7th round pick, NFL minimum salary PK Harrison Butker

[Khyber53]

When the choice had to be made, Gano was the better choice. 

Butker was an unknown with no real history. Gano had just posted a 29/30 FG rate for 2017. 

In the end, you go with who has the higher reliability rating rather than their pay. Otherwise you'd see teams ditching every kicker after their rookie contract was up. 

But as to Butkey, what a guy and what a season for him. He got a wonderful shot when KC needed someone fast and he's made the most of it. I'd say he has a shot to be permanent there and good luck to him. Good things happen to good guys.

[MasterAwesome]

15 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

I cannot believe that I'm still arguing about a stupid ass decision but here I am.

The difference in Gano's cap hit, and what Butkers would have been is about 3 Million dollars in 18.  And another 3M in 19.

6,000,000.00 in cap space created over two years by keeping a kicker on the roster that is younger, and just as accurate, if not more than Gano.

To help you a little more, had we kept Butker and cut Torrey Smith, we could have afforded to keep Star or Norwell on the team this year.  That's a big fuging deal.

The Pats can afford to overpay their kicker because they get good value at other positions all over the field.  

You’re arguing in terms of hindsight lol, I’m putting myself in the position of the GM at the beginning of the 2017 season when we had to choose a starter. If your whole argument is contingent upon Butker being as accurate as Gano because of what we know NOW, then no sh&$ it seems like a dumb decision...in hindsight. If you honestly want to argue that it would’ve been a smart decision to cut Gano at the beginning of the 2017 season and move forward with a rookie 7th round kicker who by all reports, struggled and was outperformed in training camp by the same kicker everyone is railing on in here...then I don’t know what to tell you. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that your argument wouldn’t be based on any kind of empirical evidence...maybe you just felt the warm tingly good feelings in your jimmies every time you saw Butker and thought “man that kid is gonna be amazing straight out the gate”. I guess you and everyone else’s armchair GM skills blow mine out of the water.

I like to approach things from the perspective of the person who had to deal with these things under the same circumstances that they did...before I jump down their throat and criticize their moves.

[MasterAwesome]

27 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  Really? How about the 5M in dead money if Gano stays “Gano”. Or are we going to be happy with his normal performance again? It’s not 500k? It’s about 3M a year. 

How about 9.3M for whatever Poe did last year? That feel worth it? 

How about 5M for Torrey Smith? Nice

 or the we either have to pay Greg Olsen 7M to play, or 7.4M to not. 

Any of those bringing value? 

 

 

 

I’m comparing kickers’ contracts with one another, I’m not talking flat numbers. The question is in regards to “over”paying, which is a relative term.

As to the the rest of your post after the first paragraph...I have no idea what that has to do with the topic at hand nor anything I’ve said in this thread, so I’m going to choose to just ignore that and assume you meant to put that in a different thread.

[Toomers]

16 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

When the choice had to be made, Gano was the better choice. 

Butker was an unknown with no real history. Gano had just posted a 29/30 FG rate for 2017. 

In the end, you go with who has the higher reliability rating rather than their pay. Otherwise you'd see teams ditching every kicker after their rookie contract was up. 

But as to Butkey, what a guy and what a season for him. He got a wonderful shot when KC needed someone fast and he's made the most of it. I'd say he has a shot to be permanent there and good luck to him. Good things happen to good guys.

We made that choice after 2016. When Gano was horrible. So none of that is relevant. 

[Toomers]

1 minute ago, MasterAwesome said:

I’m comparing kickers’ contracts with one another, I’m not talking flat numbers. The question is in regards to “over”paying, which is a relative term.

As to the the rest of your post after the first paragraph...I have no idea what that has to do with the topic at hand nor anything I’ve said in this thread, so I’m going to choose to just ignore that and assume you meant to put that in a different thread.

If Matt Kalil destroys a cap(it does) what about those contracts signed in just the past year. Kalil is going to cost 4.9M against the cap this year. But it’s OK to throw away 5M on Smith. 3M on a K. 9M on a DT that is about as useless as Kalil. How about 7.4 if Olsen retires? 

 

[MasterAwesome]

17 minutes ago, Toomers said:

If Matt Kalil destroys a cap(it does) what about those contracts signed in just the past year. Kalil is going to cost 4.9M against the cap this year. But it’s OK to throw away 5M on Smith. 3M on a K. 9M on a DT that is about as useless as Kalil. How about 7.4 if Olsen retires? 

 

If I’m reading between the lines...I’m guessing you’re trying to make this a Hurney vs. Gettleman thing. I’m sorry if I came across that way, but that’s not what I was doing. I mentioned Matt Kalil cause it was the first and also most egregious example that came to mind as how much more crippling overpaying other positions is, relative to overpaying a kicker.

