We need competition for Suisham

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There's no baaaaah there, just numbers.

Since you editted this in, I will make a separate comment on it.

Do you recall how he hit that 50 yarder? It was WITH the wind. His other 50 yard attempt was short. Where in your numbers does it show leg strength? Cause at this point, I think we can all safely assume you could care less about leg strength. Is that true? I think several of us would have been happy with a kicker just to do kickoffs at the league min. Someone who could reach the endzone.

Side note, football reference has him down as 0 attempts from 50. I wonder how often they are wrong?

Shaun Suisham Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Since you editted this in, I will make a separate comment on it.

Do you recall how he hit that 50 yarder? It was WITH the wind. His other 50 yard attempt was short. Where in your numbers does it show leg strength? Cause at this point, I think we can all safely assume you could care less about leg strength. Is that true? I think several of us would have been happy with a kicker just to do kickoffs at the league min. Someone who could reach the endzone.

Side note, football reference has him down as 0 attempts from 50. I wonder how often they are wrong?

Shaun Suisham Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

So you would prefer Sebastian Janikowski, then?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jdlea

So you would prefer Sebastian Janikowski, then?

If we could have gotten him for league min solely to do kickoffs, then absolutely. He instantly would get us 10+ yards on every kick. But your comment proves a point...no one gave Janikowski competition in Oakland, and how did that turn out for him?

BTW- Janikowski gets a bad wrap because his FG% is always low. However, he made 6 50+ FG's last year, and had 11 attempts from 50+.
From 20-39 Suisham missed 2 FG's, Janikowski, only 1. Also, in Janikowski's 8 year career, he has missed only 11 fg's from 20-39. (that's an average of a little over 1 a year, 1.375) Any kicker should be able to hit FG's from 20-39, but the measure of a kicker is how good he is from long range. No one really wants a kicker that can't kick from 50. So to answer your question, if we brought in Janikowski to compete, then I would have been ecstatic about that. If Suisham beat him out in camp, then he deserves the job.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by jsarno

If we could have gotten him for league min solely to do kickoffs, then absolutely. He instantly would get us 10+ yards on every kick. But your comment proves a point...no one gave Janikowski competition in Oakland, and how did that turn out for him?

BTW- Janikowski gets a bad wrap because his FG% is always low. However, he made 6 50+ FG's last year, and had 11 attempts from 50+.
From 20-39 Suisham missed 2 FG's, Janikowski, only 1. Also, in Janikowski's 8 year career, he has missed only 11 fg's from 20-39. (that's an average of a little over 1 a year, 1.375) Any kicker should be able to hit FG's from 20-39, but the measure of a kicker is how good he is from long range. No one really wants a kicker that can't kick from 50. So to answer your question, if we brought in Janikowski to compete, then I would have been ecstatic about that. If Suisham beat him out in camp, then he deserves the job.

Suisham was more accurate inside of 50 yards last season. 81% to 85% in favor of Suisham, so Janikowski deserves his bad rap. He's a mediocre kicker with a big leg.

I think carrying 2 kickers is a waste of a roster spot. It's pretty difficult to shave down a roster and being forced to carry 2 kickers doesn't make it any easier.

The ideal thing would be to get a great kicker, sign him for forever and forget about the position, but there aren't that many out there.

Now, I'm not really saying he shouldn't have had to compete, I just disagree that because Suisham doesn't have a big leg, he shouldn't be on the team. If Brooks works at punter, they should see if he can kick kickoffs, but I don't want to see a second kicker who only kicks kickoffs and 50+ yard field goals.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Suisham was more accurate inside of 50 yards last season. 81% to 85% in favor of Suisham, so Janikowski deserves his bad rap. He's a mediocre kicker with a big leg.

I'm failing to understand this logic. 81% is not bad, and is only 4% worse than Suisham, but he is MUCH better at kickoffs, and can reach the goal posts from 50+, but that doesn't matter???? I'm not saying Janikowski is better...I'm really not...I'm just saying that competition would have been welcomed. Being mediocre with a big leg is better than being slightly better than mediocre with a wet noodle leg.

I think carrying 2 kickers is a waste of a roster spot. It's pretty difficult to shave down a roster and being forced to carry 2 kickers doesn't make it any easier.

I can agree with that. Which is why I'd prefer someone that can do it all. This the competition comments. If we couldn't find someone, then we move on, but at least we tried.

The ideal thing would be to get a great kicker, sign him for forever and forget about the position, but there aren't that many out there.

agreed.

Now, I'm not really saying he shouldn't have had to compete, I just disagree that because Suisham doesn't have a big leg, he shouldn't be on the team. If Brooks works at punter, they should see if he can kick kickoffs, but I don't want to see a second kicker who only kicks kickoffs and 50+ yard field goals.

