How Much is Justin Tucker Actually Worth?

[MWil23]

4 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Do you think Justin Tucker has won us more games than Matthew Judon this year?

It's funny how Parkey's missed chip shot 39 yarder was barely a footnote last night. Talk about the true X Factor/difference maker. Everyone was so enamored with Lamar (deservedly so) that they forgot about how one kicker missed a 39 yard chip shot and one nailed a 55 yarder to win it, when if Parkey was even competent, that kick is to tie up the game and send it into OT.

I bet Tucker himself is worth 1-2 wins per year.

Also, football should absolutely have WAR rankings.

@ramssuperbowl99 tell me I'm wrong about this.

[incognito_man]

I don't know how to put it any more simply than this:

Assume team starts with ball at 20 yd line. They need to move the football 80 (statistically, 90 actually) yards between the uprights to score 3 points.

Team A has 11 players that can move it 25 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 55 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

Team B has 11 players that can move it 35 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 45 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

What is more valuable? The player who can move it more yards EVERYWHERE on the field or the kicker who can move it more yards on, really, the only part of the field where there's a measurable difference between elite and average kickers? In the long FG situation, it doesn't matter if those extra 10 yards come from your kicker or the other 11 players. In every other, non-long-FG situation, the elite kicker's advantage is worthless relative to an average kicker.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Just now, MWil23 said:

It's funny how Parkey's missed chip shot 39 yarder was barely a footnote last night. Talk about the true X Factor/difference maker. Everyone was so enamored with Lamar (deservedly so) that they forgot about how one kicker missed a 39 yard chip shot and one nailed a 55 yarder to win it, when if Parkey was even competent, that kick is to tie up the game and send it into OT.

I bet Tucker himself is worth 1-2 wins per year.

Also, football should absolutely have WAR rankings.

@ramssuperbowl99 tell me I'm wrong about this.

I already googled "NFL WAR" this morning and was thoroughly disappointed. But yes, the rest of your point is absolutely spot on.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Just now, incognito_man said:

I don't know how to put it any more simply than this:

Assume team starts with ball at 20 yd line. They need to move the football 80 (statistically, 90 actually) yards between the uprights to score 3 points.

Team A has 11 players that can move it 25 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 55 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

Team B has 11 players that can move it 35 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 45 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

What is more valuable? The player who can move it more yards EVERYWHERE on the field or the kicker who can move it more yards on, really, the only part of the field where there's a measurable difference between elite and average kickers? In the long FG situation, it doesn't matter if those extra 10 yards come from your kicker or the other 11 players. In every other, non-long-FG situation, the elite kicker's advantage is worthless relative to an average kicker.

I'm having a hard time articulating this so maybe someone else can jump in, but the bolded I feel like is a very bad logical comparison, because how your offense operates goes beyond just the players on the field for your team. There's so many moving variables and parts. Kicking is so simple, there's not many variables to account for - either your kicker is good or he isn't.

Life is MUCH easier for your offense as a whole when you know you only have to go 20 yards vs. 30 or 40. I don't really know what other way to articulate that.

[bigbadbuff]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I don't know how to put it any more simply than this:

Assume team starts with ball at 20 yd line. They need to move the football 80 (statistically, 90 actually) yards between the uprights to score 3 points.

Team A has 11 players that can move it 25 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 55 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

Team B has 11 players that can move it 35 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 45 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

What is more valuable? The player who can move it more yards EVERYWHERE on the field or the kicker who can move it more yards on, really, the only part of the field where there's a measurable difference between elite and average kickers? In the long FG situation, it doesn't matter if those extra 10 yards come from your kicker or the other 11 players. In every other, non-long-FG situation, the elite kicker's advantage is worthless relative to an average kicker.

But Brock Osweiler got 18 million a year, when everyone knew that wasn't worth it. Numerous examples of contracts like that that teams just throw away money on, wouldn't Tucker be a better investment?

[Tk3]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I don't know how to put it any more simply than this:

Assume team starts with ball at 20 yd line. They need to move the football 80 (statistically, 90 actually) yards between the uprights to score 3 points.

Team A has 11 players that can move it 25 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 55 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

Team B has 11 players that can move it 35 yards 50% of the time and a kicker that can move it 45 yards 75% of the time. Net result: 50% x 75% = 37.5% success.

What is more valuable? The player who can move it more yards EVERYWHERE on the field or the kicker who can move it more yards on, really, the only part of the field where there's a measurable difference between elite and average kickers? In the long FG situation, it doesn't matter if those extra 10 yards come from your kicker or the other 11 players. In every other, non-long-FG situation, the elite kicker's advantage is worthless relative to an average kicker.

Okay.. So I'll ignore the bulk of the math and hit on the immediate thing

You are assuming a positional player who nets you +10 yards EVERY drive (edit: 50% of the drives)

Let's say you get ~12 possessions per game

Now you are talking about a player who is adding +60 yards OVER REPLACEMENT

That is NOT the same 5-10 yards per game lol

If we are talking DeAndre Hopkins (~90 ypg this season) vs Jaylen Guyton (~30 ypg this season), then we are on the same page.. the guy who is worth 10 yards per drive IS more valuable than Tucker

But you keep quoting 5-10 yards per game

[rich homie]

1 minute ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Kicking is so simple, there's not many variables to account for - either your kicker is good or he isn't.

