, Gostkowski has averaged a little over 2 more made FG's/year than Crosby, in the regular season, he hasn't been as good in the playoffs. I acknowledged that.

I love stats too, but you are using one number, that can swing quite a bit in either direction with one made or missed FG to try and make a point. There is so much more to just plugging Player X into the position.

Saying the Packers made a mistake with not signing Lutz is the same thing as saying the Packers were smart not to draft Daniel Carlson or sign.....fill in 100 names here.

I really don't get it anymore. You and other posters find lame excuses for Crosby over and over again although the numbers support that he has been a below average kicker at best. On the other hand none of you don't have any issue blasting other players at positions that aren't as easy to replace.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I really don't get it anymore. You and other posters find lame excuses for Crosby over and over again although the numbers support that he has been a below average kicker at best. On the other hand none of you don't have any issue blasting other players at positions that aren't as easy to replace.

Hey I would LOVE to have a cheaper and better kicker, I have said that NUMEROUS times. I even posted that I hoped they drafted Matt Gay. The problem I have is that I don't agree with your last statement....you seem to think replacing Crosby is as easy as changing shirts, I don't agree with that notion.

Just for fun and so we can return back to this post next year, in your opinion, who should the Packers replace Crosby with this season? I don't want to hear "they should have", that is hindsight.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Exactly, we could be in the midst of an 11 kickers in 11 seasons run.

True, and still have a better field goal percentage over the past 12 seasons than the Packers currently have.

Yet you are willing to anoint an undrafted kicker who has never kicked one kick in the NFL as the heir apparent to Crosby, because he will be cheaper and chances are he will be equal to or better?

The numbers, which you conveniently ignore regarding Crosby, suggest that most inexperienced kickers that make it on an regular season roster in the NFL are more than capable of adequately replacing him.

The problem I have is that I don't agree with your last statement....you seem to think replacing Crosby is as easy as changing shirts, I don't agree with that notion.

It's not that easy but definitely the chances are higher than replacing an underperforming player at any position on offense or defense.

 

[Mondio]

I really don't get it anymore. You and other posters find lame excuses for Crosby over and over again although the numbers support that he has been a below average kicker at best. On the other hand none of you don't have any issue blasting other players at positions that aren't as easy to replace.

I hardly blast anyone. Crosby has been a good kicker for a long time, especially when it counts. There are other factors that go into that percentage.

We could have had 11 kickers in 11 seasons and we could have had a better percentage and been worse off. We could have avoided challenging kicks, we could have kicked less often, we could have suffered more misses on kicks that mattered that would cause the loss of confidence to begin with and spurn the team to make a change in the first place. They obviously trusted Crosby and when it counted he was largely pretty dang good. There's more to kicking than percentage, especially when we're talking about 2 kicks a year difference.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The numbers, which you conveniently ignore regarding Crosby, suggest that most inexperienced kickers that make it on an regular season roster in the NFL are more than capable of adequately replacing him.


It's not that easy but definitely the chances are higher than replacing an underperforming player at any position on offense or defense.

First, we disagree on the term "underperforming" when it comes to Crosby. You are basing that on one stat and nothing else. Should we declare Davante Adams as "underperforming" because he was 71st in the NFL in YAC last year?

Second, every season we see multiple teams having enough issues with their Kickers that they cut them and sign someone off the street and still have issues. How many kickers start in the NFL and end up unemployed within a few years? Again, I don't think you want to acknowledge that finding a better kicker in ALL situations is that easy. Gute and the Packers aren't idiots, if they saw a way to save money AND improve the team, don't you think they would be all over it?

Third.....still waiting.....who should the Packers sign for 2019 to accomplish your goal?

 

[Dantés]

First, we disagree on the term "underperforming" when it comes to Crosby. You are basing that on one stat and nothing else. Should we declare Davante Adams as "underperforming" because he was 71st in the NFL in YAC last year?

