What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Janikowski may finally be worth that 1st-round pick (1 Viewer)

2nd. even if it doesn't help "every kicker", it's going to help a lot more than just 1.

let's take your example.

In 1993, 17 kickers had 15 touchbacks or more.

In 1994, 1 kicker had 15 touchbacks or more.

That 1 kicker was Brad Daluiso. Do you think he was more valuable in 1993 or 1994?
I don't think your question, as stated, is a fair one.Daluiso wasn't merely "one of 17 kickers to have 15 touchbacks"... he had 39 touchbacks! SeaBass and Cundiff will provide similar advantages.
ok. so, let's compare them to their peers.In 1993, the average number of touchbacks for the top-30 kickers was 17.6. Daluiso had 39.

In 1994, the average number of touchbacks for the top-30 kickers was 4.9. Daluiso had 19.

To help with your answer, Daluiso's total was 2.2 times the league average in 1993 and 3.9 times the league average in 1994.

The rule change helped Daluiso basically double his touchback total while the league average increased by a factor of 3.6.

Who do you think was helped more by the rule change? Brad Daluiso or the average kicker in the league?

 
2nd. even if it doesn't help "every kicker", it's going to help a lot more than just 1.

let's take your example.

In 1993, 17 kickers had 15 touchbacks or more.

In 1994, 1 kicker had 15 touchbacks or more.

That 1 kicker was Brad Daluiso. Do you think he was more valuable in 1993 or 1994?
I don't think your question, as stated, is a fair one.Daluiso wasn't merely "one of 17 kickers to have 15 touchbacks"... he had 39 touchbacks! SeaBass and Cundiff will provide similar advantages.
ok. so, let's compare them to their peers.In 1993, the average number of touchbacks for the top-30 kickers was 17.6. Daluiso had 39.

In 1994, the average number of touchbacks for the top-30 kickers was 4.9. Daluiso had 19.

To help with your answer, Daluiso's total was 2.2 times the league average in 1993 and 3.9 times the league average in 1994.

The rule change helped Daluiso basically double his touchback total while the league average increased by a factor of 3.6.

Who do you think was helped more by the rule change? Brad Daluiso or the average kicker in the league?
I guess you want me to say the average kickers just closed the gap on the big-leg kickers with the new rule. Fine. But they won't kick touchbacks nearly as frequently as Janikowski and Cundiff. That's all I'm saying.What I would really like to see (but I can't find) is league scoring averages in 1993 and 1994.

If scoring did not go up in 1994, then this new rule really will not matter at the end of the day.

 
I guess you want me to say the average kickers just closed the gap on the big-leg kickers with the new rule. Fine. But they won't kick touchbacks nearly as frequently as Janikowski and Cundiff. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, Janikowski will see a pretty big increase in his touchback percentage but the average kicker will most likely see a larger increase. Thus, the average kicker will be helped more by this change and Janikowski's value will likely be reduced.If kicker A goes from 30% to 40% while 5 other kickers go from 5% to 20%, kicker A still dominates but he becomes a bit less unique.
 
What I would really like to see (but I can't find) is league scoring averages in 1993 and 1994.If scoring did not go up in 1994, then this new rule really will not matter at the end of the day.
1989: 92321990: 90151991: 85061992: 83911993: 8377Average: 87041994: 90751995: 10314 (Crazy WR year)1996: 98051997: 99571998: 10215Average: 9873So, while there were other rule changes around the same time which contributed to the effect, it definitely seems as if scoring went up after the change.
 
If I am missing the sarcasm, my apologies. But you Raiders fans can't be serious, right? Janikowski, and kickers like him, had their value hurt almost as much as kick returners did. A lot more place kickers will be able to get touchbacks, making those that could before, less of a rarity, less of an asset. Simple supply and demand, really.
Agreed, I've been reading this thread from the beginning and can't help but think some Raiders fans will cling to anything as potential good news for their team. I don't think this rule change hurts them, but I don't think it's an advantage either. Like Aaron said, where Janikowski was one of maybe 3-5 guys who could consistently kick into the end zone before the rule, he'll be one of 15-20 who can from now on. This rule diminishes his value by helping other kickers to consistently do what he had been able to do that set him apart.
 
That five yards, clearly, is gigantic. However, even though teams kicked off from the 35 in 1993, MOST kickers had a touchback percentage between 20-35%. So I fail to see how this rule helps "every" kicker, as someone mentioned. It will only help the kickers who have big legs to begin with. And for the people who still don't get why it's a ridiculously huge advantage to make other teams start from their own 20, further explanation will likely not help.
two things:1st. ridiculously huge advantage? compared to what?

2nd. even if it doesn't help "every kicker", it's going to help a lot more than just 1.

let's take your example.

In 1993, 17 kickers had 15 touchbacks or more.

In 1994, 1 kicker had 15 touchbacks or more.

That 1 kicker was Brad Daluiso. Do you think he was more valuable in 1993 or 1994?
:goodposting:
 
Through 2 games Seabass has yet to have a kick returned and he has nailed a 63 yarder. Prater also has yet to have a kick returned but both of his games were at home. Every other kicker is over 20% returned at this point.

