Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

49ers Sign Billy Cundiff
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
clarkfn2284 wrote:
fact remains that all of the guys available are middle of the road kickers who are less than stellar. It also remains to be seen if Cundiff is even used, which I do not believe he will be. He was simply brought in to try and force the issue with Akers.

Now if Akers misses FG's and the Niners find a way to win in 9 days then we have a different story. This will be Akers final chance.

I just think the "what an awful signing" sentiment from a lot of poters is a little outrageous considering the 2 underlying factors.

Who really thinks Cundiff sees the field?

And what was out there that was that much better?

Another factor to the signing of Cundiff was most likely his playoff experience comparative to others. Albeit, bad experiences, he has it nontheless.


This is the part I disagree with. It IS an awful signing, because Akers has been awful, but Cundiff has been just about the only guy available who was a step backward. I agree with you on what Cundiff's 'role' is here, but one - I'd rather a handful of the other available names at this point to do the same thing, and two - a team with Superbowl aspirations shouldn't be using a roster spot for a kicker whose sole purpose is to 'push the starting kicker to do better.' All of this adds up to an awful signing.

And the playoff experience is a non-factor as both Longwell and Rackers have it as well. For that matter, so does Jeff Reed. In fact, all of them combined to not miss a single field goal or extra point in a combined 4 Superbowls (Longwell - 1, Rackers - 1, Reed - 2). All of three of them have a better career field goal percentage than Cundiff. All three of them have a better most recent field goal percentage than Cundiff. All three of them haven't botched the simplest of kicks in clutch situations.

All three of them were better options.


And all 3 havent kicked in a game siuation since when?

Reed last kicked in a game situation in 2010

Rackers last kicked in preseason games.

Longwell last kicked last season and his leg from distance is gone. He is as bad as anyone from distance. So unless you suggest him kicking from inside of 40 and Akers from beyond, even though he has been terrible from distance as well why would the niners bring him in? Not to mention he cant reach the endzone on kickoffs. While that doesnt seem like a big deal it can be a major part in killing a good ST unit.

My point is that the only way this signing is bad is if Cundiff costs this team a game. The other options are not better enough in my opinion to warrant this a bad signing, especially considering the fact that he more than likely will not see the field.

As far as the roster spot being taken up by Cundiff, at who's expense? Bhaktiari? A guy who has barely seen the field? It would be one tthing if it cost a roster spot to someone who saw the field and they can still decide after this week to cut ties with Cundiff.

To say that Cundiff is the only guy who is a step backward is not a fair compairison. The others you have mentioned havent seen the field since last season and the preseason respectively. Kickers are hit and miss as we have seen with Akers. None of the available options are viable options.

If Cundiff sees the field i will be bothered by that, but i would be bothered by any of the available guys seeing the field because Akers is the better kicker of them all and he "should" beat any of them out.

I think it's wishful thinking to believe any of the kickers that have been mentioned in this thread are that much better than the other. It's like throwing stuff at a wall and seeing if it sticks.
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13709
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clarkfn2284 wrote:
As far as the roster spot being taken up by Cundiff, at who's expense? Bhaktiari? A guy who has barely seen the field? It would be one tthing if it cost a roster spot to someone who saw the field and they can still decide after this week to cut ties with Cundiff.



I think the roster spot is a moot point. Chebakhtiari was already taken off the active roster last week in favor of Cam Johnson. That probably means Johnson progressed enough to take the job away from Bakhtiari, so he was on the way out anyway.
_________________


RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking

1) RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking
2) y2's pie Power Rankings (3.1416 rules!)
3) N4L's Poster Power Rankings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
clarkfn2284 wrote:
As far as the roster spot being taken up by Cundiff, at who's expense? Bhaktiari? A guy who has barely seen the field? It would be one tthing if it cost a roster spot to someone who saw the field and they can still decide after this week to cut ties with Cundiff.



I think the roster spot is a moot point. Chebakhtiari was already taken off the active roster last week in favor of Cam Johnson. That probably means Johnson progressed enough to take the job away from Bakhtiari, so he was on the way out anyway.


Agreed, if the roster spot is that important the niners will cut Cundiff before the middle of next week
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 10625
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clarkfn2284 wrote:
And all 3 havent kicked in a game siuation since when?