Second, every season we see multiple teams having enough issues with their Kickers that they cut them and sign someone off the street and still have issues. How many kickers start in the NFL and end up unemployed within a few years? Again, I don't think you want to acknowledge that finding a better kicker in ALL situations is that easy. Gute and the Packers aren't idiots, if they saw a way to save money AND improve the team, don't you think they would be all over it?

Third.....still waiting.....who should the Packers sign for 2019 to accomplish your goal?

I don't like the analogy at all. Hitting field goals and, since they were moved back, extra points, is far and away the most important aspect of being a kicker in the NFL. Moving the kickoff up has made kickoffs pretty straightforward-- touchbacks are the order of the day. Your analogy suggests that FG/XP% is merely one secondary facet of a kicker's job, in the way that YAC is one secondary facet of a Adams' job. But that's not at all true.

Adams is elite in the primary area of his job: getting open and catching passes. Thus while the YAC stats are not ideal, they aren't a big concern. A kicker with a bad FG% isn't like Adams being deficient in YAC... it's like a receiver who doesn't get open or catch the ball. In other words-- it's the fundamental aspect of his job.

As to that second comment, I do think that the Packers are gearing up to replace Crosby. They're showing some interest in providing competition this offseason, and I would expect he's gone no later than next offseason.

Your last question-- I think they should bring Cody Parkey into camp and let him compete with Crosby and Ficken. Parkey only has four seasons with 5 or more FGA, and his percentages in those seasons (88.9%, 80%, 91.3%, 76.7%) indicate that he is every bit as good or better at hitting field goals than Crosby. The most misses he's ever had in a season (7) is the same number of misses that Crosby had last year. Crosby has actually missed 7 or more field goals in a season five times.

I'm not 100% sold that Parkey would beat him out. Crosby would certainly be favored, as the incumbent. The difference would need to be substantial. But it would be worth a shot. The logic of bringing Parkey in would also relate to his contract demands.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How much do you think Parkey would agree to sign for? The Bears were paying him $3.75M/year. This is a guy that has kicked in one playoff game and hit 75%, missing a 43 yard game winner with 5 seconds to go.

All I think you would be doing by signing Parkey is getting a guy that hasn't proven himself to be a clutch kicker and maybe he makes or misses 1-2 more during the regular season, but you haven't really done much but saved a million and brought in an unproven kicker that the Bears just dumped.

 

[GleefulGary]

I'm not a big Crosby stan. I think he could be replaced, I think the Packers should be looking at improving the position, especially for the money getting sent his way.

With that said, if we were to release him, the "2nd worst" kicker in the league since 2007 would have a new job within the week.

Why?

Because he's better than his statistics appear.

You keep a guy like Crosby because the amount of kickers in the league who could make a 56, and then a 51 yard FG (twice) with all of those coming with 2 minutes left in the game, to win a playoff game, you could probably count on our hand. You keep a guy like Crosby because he's missed a grand total of 3 kicks in the playoffs, and that includes XP's. 29 FG's in the playoffs and he's made 26. You keep a guy like that.

Crosby is not, by any means, easy to replace. Kicking in Lambeau is difficult. Mike McCarthy did not utilize him well. Call them excuses, I call it context. This is a league where two bad snaps, and thus kicks, can make the difference between a good percentage and a bad percentage, and there were more than two bad snaps last year. Again, this is adding context, not making excuses.

Crosby is not a bad kicker. He's streaky, he's expensive, but in the big moments in the playoffs, when games truly matter, there are few kickers I'd rather see in Green and Gold.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not a big Crosby stan. I think he could be replaced, I think the Packers should be looking at improving the position, especially for the money getting sent his way.

With that said, if we were to release him, the "2nd worst" kicker in the league since 2007 would have a new job within the week.

Why?

Because he's better than his statistics appear.

You keep a guy like Crosby because the amount of kickers in the league who could make a 56, and then a 51 yard FG (twice) with all of those coming with 2 minutes left in the game, to win a playoff game, you could probably count on our hand. You keep a guy like Crosby because he's missed a grand total of 3 kicks in the playoffs, and that includes XP's. 29 FG's in the playoffs and he's made 26. You keep a guy like that.

