Packers mock free agency/draft

[Heyjoe4]

Anyone out there thinking we should take a RG or RT at #30? All the other moves won’t matter much if Rodgers spends another season on his back, or worse, IR.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good point. No need to cut Crosby immediately, but use a 6th or 7th round pick and create some comp in TC. Not so sure why Crosby has been drawing as many negative comments. A lot of teams would love to have him. Yeah, there are better kickers, but he’s been reliable over the years. There are more important things to deal with in GB this year, and IMO, replacing Crosby isn’t one of them.

Many point out the fact that he is being paid top 5 kicker money and isn't a top 5 Kicker statistically. While I understand that, the money difference between a top 5 and a top 15 isn't a lot by NFL standards. So the next choice is sign a FA or trying to land a rookie. I don't see any FA kickers that feel like an upgrade over Crosby, unless you want to pay top dollar and go after Gostkowski or Gould (if they are available). Much like Crosby, both have shown they are pretty good, but can also have bad games. Gostkowski has had off years the last 2 out of 3. As a matter of fact, in the past three Super Bowls he's played in, he's gone just 4 of 6 on extra points (66.7 percent) and 6 of 8 on field goals (75 percent).

I guess it comes down to how confident you are with a rookie and if he can kick in the clutch (see Daniel Carlson). If you find one you trust, go for it. However, for $400K, I would hang on to Crosby at least until the final cuts, just in case you don't find that Rookie.

 

[thequick12]

Many point out the fact that he is being paid top 5 kicker money and isn't a top 5 Kicker statistically. While I understand that, the money difference between a top 5 and a top 15 isn't a lot by NFL standards. So the next choice is sign a FA or trying to land a rookie. I don't see any FA kickers that feel like an upgrade over Crosby, unless you want to pay top dollar and go after Gostkowski or Gould (if they are available). Much like Crosby, both have shown they are pretty good, but can also have bad games. Gostkowski has had off years the last 2 out of 3. As a matter of fact, in the past three Super Bowls he's played in, he's gone just 4 of 6 on extra points (66.7 percent) and 6 of 8 on field goals (75 percent).

I guess it comes down to how confident you are with a rookie and if he can kick in the clutch (see Blair Walsh). If you find one you trust, go for it. However, for $400K, I would hang on to Crosby at least until the final cuts, just in case you don't find that Rookie.

Crosby was not a top 15 kicker last season. Of guys with at least 20 attempts Crosby by percentage was the 21st best kicker in the league.

Crosby is an average kicker at this point. And I think you can get an average kicker for a lot less money so why wouldn't you?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Crosby was not a top 15 kicker last season. Of guys with at least 20 attempts Crosby by percentage was the 21st best kicker in the league.

Crosby is an average kicker at this point. And I think you can get an average kicker for a lot less money so why wouldn't you?

Define an "average kicker" for me.

While I get what you and many are saying, kickers are kind of odd ducks. One year they can be really good and the next year, they can be off or even just have one bad game, like Crosby did in Detroit. Also, just looking at kickers solely on % made/missed can be pretty deceiving IMO.

Bears cut long time Kicker Robbie Gould and now he is a stud for the 49'ers.

 

[thequick12]

Define an "average kicker" for me.

While I get what you and many are saying, kickers are kind of odd ducks. One year they can be really good and the next year, they can be off or even just have one bad game, like Crosby did in Detroit. Also, just looking at kickers solely on % made/missed can be pretty deceiving IMO.

Bears cut long time Kicker Robbie Gould and now he is a stud for the 49'ers.

i guess for NFL kickers I'd say average is assuming 1 per team.
1-8 top of the line
9-16 above average
17-24 average
25-32 below average

Or maybe
1-10 above average
11-21 average
22-32 below average

Gould is not a good comparison to Crosby. He is simply and has been a better kicker for his and crosbys entire career. Gould hit on almost 85 % of his kicks the season prior to the bears moving on. And he's only been under 80 twice in his career, his rookie year 2005 77.8 and in 2014 when I'm assuming he was injured as he went 9 of 12 for 75. It's safe to assume he would have been over 80 that season had he Not been injured.

I do get what you're saying kickers have extremely long careers and there are often big ups and downs. But Gould has been a model of consistency a full 7% better than Crosby over their careers.

im not saying Crosby isn't a solid kicker I'm saying you can get a solid kicker for far less than 4 m per. 4 m per you had better be a great kicker. The best kicker in the game certainly over the last two seasons only gets 5 m per.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

im not saying Crosby isn't a solid kicker I'm saying you can get a solid kicker for far less than 4 m per. 4 m per you had better be a great kicker. The best kicker in the game certainly over the last two seasons only gets 5 m per.