Reed last kicked in a game situation in 2010


Okay - kickers aren't football players. They don't NEED to get into football shape. Again, this is the purpose for 'camp legs' - to give the starting kicker a rest. For example:

In 2006, the Falcons had Michael Koenen kicking field goals and punting, and he wasn't successful at it, so the team brought back 46-year old Morten Andersen, who had last played in 2004. Andersen made 87% of his field goal attempts in 2006, his best percentage since 1985. This includes 7 of 9 from outside of 40 yards. Billy Cundiff himself missed the 2007 and 2008 seasons!

And Andersen may have been around forever, but his career field goal percentage is actually aided by two deadly accurate years in 2006 in 2007 (after he had missed a year), and his career percentage is still only 79.7%. Longwell (83.2%) Reed (82.2%), Rackers (80%), and even John Kasay (81.9%) are all more accurate kickers who would have missed only a year (Andersen missed a year and 8 months). Billy Cundiff (75.5%) is not.


Quote:
Longwell last kicked last season and his leg from distance is gone. He is as bad as anyone from distance.


But not as bad as Cundiff:

Longwell - (2011) 8 of 13 from beyond 40 yards (61.5%)

Cundiff - (2012) 3 of 6 from beyond 40 yards (50%)
(2011) - 8 of 14 from beyond 40 yards (57.1%)
(2011-2012) - 11 of 20 from beyond 40 yards (55%)



Every reason you give not to sign one of the others available - that reason applies to Billy Cundiff only exponentially. John Kasay was a guy I hadn't named previously, but even HE has Superbowl kicking experience (also didn't miss), and even HE is marginally better from beyond 40 (7 of 12 for 58.3%). Essentially there is no factor anywhere that I can think of that makes Billy Cundiff a better option than anyone else. I'm not saying Reed, Longwell, Kasay or Rackers would set the world on fire, but they're all better signings.
_________________


Frank Gore Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 21st All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #20, Warrick Dunn: 317
*Yards needed to enter Top 15: 1045
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
clarkfn2284 wrote:
And all 3 havent kicked in a game siuation since when?

Reed last kicked in a game situation in 2010


Okay - kickers aren't football players. They don't NEED to get into football shape. Again, this is the purpose for 'camp legs' - to give the starting kicker a rest. For example:

In 2006, the Falcons had Michael Koenen kicking field goals and punting, and he wasn't successful at it, so the team brought back 46-year old Morten Andersen, who had last played in 2004. Andersen made 87% of his field goal attempts in 2006, his best percentage since 1985. This includes 7 of 9 from outside of 40 yards. Billy Cundiff himself missed the 2007 and 2008 seasons!

And Andersen may have been around forever, but his career field goal percentage is actually aided by two deadly accurate years in 2006 in 2007 (after he had missed a year), and his career percentage is still only 79.7%. Longwell (83.2%) Reed (82.2%), Rackers (80%), and even John Kasay (81.9%) are all more accurate kickers who would have missed only a year (Andersen missed a year and 8 months). Billy Cundiff (75.5%) is not.


Quote:
Longwell last kicked last season and his leg from distance is gone. He is as bad as anyone from distance.


But not as bad as Cundiff:

Longwell - (2011) 8 of 13 from beyond 40 yards (61.5%)

Cundiff - (2012) 3 of 6 from beyond 40 yards (50%)
(2011) - 8 of 14 from beyond 40 yards (57.1%)
(2011-2012) - 11 of 20 from beyond 40 yards (55%)



Every reason you give not to sign one of the others available - that reason applies to Billy Cundiff only exponentially. John Kasay was a guy I hadn't named previously, but even HE has Superbowl kicking experience (also didn't miss), and even HE is marginally better from beyond 40 (7 of 12 for 58.3%). Essentially there is no factor anywhere that I can think of that makes Billy Cundiff a better option than anyone else. I'm not saying Reed, Longwell, Kasay or Rackers would set the world on fire, but they're all better signings.


Again, all of these guys are not better enough for me to believe this to be a "bad signing." Every single guy mentioned in this thread has something that can be picked apart about why they are not good options. Not a single one is that much more better then the others.

