So Lawrence Taylor or the guy the theoretical 75% kicker guy? You're telling me you take the kicker?

With all the others.

Kickers :grr:

The NFL record is 63 yards, by Tom Dempsey and Jason Elam. To hit a 65 yard field goal with any consistency would be an incomparable achievement.

"How big of a cock does this kicker guy have"?

- Carl Peterson

Aaron Curry is NOT Lawrence Taylor by any means.

But you still take the kicker......why?

Because everytime you pass the 50yd line you can get 3 pts (at least)

You could easily add aboput 12 pts to your total score.

You think Lawrence Taylor consistantly scored 2 TD's a game??? Nope.

Curry = Lawrence Taylor? I'm doing the best I can not to laugh.

You can't be freaking serious.

LT was a DE in college and had 16 sacks his senior year.

I didn't say K over LT. I said K over CURRY. And I stand by it.

Just to throw a little contrarian thought in here, think about this.

If you put him at your own 45 and he makes 75% of his kicks, that means that he produces 2.25 points on average whenever you stall out at your 45. (75%*3 points).

But of the 25% of the time he misses, the opponent will now have the ball at YOUR 45. How likely is it in that case that they'll score? There's some expected value to giving up field position on the misses, too, though I don't have the initiative to calculate it.

That's fine. I wasn't comparing Curry to LT, I just thought you meant, generically, an elite LB type.

I'm not a draftnik, so I don't know how elite (or not) Curry is projecting to be, really.

But he's more impactful on wins and losses, by a WIDE MARGIN, than a solid MLB. Even a HOF MLB, which Curry isn't.

You have to make distinction between OLB that were college DE's and can rush the passer vs. a MLB that is all-around solid, but has never rushed the passer or shown a propensity to create turnovers.

That's actually a really good point. I was thinking that guy is a top 10 pick based on his ability to directly impact the game (same line of thought I use when I'm talking about picking up Pat White).

But then you have to ask yourself how often he'd actually be used. Even if he hits 3/4, I gotta believe that in any close game, the head coach would probably call for the punt if he's in his own territory as there's a 25% chance that he'll be giving the opposition excellent field position. Granted, that's a Herm way of viewing it, but I think we underestimate how conservative most NFL head coaches are.

I'd still probably take him very high up in the first because I think anytime you can get a weapon that gives you a direct advantage on the scoreboard, you have to do it. At the same time, props on an interesting wrinkle that I hadn't considered.

Dammit, that was MY idea. You just wrote it first because you're in the eastern time zone.

eh....maybe. Depends on alot of variables. Is the guy a 0% FG chance from 66 yards out, like eveyr other NFL kicker, ro does it step down from 75%. If the guy is a 60% chance from 70 yards out and 50 from 75 yards, etc., then you're probably right.

Otherwise, it will affect the game quite alot, but you've got the swing of what happens to the other team's offense on the 25% of misses. How often does missing from the 45 result in a TD?

But yes, it's clearly a first round kicker. Heck, just have 65% touchback ability is probably good for at least third round right there, maybe 2nd.

Right. If it's a minute or two to go and the game is tied and you're at teh 50 on 4th down, then you kick, b/c it's a 75% of success.

But what if there is 2 minutes left and you're up by THREE and you're at the 50? 75% or not, you might lean heavily towards punt. If you miss, the other team is damn near certain to tie, and might get the winning TD.

Well.....then I'm glad I had the opportunity to agree with your idea before you posted it.