You can also get a dud for less/more money. Crosby's current contract paid him an average of $4.025M/year. At times he has earned it and other times he hasn't. I think you could probably say that for most kickers. If the Packers end up trying to replace Crosby with a rookie, it will boil down to the Packers being willing to save some money, with a guy they aren't fully sure of what they will get.

Past years I have wanted to hang on to Crosby and his dead cap had something to do with that. This season is the final one of his contract and the $1.25M hit isn't that bad, if they choose to cut him. If they go that route, I hope they use a 6th or 7th rounder on a guy like Cole Tracy or Matt Gay. But cautionary tale, the Vikings used a 5th rounder on Daniel Carlson last year, he was considered the best kicker in the draft. Carlson went 1-4 in 2 games for the Vikings, missing 2 potential game winning kicks against the Packers and was cut. The Dolphins were the only other team to draft a kicker last year, they chose Jason Sanders in the 7th round and he played really well (35/36 XP's and 18/20 FG's).

Again, I understand people wanting to pay less for what might be a better kicker, but at least with Crosby, we have a pretty good idea of who we have. A rookie could be a crap shoot.

 

[thequick12]

You can also get a dud for less/more money. Crosby's current contract paid him an average of $4.025M/year. At times he has earned and other times he hasn't. I think you could probably say that for most kickers. If the Packers end up trying to replace Crosby with a rookie, it will boil down to Packers being willing to save some money, with a guy they aren't fully sure of what they will get.

Again, I understand people wanting to pay less for what might be a better kicker, but at least with Crosby, we have a pretty good idea of who we have. A rookie could be a crap shoot.

So you are basically saying it's a crap shoot either way? Because you said at times Crosby has earned his 4 m per at times he hasn't same with most. That implies it's a crap shoot whether you go with the cheap rookie or the expensive vet so why not go with the rookie.

Remember when Crosby was an undrafted free agent brought in to unseat the expensive veteran. I'd say yeah use a 6/7 on cole Tracy that guy has kicked in big games in front of big crowds last season and been excellent. Draft him like you did jk Scott and give him a shot to be the next mason crosby hopefully better

 

[Half Empty]

So you are basically saying it's a crap shoot either way? Because you said at times Crosby has earned his 4 m per at times he hasn't same with most. That implies it's a crap shoot whether you go with the cheap rookie or the expensive vet so why not go with the rookie.

Remember when Crosby was an undrafted free agent brought in to unseat the expensive veteran. I'd say yeah use a 6/7 on cole Tracy that guy has kicked in big games in front of big crowds last season and been excellent. Draft him like you did jk Scott and give him a shot to be the next mason crosby hopefully better

As noted elsewhere, 6th round draft choice in 2007

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So you are basically saying it's a crap shoot either way? Because you said at times Crosby has earned his 4 m per at times he hasn't same with most. That implies it's a crap shoot whether you go with the cheap rookie or the expensive vet so why not go with the rookie.

Remember when Crosby was an undrafted free agent brought in to unseat the expensive veteran. I'd say yeah use a 6/7 on cole Tracy that guy has kicked in big games in front of big crowds last season and been excellent. Draft him like you did jk Scott and give him a shot to be the next mason crosby hopefully better

Half Empty already pointed out Crosby wasn't an UDFA. He was drafted in the 6th round to compete with incumbent Dave Rayner who had a bad 2006 season (his only season with the Packers) going 26/35 on FG's. So yes, with kickers, it can be a crap shoot no matter what you do. However, I think Crosby's downside could be less than that of a rookie, but his cost is higher and his long term upside probably not as great.

Personally, with what could be potentially riding on a kickers foot and the money we are talking about (in comparison to other players),I would be apt to go after the best kicker in the league. You might eventually have that if you start over, but right now, Crosby IMO isn't the worst option out there to have to rely on in the clutch. Bring in some competition and may the best man get the job, regardless of salary.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Barr isn't getting franchised. The Vikings don't have anywhere near the necessary cap space to do that and it was reported today they tried to trade him last off season. Barr isn't nearly as good as people think he is. He is a much better athlete than football player

I agree. I’d rather they go after Devin White with #12. Impact player year 1. Barr is overrated. Let someone else pay him big money.

 

[brandon2348]

So should we also quit paying Graham?

Cause he sure as hell ain't living up to that contract.