You refer to Morten Andersen, a hall of fame kicker, thats a great comparison. Someone who was clearly one of the greatest of all time. Thats like comparing Elvis Grbac to Steve Young. For the most part all of these kickers are Elvis Grbac, serviceable. All have had success at some point and all have failed at some point.

To say that the others havent missed the simplest of kicks in clutch situations is a blanket statement, you cant know that to be true unless you have gone back through the archives of missed field goals and then determined whether it to be a clutch situation. Cundiffs gaffe is just fresh in our minds.

I do not believe that Cundiff is a better option. I also do not believe any of the others to be such a better option, considering the circumstances to warrant this a "bad signing"

Absolutely nowhere have i said Cundiff was the best available option. All i ever said was that the other options are not that much better, thus resulting in why i dont believe this to be a "bad signing."


Especially considering that whoever they brought in are most likely not seeing the field. This move is so minimal considering that we both agree that said kicker is just being brought in to push Akers that it shouldn't warrant an uproar similar to what would happen if the team were to sign Madieu Williams over resigning Dashon Goldson.

This isn't a "bad signing", it's just a signing. For depth, simply put. To attempt to help push a struggling player, which shouldnt need to be done in the first place considering these guys are all professionals. Does anybody think that Akers is shaking in his kicking shoe because of the thought of any of the above mentioned kickers getting an opportunity to "compete"?
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 10625
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clarkfn2284 wrote:
Again, all of these guys are not better enough for me to believe this to be a "bad signing." Every single guy mentioned in this thread has something that can be picked apart about why they are not good options. Not a single one is that much more better then the others.


The only way I agree with this is if Akers and/or Cundiff are perfect from here on out. Otherwise, any missed field goal can be seen as 'should we have picked up someone else?'

Quote:
You refer to Morten Andersen, a hall of fame kicker, thats a great comparison.


He's not in the Hall of Fame, and I'll be shocked if he does make it (this year anyway). Again, he didn't have the accuracy of other kickers of his time, and the only reason he's considered is his longevity allowed him to last long enough to kick the most. There's a reason Gary Anderson (2nd place) isn't considered. Again, Andersen was not an accurate kicker, and it doesn't change the fact that a 46-year old kicker missed a full season, came back, and had 2 of the best seasons of his career.

And again - Billy Cundiff missed 2 full seasons.

Quote:
Someone who was clearly one of the greatest of all time. Thats like comparing Elvis Grbac to Steve Young. For the most part all of these kickers are Elvis Grbac, serviceable. All have had success at some point and all have failed at some point.


Really? Elvis Grbac to Steve Young? Really? If you said that's like comparing Dustin Colquitt to Andy Lee, then you might have a point. But if you think four kickers who all had All-pro seasons in their career and who all have a higher career kicking percentage than Andersen is like comparing Grbac to Young, then this conversation is really just a waste of time.

The players I listed aren't all that different than 46-year old Morten Andersen in 2006. Andersen had over 700 attempts - there's a reason he has the most field goals which is the only reason he's being considered for the Hall. For the record - Kasay is 6th, and Longwell is 13th. In terms of career percentage, Longwell is 9th, Reed is 14th, Kasay is 15th, Akers is 23rd, Rackers is 29th, Andersen is 31st.

Steve Young is 23rd in TDs. Grbac is 122nd. Young is 25th in yards. Grbac is 119th. Let's be realistic shall we?

Quote:
To say that the others havent missed the simplest of kicks in clutch situations is a blanket statement, you cant know that to be true unless you have gone back through the archives of missed field goals and then determined whether it to be a clutch situation. Cundiffs gaffe is just fresh in our minds.


Career field goals from the divisional round, conference championships, and Superbowls (or what we're looking to do):

Reed: 14 of 15 made (93.3%)
Longwell: 10 of 11 made (90.9%)
Kasay: 14 of 16 made (87.5%)
Cundiff: 6 of 8 made (75%)
Rackers: 7 of 10 made (70%)

Results of games in the playoffs in which the kicker missed a field goal:

Longwell (1-0)
Kasay (1-0)
Rackers (2-1)
Reed (1-1)
Cundiff (0-2)

And the only one whose missed field goal resulted directly in the loss - Cundiff. Reed made his only game-winning attempt. The others didn't have any either way.


