Forge Posted February 25, 2019 Author Share Posted February 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, JIllg said: The difference is the degree to which you have control over your own production relative to your peers and the number of opportunities such that a couple aberrent samples aren't capable of ruining your year. LT got hundreds of opportunities to affect a game, kickers get ~5-10. There are going to be a high number of short field goals and XP that replacement level players will make at an extremely high level. So, what you are really having them for is long field goals in games decided by small numbers of points. Fine. If kickers were a consistent breed - if you could count on Gould going 96% and very likely nailing all of them, he'd be very valuable. But he's probably inherently a ~89%ish kicker that is just as likely to repeat that 96% performance as he is to drop back to posting a year equivalent to Parkey's career line. But what you're talking about is dumping a guy who actually has a history of being a successful, consistent kicker for an unknown because the position is somewhat variable and volatile. That makes no sense if you are trying to be a playoff team. If you're in a rebuild year? No problem with that. Give me a better alternative, I'll listen. Yes, even Gould has had a shaky season or two. Legatron too. Pretty much every kicker. Yes, he's kicked over his head for two years here. But the better alternative is not to just sign random guy and let Gould go for no real reason. Relief pitching in baseball is also volatile. That doesn't mean you let go of an elite reliever after a great season unless there is more to it. There's not more to it for us with Gould. The only reason to move on would be fear, basically. Thus, LT is overrated because he may get injured Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justone2 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 If we can sign Matt Bryant i wouldn't mind losing Gould but otherwise don't think there is any kicker i would say is on the same level or close that would be available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIllg Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Forge said: But what you're talking about is dumping a guy who actually has a history of being a successful, consistent kicker for an unknown because the position is somewhat variable and volatile. That makes no sense if you are trying to be a playoff team. If you're in a rebuild year? No problem with that. Give me a better alternative, I'll listen. Yes, even Gould has had a shaky season or two. Legatron too. Pretty much every kicker. Yes, he's kicked over his head for two years here. But the better alternative is not to just sign random guy and let Gould go for no real reason. Relief pitching in baseball is also volatile. That doesn't mean you let go of an elite reliever after a great season unless there is more to it. There's not more to it for us with Gould. The only reason to move on would be fear, basically. Thus, LT is overrated because he may get injured The point is, you have places you can place your money where you are more likely to get the value you are intending to purchase. And relief pitching in baseball is a fine analogue. Not overvaluing closers, because just about anyone can get three outs 90% of the time and only a few saves are truly difficult. You could look at it as "letting go" of a great reliever after a great season, but the real point is not to pay for performance that is unlikely to be replicated and less likely to have an affect every game and instead pay for performance that is. Now, in our cap situation, I don't think that we're likely to attract enough quality FAs that Gould's salary is going to be a big problem and I would be fine with franchising or extending him. I merely caution against overvaluing kicking performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 25, 2019 Author Share Posted February 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, JIllg said: The point is, you have places you can place your money where you are more likely to get the value you are intending to purchase. And relief pitching in baseball is a fine analogue. Not overvaluing closers, because just about anyone can get three outs 90% of the time and only a few saves are truly difficult. You could look at it as "letting go" of a great reliever after a great season, but the real point is not to pay for performance that is unlikely to be replicated and less likely to have an affect every game and instead pay for performance that is. Now, in our cap situation, I don't think that we're likely to attract enough quality FAs that Gould's salary is going to be a big problem and I would be fine with franchising or extending him. I merely caution against overvaluing kicking performance. We are talking less that 5 million dollars out of a 190+ million pie. Has nothing to do with overvaluing the kicking performance. Has to do with the fact that there simply isn't a real reason to move on from a guy who has still been performing at a really high level. As I said with the reliever analogy, you don't move on unless there is something more to it. If that reliever suddenly wants 20 million a season afterwards, yeah, you can let him go. But we don't have that problem with Gould. Our situation is more comparable to that same reliever wanting 5 million and plays for the red Sox, Yankees, dodgers or Giants with a 200 million dollar payroll. Why would they let him go then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 25, 2019 Author Share Posted February 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, Justone2 said: If we can sign Matt Bryant i wouldn't mind losing Gould but otherwise don't think there is any kicker i would say is on the same level or close that would be available. I will listen to Bryant as a viable alternative, but probably prefer Gould, though it's negligible. Bryant has spent the last decade kicking indoors on turf, which helps. I'd assume that they bring in comparable salaries on the market, but I'd definitely be okay with Bryant if that was the direction we went Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIllg Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 7 minutes ago, Forge said: We are talking less that 5 million dollars out of a 190+ million pie. Has nothing to do with overvaluing the kicking performance. Has to do with the fact that there simply isn't a real reason to move on from a guy who has still been performing at a really high level. As I said with the reliever analogy, you don't move on unless there is something more to it. If that reliever suddenly wants 20 million a season afterwards, yeah, you can let him go. But we don't have that problem with Gould. Our situation is more comparable to that same reliever wanting 5 million