Chicago will answer our Kicker problem

[R. Rich]

hehehe, here goes...

 

lindell sucks on FG's. stop. great on kickoffs. stop. we need a kicker thats good at both. stop. Cant allow kick return TD's stop.

 

there ya go, 24 words

342638[/snapback]

 

31 words

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

His miss in the J'ville game was critical, we lost by three and the miss in the Steeler game was a killer.  He was dead last among starters in kickoff distance, 20th in touchbacks and 9th in return average.  I think based on those numbers that the decent ranking in return average is largely due to good coverage given that his distance was lame in the extreme.  In 2003 he was 29th in distance on kickoffs and 20th in touchbacks.  He was 11th in return average, again, I think, due to solid coverage.  He was 2-4 against Oakland and we lost by 2.  He also missed one against Indy and we lost that game 17-14.

 

Arguably, he has lost us 4 games in the last two years and hasn't won us a single game.  Compare that with what Hollis did in only one year here.  He needs replacing but the problem is that we don't really have anyone who looks like a legitimate replacement for Lindell.  That's a problem.

343276[/snapback]

 

Thanks for the detailed stats. I find them helpful. However, it is a good example of the old quote that there are three types of untruths in the world, lies, dman lies and statistics. I'm a stat hound from way back, but my interest in statistics has educated me that they are a powerful INDICATOR of truth, but it is a real misuse of stats to claim they CONCLUDE anything.

 

I think the bottomline here is that folks have to be disciplined enough to realize that the coverage game is a team game. Its either-or in terms of finding importance in tackling and kicking, but the two need to work well together to produce the result we seek.

 

I do not care much about kick distance if long kicks result in an outcome with long returns or TDs. My goal for the team is short returns by the opponent and as few TDs given up as possible. I do not care if my kicker statistically only kicks it to the opponent's 19 if he kicks it high enough and exactly where the tacklers expect him to kick it if they can tackle the return guy for no game. A kicker who could only reach the opponets 19 for no gain is much better in my book than a kicker who can boot it into the opposing endzone repetitively but the team gives us long returns and TDs.

 

if one insists on looking for a stat that shows effectiveness of kickoffs, then look not much further than opposing TDs and long returns. I have not looked it up and would be pleased if someone did so, but my recollection of last season was that the Bills gave up no KO returns for TDs andf scant few long returns (40+ yds).

 

Did Lindell have much to do with this? It's not provable but that is why the game is a game and not straight-forward.

 

I find it hard to believe from my years of viewing the game that the return coverage game works well at all unless:

 

1. The kicker puts the ball where the tacklers expect and in the amount of time they have practiced. Tacklers must get down the field and into position like their hair is on fire. They must do this while avoiding opponents who are trying to kill them. The idea that they are going to do this and also figure out where and how long the kick went is not going to happen.

 

2. Directional kicks take heavily into account the return guy, his skills and plans. Teams had trouble doing this with Dante Hall of KC a few years back and the result was multiple early TDs by him until teams got enough film on him to figure him out.

 

3. The winds of RWS make this task particularly difficult and there really is little substitute from playing in RWS alot, living in WNY and practicing here as much as possible. I have seen chip shot FGs at RWS go straight for 3 and get dead stopped by a sudden wind and blown down. Folks seem far to willing to devote a lot of responsibility to a rookie who never played here before and to discard a fellow whose coverage unit has produced great results.

 

Lindell's miss against Pitts was so horrbile and TD overspent on him trying to reverse his horrible record finding a permanent kicker that I am very willing to consider replacing him.

 

However, folks seem to me far too quick to discard him when their is little evidence to indicate that their proposed replacements can do the job or will not mean too high of a cost for us to take the risk.

[stinky finger]

FFS!!! Perfect timing!! Hold those thoughts!! I'm gonna hit the head.....make me a head cheese dagwood....pop the top of a birch beer......then, and only then, will I settle in for another chapter of......"The FFS Chronicles"......question.....do you type fast?

[rastabillz]

I prefer Ramius condensed version.

[Where the Buffalo Roam]

It seems to me there are two things that make a kicker great:

 

1. He can boom the ball from way out, 50 plus for 3 points.

 

2. He never misses when the game is close or in question.

 

Lindell is neither of these, and it doesn't look like he could be!