Dynasty Value: Kickers (1 Viewer)

[Psychopav]

OK, I know I'm going to get some heat for this, but this is NOT an AC forum post. I'm not 'in the market' for any of these guys, I'm just using them as examples to jump start the conversation.

Here's the situation:

There are 3 kickers at the top of the heap after 4 weeks right now. I'll use scoring of 1 pt. for PAT, 3 pts. for FG, +1 for 40-49, +2 for 50-59, +3 for 60+.

Jason Hanson, age 42, has weekly points of 11, 16, 18, and 8 = 53 (tied for 1st)

Greg Zuerlein (R - StL), age 22, has weekly points of 13, 12, 9, and 19 = 53 (tied for 1st)

Stephen Gostkowski (7th year - NE), age 28, has weekly points of 10, 17, 13, and 10 = 50 (3rd place)

The next closest kicker is at 45 points YTD.

Rank the 3 kickers in Dynasty value.

I'm interested in knowing which attributes you would place the most emphasis on - would you rather have the rookie because he's got the best chance of being on your team the longest? The crusty veteran because he's proven consistently and plays in a dome? The prime of his life on a high-powered offense? Discuss...

I'd go Zurlein if I had more than 4 games to go off of, given his situation with more moderate weather and his age. But with only 4 games, I'm sticking with Hanson myself. He's not the sexy pick but if Morten Andersen could last to 48, Jason Hanson probably has another 3-4 years in him, playing in a dome with an offense that is inconsistent and should generate it's share of opportunities.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Put it this way: I've been in a 7 player keeper league since 1991, and Zuerlein is the first kicker i can remember that I have ever even CONSIDERED as a keeper candidate. I wouldn't actually do it, because he's a kicker, but the fact he even crossed my mind as a potential keeper makes him #1 by a mile.

 

[solorca]

In a dynasty league, I'm dropping my kicker at the end of the season for offseason pickups anyway. I'd take Zurlien, but he wouldn't make my cuts at the end of the year.

 

[Abspara]

Legatron by a wide margin

Jason Hanson has one foot in the NFL grave which is no good for Dynasty. If you need a solid years production out of Hanson and are willing to play it year by year, Hanson might fit that need.

Gostkowski is a good pick but I don't think he has the ceiling that Legatron has.

Legatron makes 60 yard field goals with room to spare. If you're in a league that rewards extra points for distance, Legatron is the one to target.

 

[Chazzhawk]

This thread is embarassing

 

[DoubleG]

In a dynasty league, I'm dropping my kicker at the end of the season for offseason pickups anyway. I'd take Zurlien, but he wouldn't make my cuts at the end of the year.

And this is why we have a "minimum per position" rule.

 

[DoubleG]

To answer the OP - a young leg that kicks 60+ yarders and whose home is a dome > crusty vet who kicks 50+ yarders only in a dome. Give me Greg the Leg - and not only because we share first names

But yes, dome in FF playoffs is always the preference.

 

[Bill S]

In a dynasty league, I'm dropping my kicker at the end of the season for offseason pickups anyway. I'd take Zurlien, but he wouldn't make my cuts at the end of the year.

And this is why we have a "minimum per position" rule.

I hate minimum rules. As long as you have a kicker by gametime, then whats the big deal. This also allows for more strategy, which i what dynasty/keeper leagues are all about.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

In a dynasty league, I'm dropping my kicker at the end of the season for offseason pickups anyway. I'd take Zurlien, but he wouldn't make my cuts at the end of the year.

And this is why we have a "minimum per position" rule.

I hate minimum rules. As long as you have a kicker by gametime, then whats the big deal. This also allows for more strategy, which i what dynasty/keeper leagues are all about.

If you guys de-value kickers so much you might as well get rid of them all together.

 

[Chazzhawk]

In a dynasty league, I'm dropping my kicker at the end of the season for offseason pickups anyway. I'd take Zurlien, but he wouldn't make my cuts at the end of the year.