 
SeaBass is about to set a new NFL record for most touchbacks in a single season. Book it.Huge advantage making the opposing team start at their own 20 nearly every time. :thumbup:He'll send it into the stands at Invesco!
The Saints drafted a kicker high (like no. 11 I think) in the first round one year, long time ago now, but still the lesson is there: Russell Erxleben. He was supposed to hit 60 yarders with regularity AND he did double duty as a punter who would average 45 yarders with incredible hangtime. Of course it was a disaster.Flip side: the Saints had Morten Andersen for years and years; he was more than reliable, if Mort came in with the game on the line, it was over, you could turn off the tv, the other team could head to the locker room, the Saints had won. And back when the Saints had a top-3 defense a big part was Mort nailing those touchbacks with regularity, it deflated an opposing offense from the get-go. Mort went on to kick the Falcons into the Super Bowl (really ridiculous looking back on it, how did that happen? Oh yeah they had Mort...) and I think he may have even done it with a 55 yarder in a rocking loud HHH Metrodome..... ....balanced out having seen famine and feast, I'd say given the busts that any team can often pick in the 1st round (and the Saints back in the day and the Raiders more recently have had more than others) I'd say regardless of the kickoff rule and touchbacks Janikowski HAS been worth it. Stability at kicker is a big thing whether people are aware of it or not. Same could be said for Lechler with what I think I recall was a 2nd rounder. The guy is terrific, he's a real defensive weapon. And they're both still with the team and may very well be for life or close to it. Personally I'd say that they have to rank up there as two major Raider draft successes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
....balanced out having seen famine and feast, I'd say given the busts that any team can often pick in the 1st round (and the Saints back in the day and the Raiders more recently have had more than others) I'd say regardless of the kickoff rule and touchbacks Janikowski HAS been worth it. Stability at kicker is a big thing whether people are aware of it or not. Same could be said for Lechler with what I think I recall was a 2nd rounder. The guy is terrific, he's a real defensive weapon. And they're both still with the team and may very well be for life or close to it. Personally I'd say that they have to rank up there as two major Raider draft successes.
The Raiders are 59-103 since they drafted Janikowski and Lechler. The two players drafted directly after Janikowski were Chad Pennington and Shaun Alexander; I think either of those would have contributed more to the Raiders' success than Janikowski has. Neil Rackers and Paul Edinger were taken in the sixth round that year. Obviously Janikowski has been reasonably successful as a kicker, but he wasn't worth a first-round pick and they Raiders didn't get first-round value out of him. Lechler was a fifth-round pick, and they probably got reasonable value at that point.
 
....balanced out having seen famine and feast, I'd say given the busts that any team can often pick in the 1st round (and the Saints back in the day and the Raiders more recently have had more than others) I'd say regardless of the kickoff rule and touchbacks Janikowski HAS been worth it. Stability at kicker is a big thing whether people are aware of it or not. Same could be said for Lechler with what I think I recall was a 2nd rounder. The guy is terrific, he's a real defensive weapon. And they're both still with the team and may very well be for life or close to it. Personally I'd say that they have to rank up there as two major Raider draft successes.
The Raiders are 59-103 since they drafted Janikowski and Lechler. The two players drafted directly after Janikowski were Chad Pennington and Shaun Alexander; I think either of those would have contributed more to the Raiders' success than Janikowski has. Neil Rackers and Paul Edinger were taken in the sixth round that year. Obviously Janikowski has been reasonably successful as a kicker, but he wasn't worth a first-round pick and they Raiders didn't get first-round value out of him. Lechler was a fifth-round pick, and they probably got reasonable value at that point.
Agreed no kicker will ever be worth a 1st unless he also is a very good starting QB. I was just pointing out that so far Seabass has made himself more useful with the new rule, which I think was really RN point. I would also say Lechler has been well worth his draft position as he currently has the highest punting average ever.
 
I don't get it.

Isn't the goal of a 1st round pick is to draft a player that will be among the top of his position for 10+ years? So if that guy happens to be a kicker its not worth it but if a team drafts some DB WR etc that turned out to be a bust is a smarter choice just because they're position players?

I guess the Raiders should've drafted Anthony Becht or Sylvester Morris instead.

Sebas is and has been one of the best at his position for a long time but Oak still gets criticized because he was a first round pick. Why doesn't anyone mention Mike Nugent who has picked by the JETS in Round 2 a few years ago. He's not even on the team anymore. But the Jets get a pass. So it's better to waste a 2nd round pick on a kicker who doesn't pan out than a 1st round pick on an elite kicker?

:shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get it.

