Packers mock free agency/draft

[Curly Calhoun]

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

Maybe.

Then again......the Bears thought getting a younger. cheaper alternative to Robbie Gould would be an upgrade.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it blows up in your face.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Maybe.

Then again......the Bears thought getting a younger. cheaper alternative to Robbie Gould would be an upgrade.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it blows up in your face.

The difference being that Gould was actually an above average kicker for the Bears.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

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.

If this is true then you do have a great point against Crosby. I admit I wanted him cut in December of 2012 then he had a great 4 year run from 2013-2016 to put that behind him. Maybe I've shrugged off so much what he's done the last 2 years since our record has stunk.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

I would also say that there is a decent chance that an undrafted kicker presents a downgrade over Crosby as well.

I also wouldn't just base my decision on one game, the Detroit game. For whatever reason Crosby was off that game and in the other 15 games, he missed a total of 3 FG's (52, 49 and 47 yards). Toss that game out and Crosby had a pretty solid 2018.

I'm all for bringing in competition and if the Packers strike gold and think that they found their next kicker, great. However, I doubt they are just going to keep a kicker because he missed one less than Mason did in practice or a preseason game. There is so much more that goes into the decision and just plugging a new kicker in doesn't guarantee an upgrade.

 

[PackAttack12]

The difficult part of the discussion regarding Crosby is a point that I made about him in an earlier post. His field goal kicking in the postseason has been absolute money in the bank since 2011. He did miss his last kick against Atlanta in the NFC Championship game, but that was a total meltdown by the entire team besides the only guy who actually did show up (12).

I do worry that he could go south at any time though.

Not the easiest decision to make. Because you definitely want a guy that you know is capable of making a big kick in the playoffs. Those two that he made against Dallas were other worldly.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

The difference being that Gould was actually an above average kicker for the Bears.

The similarity being that there was no compelling reason to cut either one in the absence of a reliable replacement.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I do worry that he could go south at any time though.

Crosby is just 34 years old, which is young for a kicker. With Adam Vinatieri (46 years old), Matt Bryant (43) and Sebastian Janikowski (40) all continuing to play well, Crosby could still have years left ahead of him.

The similarity being that there was no compelling reason to cut either one in the absence of a reliable replacement.

That is the key phrase. Like I have said, if the Packers don't want to spend the money on Crosby and they find a better alternative, go for it. But I would hate to see them do what many teams do, go through several kickers, trying to find one that can make those few extra ones that Crosby missed.

Maybe they should give Matt Bryant a try, the Falcons released him last month. Interesting enough, Bryant was replaced by Giorgio Tavecchio, who the Packers actually signed in 2013 on a 3 year deal to potentially replace Crosby, but Crosby beat him out and the Packers released him and signed Zach Ramirez, who was cut 3 days later.

 

[PackAttack12]

Crosby is just 34 years old, which is young for a kicker. With Adam Vinatieri (46 years old), Matt Bryant (43) and Sebastian Janikowski (40) all continuing to play well, Crosby could still have years left ahead of him.

I meant because of the Detroit game. Some could look at it as an outlier, but I was deeply disturbed by it. Crosby's had some pretty low moments for all of the good he's done.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If this is true then you do have a great point against Crosby. I admit I wanted him cut in December of 2012 then he had a great 4 year run from 2013-2016 to put that behind him. Maybe I've shrugged off so much what he's done the last 2 years since our record has stunk.

Crosby wasn't great from 2013-16 but average, ranking 15th out of 32 qualifying kickers over that period.

I would also say that there is a decent chance that an undrafted kicker presents a downgrade over Crosby as well.

I also wouldn't just base my decision on one game, the Detroit game. For whatever reason Crosby was off that game and in the other 15 games, he missed a total of 3 FG's (52, 49 and 47 yards). Toss that game out and Crosby had a pretty solid 2018.

Once again, kickers that went undrafted since 2016 combined to hit a higher percentage of field goals than Crosby over that period while he was being paid like an elite one.

Even if the Packers don't hit on a replacement immediately it's pretty easy to move on.

BTW if a toss out the field goals missed by other kickers all of them are elite as well.

The similarity being that there was no compelling reason to cut either one in the absence of a reliable replacement.

It's not that difficult to adequately replace a below average kicker.

Maybe they should give Matt Bryant a try, the Falcons released him last month. Bryant was replaced by Giorgio Tavecchio, who the Packers actually signed in 2013 on a 3 year deal to potentially replace Crosby, but he had a terrible preseason and camp and was released.

The Packers should just move on with a rookie kicker, there's no reason to spend money on a veteran at the position.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Once again, kickers that went undrafted since 2016 combined to hit a higher percentage of field goals than Crosby over that period while he was being paid like an elite one.

Why only a 3 year window and why not included drafted kickers as well?