And this is why we have a "minimum per position" rule.

I hate minimum rules. As long as you have a kicker by gametime, then whats the big deal. This also allows for more strategy, which i what dynasty/keeper leagues are all about.

If you guys de-value kickers so much you might as well get rid of them all together.

yes, please. Thank you drive though. Would you like fries with that?

 

[DoubleG]

In a dynasty league, I'm dropping my kicker at the end of the season for offseason pickups anyway. I'd take Zurlien, but he wouldn't make my cuts at the end of the year.

And this is why we have a "minimum per position" rule.

I hate minimum rules. As long as you have a kicker by gametime, then whats the big deal. This also allows for more strategy, which i what dynasty/keeper leagues are all about.

Because that is exactly how NFL teams operate. It doesn't take more or less strategy with minimum roster rules - it's just different. If your league prefers to cut half of your team every off season - then bring in a bunch of new people, that's cool. We prefer that ina dynasty league, the teams actually look similar year to year. To each his own.

 

[Psychopav]

To answer the OP - a young leg that kicks 60+ yarders and whose home is a dome > crusty vet who kicks 50+ yarders only in a dome. Give me Greg the Leg - and not only because we share first names But yes, dome in FF playoffs is always the preference.

No doubt you're right, and not only is The Leg in a dome but his late season opponents have better weather even when playing away. Although Detroit does travel to Minnesota, another dome, kicking in Soldier Field or Lambeau late in the year can be a nightmare I'm sure.One thing you seem to assume in this post though is that The Leg is already established as a consistent producer. No question he has a strong leg. My question is as much about the timing as anything. Would you prefer him to El Crusto the Veteran only 4 games into his career? What if he cracks under pressure, gets streaky, or loses the opportunities he has gotten so far either through offensive improvement or regression?And if you like him over Gostkowski, what (if anything) does it say about your risk tolerance?

 

[DoubleG]

To answer the OP - a young leg that kicks 60+ yarders and whose home is a dome > crusty vet who kicks 50+ yarders only in a dome. Give me Greg the Leg - and not only because we share first names But yes, dome in FF playoffs is always the preference.

No doubt you're right, and not only is The Leg in a dome but his late season opponents have better weather even when playing away. Although Detroit does travel to Minnesota, another dome, kicking in Soldier Field or Lambeau late in the year can be a nightmare I'm sure.One thing you seem to assume in this post though is that The Leg is already established as a consistent producer. No question he has a strong leg. My question is as much about the timing as anything. Would you prefer him to El Crusto the Veteran only 4 games into his career? What if he cracks under pressure, gets streaky, or loses the opportunities he has gotten so far either through offensive improvement or regression?And if you like him over Gostkowski, what (if anything) does it say about your risk tolerance?

Actually, I prefer J. Tucker - for the "kicking under pressure" question as far as rookies go. Young kickers have shown to be fairly reliable - but there are exceptions. The fact that Tucker basically had to kick "lights out" all preseason to win the job from Cundif (iirc) - and he knew it...and did, to me speaks volumes about his ability to handle pressure. Now, admittadly, that pretty much flies in the face of the dome thing - but honestly, when I picked up Tucker, Greg the Leg was still available. I think Tucker has 4 of my 5 preferred options in dynasty kickers:1) He's got a strong leg2) He's got an accurate leg3) He plays on a good offense (this is where he has the advantage over Z)4) He seems to be able to handle the pressure, despite his young age.The 5th is the dome thing. I think Z will have a great career - but the Rams offense isn't good enough for him to be consistant in the immediate future, IMHO. I could be wrong though. I can just see some games where the Rams are held to under 10 points. I like the Ravens' ability to have leads, move the ball and score points.Now, you specifically asked about Hanson and Z. I don't know - that's a little tougher - but I'd probably lean toward Hanson, because Detroit's offense is (supposed to be?) better. But it would basically be a wash.But in asnwer to your rookie question - yes, I think young kickers can be counted on. In today's NFL teams are trying to save cap room anyway they can. Many of them can allow a slightly less proven kicker with a strong leg to hold down the job for less money than a veteran - who may not be even able to get touchbacks on kickoffs as often. Will teams still use grizzled vets? Sure - but usually when there's an injury or a young player is just terrible. But often they'll just brin in another young guy (see Dallas - Folk -> Bailey as an example). Yes, I pay WAY too much attention to kickers.