Isn't the goal of a 1st round pick is to draft a player that will be among the top of his position for 10+ years?
No, the goal of a first round pick is to help your team win games.
So if that guy happens to be a kicker its not worth it but if a team drafts some DB WR etc that turned out to be a bust is a smarter choice just because they're position players?
The reason it's stupid to take a kicker in the first round is that even if he is among the top of his position for 10+ years, he won't do much to help your team win games. The Saints were able to pick up a kicker off the waiver wire who is 5-5 on field goals this year, having hit two more than Seabass. The best kicker in the league simply doesn't provide much value over the replacement level player.It's interesting that a fantasy football player would make this argument, because the reason it's stupid to draft a kicker in the first round of the NFL draft is the same reason it's stupid to draft a kicker in the first round of your fantasy draft; even if it works out, it won't do much to help your team win.

Sebas is and has been one of the best at his position for a long time but Oak still gets criticized because he was a first round pick. Why doesn't anyone mention Mike Nugent who has picked by the JETS in Round 2 a few years ago. He's not even on the team anymore. But the Jets get a pass. So it's better to waste a 2nd round pick on a kicker who doesn't pan out than a 1st round pick on an elite kicker?
Nugent was a stupid pick, too. Marginally less stupid than Janikowski because his cost was lower.
 
I don't get it.

Isn't the goal of a 1st round pick is to draft a player that will be among the top of his position for 10+ years?
No, the goal of a first round pick is to help your team win games.
So if that guy happens to be a kicker its not worth it but if a team drafts some DB WR etc that turned out to be a bust is a smarter choice just because they're position players?
The reason it's stupid to take a kicker in the first round is that even if he is among the top of his position for 10+ years, he won't do much to help your team win games. The Saints were able to pick up a kicker off the waiver wire who is 5-5 on field goals this year, having hit two more than Seabass. The best kicker in the league simply doesn't provide much value over the replacement level player.It's interesting that a fantasy football player would make this argument, because the reason it's stupid to draft a kicker in the first round of the NFL draft is the same reason it's stupid to draft a kicker in the first round of your fantasy draft; even if it works out, it won't do much to help your team win.

Sebas is and has been one of the best at his position for a long time but Oak still gets criticized because he was a first round pick. Why doesn't anyone mention Mike Nugent who has picked by the JETS in Round 2 a few years ago. He's not even on the team anymore. But the Jets get a pass. So it's better to waste a 2nd round pick on a kicker who doesn't pan out than a 1st round pick on an elite kicker?
Nugent was a stupid pick, too. Marginally less stupid than Janikowski because his cost was lower.
You're saying a whole lot of nothing. It's stupid because its stupid? lol

How exactly does Janikowski not help his team win? Those three points he got Oak with that 63 yard FG vs Denver was the difference in the game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're saying a whole lot of nothing. It's stupid because its stupid? lol
It's stupid because the best kicker in the league delivers a lot less value over a replacement kicker than any other position delivers over a replacement at their position; therefore, they're not worth a large investment. If you don't understand this concept, you're in the wrong hobby. Or do you take kickers in the first round of your draft?
How exactly does Janikowski not help his team win? Those three points he got Oak with that 63 yard FG vs Denver was the difference in the game.
As I said, the Raiders are 59-103 since they drafted him. What do you think their record would have been without Seabass? What do you think their record might have been if they chose Pennington to back up a 36-year-old Rich Gannon, instead of having to suffer through years of Mirer, Collins, Walter, Culpepper, and Russell? Pennington, even though he wasn't a great QB, delivered a lot more value relative to a replacement player than any kicker possibly could.
 
....balanced out having seen famine and feast, I'd say given the busts that any team can often pick in the 1st round (and the Saints back in the day and the Raiders more recently have had more than others) I'd say regardless of the kickoff rule and touchbacks Janikowski HAS been worth it. Stability at kicker is a big thing whether people are aware of it or not. Same could be said for Lechler with what I think I recall was a 2nd rounder. The guy is terrific, he's a real defensive weapon. And they're both still with the team and may very well be for life or close to it. Personally I'd say that they have to rank up there as two major Raider draft successes.
The Raiders are 59-103 since they drafted Janikowski and Lechler. The two players drafted directly after Janikowski were Chad Pennington and Shaun Alexander; I think either of those would have contributed more to the Raiders' success than Janikowski has. Neil Rackers and Paul Edinger were taken in the sixth round that year. Obviously Janikowski has been reasonably successful as a kicker, but he wasn't worth a first-round pick and they Raiders didn't get first-round value out of him. Lechler was a fifth-round pick, and they probably got reasonable value at that point.
That's a really good point, but my point is that presuming the Raiders would have done the *right thing with those 1st & 6th round picks lacks support. I'd say given their history they probably (probably) would not have. I would also say that with the Janikowski and Lechler picks they did not flop, bust, or even turn out average, in fact they have been superior.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's been the best FF kicker two years running (if you include this season). He's probably won a few games for me.

 
Has he lived up to his 1st round billing?
i think so, in a long term sense. on average, he has about the same effect on a game as a normal mid 1st round pick would. he helps the raiders out just as much, if not more than someone like brandon pettigrew does. he is also going to be providing that advantage for the raiders over a much longer time span than any other position would.
 
my favorite bartender at my favorite bar's roomate used to date janikowski in 2004 when she lived in the bay area.

no reported roofies.

she had dd's btw.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top