Cundiff is just a bad signing. I'm sorry you don't agree, but the other options are far more appealing if one of them needs to get in the game.
_________________


Frank Gore Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 21st All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #20, Warrick Dunn: 317
*Yards needed to enter Top 15: 1045
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
clarkfn2284 wrote:
Again, all of these guys are not better enough for me to believe this to be a "bad signing." Every single guy mentioned in this thread has something that can be picked apart about why they are not good options. Not a single one is that much more better then the others.


The only way I agree with this is if Akers and/or Cundiff are perfect from here on out. Otherwise, any missed field goal can be seen as 'should we have picked up someone else?'

Quote:
You refer to Morten Andersen, a hall of fame kicker, thats a great comparison.


He's not in the Hall of Fame, and I'll be shocked if he does make it (this year anyway). Again, he didn't have the accuracy of other kickers of his time, and the only reason he's considered is his longevity allowed him to last long enough to kick the most. There's a reason Gary Anderson (2nd place) isn't considered. Again, Andersen was not an accurate kicker, and it doesn't change the fact that a 46-year old kicker missed a full season, came back, and had 2 of the best seasons of his career.

And again - Billy Cundiff missed 2 full seasons.

Quote:
Someone who was clearly one of the greatest of all time. Thats like comparing Elvis Grbac to Steve Young. For the most part all of these kickers are Elvis Grbac, serviceable. All have had success at some point and all have failed at some point.


Really? Elvis Grbac to Steve Young? Really? If you said that's like comparing Dustin Colquitt to Andy Lee, then you might have a point. But if you think four kickers who all had All-pro seasons in their career and who all have a higher career kicking percentage than Andersen is like comparing Grbac to Young, then this conversation is really just a waste of time.

The players I listed aren't all that different than 46-year old Morten Andersen in 2006. Andersen had over 700 attempts - there's a reason he has the most field goals which is the only reason he's being considered for the Hall. For the record - Kasay is 6th, and Longwell is 13th. In terms of career percentage, Longwell is 9th, Reed is 14th, Kasay is 15th, Akers is 23rd, Rackers is 29th, Andersen is 31st.

Steve Young is 23rd in TDs. Grbac is 122nd. Young is 25th in yards. Grbac is 119th. Let's be realistic shall we?

Quote:
To say that the others havent missed the simplest of kicks in clutch situations is a blanket statement, you cant know that to be true unless you have gone back through the archives of missed field goals and then determined whether it to be a clutch situation. Cundiffs gaffe is just fresh in our minds.


Career field goals from the divisional round, conference championships, and Superbowls (or what we're looking to do):

Reed: 14 of 15 made (93.3%)
Longwell: 10 of 11 made (90.9%)
Kasay: 14 of 16 made (87.5%)
Cundiff: 6 of 8 made (75%)
Rackers: 7 of 10 made (70%)

Results of games in the playoffs in which the kicker missed a field goal:

Longwell (1-0)
Kasay (1-0)
Rackers (2-1)
Reed (1-1)
Cundiff (0-2)

And the only one whose missed field goal resulted directly in the loss - Cundiff. Reed made his only game-winning attempt. The others didn't have any either way.


Cundiff is just a bad signing. I'm sorry you don't agree, but the other options are far more appealing if one of them needs to get in the game.


so using your hypothetical logic regarding Akers and cundiff having to be perfect for you not to think there is a better option then you would feel the same about Kyle Williams being the same to a free agent WR like Sinorice Moss right? I mean it fits your criteria....Akers/Cundiff's field goal struggles are equal to KW muffing and fumbling the kicks last year. Moss was on a Super Bowl team, has been cut during final cuts, is no longer in the league and is relatively similar to KW. Just like all of the kicking options. That sentiment is ridiculous. you can play the what if game all day with every single player and play in the history of the game. The expectations you are placing on a kicker are a bit lofty given the history of most kickers in football.

as for morten i thought he got in to the hall, but clearly i am wrong on that. you cannot discredit his potential for being a hall of fame kicker or one of the greatest of all time by saying he took 700 attempts and then mention that he is 31st in accuracy percentage. If the more attempts taken equal the probability of him making more it has to also equal the probability of him missing more.

Grbac was an all pro as well in 2000 so he is as accomplished as the kickers that have been mentioned. In terms of being realistic, i was using the absurd to illustrate the absurd. Clearly i do not think grbac is aywhere close to Steve Young.

