Punter debate

[MTK]

I know this is weighing heavily on everyone's mind, who should the Skins keep as the punter?

Actually in all seriousness Groom has looked great and is booming the hell out of the ball this preseason.

At only 23 years old, I think the staff has a difficult decision, do you keep the young and obviously talented Groom, or do you keep the reliable Tupa who's having some back problems right now?

[skinsguy]

I also think Groom has punted quite well for us and this position battle has weighed heavier on my mind than the Quarterback position!..LOL!!!! just kidding!

Seriously, I wouldn't mind seeing Groom punt for us! We are going to have games where field position is a big factor and that is where special teams become extremely important.

[BrudLee]

Normally, I'd say Tupa. His experience as a starting QB gives us a better opportunity to run fakes - and even if we don't the other team must respect that.

But...

Tupa is a 40 year old with back problems. He also costs more. You have to go with the kid here.

[GoSkins!]

I'm not sure what the real extent of the back problem is for Tupa. Clearly Tupa is top shelf and I expect him to be the guy. Groom will play in the NFL somewhere after his performance this preseason. I see him making the first cut while we find out more on Tupa.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Normally, I'd say Tupa. His experience as a starting QB gives us a better opportunity to run fakes - and even if we don't the other team must respect that.

But...

Tupa is a 40 year old with back problems. He also costs more. You have to go with the kid here.

I wanted us to run a fake punt all year last year and we didnt try it once. Had Gibbs actually ran a few trick plays id be more in favor of keeping Tupa. He was amazing for us last year, which was a nice change of pace after the last few years of inconsistent punting. I like Grooms young leg but I worry that he will have the occasional pooch punt like we got used to, and they prove very costly.

Im going to vote for Groom right now just because tupa is hurt, otherwise id saly stick with the guy that should have been in the probowl last year.

[EEich]

I think Tupa still may have a good year in him... but he's getting old, has a cranky back and is wearing down. There's a good chance that he may not be able to stay healthy this year.

Groom has a big leg... his big negative is that he sometimes outkicks the coverage and doesn't have the touch that Tupa has. That will come with experience. He is a young guy and could be our punter for the next 5+ years.

Gibbs isn't the kind of guy that runs alot of punter fake plays... heck, he doesn't even like the shotgun formation, so I really don't see that being an issue.

I think Groom is our best bet.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by EEich

I think Tupa still may have a good year in him... but he's getting old, has a cranky back and is wearing down. There's a good chance that he may not be able to stay healthy this year.

Groom has a big leg... his big negative is that he sometimes outkicks the coverage and doesn't have the touch that Tupa has. That will come with experience. He is a young guy and could be our punter for the next 5+ years.

Gibbs isn't the kind of guy that runs alot of punter fake plays... heck, he doesn't even like the shotgun formation, so I really don't see that being an issue.

I think Groom is our best bet.

Actually EE, I have to disagree there, Gibbs ran his fair share of fakes his first go round, Hayes was a fast guy for a punter and Gibbs used that on occasion, he also would quick snap to Mitchell on occasion, he was also king of the onside kick when teams weren't looking for it.

I do agree with you on Groom though I think the youth movement should win out, the way this kid has been kicking I don't see him having much trouble finding a team if we let him go.

It sound's like to me Gibbs really likes Tupa, and if Tupa is healthy he's the man, but between his back and Groom bombing the ball he's in a tough spot, Groom has some work to do as far as directional, and situational punting, but I would go with him, he will eventually come around. If we stick with Tupa and his back starts acting up again, we could be in trouble because I don't believe Groom will be available once he's cut.

[EEich]

Originally Posted by offiss

Actually EE, I have to disagree there, Gibbs ran his fair share of fakes his first go round, Hayes was a fast guy for a punter and Gibbs used that on occasion, he also would quick snap to Mitchell on occasion, he was also king of the onside kick when teams weren't looking for it.

I do agree with you on Groom though I think the youth movement should win out, the way this kid has been kicking I don't see him having much trouble finding a team if we let him go.

It sound's like to me Gibbs really likes Tupa, and if Tupa is healthy he's the man, but between his back and Groom bombing the ball he's in a tough spot, Groom has some work to do as far as directional, and situational punting, but I would go with him, he will eventually come around. If we stick with Tupa and his back starts acting up again, we could be in trouble because I don't believe Groom will be available once he's cut.

I think he was much more consevative last year than he was in his first stint when he was chucking the ball more often to the Smurfs/Fun Bunch.... I agree, 20 years ago he would have run more fakes. Gibbs V.2005, I'm not so sure.

[That Guy]

groom is good enough and much younger/somewhat cheaper... tupa has 2 years or so left, groom could have 10+ so I really wouldn't mind.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I am having a very hard time deciding whether the Redskins should keep Tupa, Groom, or both. Good free agent punters don't come around often and so snagging a good, young punter is a rarity. In that sense, I really like Groom. On the other hand, Tupa is a great vet with good experience.

All in all, I think I'll be happy no matter what we do as I trust our coaching staff to make the right choices.

[MTK]

If I was the coach I think I would be leaning towards Groom because he's so much younger... but we all know how Gibbs loves the vets and as long as Tupa's back isn't a serious concern I'd expect Tupa will keep the job.

Groom is going to have a job somewhere though, he's really been impressive.

[Gmanc711]

I'd probaboly keep Tupa and waste a practice squad spot on Groom. Yeah I know you shouldnt waste a spot like that for a punter, but the guys got talent and we could use him soon. Tupa was really reliable last year, so we'll see how they decide.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I'd probaboly keep Tupa and waste a practice squad spot on Groom. Yeah I know you shouldnt waste a spot like that for a punter, but the guys got talent and we could use him soon. Tupa was really reliable last year, so we'll see how they decide.

Someone would sign him off the squad, so unfortunately there's really no point.

[jrocx69]

Tupa is to streaky, even for us, he would have a great two or three games and suck the next, so I'd take groom (not to say he is going to be streaky) but you cant say out kicking the coverage is a bad thing. some of these guys are paid to get there quicker. groom has had good hang time, so its not outkicking the coverage, its ST'mers not getting there quick enough and or not making the initial tackle IMO. Ive watched groom punt for OSU and he has never had a prob BOOTING the ball.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jrocx69

Tupa is to streaky, even for us, he would have a great two or three games and suck the next, so I'd take groom (not to say he is going to be streaky) but you cant say out kicking the coverage is a bad thing. some of these guys are paid to get there quicker. groom has had good hang time, so its not outkicking the coverage, its ST'mers not getting there quick enough and or not making the initial tackle IMO. Ive watched groom punt for OSU and he has never had a prob BOOTING the ball.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Tupa. From where I'm standing, Tupa is very consistent. While I like Groom a lot, a good case can be made for keeping Tupa.