I always bow to your stats, but my mental recollection of all the issues that the Packers and other teams have had since I started watching Football, is that the position isn't just a "plug and play any UDFA into it and all is fine."

 

[Curly Calhoun]

It's not that difficult to adequately replace a below average kicker.

You might get lucky and adequately replace him right away.

Or, you may end up going through a long stretch where you're looking for a kicker. This has happened to more than a few teams.

I think I'd give Crosby another shot this season, working with last year's rookie holder and long snapper. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I would do. Ultimately, though, it doesn't much matter what I would do, it only matters what Packer management does.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Crosby is just 34 years old, which is young for a kicker. With Adam Vinatieri (46 years old), Matt Bryant (43) and Sebastian Janikowski (40) all continuing to play well, Crosby could still have years left ahead of him.



That is the key phrase. Like I have said, if the Packers don't want to spend the money on Crosby and they find a better alternative, go for it. But I would hate to see them do what many teams do, go through several kickers, trying to find one that can make those few extra ones that Crosby missed.

Maybe they should give Matt Bryant a try, the Falcons released him last month. Interesting enough, Bryant was replaced by Giorgio Tavecchio, who the Packers actually signed in 2013 on a 3 year deal to potentially replace Crosby, but Crosby beat him out and the Packers released him and signed Zach Ramirez, who was cut 3 days later.

I like Bryant as well, but I have to wonder how he's fare kicking outside in the cold vs. the dome in Georgia.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I meant because of the Detroit game. Some could look at it as an outlier, but I was deeply disturbed by it. Crosby had some pretty low moments for all of the good he's done.

I would view it as an anomaly. Prior to that game Crosby had never missed more than 2 in a game and the last game Crosby missed 2 FG's dated back to 2013.

Not making excuses for the guy, but he was also working with a rookie LS and holder. Seems like kicking is much like golf in the mental aspect. You can be sailing along, playing your best, hit one bad one and all of a sudden you are missing everything. Crosby came back just fine after that game, as he has several times in his career. Sometimes the younger kickers don't ever figure it out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Why only a 3 year window and why not included drafted kickers as well?

I used a three-year window as Crosby signed his current deal at that point and in my opinion should have replaced with an undrafted rookie instead.

You might get lucky and adequately replace him right away.

Or, you may end up going through a long stretch where you're looking for a kicker. This has happened to more than a few teams.

I think I'd give Crosby another shot this season, working with last year's rookie holder and long snapper. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I would do. Ultimately, though, it doesn't much matter what I would do, it only matters what Packer management does.

I really have a hard time understanding all the love for Crosby. At any other position fans would advocate to replace a below average player yet at kicker everybody seems to be fine with being stuck below average while paying elite money.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I used a three-year window as Crosby signed his current deal at that point and in my opinion should have replaced with an undrafted rookie instead.



I really have a hard time understanding all the love for Crosby. At any other position fans would advocate to replace a below average player yet at kicker everybody seems to be fine with being stuck below average while paying elite money.

It's not love, it's business.

Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. If they did, you'd be bored.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I used a three-year window as Crosby signed his current deal at that point and in my opinion should have replaced with an undrafted rookie instead.


I really have a hard time understanding all the love for Crosby. At any other position fans would advocate to replace a below average player yet at kicker everybody seems to be fine with being stuck below average while paying elite money.

I think calling him "below average" based on one stat, FG %, isn't really looking at the big picture. What distance were all his kicks made and missed from? Were any misses a result of a bad snap, bad hold, blocked due to offensive line, field/weather conditions, situation of the kick, etc.

I would also say using the term "elite money" is a bit misleading. Currently he is the 6th highest paid kicker (pay/year) and that will probably change with new salaries. The difference between what he is being paid and the 15th highest paid player (Stephen Hauschka) is about $1.2M.

Again, if the Packers want to save money and go with a new kicker, I am all for it, as long as his replacement is consistently better than Crosby.

As far as using a 3 year window to see how successful UDFA rookie kickers have been in comparison to Crosby, that would be a stat I wouldn't rely on if I was making the decision. I would want to look at how that has worked out over the last 30 or so years for teams.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

As far as using a 3 year window to see how successful UDFA rookie kickers have been in comparison to Crosby, that would be a stat I wouldn't rely on if I was making the decision. I would want to look at how that has worked out over the last 30 or so years for teams.

I also have questions as to how many of those other kickers were kicking outside in a northern climate, and how many were working with a rookie holder and long-snapper.

Not making excuses - But those are valid questions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I also have questions as to how many of those other kickers were kicking outside in a northern climate, and how many were working with a rookie holder and long-snapper.

Not making excuses - But those are valid questions.

Agreed and as I have delved into the topic a bit more, I am blown away over just how easy it actually isn't to latch on to a rock solid kicker. Lately, teams using draft picks seem to fail more often then ones who just pick up UDFA's. Then I start reading "he replaced this guy, who replaced that guy, who replaced......." I remember way back when for the Packers, seemed like every year or game was an adventure as to what the FG kicker was going to do. I don't want to go through that again.