Crosby is not, by any means, easy to replace. Kicking in Lambeau is difficult. Mike McCarthy did not utilize him well. Call them excuses, I call it context. This is a league where two bad snaps, and thus kicks, can make the difference between a good percentage and a bad percentage, and there were more than two bad snaps last year. Again, this is adding context, not making excuses.

Crosby is not a bad kicker. He's streaky, he's expensive, but in the big moments in the playoffs, when games truly matter, there are few kickers I'd rather see in Green and Gold.

very well said. I'd say it's as if we share a brain, but i wouldn't want to insult you

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

very well said. I'd say it's as if we share a brain, but i wouldn't want to insult you

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

 

[Mondio]

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

I haven't really thought about it

 

[gbgary]

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.

past kicks are irrelevant. every player reaches a point that they need replaced. i think he's reached that point. he's no gostkowski/vinatieri/hanson. they'll definitely go with him one more year though with their fingers crossed.

 

[OldSchool101]

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

As I notated that was an extreme example for illustration purposes. The Kickers value is exponential in relationship to his statistical reliability. We both know we wouldn’t have to pay $10M, because no one would kick at 95% inside 50 yards AND 75% inside 60 yards.

For me it’s not about +-1.5M as much as it’s about statistical reliability under pressure and in adverse conditions.

 

[OldSchool101]

Oh and Crosby has a 89.6% on FG's and 100% on XP's in the Playoffs.

I was just going to say in his defense, Crosby always seems to get better under pressure. I would say playoff games are a good barometer of higher pressure stats. That’s a good point. That’s A huge plus, ok let’s keep him..but tell him no more company car allowance.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I was just going to say Crosby always seems to get better under pressure. I would say playoff games are a good barometer of higher pressure stats. That’s a good point.

Agreed. If you are only looking at % made over a season or career, you really aren't capturing everything about that player. Situations, distances, wind, weather, bad snap, bad hold, etc.

I would rather see Crosby have a case of the yips in a game like he had against Detroit, than missing the money shots. Not saying he hasn't missed clutch FG's, but he has made quite a few too and I think that is why he is still around. Had he had a lot of misses in the clutch, the Packers would be looking a lot harder for his replacement.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They obviously trusted Crosby and when it counted he was largely pretty dang good. There's more to kicking than percentage, especially when we're talking about 2 kicks a year difference.

Crosby would have to make 77 field goals in a row to get the Packers in the top half in field goal percentage since 2012. He hasn't been any good with the game being close either as he has made only 75.6% of his field goals in the fourth quarter with the Packers either trailing by three or less or leading by a maximum of four points.

Second, every season we see multiple teams having enough issues with their Kickers that they cut them and sign someone off the street and still have issues.

Yet all of these teams (aside of Tampa Bay) that have struggle mightily to find a reliable kicker have a better field goal percentage than the Packers since 2007.

Third.....still waiting.....who should the Packers sign for 2019 to accomplish your goal?

Cole Tracy would have been a decent option in my opinion.

You keep a guy like Crosby because the amount of kickers in the league who could make a 56, and then a 51 yard FG (twice) with all of those coming with 2 minutes left in the game, to win a playoff game, you could probably count on our hand.

There's absolutely no doubt Crosby had an elite performance in the playoff game at Dallas. Unfortunately he hasn't come anywhere close to repeating playing at that level though.

This is a league where two bad snaps, and thus kicks, can make the difference between a good percentage and a bad percentage, and there were more than two bad snaps last year. Again, this is adding context, not making excuses.

Of course other kickers don't suffer from bad snaps or holds, Crosby definitely is the only one in the league

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Cole Tracy would have been a decent option in my opinion.

Cole Tracy is your pick....let's see how Mr. Tracy fares this season. Of course what he does with one team, could be very different with what he would have done with the Packers, or do we go by your assumption and only look at his made percentage and throw out all the other things?