I can agree with that as well.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm failing to understand this logic. 81% is not bad, and is only 4% worse than Suisham, but he is MUCH better at kickoffs, and can reach the goal posts from 50+, but that doesn't matter???? I'm not saying Janikowski is better...I'm really not...I'm just saying that competition would have been welcomed. Being mediocre with a big leg is better than being slightly better than mediocre with a wet noodle leg.

We don't really disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's talk about the 4%. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to say a kicker will have 25-50 attempts per season. That's 1 or 2 more misses in a season, that's not an incredible amount, BUT what if they're big kicks? What if they're game winners? It's also the difference between being the 16/17th best kicker in the league vs. the 25th. I was trying to help Janikowski out because they trot him out for some ridiculous kicks.

Just because Janikowski can reach a 50 yarder, doesn't mean much, he only hit slightly above 50%, Suisham was 50%. I'm not saying that their leg strength is anywere near comparable, but I'm saying that a 50 yard field goal is probably 50/50 anyway. I don't think signing a guy just because he can get it there and sacrificing accuracy is worth while.

Also, the reason I removed the 50 yarders is because they were the majority of Janikowski's misses. He was 6/11 last season from 50+. I thought that would bring his 71% FG PCT up a bit, but it didn't make it that much better.

The one thing we do disagree on is that FG% isn't that big of a factor. I want the kicker to make as many FG's as possible, just because he has a big leg, doesn't mean he'll make more and I just don't see kicking into the end zone to be that important. The difference between the 20 and 25 isn't that big of a deal, it's not even that different from 20 to 30. The kick coverage and defense have to do their job. I will say, however, that there is a pretty big difference when it's the 35 or 40.

Now, I will say that having a 50 yarder be out of the question for a kicker is a little ridiculous, but I'm not a huge proponent of trotting a guy out there for a 50 yarder. First of all, the greatest kicker in Redskins history (or at least the only one who made the 70 Greatest list) is probably Mark Moseley. For his career he made 12 of 42 from 50+ yards. Last year, in the NFL, 99 FG's of 50+ yards were attempted and NFL kickers made 47 of them that's 47.4%. Therefore, you have about a 50/50 shot (unless you have Kris Brown 5-5 from 50+...ridiculous) of gaining 3 points or putting your opponent on their own 40+ yard line.

I'm almost of the opinion that a 50 yard field goal is too risky of a play, if it doesn't pay off, you're almost screwed.

[jdlea]

That's probably the most research I've ever done for a post and it was a. about kickers and b. about a post I pretty much agreed with...LOL

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jdlea

We don't really disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's talk about the 4%. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to say a kicker will have 25-50 attempts per season. That's 1 or 2 more misses in a season, that's not an incredible amount, BUT what if they're big kicks? What if they're game winners? It's also the difference between being the 16/17th best kicker in the league vs. the 25th. I was trying to help Janikowski out because they trot him out for some ridiculous kicks.

Just because Janikowski can reach a 50 yarder, doesn't mean much, he only hit slightly above 50%, Suisham was 50%. I'm not saying that their leg strength is anywere near comparable, but I'm saying that a 50 yard field goal is probably 50/50 anyway. I don't think signing a guy just because he can get it there and sacrificing accuracy is worth while.

Also, the reason I removed the 50 yarders is because they were the majority of Janikowski's misses. He was 6/11 last season from 50+. I thought that would bring his 71% FG PCT up a bit, but it didn't make it that much better.

The one thing we do disagree on is that FG% isn't that big of a factor. I want the kicker to make as many FG's as possible, just because he has a big leg, doesn't mean he'll make more and I just don't see kicking into the end zone to be that important. The difference between the 20 and 25 isn't that big of a deal, it's not even that different from 20 to 30. The kick coverage and defense have to do their job. I will say, however, that there is a pretty big difference when it's the 35 or 40.

Now, I will say that having a 50 yarder be out of the question for a kicker is a little ridiculous, but I'm not a huge proponent of trotting a guy out there for a 50 yarder. First of all, the greatest kicker in Redskins history (or at least the only one who made the 70 Greatest list) is probably Mark Moseley. For his career he made 12 of 42 from 50+ yards. Last year, in the NFL, 99 FG's of 50+ yards were attempted and NFL kickers made 47 of them that's 47.4%. Therefore, you have about a 50/50 shot (unless you have Kris Brown 5-5 from 50+...ridiculous) of gaining 3 points or putting your opponent on their own 40+ yard line.

I'm almost of the opinion that a 50 yard field goal is too risky of a play, if it doesn't pay off, you're almost screwed.

