Skip to main content

MichiganPacker2 posted:

I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's a mistake. I think the Packers are more likely to lose a game due to a snapper/holder problem than a bad punt.

You have to think Crosby was comfortable with Masthay as a holder. He's gone 84-98 on FGs in the last 3 regular seasons and Crosby is one of the best clutch kickers in NFL playoff history - 23 for 25 on FG and 49 for 49 on XPs. 

If you were going to do this, you'd think you'd want all training camp to let Crosby get familiar with the holder (like Mortell would have had the benefit of). 

I am concerned about the possibility of this turning into a Derrick Frost situation where you try and fix what isn't (completely) broken.

That said he has enough local connections to me so I'm all cool with it. Come join me and the other #Schumbags on the bandwagon.

Choosing  punters must be a pain in the ass.  There's only so much evaluation you can do and even an average punter is hard to move on from because it can easily get worse.  One thing Masthay can't say is that the Packers didn't give him a fair chance.  They put up with mediocre performances and worse in hopes be would get more consistent and he never did. 

I wanted to find a site that talked about the expected point differences between good and bad punters. According to one statistical analysis, the best punter over a recent 4-5 year period (2008-2013) was Thomas Morstead of the Saints. Basically he would add 2.3 points a SEASON compared to an average punter. A really bad punter can really cost you (Jason Baker in 2011 is their example), but it looks like most punters are close to average and even the best ones don't make a huge difference. It's basically find a guy that is consistent and doesn't make mistakes and keep him - and don't pay big money for them.

 

http://www.advancedfootballana...value-of-nfl-punters

Now we can see which punters make the biggest difference over average in expected point value. The table below shows the total expected points over average contributed by a punter over the last five seasons, with a minimum of 20 punts attempted. Over the last five seasons, the punter who has most positively impacted his team has been Thomas Morstead of the New Orleans Saints with 11.03 points added over average. On the reverse side, we have the poorest punters in the NFL through 2011, including Jason Baker of the Carolina Panthers. On average, each punt he took cost his team .46 points compared to a league-average punter.

What should be striking here is that Morstead has only been able to add 11.03 points over four seasons and most of the 2013 season, equivalent to 2.32 points over average each season. For comparison, the average NFL team scores 371.85 points a season. Football Outsiders estimates that in 2013, Peyton Manning was able to contribute 2,475 yards above average at quarterback, which is worth approximately 160.6 expected points above average.

It is also worth noting that NFL teams currently have a difficult time evaluating and paying punting talent appropriately. For example, the highest paid punter for the 2014 season is Mike Scifres of the San Diego Chargers who is earning $3.25 million this year (corresponding to a $4 million cap hit) but producing results below the league average. Even if teams starting evaluating punters correctly, the marginal benefit a team could expect from signing a top punter is not worth nearly the current market cost.

 

RatPack posted:

Why keep a punter?  Exhibition has shown we are a better team when we use 4 downs.  There isn't a single player capable of kicking 35 yd pouch punts with no returns on our roster? 

I know you're probably joking, but every statistical type that looks at this says teams punt way too much. It's just that no coach wants to stick his neck out and do this (other than the high school coach who has been very successful with this).

https://www.washingtonpost.com...nother-radical-idea/

Teams should go for it every time it's even a consideration.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×