Again i will reiterate that every single kicking option you have mentioned has something that people can look at and say, "oh, man thats a bad signing." Whether it be that they have been out of the game for 2 years, 1 year, not even on a roster this season, beat out by the same guys in this list, or an inability to kick the ball from deep or deep on kickoffs.

And you dont have to apologize for me not agreeing with your opinion, im comfortable with my opinion. I just dont see the use of killing a signing when all signs point to the signing being completely irrelavent due to the fact that this team will live or die with Akers.

What would be the scenario that you could without a doubt see Akers not making the start? He has looked great during practice as far as we have heard. Barring injury which it doesnt appear is an issue as we havent heard anything regarding one yet what would that scenario be? even if he goes out and misses kicks it doesnt mean that he wont get the start nor does it mean we would see Cundiff out there. Since we are dealing in hypotheticals, what IF Cundiff goes out there and hits everything.... then is it still a bad signing? At what point is it no longer a "bad signing"? In it's currrent state this signing does not hurt the team in any way. They have a need for a kicker to push Akers they filled it. The options suck. To me at this point i dont see why they would even do it, Akers is a veteran and IMO you just let him trot out there and hope he finds it. I understand the novelty of bringing in a guy, but i would be astonished if Akers lost the job.
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13709
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clarkfn2284 wrote:
as for morten i thought he got in to the hall, but clearly i am wrong on that. you cannot discredit his potential for being a hall of fame kicker or one of the greatest of all time by saying he took 700 attempts and then mention that he is 31st in accuracy percentage. If the more attempts taken equal the probability of him making more it has to also equal the probability of him missing more.



So, you think that Morten, with fewer attempt, would have had a higher percentage?

Just give up. You have no chance of winning this argument. Just shake hands and open a beer.
_________________


RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking

1) RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking
2) y2's pie Power Rankings (3.1416 rules!)
3) N4L's Poster Power Rankings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
clarkfn2284 wrote:
as for morten i thought he got in to the hall, but clearly i am wrong on that. you cannot discredit his potential for being a hall of fame kicker or one of the greatest of all time by saying he took 700 attempts and then mention that he is 31st in accuracy percentage. If the more attempts taken equal the probability of him making more it has to also equal the probability of him missing more.



So, you think that Morten, with fewer attempt, would have had a higher percentage?

Just give up. You have no chance of winning this argument. Just shake hands and open a beer.


its not about winning the arguement i was simply implying that you cannot discredit how good morten was(his total fg's made)due to the fact that he had over 700 attempts and then use his kicking percentage as a reason that others with less attempts are equal to him. As we have seen with David Akers a kicker's season is made up of many different things(how well the offense moves the ball, how good a defense is, stength of schedule, etc.) Had he had less attempts we dont know what it would have looked like. just like if Longwell played another 8-10 years ala Morten and then equaled his 700 attempts what his percentage would look like.

The fact is that at 46 he was able to get a job and all the options that are available to the Niners are not. That says something about those guys, and aybe more about Mortn because thats just crazy. They are obviously not trusted enough for whatever reason to have a spot, be it; age, leg strength, accuracy. They all have their faults and in the current scenario this being judged a "bad signing" is a bit hasty.

especially considering that Akers still has to lose this "competition"
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 10625
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clarkfn2284 wrote:
so using your hypothetical logic regarding Akers and cundiff having to be perfect for you not to think there is a better option then you would feel the same about Kyle Williams being the same to a free agent WR like Sinorice Moss right? I mean it fits your criteria....Akers/Cundiff's field goal struggles are equal to KW muffing and fumbling the kicks last year. Moss was on a Super Bowl team, has been cut during final cuts, is no longer in the league and is relatively similar to KW. Just like all of the kicking options. That sentiment is ridiculous. you can play the what if game all day with every single player and play in the history of the game. The expectations you are placing on a kicker are a bit lofty given the history of most kickers in football.