I do not think FG% is not a big deal. I do think it is.
We agree on most everything here, and you make valid points. What I will disagree with is the kickoffs. We will kickoff approx 4-6 times a game. If someone is 10 yards shorter than another, that is giving up 40-60 yards per game. I think those yards are important.

All in all, I feel like we agree on most cases.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jdlea

We don't really disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's talk about the 4%. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to say a kicker will have 25-50 attempts per season. That's 1 or 2 more misses in a season, that's not an incredible amount, BUT what if they're big kicks? What if they're game winners? It's also the difference between being the 16/17th best kicker in the league vs. the 25th. I was trying to help Janikowski out because they trot him out for some ridiculous kicks.

Just because Janikowski can reach a 50 yarder, doesn't mean much, he only hit slightly above 50%, Suisham was 50%. I'm not saying that their leg strength is anywere near comparable, but I'm saying that a 50 yard field goal is probably 50/50 anyway. I don't think signing a guy just because he can get it there and sacrificing accuracy is worth while.

Also, the reason I removed the 50 yarders is because they were the majority of Janikowski's misses. He was 6/11 last season from 50+. I thought that would bring his 71% FG PCT up a bit, but it didn't make it that much better.

The one thing we do disagree on is that FG% isn't that big of a factor. I want the kicker to make as many FG's as possible, just because he has a big leg, doesn't mean he'll make more and I just don't see kicking into the end zone to be that important. The difference between the 20 and 25 isn't that big of a deal, it's not even that different from 20 to 30. The kick coverage and defense have to do their job. I will say, however, that there is a pretty big difference when it's the 35 or 40.

Now, I will say that having a 50 yarder be out of the question for a kicker is a little ridiculous, but I'm not a huge proponent of trotting a guy out there for a 50 yarder. First of all, the greatest kicker in Redskins history (or at least the only one who made the 70 Greatest list) is probably Mark Moseley. For his career he made 12 of 42 from 50+ yards. Last year, in the NFL, 99 FG's of 50+ yards were attempted and NFL kickers made 47 of them that's 47.4%. Therefore, you have about a 50/50 shot (unless you have Kris Brown 5-5 from 50+...ridiculous) of gaining 3 points or putting your opponent on their own 40+ yard line.

I'm almost of the opinion that a 50 yard field goal is too risky of a play, if it doesn't pay off, you're almost screwed.

Good post and nice research.

[DGreene28]

Originally Posted by jdlea

We don't really disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's talk about the 4%. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to say a kicker will have 25-50 attempts per season. That's 1 or 2 more misses in a season, that's not an incredible amount, BUT what if they're big kicks? What if they're game winners? It's also the difference between being the 16/17th best kicker in the league vs. the 25th. I was trying to help Janikowski out because they trot him out for some ridiculous kicks.

Just because Janikowski can reach a 50 yarder, doesn't mean much, he only hit slightly above 50%, Suisham was 50%. I'm not saying that their leg strength is anywere near comparable, but I'm saying that a 50 yard field goal is probably 50/50 anyway. I don't think signing a guy just because he can get it there and sacrificing accuracy is worth while.

Also, the reason I removed the 50 yarders is because they were the majority of Janikowski's misses. He was 6/11 last season from 50+. I thought that would bring his 71% FG PCT up a bit, but it didn't make it that much better.

The one thing we do disagree on is that FG% isn't that big of a factor. I want the kicker to make as many FG's as possible, just because he has a big leg, doesn't mean he'll make more and I just don't see kicking into the end zone to be that important. The difference between the 20 and 25 isn't that big of a deal, it's not even that different from 20 to 30. The kick coverage and defense have to do their job. I will say, however, that there is a pretty big difference when it's the 35 or 40.

Now, I will say that having a 50 yarder be out of the question for a kicker is a little ridiculous, but I'm not a huge proponent of trotting a guy out there for a 50 yarder. First of all, the greatest kicker in Redskins history (or at least the only one who made the 70 Greatest list) is probably Mark Moseley. For his career he made 12 of 42 from 50+ yards. Last year, in the NFL, 99 FG's of 50+ yards were attempted and NFL kickers made 47 of them that's 47.4%. Therefore, you have about a 50/50 shot (unless you have Kris Brown 5-5 from 50+...ridiculous) of gaining 3 points or putting your opponent on their own 40+ yard line.

I'm almost of the opinion that a 50 yard field goal is too risky of a play, if it doesn't pay off, you're almost screwed.

I agree with you here for sure. But at the end of a half/game its nice to have the driver in the bag and break out the big dog. I feel with Suishham all we have is a 6 iron. I like Suisham though, he just missed a big one in the playoffs vs Seattle and it seemed to kill us momentum wise...