and plays for the red Sox, Yankees, dodgers or Giants with a 200 million dollar payroll. Why would they let him go then? Agreed. As I said, in our current financial state, I'm fine with paying him. We have that luxury for the next year, but could come closer and closer up against the line in years to come. At which point, I would prefer not to holding on to kicker value at the expense of other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justone2 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 15 minutes ago, Forge said: I will listen to Bryant as a viable alternative, but probably prefer Gould, though it's negligible. Bryant has spent the last decade kicking indoors on turf, which helps. I'd assume that they bring in comparable salaries on the market, but I'd definitely be okay with Bryant if that was the direction we went Yeah i would prefer Gould too but if we wanted to let him go back to Chicago or anything like that i wouldn't mind bringing in Bryant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ftn49 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/02/25/report-ravens-releasing-michael-crabtree/ I'd love to have Crabtree back if he wants to come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychlone Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 4 hours ago, Ftn49 said: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/02/25/report-ravens-releasing-michael-crabtree/ I'd love to have Crabtree back if he wants to come... Him and Sherman on the same team. Bring in Talib too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 26, 2019 Author Share Posted February 26, 2019 5 hours ago, Ftn49 said: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/02/25/report-ravens-releasing-michael-crabtree/ I'd love to have Crabtree back if he wants to come... He's really not good any more, and he's over 31 years old. Hard pass from me. If we after going that route, give me Tate. Otherwise give me Williams or even moncrief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Gould was talked about by David on the Better Rivals podcast recently. The entire tagging situation. He kind of goes off, which is a little funny. Starts at the 3:25 mark. https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/niners-nation/e/58911145 Essentially why giving the tag to Gould really isn't the best approach. Personally, I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ftn49 Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Psychlone said: Him and Sherman on the same team. Bring in Talib too... Haha, the same thing occurred to me but I'd guess they'd be fine now, both are a little older and haven't been rivals for some time. 56 minutes ago, Forge said: He's really not good any more, and he's over 31 years old. Hard pass from me. If we after going that route, give me Tate. Otherwise give me Williams or even moncrief Moncrief I wouldn't mind either but he hasn't been the greatest since leaving Indy. Hard pass from me on Tate, and yes, that is a purely emotional decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fureys49ers Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Chris Conley is a FA I’d prefer over most of what’s on the market. I like Tate a lot but he’s a little pricey. Tyrell Williams is my favored target with the size and speed and I feel he is greatly underrated thought of as only this deep ball threat and that’s it but really isn’t the case at all. He just gets recognition for those plays only. If you watch prior years of his when Allen was hurt he runs a variety of routes and does so well. Lastly the WR who I think could be a great get for a team if they refine his WR skills a bit and put him in position to use his athleticism is Chris Conley who’s still fairly young at 25 I believe. Moncrief for me personally I wouldn’t hate but would be very “meh” on as there’s not much upside for him, other than potential surprise other than him playing a full 16 game season for a second year in a row which would probably be the highlight of that signing if I had to guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldman9er Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Crabtree option would be about as "last resort" as it gets, for me. We would have to truly bomb out on WR in the FA and Draft. If Gould wants to go to Chicago, open the door, and usher him out with a civil wave g'bye. Draft Cole Tracy in rd 6, and we then have another reliable K, but this one on a cheap deal. I wouldn't mind Conley or Ty W. as a vet contributor, I guess. Wouldn't hate the Moncrief pickup; he didn't get to show much anyway with Bortles and Jax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 26, 2019 Author Share Posted February 26, 2019 8 hours ago, PapaShogun said: Gould was talked about by David on the Better Rivals podcast recently. The entire tagging situation. He kind of goes off lol. Starts at the 3:25 mark. https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/niners-nation/e/58911145 Essentially why giving the tag to Gould really isn't the best approach. Personally, I agree Yup. That 4-5 million is clearly better spent on Jonathan Cooper rather than franchising a kicker. Don't want to franchise him, get him an extension, otherwise it's the easiest solution and short term. No doubt that it's not the best decision in all scenarios, but it shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum like that where the same decision applies across all spectrums. Have a better option, I'm all for it. Someone mentioned Matt Bryant. I'm down for that. Get him signed now. He was a cut, so we don't have to wait. I'll let Gould go with Bryant in the fold. The better option is not "let's sign Blair Walsh for the vet minimum or grab a udfa" just to save 4 million and hope that he's actually competent. Look at the teams that continue to struggle to find just average kickers. Teams are going on 5, 6, 7 years now. That's an unnecessary risk for a team that wants to make the playoffs The points are valid about it not being the best allocation of resources. That being said, that's not something we need to be overly concerned about at the current point in time. You are still allocating some resources to decent kickers (3mil), so we are seriously talking about spending 2 extra million for a single year here. Seldom will there be a time when that really matters, but even if there were, that's not right now. Just because you can make that decision now, in this specific situation, doesn't mean it clouds every future decision and casts it under the same light. We pay a fullback 6 and 7 million dollar cap hits this year and next. That's a position that doesn't even exist on all teams. I really don't care about moving in from Gould, but I just really, really want a viable backup plan to do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.