No, I wouldn't want Sinorice Moss, and no the two aren't even remotely comparable. Moss has a career 6.7 yards on punts and 19.4 yards on kickoff returns as averages. Kyle Williams has 12.1 and 25.7. Kyle Williams made costly mistakes, yes, but so has Alex Smith, Frank Gore, and just about everyone. It's the repeated mistakes that's the problem. If Cundiff's only problem was missing one kick in one NFC Championship game, then I'd have no problem with this signing. The better analogy would be if Sinorice Moss and Kyle Williams were both available and we signed Sinorice Moss, would I be upset that we didn't take a chance Kyle Williams. That answer would be yes.

Cundiff has messed up far too many times to count, and in every single statistic - all of the other four kickers I have argued for have done better. There is not single one I can think of that favors Cundiff. In every single intangible I can think of - it favors each of the other kickers. That is why this is a bad signing.

Quote:
as for morten i thought he got in to the hall, but clearly i am wrong on that. you cannot discredit his potential for being a hall of fame kicker or one of the greatest of all time by saying he took 700 attempts and then mention that he is 31st in accuracy percentage. If the more attempts taken equal the probability of him making more it has to also equal the probability of him missing more.


I'm not discrediting his potential for Hall of Fame based on his attempts or accuracy percentage - I'm discrediting his Hall of Fame potential because he's a kicker. Even then, I said he'll get in eventually, but only based on his number of field goals made, which I argue is simply based on longevity. And as for the bolded - that's absolutely 100% correct. The more attempts he takes, the more he'll make, and the more he'll miss, and percentage assumes it's at the same rate. For every 100 kicks he took, he made 79.7 of them. For the other kickers, it says every 100 kicks they take, they make over 80 of them. They simply didn't play for 25 years to make as many as Andersen did. Field goal kicking percentage is the most important stat for a field goal kicker, because that's all there is to go on (unless you want to talk extra points). Field goals made is useless because teams who don't score touchdowns (see every team Morten Andersen played for) kick more field goals. Look at the 2011 49ers. We didn't score touchdowns, so Akers got to kick a lot. He attempted 52. The Falcons, on the other hand, scored a lot of touchdowns. Matt Bryant made 27 field goals on 29 attempts. He had a great season - but the Falcons didn't need him because they scored a lot of touchdowns. Doesn't change that he was fantastic.

Quote:
Grbac was an all pro as well in 2000 so he is as accomplished as the kickers that have been mentioned. In terms of being realistic, i was using the absurd to illustrate the absurd. Clearly i do not think grbac is aywhere close to Steve Young.


No - no offense, your analogy is absurd. Longwell, Kasay, Reed, and Rackers, whether you choose to believe it or not, represent some of the best kickers of the last 20 years (especially Longwell and Kasay). Grbac does not represent one of the best passers. He also was never an all-pro. He made the Pro Bowl - but 6 quarterbacks go there. 2 kickers go. All-pro quarterbacks in 2000 were Daunte Culpepper, Rich Gannon, and Peyton Manning.

Quote:
Again i will reiterate that every single kicking option you have mentioned has something that people can look at and say, "oh, man thats a bad signing." Whether it be that they have been out of the game for 2 years, 1 year, not even on a roster this season, beat out by the same guys in this list, or an inability to kick the ball from deep or deep on kickoffs.


Again - being out of the game, being beaten by other kickers does not make them poorer options. Sometimes teams go with youth (see New Orleans, Minnesota, Washington, etc. where these players were cut). The only two you have a point on is kick the ball from deep or kick deep on kickoffs, but in both of those situations, Cundiff still doesn't represent an upgrade from any of the 4, so he still remains the 5th best option.

Quote:
What would be the scenario that you could without a doubt see Akers not making the start? He has looked great during practice as far as we have heard. Barring injury which it doesnt appear is an issue as we havent heard anything regarding one yet what would that scenario be? even if he goes out and misses kicks it doesnt mean that he wont get the start nor does it mean we would see Cundiff out there. Since we are dealing in hypotheticals, what IF Cundiff goes out there and hits everything.... then is it still a bad signing? At what point is it no longer a "bad signing"? In it's currrent state this signing does not hurt the team in any way. They have a need for a kicker to push Akers they filled it. The options suck. To me at this point i dont see why they would even do it, Akers is a veteran and IMO you just let him trot out there and hope he finds it. I understand the novelty of bringing in a guy, but i would be astonished if Akers lost the job.


