Do we need a new kicker?

[JackBauer]

You don't have to agree with something for it to be a legitimate question or concern.

Rookies with leg strength like Blair Walsh and Greg Zuerlein make these threads feasible. Personally, there's greater needs than Ghost.

It's a terrible thread regardless of the merits of the question, as evidenced by the weaknesses of the indictments against, particularly in the OP.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Part of the question as always is if the player is worth the cap space he occupies. If there is another kicker out there who has as good or superior performance at less cost, then he should be evaluated. I don't get why people believe it's ridiculous to look at options. It's like most of you feel like Gostkowski is untouchable or something.

Well, seeing as the Pats gave him an enormous long-term extension in 2010 with absolutely no competition at all since his rookie season. . . .

 

[Wilfork#75]

I was actually thinking about this the other day and I think it is a reasonable discussion. Its not just about Gost as a kicker and could he be upgraded, like everything else it comes back to money. He has cap hits of $3.4mil and $3.8mil the next two years which is huge for a kicker. So the first question is whether or not he is worth the money. And the second question is can he be upgraded for a cheaper price. I don't think think it is unreasonable or even that unlikely to think that he could be gone soon.

 

[JFK]

Yep, 6th highest total for a kicker in NFL history (153). Also a perfect 4-4 in the playoffs this year and 90% (18-20) in his career.

4 of his 6 missed kicks were in games that the Pats scored 59, 52 and 49 points, not exactly game on the line misses.

Being the extra point of the highest scoring offense kicker in the NFL helps. 66 of those were from extra point kicks

 

[Haley]

I think it makes more sense to evaluate and possibly replace the snapper. I am not convinced he has the right chemistry with the kickers. Ghost may be a little overpayed for his stats this year but he still had a fine year.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Being the extra point of the highest scoring offense kicker in the NFL helps. 66 of those were from extra point kicks

Ok, great, so he still hit on 29 FG for the other 87. You'd be taking a $1.6 million hit in dead money to cut the leagues leading kicker in points scored. I think there are bigger fish to fry.

 

[JFK]

Ok, great, so he still hit on 29 FG for the other 87. You'd be taking a $1.6 million hit in dead money to cut the leagues leading kicker in points scored. I think there are bigger fish to fry.

Not saying cut him. Just pointing out the reason he has 153 kicks and why he gets in range to make 29 kicks. He isn't a leading kicker in percentage of kicks made.

YES WE HAVE BIGGER ISSUES but any issue that can be addressed should be

 

[Wilfork#75]

Ok, great, so he still hit on 29 FG for the other 87. You'd be taking a $1.6 million hit in dead money to cut the leagues leading kicker in points scored. I think there are bigger fish to fry.

Or you could look at it as saving $1.8mil ($3.8mil next season). I'm not going to question that Ghost is a quality kicker, but the question is whether or not he is worth what he is getting. I'm not saying we need to cut him, but I think it would be smart drafting or signing a guy to compete with him in camp. If their performance is close enough you go with the cheaper guy. You could replace Ghost with a rookie on $400k and save $2mil against the cap if you cut him in camp and spread the hit over 2 years.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Or you could look at it as saving $1.8mil ($3.8mil next season). I'm not going to question that Ghost is a quality kicker, but the question is whether or not he is worth what he is getting. I'm not saying we need to cut him, but I think it would be smart drafting or signing a guy to compete with him in camp. If their performance is close enough you go with the cheaper guy. You could replace Ghost with a rookie on $400k and save $2mil against the cap if you cut him in camp and spread the hit over 2 years.

They bring in another kicker every year to TC and there's no way they should draft one.

 

[Wilfork#75]

They bring in another kicker every year to TC and there's no way they should draft one.

Why not? they have two 7th round picks. I would think a young kicker has a better shot at making the roster than most other positions. Just because it isn't the biggest need doesn't mean it should be ignored.

 

[Fencer]

He's a lousy tackler, but that's no reason to replace him.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Or you could look at it as saving $1.8mil ($3.8mil next season). I'm not going to question that Ghost is a quality kicker, but the question is whether or not he is worth what he is getting. I'm not saying we need to cut him, but I think it would be smart drafting or signing a guy to compete with him in camp. If their performance is close enough you go with the cheaper guy. You could replace Ghost with a rookie on $400k and save $2mil against the cap if you cut him in camp and spread the hit over 2 years.

I know I've been a broken record on this, but there remains one crucial question to answer in trying to decide Gostkowski's future:

Why did the Patriots give Gostkowski that giant contract in the first place?

Remember: the Patriots made Ghost the highest paid specialist who doesn't play in Oakland. There had to be a reason at the time for doing that; the question is "Do those reasons still apply?"

 

[ctpatsfan77]

They bring in another kicker every year to TC and there's no way they should draft one.

Only since his leg injury. After he beat out Gramatica his rookie season, he had ZERO competition in 2007, 2008, and 2009. BB didn't even bring in a camp leg.

Why not? they have two 7th round picks. I would think a young kicker has a better shot at making the roster than most other positions. Just because it isn't the biggest need doesn't mean it should be ignored.

As I noted above, that depends on why the Pats gave him the $$$ in the first place.

 

[Wilfork#75]

As I noted above, that depends on why the Pats gave him the $$$ in the first place.