I’ll go on the record as being neither pro-Hurney nor pro-Gettleman. I’m generally not pro or against people, but rather individual moves...it helps to be more objective and logical rather than blindly criticizing everything someone does, especially if it fits your narrative.

Case in point: the Dontari Poe signing was almost unanimously praised, with sentiments like “we got a better player than Star for even less money”. Now even you yourself just now is talking about how much money we wasted on Poe and how bad of a signing that was. Revisionist history is a staple of Armchair GMing and that’s what I’m not a personal fan of. Just because Poe turned out to be a waste, doesn’t make it a bad signing at the time...it just means he didn’t pan out. Lots of criticisms people make about coaches and GMs boil down to moves that didn’t pan out...as simple as that...not stupid, terrible, moronic, ridiculous moves. Hell, you could even argue that the Matt Kalil signing may not have been a bad move...just a desperate but necessary one that didn’t pan out. You could argue he was our best shot at protecting our franchise QB’s blindside based on what was available at the time.

[thefuzz]

1 hour ago, Khyber53 said:

When the choice had to be made, Gano was the better choice. 

Butker was an unknown with no real history. Gano had just posted a 29/30 FG rate for 2017. 

In the end, you go with who has the higher reliability rating rather than their pay. Otherwise you'd see teams ditching every kicker after their rookie contract was up. 

But as to Butkey, what a guy and what a season for him. He got a wonderful shot when KC needed someone fast and he's made the most of it. I'd say he has a shot to be permanent there and good luck to him. Good things happen to good guys.

This isn't accurate, which makes it worse.

Gano was 30/38 and had also missed 3 extra points in 16.  He was kicking FG's at a 79% clip.

So we see that he is getting very expensive, and too inconsistent so we draft a kicker in the 7th and sign him to a 4 year deal for CHEAP.  Now we are getting somewhere.

We can have a camp competition, and give all the reps to the rookie during the pre-season to see how he holds up.  If he's close to Gano, for a lot less money, you keep the younger cheaper option, and spend the money elsewhere, or roll it over if needed.

Nope.  Ron give more kicks to Gano during the preseason, where he goes on to miss 2 kicks, and less to Butker where he goes 100%.

It was a bad call then, it's still a bad call, and then we doubled down by extending the inconsistent Gano AGAIN.  Dumb franchise.

[MasterAwesome]

36 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

This isn't accurate, which makes it worse.

Gano was 30/38 and had also missed 3 extra points in 16.  He was kicking FG's at a 79% clip.

So we see that he is getting very expensive, and too inconsistent so we draft a kicker in the 7th and sign him to a 4 year deal for CHEAP.  Now we are getting somewhere.

We can have a camp competition, and give all the reps to the rookie during the pre-season to see how he holds up.  If he's close to Gano, for a lot less money, you keep the younger cheaper option, and spend the money elsewhere, or roll it over if needed.

Nope.  Ron give more kicks to Gano during the preseason, where he goes on to miss 2 kicks, and less to Butker where he goes 100%.

It was a bad call then, it's still a bad call, and then we doubled down by extending the inconsistent Gano AGAIN.  Dumb franchise.

You’re still describing the series of events in a very irresponsible and biased manner. You claim to support a “competition” and immediately proceed to say you want to give all the reps to the rookie...that’s not a competition, that’s a solo audition for the starting job.

You also fail to mention Gano’s surgery in the offseason before the 2017 season. He broke his plant foot in Week 14 and then ended the season missing 3 kicks against Tampa Bay when he never missed more than one kick in any game all season. Fair to say that broken plant foot contributed to that? I’d say so. If you exclude those 3 misses altogether, you’re looking at a much more respectable ~85% FG percentage. Still not great, but enough to justify him keeping his starting job at the beginning of the next season.

Extending Gano was stupid after he made 29/30 field goals for the season? What? That seems like a pretty darn remarkable display of consistency to me...

[thefuzz]

24 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

You’re still describing the series of events in a very irresponsible and biased manner. You claim to support a “competition” and immediately proceed to say you want to give all the reps to the rookie...that’s not a competition, that’s a solo audition for the starting job.

You also fail to mention Gano’s surgery in the offseason before the 2017 season. He broke his plant foot in Week 14 and then ended the season missing 3 kicks against Tampa Bay when he never missed more than one kick in any game all season. Fair to say that broken plant foot contributed to that? I’d say so. If you exclude those 3 misses altogether, you’re looking at a much more respectable ~85% FG percentage. Still not great, but enough to justify him keeping his starting job at the beginning of the next season.

Extending Gano was stupid after he made 29/30 field goals for the season? What? That seems like a pretty darn remarkable display of consistency to me...