No - and that's the only way it wouldn't be considered one, either. However, the percentages suggest heavily that won't happen. Sure, JaMarcus Russell could be brought in and complete 65% of his passes. It COULD happen. But history suggest strongly that it won't. Cundiff represents the 29th best kicker last year in terms of field goal percentage. Same as I wouldn't want Graham Gano or Dave Rayner on this team, I don't want Cundiff when there are better options, even markedly. Next, since we seem intelligent enough to figure out that Cundiff serves no purpose other than to get Akers to straighten up, do we somehow believe he's dumber? If Cundiff is only to push Akers, wouldn't Akers realize this? In that case, does it actually have any other effect besides a wasted roster spot? If you want someone to push Akers, why not pick someone who represents some kind of upgrade? Which the other 4, again, do.
_________________


Frank Gore Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 21st All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #20, Warrick Dunn: 317
*Yards needed to enter Top 15: 1045


Last edited by y2lamanaki on Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 10625
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clarkfn2284 wrote:
The fact is that at 46 he was able to get a job and all the options that are available to the Niners are not. That says something about those guys, and aybe more about Mortn because thats just crazy. They are obviously not trusted enough for whatever reason to have a spot, be it; age, leg strength, accuracy.


THIS IS MY EXACT POINT FOR BRINGING MORTEN ANDERSEN INTO THIS DISCUSSION! In 2005, he was considered too old, too inaccurate, and too weak to have any kind of impact on a team. The 2005 Vikings decided not to go with Morten Andersen and go younger taking a risk on a much younger but mostly inaccurate Paul Edinger. The experiment failed. Nobody in 2005 wanted Andersen. In 2006, the Falcons did, and he proved his "too old, too inaccurate, no leg strength" critics wrong. Again, he had his best accuracy season in 21 years! This year, you're suggesting 4 kickers are either too inaccurate, too old, or too unpowerful or out of football for over a year in favor of a guy who is historically a poor kicker just because he's active and younger.
_________________


Frank Gore Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 21st All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #20, Warrick Dunn: 317
*Yards needed to enter Top 15: 1045
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
clarkfn2284 wrote:
The fact is that at 46 he was able to get a job and all the options that are available to the Niners are not. That says something about those guys, and aybe more about Mortn because thats just crazy. They are obviously not trusted enough for whatever reason to have a spot, be it; age, leg strength, accuracy.


THIS IS MY EXACT POINT FOR BRINGING MORTEN ANDERSEN INTO THIS DISCUSSION! In 2005, he was considered too old, too inaccurate, and too weak to have any kind of impact on a team. The 2005 Vikings decided not to go with Morten Andersen and go younger taking a risk on a much younger but mostly inaccurate Paul Edinger. The experiment failed. Nobody in 2005 wanted Andersen. In 2006, the Falcons did, and he proved his "too old, too inaccurate, no leg strength" critics wrong. Again, he had his best accuracy season in 21 years! This year, you're suggesting 4 kickers are either too inaccurate, too old, or too unpowerful or out of football for over a year in favor of a guy who is historically a poor kicker just because he's active and younger.



no what im saying is that it is unrealistic to think that any of these kickers are considerably better then the other. And in reaction to that it would be equally unrealistic to deem this a bad signing. Especially since it would be shocking if Akers lost the job. It's also ridiculous to build the signing up as so bad considering the guys dont start their "competition" until 2:15 today.

We have to remember that Cundiff was not drawn out of a hat. Brad Seely one of the best ST coaches decided who to bring in and im guessing with a little shove by Jimmy after he talked with his brother about Cundiff.

I trust their decision making on this and im pretty confident that they know what they are doing in this situation.

Now, with that being said i believe that Cundiff is hot garbage as a kicker, but i also am not blind to the fact that none of the avaialble guys are significantly better. If they were, for whatever reason, they would be employed. if you dont have a noticeable flaw in your game you dont lose your job. Even if a team wants to get younger. None of the "older guys" are coming off of great seasons. Longwell may have been the best, but the guy could not rech the endzone even with the new kick off rules last year.