Because 3 years and a season ending quad injury ago they felt he was worth it. Just because they felt that way 3 years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't re-evaluate the situation now.

 

[Gumby]

Well, seeing as the Pats gave him an enormous long-term extension in 2010 with absolutely no competition at all since his rookie season. . . .

I am not sure what planet you have been on since 2006 (when Ghost joined Pats). Do the names, Robbie Gould, Neil Rackers, Graham, Suisham and a couple others (who escape me at the moment) MEAN NOTHING ??? seriously, I think you are forgetting dude.

In my recollection there was only like ONE SINGLE YEAR during his tenure that BB hasnt brought in K competition. At least at the 95 player roster point. Some years he cut them down quicker than others. In multiple years he has had guys in for tryouts during the year.

I think there are more one-time Patriots who are starting Ks in the league than are for any other team.

This below just from THIS YEAR:

31 Oct 2012:
According to reports, New England worked out three kickers on Wednesday: Billy Cundiff, Neil Rackers, and Graham Gano. There was no additional word as of yet if the Patriots are looking for insurance to Stephen Gostkowski, who has missed a big kick against the Cardinals in Week 2 and a pair of kicks against the Bills two weeks ago, if Gostkowski is injured, or if they're just doing what the Patriots do.

From 2010:

Oct 7, 2010 –

The Patriots had long-snapper Matt Katula and kickers Shayne Graham and Shaun Suisham in for tryouts this week.

BB is one guy who is going to do his due diligence and bring in competition at EVERY POSITION. And he has consistenly done so at K too.

so that said; on the performance side of argument: Ghost is UNDOUBTEDLY in the top 10 in the league. You can argue for top 5 or even top 3 (if you start throwing in home stadium comparison data). maybe you can make an argument he is overpaid; but IMO - no.

So knowing BBs nature and his overall performance so far; it is kind of a silly thread by the OP. If you say you want to go back and ask for a rebate for some bad kicks; ok - but that aint the way the nfl salary system works. There are NO NEGATIVE BONUSES.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I am not sure what planet you have been on since 2006 (when Ghost joined Pats). Do the names, Robbie Gould, Neil Rackers, Graham, Suisham and a couple others (who escape me at the moment) MEAN NOTHING ??? seriously, I think you are forgetting dude.


In my recollection there was only like ONE SINGLE YEAR during his tenure that BB hasnt brought in K competition. At least at the 95 player roster point. Some years he cut them down quicker than others. In multiple years he has had guys in for tryouts during the year.

No. I'm not.

The Patriots had Gramatica for 2006.

Gostkowski was the only kicker on the TC roster in 2007. And again in 2008. And again in 2009. At the point at which they gave him the long-term deal in 2010, he had not faced any actual roster competition since beating out Gramatica. This was the point I was trying to make, and I realize it didn't come out quite right.

BB is one guy who is going to do his due diligence and bring in competition at EVERY POSITION. And he has consistenly done so at K too.

Tryouts, yes. But before his injury, BB felt comfortable enough to not even bother with a camp leg.

So knowing BBs nature and his overall performance so far; it is kind of a silly thread by the OP. If you say you want to go back and ask for a rebate for some bad kicks; ok - but that aint the way the nfl salary system works. There are NO NEGATIVE BONUSES.

FWIW, a team can say "Renegotiate lower future salaries or we'll cut you" (provided they didn't back themselves into a corner by guaranteeing all the salary, à la Mark Sanchez ).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Because 3 years and a season ending quad injury ago they felt he was worth it. Just because they felt that way 3 years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't re-evaluate the situation now.

While perfectly true, it's also not a useful answer.

I mean, what was it they saw in Gostkowski that made them think "OK, we've got to make him the highest-paid kicker in the game"?(*)

I'll be honest: to this day, I still don't understand why they paid Gostkowski so much. I was expecting something in the range of $2M–$2.5M a year, not $3.5M.

(*)Outside of Oakland.

 

[Spiral]

I agree with the posters who question the value. His cap number next year will be $3.4M, and with little or no increase in the cap, the value doesn't seem to be there.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I know I've been a broken record on this, but there remains one crucial question to answer in trying to decide Gostkowski's future:

Why did the Patriots give Gostkowski that giant contract in the first place?

Remember: the Patriots made Ghost the highest paid specialist who doesn't play in Oakland. There had to be a reason at the time for doing that; the question is "Do those reasons still apply?"

CT, you are clearly a big Gostowski fan by your sig. I don't know the answer to your question, maybe they felt he had the potential to be a stud kicker. However, his leg strength doesn't match the likes of Janikowski, Zuerlein, or Prater.

This year, three rookie kickers came in to the league and all did great. One showed amazing leg strength and potential (Zuerlein), one was the best kicker in the league (Walsh), and one was very solid in all aspects (Tucker).

Every million or two counts if the Pats want to spend on likes of a Talib or a new CB, or Welker or a new WR or two. The pats can go from 18 mil under the cap to 25 mil if they recoup the Fanene BS, cut Fells, and cut Gost.

 

[Deus Irae]

I knew that there would be terrible threads after the loss. I must say, though, that this one surprise me more than any of the others. A discussion of the kicker, after the way the offense and defense played in that game? It takes all, kinds, I guess....


And, no, they obviously don't need a new kicker.