mikegibbons
On the Roster
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
Mooch said:Wow. Just, wow. I'm really hoping my sarcasm meter is out of whack: I can't believe that you really think there's a secret handshake agreement among NFL owners to keep kicker's salaries down? Are you serious????
Which is more likely: (a) The NFL has colluded in a giant anti-kicker conspiracy to keep salaries down OR (b) nearly every NFL team believes that the difference between a great kicker and an average one isn't nearly large enough to offset paying so much for that single position that it might shortchange them at nearly any other position on the field?
I eagerly await your response.
Conditionally, I pick (a).
I don't believe there was literally a handshake agreement between owners. I don't know how or when it was done, but kickers and punters are slotted in a certain salary demographic. And I'm pretty sure owners and coaches would like to keep it that way.
Back to the initial point, I still think it doesn't make sense that the guy who wrote the column so easily dismisses AV and kickers in general. Let's compare it to baseball. Closers make nearly the same as starters and they pitch anywhere from 25%-33% of what starters do. According to Mooch and Cold Hard Football facts, this is absolutely crazy!!!
But why do the Red Sox pay Foulke 7M/year? The Mets pay Wagner whatever he's making (10?)...the Yanks the millions and millions to Rivera?
Because the guy who has the opportunity to end the game and who has proven to hold up the pressure in the past should be compensated well.
Likewise, anytime you have a kicker who has proven he can perform in a "Save" situation, you should try and keep him even if he only is on the field in 66/2100 snaps.