An enhanced metric for kickers, possibly...

[oldrover]

With the Ghost discussion/argument on the other thread, I was prompted of a possible stat/series of stats on kick accuracy.

Goalpost is 18’ 6”. Maybe the NFL starts keeping track of where kicks pass through that. Could be done technologically or by the eye.

Anything in the center 8”... Dead On.

Anything 4 feet to the left or right... Good.

Anything inside by 1’3”... Marginal.

Marginal misses could be tallied as well.

Then we’d have a picture not just of Good or No Good... but HOW good. Just a thought...

https://imgflip.com/gif-maker

 

[Deus Irae]

Can we have famous celebrities use cards to give us style ratings from 1-1o, too?

 

[JayNM]

Not all kicks are equal though. Aiming and trying to hit the middle of the post is not ALWAYS the best option

(Don't think there is a statistical/mathematical/probabilistic for that though).

To illustrate it better, an example: A kick from the fifty+ yards, on the far Right side of kicking area:

The angle to hit dead center is a bit awkward for right-leggers. First It's necessary to raise your leg to the area of your support feet (after the kick, carrying the momentum), which decreases potency and there is some risk of twisting/tripping your feet. Then, a straight kick has more distance (and height, usually) than a kick going to side, even if it's just a little. It's physisc, You are wasting kinectic power to go to the side, instead of straight up and long.

Then there is a lot of crazy variables like coldness (makes the ball harder) and wind (if you put it spin sideways, the effects of the wind can became greater). Then there is the fact that a play can break down and adjusting to plays while trying to be as accurate as possible can be tricky.

Most kickers, and you can see it on games very clearly, try to make the kicks as straight as possible, because that's how you can minimize exterior effect and maximize distance.

My 2 cents, I think these stats wouldnt show the true reality of kickers

 

[Bruins29]

How about the "Gost isnt good cause I said so" factor. A much more usable and useful metric.

 

[Clonamery]

Can we have famous celebrities use cards to give us style ratings from 1-1o, too?

It's less expensive to use 15 minutes of fame celebrities like Danny Bonaduce. Oh wait, he passed. Like Leif Garrett. Oh wait, he passed. Like David Hasselhoff. Oh wait, he's gassed. Like the Kardashians. Oh wait, no, just no.

 

[jah]

Not all kicks are equal though. Aiming and trying to hit the middle of the post is not ALWAYS the best option

(Don't think there is a statistical/mathematical/probabilistic for that though).

To illustrate it better, an example: A kick from the fifty+ yards, on the far Right side of kicking area:

The angle to hit dead center is a bit awkward for right-leggers. First It's necessary to raise your leg to the area of your support feet (after the kick, carrying the momentum), which decreases potency and there is some risk of twisting/tripping your feet. Then, a straight kick has more distance (and height, usually) than a kick going to side, even if it's just a little. It's physisc, You are wasting kinectic power to go to the side, instead of straight up and long.

Then there is a lot of crazy variables like coldness (makes the ball harder) and wind (if you put it spin sideways, the effects of the wind can became greater). Then there is the fact that a play can break down and adjusting to plays while trying to be as accurate as possible can be tricky.

Most kickers, and you can see it on games very clearly, try to make the kicks as straight as possible, because that's how you can minimize exterior effect and maximize distance.

My 2 cents, I think these stats wouldnt show the true reality of kickers

This. You don't get extra points for kicking it down the middle so I'm sure plenty of kickers find themselves in situations where they aim elsewhere.

 

[Ring 6]

With the Ghost discussion/argument on the other thread, I was prompted of a possible stat/series of stats on kick accuracy.

Goalpost is 18’ 6”. Maybe the NFL starts keeping track of where kicks pass through that. Could be done technologically or by the eye.

Anything in the center 8”... Dead On.

Anything 4 feet to the left or right... Good.

Anything inside by 1’3”... Marginal.

Marginal misses could be tallied as well.

Then we’d have a picture not just of Good or No Good... but HOW good. Just a thought...

Why? It’s either 3 points or zero points.
Nothing extra for pretty

 

[oldrover]

It’s advanced information about kicker accuracy. Why not have it?

 

[Deus Irae]

This. You don't get extra points for kicking it down the middle so I'm sure plenty of kickers find themselves in situations where they aim elsewhere.

They're all men. Of course they aim all over the place, and any woman will tell you that. if someone held a cigarette butt anywhere inside the posts, the kickers would be trying to hit it, no matter how close to the bar that butt was.

In fact, we may have just come up with a new way to try for a 2 point conversion.

 

[borg]

Ghost owns the 1’3” lanes

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It’s advanced information about kicker accuracy. Why not have it?

Because it's not clear that it's telling one what one might think it is.

 

[Ring 6]

It’s advanced information about kicker accuracy. Why not have it?

I’d ask why have it?
What purpose does it serve?

 

[TommyD4207]

I’d ask why have it?
What purpose does it serve?

The purpose it serves, is to allow a segment of fans to **** on the best kicker in the history of the franchise, and still one of the best in the league - while being able to ignore the percentage of kicks made from kicks attempted, and at the same time absolve the rest of the team when it loses (although the collective ****ting on tends to happen after wins for some reason).

 

[Ring 6]

The purpose it serves, is to allow a segment of fans to **** on the best kicker in the history of the franchise, and still one of the best in the league - while being able to ignore the percentage of kicks made from kicks attempted, and at the same time absolve the rest of the team when it loses (although the collective ****ting on tends to happen after wins for some reason).

Guess that’s why I didn’t understand.

 

[Boston Boxer]

egg heads

 

[Sicilian]

I think touchdowns should only count for 6 if they're thrown with a perfect spiral. Otherwise they should only be worth 4.

 

[tasmlab]

Then there is a lot of crazy variables like coldness (makes the ball harder) and wind (if you put it spin sideways, the effects of the wind can became greater). Then there is the fact that a play can break down and adjusting to plays while trying to be as accurate as possible can be tricky.

This was my first thought too, but then we'd have to qualify ALL stats (passing, receiving, etc.,) based on these externalities.

The new stat may or may not be useful, they could certainly collect it and put it on the pile. I'm guessing the coaches would still go completion rate over accuracy within the score.

Is there any other stat that is currently qualitative? Like it's a reception or a reception, regardless of how nicely or poorly thrown, cleanly caught or bobbled, whether it gained one yard or 50, etc.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

this is impressive:

USWNT champ Carli Lloyd nails 55-yard field goal at Eagles practice - CNN Video

 

[Clonamery]

this is impressive:

USWNT champ Carli Lloyd nails 55-yard field goal at Eagles practice - CNN Video

Bring her in for a tryout? Might bring relief for some of the more squeamish fans here.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Right down the middle or it didn’t happen