 

[solorca]

In a dynasty league, I'm dropping my kicker at the end of the season for offseason pickups anyway. I'd take Zurlien, but he wouldn't make my cuts at the end of the year.

And this is why we have a "minimum per position" rule.

I hate minimum rules. As long as you have a kicker by gametime, then whats the big deal. This also allows for more strategy, which i what dynasty/keeper leagues are all about.

If you guys de-value kickers so much you might as well get rid of them all together.

Don't think I haven't tried. It's always shot down by the guys who have David Akers or whoever the previous years top kicker was. I'll just continue to pick up the best player not on a roster and usually do just as well as everyone else.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I've actually taken to grabbing a kicker a round or two before the last round lately, which works similarly to having a dynasty kicker. The reason kickers are never valued is not because they don't score points (they score plenty), but because the year to year consistency is so bad.

Kickers and defenses provide a ton of hidden points. Go back and look through your team's scoring history. Those big weeks where it looked like everything went right are most likely only majorly different because you got 30 points out of your kicker/defense that week. Likewise, those weeks where your score was down at the bottom of the league and you hate even looking at it are likely weeks where you got only a couple points out of them. Everyone notices when CJ Spiller goes off for 180 yards and 2 touchdowns to lead them to victory, but no one notices when they quietly gain or lose 25 points on their opponent with a kicker/defense that each score 15 to their opponent's 2.

Having a top kicker is extremely valuable. The problem, of course, is that it's more difficult to find out who that player is going to be than at any other position. There's just so much turnover from year to year. It's worth spending a pick a couple of rounds earlier on a kicker if you're going to get a top one, but when using that pick a few rounds earlier is just as much a crapshoot as picking at the end of the last round kicker run, what's the point?

The reason I bring all of this up is because it leads me to the conclusion that the clear answer to the original question is Stephen Gostowski. He's finished as a top 5 kicker in five out of the last six years, with the only exception being due to an injury during a season where he was on pace to finish in the top 5 again. He's in the most stable position of any kicker in the league, playing for an organization that has always had a good offense, he has the job secured, and he's accurate with a good leg. The only downside is that he plays in a cold weather area at the end of the year, but that hasn't really slowed him down as his splits are just as good in December as any other month.

In short, kickers suck because they're erratic year to year. Gostowski is the one exception, and the one guy who provides real year to year consistency, so he's the only one worth picking early.

 

[DoubleG]

Having a top kicker is extremely valuable. The problem, of course, is that it's more difficult to find out who that player is going to be than at any other position. There's just so much turnover from year to year. It's worth spending a pick a couple of rounds earlier on a kicker if you're going to get a top one, but when using that pick a few rounds earlier is just as much a crapshoot as picking at the end of the last round kicker run, what's the point?

The reason I bring all of this up is because it leads me to the conclusion that the clear answer to the original question is Stephen Gostowski. He's finished as a top 5 kicker in five out of the last six years, with the only exception being due to an injury during a season where he was on pace to finish in the top 5 again. He's in the most stable position of any kicker in the league, playing for an organization that has always had a good offense, he has the job secured, and he's accurate with a good leg. The only downside is that he plays in a cold weather area at the end of the year, but that hasn't really slowed him down as his splits are just as good in December as any other month.

In short, kickers suck because they're erratic year to year. Gostowski is the one exception, and the one guy who provides real year to year consistency, so he's the only one worth picking early.

I had no idea about Gostkowski's consistency. Things that are right with the SP. Quality post - thanks.