Graham will be okay with the right players around him.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I think it's a risk I'm not wliling to take (cutting Crosby). I mean, if we absolutely need the cap money sure (if we go after several other free agents like Thomas, Amos or Humphries). But the devil you know is better than the one you don't. Green Bay is not an easy place to kick in and Crosby has shown he still has distance on his kicks.

 

[GleefulGary]

Graham will be okay with the right players around him.

Is Aaron Rodgers not the right person? Maybe that would explain the drops.

Is that the reason Graham had a difficult time consistently separating from LB's? The players around him?

Look, I like Graham. I had hoped it was going to be a good deal. It's pretty obvious by now that it wasn't a good deal. It happens.

 

[jetfixer]

This will be interesting, who we cut, who are the few 2 or 3 free agents, and our top 3 picks. I’d like to target free agents in positions of weakness in the draft, (of course, any that make us better I’m for) . I think I’m still wanting to build a stout defense, LB’s, and Safety, and more. TE, OL, WR.

 

[brandon2348]

Is Aaron Rodgers not the right person? Maybe that would explain the drops.

Is that the reason Graham had a difficult time consistently separating from LB's? The players around him?


Look, I like Graham. I had hoped it was going to be a good deal. It's pretty obvious by now that it wasn't a good deal. It happens.

It wasn't a good deal but Graham can still be successful in a system where there is more speed at the slot position to keep him more clean.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not that he can't change his mind, but Gute has said a few times that Graham will be a Packer this year.

If you look at Graham's contract, it wouldn't make much sense to cut the guy at this point. All that said, it wouldn't surprise me if the Packers spend one of their first 4 picks on a TE, but no matter who it is, I doubt he is ready to step right in and start. Keep Graham at least one more season and find his eventual replacement this year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sounds like the Jaguar's are ready to sign Nick Foles when the FA signing period starts. Which would mean they won't be looking for a QB in the first round. Bad/Good news for the Packers. Bad, in that it may remove one player from their list for the #12 pick. On the bright side, it probably keeps one QB in play, which might allow the Packers to trade back and still get the guy they wanted plus another pick.

 

[OldSchool101]

Crosby is an average kicker at this point. And I think you can get an average kicker for a lot less money so why wouldn't you?

You know the old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” or “don’t mess with good electrical”. Those sayings came from age old lessons learned the hard way.

Look, I like Graham. I had hoped it was going to be a good deal. It's pretty obvious by now that it wasn't a good deal

I think 1 year in a new system with 1 1/2 veteran WRs and a hobbled QB 1/2 year may have had to do with some of those throws being off their usual mark of perfection.
I hope we’re not walking away from a TE who on an awful year was still the 7th most productive TE in 2018 while being left holding the bag with millions of dollars of dead cap. I think that would be beyond hasty.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You really are a delight on here, aren't you?

I shouldn't have thrown out the % out there because FG% in Green Bay isn't the same as FG% kicking for a dome team. I'd say most fans would tell you over the last 10 years there have been a number of those years Crosby has been a top 5 kicker in the league (especially 2013-2016). As I said in the last post, his track record is too good to be just let go for an unsure thing. If you disagree with not wanting to keep him based on his track record then fine, but try not to be condescending and take everything so literal. You can be one of the 5 best kickers in the league without having the best percentage. I believe that Aaron Rodgers has been a much better QB than Drew Brees over the years but since Brees plays in the dome and has better stats, people will say Brees. Not me.

The problem being that people that tell you Crosby was a top five kicker at any point during his career would be completely wrong. While it's definitely tough to kick in Green Bay opposing kickers, who aren't used to play at Lambeau, have combined to hit a higher percentage of field goals in Green Bay than him over the past 12 seasons.

Not so sure why Crosby has been drawing as many negative comments. A lot of teams would love to have him. Yeah, there are better kickers, but he’s been reliable over the years. There are more important things to deal with in GB this year, and IMO, replacing Crosby isn’t one of them.

Crosby has drawn negative comments because he's a below average kicker being paid like an elite one.

I don't see any FA kickers that feel like an upgrade over Crosby, unless you want to pay top dollar and go after Gostkowski or Gould (if they are available). Much like Crosby, both have shown they are pretty good, but can also have bad games. Gostkowski has had off years the last 2 out of 3. As a matter of fact, in the past three Super Bowls he's played in, he's gone just 4 of 6 on extra points (66.7 percent) and 6 of 8 on field goals (75 percent).

I guess it comes down to how confident you are with a rookie and if he can kick in the clutch (see Blair Walsh). If you find one you trust, go for it. However, for $400K, I would hang on to Crosby at least until the final cuts, just in case you don't find that Rookie.