I just dont see it as a bad signing. Do I think Cundiff is good? No way, I wouldnt write him off though. And i think that if needed him making kicks is as realistic as any of the previously mention kickers that have been out of the game or struggle with distance or accuracy or even confidence ala Akers doing the same. I have more faith in Akers than any of them because he is a known commodity to us, but I'm not going to discredit a guy like Cundiff when the other options have just as much stacked against them.
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 10625
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clarkfn2284 wrote:
no what im saying is that it is unrealistic to think that any of these kickers are considerably better then the other. And in reaction to that it would be equally unrealistic to deem this a bad signing. Especially since it would be shocking if Akers lost the job. It's also ridiculous to build the signing up as so bad considering the guys dont start their "competition" until 2:15 today.

We have to remember that Cundiff was not drawn out of a hat. Brad Seely one of the best ST coaches decided who to bring in and im guessing with a little shove by Jimmy after he talked with his brother about Cundiff.

I trust their decision making on this and im pretty confident that they know what they are doing in this situation.

Now, with that being said i believe that Cundiff is hot garbage as a kicker, but i also am not blind to the fact that none of the avaialble guys are significantly better. If they were, for whatever reason, they would be employed. if you dont have a noticeable flaw in your game you dont lose your job. Even if a team wants to get younger. None of the "older guys" are coming off of great seasons. Longwell may have been the best, but the guy could not rech the endzone even with the new kick off rules last year.

I just dont see it as a bad signing. Do I think Cundiff is good? No way, I wouldnt write him off though. And i think that if needed him making kicks is as realistic as any of the previously mention kickers that have been out of the game or struggle with distance or accuracy or even confidence ala Akers doing the same. I have more faith in Akers than any of them because he is a known commodity to us, but I'm not going to discredit a guy like Cundiff when the other options have just as much stacked against them.


At this point, I'm just going to agree to disagree. The other options, in my opinion, do not have nearly as much stacked up against them as is being suggested, but it is what it is. I have little to no faith in either Akers or Cundiff and would personally rather any of the 4 I mentioned just based on the fact that I know Akers' confidence is shot, and we're going to need him at the top of his game for the playoffs, which I don't believe we're going to see.
_________________


Frank Gore Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 21st All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #20, Warrick Dunn: 317
*Yards needed to enter Top 15: 1045
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
clarkfn2284 wrote:
no what im saying is that it is unrealistic to think that any of these kickers are considerably better then the other. And in reaction to that it would be equally unrealistic to deem this a bad signing. Especially since it would be shocking if Akers lost the job. It's also ridiculous to build the signing up as so bad considering the guys dont start their "competition" until 2:15 today.

We have to remember that Cundiff was not drawn out of a hat. Brad Seely one of the best ST coaches decided who to bring in and im guessing with a little shove by Jimmy after he talked with his brother about Cundiff.

I trust their decision making on this and im pretty confident that they know what they are doing in this situation.

Now, with that being said i believe that Cundiff is hot garbage as a kicker, but i also am not blind to the fact that none of the avaialble guys are significantly better. If they were, for whatever reason, they would be employed. if you dont have a noticeable flaw in your game you dont lose your job. Even if a team wants to get younger. None of the "older guys" are coming off of great seasons. Longwell may have been the best, but the guy could not rech the endzone even with the new kick off rules last year.

I just dont see it as a bad signing. Do I think Cundiff is good? No way, I wouldnt write him off though. And i think that if needed him making kicks is as realistic as any of the previously mention kickers that have been out of the game or struggle with distance or accuracy or even confidence ala Akers doing the same. I have more faith in Akers than any of them because he is a known commodity to us, but I'm not going to discredit a guy like Cundiff when the other options have just as much stacked against them.


At this point, I'm just going to agree to disagree. The other options, in my opinion, do not have nearly as much stacked up against them as is being suggested, but it is what it is. I have little to no faith in either Akers or Cundiff and would personally rather any of the 4 I mentioned just based on the fact that I know Akers' confidence is shot, and we're going to need him at the top of his game for the playoffs, which I don't believe we're going to see.


i agree with you, but i still think Akers keeps his job, i have no doubt the confidence is gone...

per mindi bach

akers missed 4 straight during the first round of fg's.

Cundiff went 10-12

Akers went 16-21 all 5 wide right from 53,52,43,43,48
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3225
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akers FG breakdown 1/1 (1-19 yds) 8/9 (20-29 yds) 11/13 (30-39 yds) 7/13 (40-49 yds) 2/6 (50+ yds)

Pretty damn awful.

29/42
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group