That's just not the case. The long snapper, blocking, and the holding are just as important aspects as the ability of your kicker. That's like saying your wide receiver is the only variable in how many passing touchdowns you score.

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Idk, someone else might have to look that up, I can't seem to find it (or maybe I just don't have access to it?)

No one calculates this (afaik) for anything other than offensive skill positions. But, as an example of how it works:

Patrick Mahomes (#1 in DYAR) has a DYAR advantage of 1,223 yds over replacement relative to league average (Kyler Murrary)

Derrick Henry (#1 in DYAR) has an advantage of 317 yds over replacement (Kenyon Drake)

Tucker's DYAR could (probably) be measured as his total extra FG yardage over league average. That would be a gross score, and would paint him in a good light. A better measure would factor in league average %'s at each distance, multiply his success over average by length of kick. I don't think FO calculates metrics for individual kickers, but you can rest assured the DYAR advantage for kickers pales relative to every other position.

[bigbadbuff]

2 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

I'm having a hard time articulating this so maybe someone else can jump in, but the bolded I feel like is a very bad logical comparison, because how your offense operates goes beyond just the players on the field for your team. There's so many moving variables and parts. Kicking is so simple, there's not many variables to account for - either your kicker is good or he isn't.

Life is MUCH easier for your offense as a whole when you know you only have to go 20 yards vs. 30 or 40. I don't really know what other way to articulate that.

All that has to be said is look at the Ravens' last drive last night. They were able to take some time knowing they had Tucker. Did anyone think he was going to miss that 55 yard fg for the win? What other team is ok with that? They are more likely to try to get more yards, take more risk of turnover etc. because they don't trust their kicker. Especially in 30 degree weather.

[Blackstar12]

Damn you know a kicker is really good when this thread went 6 pages in a few hours lol.

[diamondbull424]

43 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I'm getting frustrated because you're either pretending not to understand the point or actually don't understand the point. Either ways, you continue to swing and miss on pointing out inconsistencies. My argument w/r/t first round picks is that they're overvalued because of how many people think they're generally worth more than established great/elite players. What I am saying here is that I would not trade a first for Justin Tucker when I could trade a first for an established great/elite player at a MORE VALUABLE POSITION. Stefon Diggs is the example of that. Do you still not understand?

You’re being dense here. There is indeed a flaw in your thinking. So you shouldn’t call guys names for point it out. It’s not like he’s saying you’re a terrible person or something.

You are stuck on the idea that in one scenario that 1st round pick provides a Stefon Diggs, but in another scenario that it provides a bust 50% of the time.

In one scenario you assume only the best case scenario of a trade acquisition working out like the one with Diggs, yet don’t include possibility for a failure. Diggs worked out, but Joey Galloway, Randy Moss, Percy Harvin, and Deion Branch are just a few names that didn’t work out too well for teams trading for them.

If we apply the ‘same energy’ to the Ramsey deal, the Rams gave up Stefon Diggs, Brett Favre, and Randy Moss for Jalen Ramsey instead of a good player and two scrubs. That level of thinking isn’t consistent with this scenario. You’re suddenly ONLY entrenched on the concept that the 1st round pick IS Stefon Diggs or Hopkins without acknowledging that pick could be a draft bust or a trade bust as well. Or acknowledging that perhaps the team missed out on both those hypothetical deals and the Tucker deal was the only deal left.

Edited December 15, 2020 by diamondbull424

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, Tk3 said:

Okay.. So I'll ignore the bulk of the math and hit on the immediate thing

You are assuming a positional player who nets you +10 yards EVERY drive (edit: 50% of the drives)

I'm not assuming anything and all my numbers are made up.

The point remains: position players who generate needed yardage equivalent are more valuable because they do it everywhere on the field where it matters. An elite kicker is only relevant on 15% of the field. And on that point in the field, the positional players still retain their value, too.

A kicker would need to be 7x (100/15) more valuable (yardage-wise) than a positional player to be of equal value to the team because the elite kicker's advantage is only relevant on roughly 15% of the field.

[rich homie]

I will say if you use a first round pick to acquire a kicker in any way then you deserve everything that happens to you.

[incognito_man]

I'm officially bowing out. All the info I can possibly add to this discussion has been added and I no longer want to commit any more of my time to Justin Tucker's relative value to a football team lol

[diamondbull424]

16 minutes ago, Tk3 said:

Okay.. So I'll ignore the bulk of the math and hit on the immediate thing

You are assuming a positional player who nets you +10 yards EVERY drive (edit: 50% of the drives)

Let's say you get ~12 possessions per game

Now you are talking about a player who is adding +60 yards OVER REPLACEMENT

That is NOT the same 5-10 yards per game lol

If we are talking DeAndre Hopkins (~90 ypg this season) vs Jaylen Guyton (~30 ypg this season), then we are on the same page.. the guy who is worth 10 yards per drive IS more valuable than Tucker

But you keep quoting 5-10 yards per game

I’m still out of footballs from last night else you’d have probably 5 footballs by now.