Crosby isn't anywhere close to being in the same category as Gostkowski or Gould.

I'm fine with keeping Crosby on the roster until final cuts have to be made but the Packers should be able to find a kicker capable of performing at the same level for significantly less money pretty easily.

Crosby is an average kicker at this point. And I think you can get an average kicker for a lot less money so why wouldn't you?

Crosby mostly hasn't even been an average kicker during his career.

You can also get a dud for less/more money. Crosby's current contract paid him an average of $4.025M/year. At times he has earned it and other times he hasn't. I think you could probably say that for most kickers. If the Packers end up trying to replace Crosby with a rookie, it will boil down to the Packers being willing to save some money, with a guy they aren't fully sure of what they will get.

Again, I understand people wanting to pay less for what might be a better kicker, but at least with Crosby, we have a pretty good idea of who we have. A rookie could be a crap shoot.

As I've posted above kickers that have gone undrafted since 2016 have combined to hit on a higher percentage of field goals than Crosby has over the past three years since signing his new contract. If the Packers hold on to him they could have saved $14 million in cap space over four years while most likely getting the same production.

I think it's a risk I'm not wliling to take (cutting Crosby). I mean, if we absolutely need the cap money sure (if we go after several other free agents like Thomas, Amos or Humphries). But the devil you know is better than the one you don't. Green Bay is not an easy place to kick in and Crosby has shown he still has distance on his kicks.

Once again, opposing kickers have a better field goal percentage at Lambeau than Crosby since the Packers drafted him in 2007.

You know the old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” or “don’t mess with good electrical”. Those sayings came from age old lessons learned the hard way.

The problem being that Crosby isn't a good kicker though. The Packers finally have to stop holding on to veterans not performing up to their contracts.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Mason Crosby 2018 & career stats:


https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CrosMa20.htm

2018: 81.1 FG%, 94.4 XPA%


Not bad. Maybe not great, but certainly not bad.

The thing I know about kickers is this: When you don't have one, at some point it's going to cost you.

A few years back, Da bears thought they could save a few bucks by letting their old kicker (Robbie Gould) walk, and replacing him with cheaper, younger alternatives.....Last year, they ended up eliminated on the double-doink. Now they want Gould back, so San Francisco tagged him, and now the Bears are looking for a kicker.

The moral: When you've got a reliable kicker, hang on to him. Not every team has one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Mason Crosby 2018 & career stats:


https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CrosMa20.htm

2018: 81.1 FG%, 94.4 XPA%


Not bad. Maybe not great, but certainly not bad.

Crosby ranked 23rd out of 32 qualifying kickers in field goal percentage last season. Over his career only three out of 50 kickers with at least 100 attempts since 2007 have a worse percentage than him.

Please could we finally stop acting as if Crosby has even been an average kicker.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Crosby ranked 23rd out of 32 qualifying kickers in field goal percentage last season. Over his career only three out of 50 kickers with at least 100 attempts since 2007 have a worse percentage than him.

Please could we finally stop acting as if Crosby has even been an average kicker.

I'm not pretending anything. I posted his stats, you can make of them what you wish.

An average kicker is better than a bad kicker, as teams with bad kickers know. Both the Bears and the Vikings lost games last year that they likely would have won if they only had an average kicker, and that made a big difference.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not pretending anything. I posted his stats, you can make of them what you wish.

The numbers you posted don't mean a whole lot without any context. I just compared them to other kickers in the league and it's not favorable for Crosby by any means.

An average kicker is better than a bad kicker, as teams with bad kickers know. Both the Bears and the Vikings lost games last year that they likely would have won if they only had an average kicker, and that made a big difference.

The Packers lost a game because of Crosby as well. In addition the Bears and Vikings were part of a few teams that had a worse kicker than the Packers.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

The numbers you posted don't mean a whole lot without any context. I just compared them to other kickers in the league and it's not favorable for Crosby by any means.



The Packers lost a game because of Crosby as well. In addition the Bears and Vikings were part of a few teams that had a worse kicker than the Packers.

Fair enough. I wouldn't, however, cut a kicker until I had a reliable replacement on board.

At this point, the packers do not.

So, it seems likely that for now, Crosby is going to stick. I can live with that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Fair enough. I wouldn't, however, cut a kicker until I had a reliable replacement on board.

At this point, the packers do not.

So, it seems likely that for now, Crosby is going to stick. I can live with that.

There's a decent chance an undrafted kicker would present an upgrade over Crosby for significantly less money though.