1st paragraph.  I said give him ever kick in the pre-season, not at training camp.  TC there is very little pressure, but coaches can stand right there and see if you have the leg and ability.  They knew exactly what they had in Gano, they didn't with Butker.  Instead they went the exact opposite way and gave the vet more game reps than the rookie.  Dumb ass move all around.  

P.S. Gano missed two of five in the preseason and was still retained over the player that went for 100%.

 

2nd paragraph.  Gano's injury.  Now we are getting even deeper.  We decided to go with an injured kicker, coming off a bad season, with only 1 year left on his overpriced contract vs. the healthy, younger, cheaper option that was signed for 4 years for peanuts.

 

3rd paragraph.  Paying an inconsistent kicker the kind of money that we paid Gano is not a smart move.  Pssssst....I was against the Olindo Mare contract and Gano's first extension as well.  Mind blowing right?

[thefuzz]

42 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

You’re still describing the series of events in a very irresponsible and biased manner. You claim to support a “competition” and immediately proceed to say you want to give all the reps to the rookie...that’s not a competition, that’s a solo audition for the starting job.

You also fail to mention Gano’s surgery in the offseason before the 2017 season. He broke his plant foot in Week 14 and then ended the season missing 3 kicks against Tampa Bay when he never missed more than one kick in any game all season. Fair to say that broken plant foot contributed to that? I’d say so. If you exclude those 3 misses altogether, you’re looking at a much more respectable ~85% FG percentage. Still not great, but enough to justify him keeping his starting job at the beginning of the next season.

Extending Gano was stupid after he made 29/30 field goals for the season? What? That seems like a pretty darn remarkable display of consistency to me...

 

Just wanted to post that thread up here for the HINDSIGHT is 20/20 dudes that like to run around here.

Just a stupid fuging move all the way around.

 

Edit:  if you haven't read that entire thread, you should.

[Khyber53]

3 hours ago, Toomers said:

We made that choice after 2016. When Gano was horrible. So none of that is relevant. 

So, this whole thing is crying over spilled milk, huh?

[Toomers]

1 hour ago, Khyber53 said:

So, this whole thing is crying over spilled milk, huh?

 No. It’s crying over the continuous flow of milk that streams constantly out of the franchise when we have our current leadership in charge. The 2.0 is as bad as 1.0. 

  

[TN05]

1 hour ago, Khyber53 said:

So, this whole thing is crying over spilled milk, huh?

Because Butker was drafted by Gettleman so he must clearly be preferable over who Hurney chose, facts be damned. Butker is a good kicker but his leg isn’t nearly as strong as Gano’s and he’s not substantially better overall. Gano and Butker have been two of the league’s best kickers, but Gano has more game winners.

[Toomers]

4 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

If I’m reading between the lines...I’m guessing you’re trying to make this a Hurney vs. Gettleman thing. I’m sorry if I came across that way, but that’s not what I was doing. I mentioned Matt Kalil cause it was the first and also most egregious example that came to mind as how much more crippling overpaying other positions is, relative to overpaying a kicker.

I’ll go on the record as being neither pro-Hurney nor pro-Gettleman. I’m generally not pro or against people, but rather individual moves...it helps to be more objective and logical rather than blindly criticizing everything someone does, especially if it fits your narrative.

Case in point: the Dontari Poe signing was almost unanimously praised, with sentiments like “we got a better player than Star for even less money”. Now even you yourself just now is talking about how much money we wasted on Poe and how bad of a signing that was. Revisionist history is a staple of Armchair GMing and that’s what I’m not a personal fan of. Just because Poe turned out to be a waste, doesn’t make it a bad signing at the time...it just means he didn’t pan out. Lots of criticisms people make about coaches and GMs boil down to moves that didn’t pan out...as simple as that...not stupid, terrible, moronic, ridiculous moves. Hell, you could even argue that the Matt Kalil signing may not have been a bad move...just a desperate but necessary one that didn’t pan out. You could argue he was our best shot at protecting our franchise QB’s blindside based on what was available at the time.

 You can call “hindsight” or “ narrative” all you want. Doesn’t change that many said all these moves I’ve mentioned were bad when they happened. Sorry if you didn’t. 

 I done care about Gettleman. Did I bring him up? No. This is about who runs the franchise NOW. Why is Matt Kalil an “excuse” for making a mistake on current moves? And address all of them. Smith, Olsen.  Poe was a bust. That’s the result. Why does it matter if some fans liked it? Most fans hated keeping Gano, paying Smith. Does that make it worse? No. Only 1(or 2) people are responsible. Not the fans. Some people liked signing Kalil. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t just an awful move all around and there was no reason for it too happen. 

  So what’s my “narrative”? I’m not the one blindly defending moves I admitted weren’t smart.