I know this won't sway anyone's opinion, but with all the recent discussion of how AR reacts to things, can't help but wonder how AR would react to Crosby being cut. #12 had this to say after that Lions game.

“Mason and I have been close friends for a long time,” Rodgers said. “We sit next to each other on the planes. We’ve known each other for years, obviously spent some holidays together. I love him. He’s a great guy. I think he’s one of the greatest kickers of all time. I’ve always said he and Robbie Gould, what they do in the elements over the years is some of the finest kicking that I’ve seen in my time."

 

[sschind]

Part of the problem is having the opportunity to find a reliable replacement. We all know it could be hit or miss but kicking in games is a lot different than kicking in practice and a lot of potential replacements just don't get a lot of opportunities in game situations. If you draft or sign an UDFA to compete and they alternate attempts in pre season a rookie will get maybe 5 or 6 attempts, 7 or 8 if he is lucky. Is that really enough to make the decision. If he goes 4-6 and Crosby goes 5-6 they are going to keep Crosby. If they both hit the same they are probably going to keep Crosby just because they know him A rookie will have to clearly out kick him and I'm not sure they have the opportunities to do so. I think that's one advantage Crosby has had. No one has come in and clearly out kicked him.

Its almost like a band aid. Rip it off quick. If you want to move on it may be best to move on and don't look back. I'm not saying that's the best approach but its not like you are going to carry 2 kickers into the regular season until one wins the job. Keep Crosby around for now but treat him as if you already know what you have and give the rook all the chances to beat him out.

We all know that the first kick any replacement misses some will be calling for his head and wondering if we can get Crosby back.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We all know that the first kick any replacement misses some will be calling for his head and wondering if we can get Crosby back.

Spot on and I am 99.9% certain that if the Packers cut Crosby and he wants to continue to play, he won't be unemployed long enough for the Packers to get him back.

I'm all about saving money, but I ask myself over and over, in the grand scheme of things, what will saving $2-3M on their kicker do for the Packers?

 

[Stanger37]

At the risk of sounding like a crazy person, it seemed his stats have gone down and I didn't look at the league across the board as a whole. But is it possible moving the XP back has affected some kickers? I believe it was Colin when they first moved it back said he believes it will affect the game because kickers have a handful of people on their 'team' kicker punter holder snapper. They mind their own business 95% of the game for the most part and then are expected to come in and kick a FG. Now, it what they get paid to do so I don't mean it like they're playing with their thumbs and dumbfounded when they get their number called. But after moving the XP back, you don't get that easy chip in any more to see go in. Now you come in "cold" and have to kick a 33yd FG, missing one of those could hurt your confidence moving forward. I'd expect it to be similar to golf and making some 3-5ft putts, build your confidence up and feel better standing over the 10-20ft putts and so on. Now again, you are getting paid millions of dollars to kick a FG, it is your job so I expect you to go out there and perform.

 

[C-Lee]

Keep Crosby at least one more year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

At the risk of sounding like a crazy person, it seemed his stats have gone down and I didn't look at the league across the board as a whole. But is it possible moving the XP back has affected some kickers? I believe it was Colin when they first moved it back said he believes it will affect the game because kickers have a handful of people on their 'team' kicker punter holder snapper. They mind their own business 95% of the game for the most part and then are expected to come in and kick a FG. Now, it what they get paid to do so I don't mean it like they're playing with their thumbs and dumbfounded when they get their number called. But after moving the XP back, you don't get that easy chip in any more to see go in. Now you come in "cold" and have to kick a 33yd FG, missing one of those could hurt your confidence moving forward. I'd expect it to be similar to golf and making some 3-5ft putts, build your confidence up and feel better standing over the 10-20ft putts and so on. Now again, you are getting paid millions of dollars to kick a FG, it is your job so I expect you to go out there and perform.

Moving the XP back definitely has changed things. The years before the rule change the success rate always hovered around 99%, now its around 94%. Crosby has pretty much followed that average as well.

While I am sure no kicker likes to miss an XP, not sure how much it effects their next kick, but it might.

I used the golf analogy earlier and I agree with you. A lot of what a kicker does is mental. They all have the basic mechanics down, but some have a better mental game than others.

 

[Stanger37]

Inside reports seem that Arizona is all in on drafting Murray. Good news for Packers, one less player they are uninterested in being drafted before #12 !

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Inside reports seem that Arizona is all in on drafting Murray. Good news for Packers, one less player they are uninterested in being drafted before #12 !

I think Murray was going top 11 anyway and if the Cardinals trade Josh Rosen to one of the QB needy teams ahead or behind the Packers, that might remove another player that the Packers were interested in or eliminate the ability to trade back with one of those teams.