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!

Sebastian Janikowski - Was he worth a 1st rd pick? (1 Viewer)

Worth a mid first?

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 31.3%

  • No

    Votes: 88 68.8%
  • Total voters
    128
Max Power

Max Power

Footballguy
I got into this debate with a co-worker today.  Knowing what we know now, was he worth a first? 

14th overall in points scored.  He will likely move into the top 10 before the year is over.  Only 1x pro bowl. 

 
Yes, look at the longevity. He's been good all these years. Would you prefer to have Jamarcus Russell? Tons of first round picks bust.

 
As a long time Raider fan, I absolutely say no. It was draft choices like this that made the Raiders losers for many years. 

 
Janikowski was valued by the Raiders as a 1st round pick because of his long leg. 

He's 53-94 on fgs over 50

Neil Rackers was also taken that draft much later and was 26-48 on 50+

Paul Edinger was also drafted and was 16-24 on 50+

So they all have similar percentage on long fgs. Obviously janikowski career has been 2 to 3 times as long as those two

First rounder? No

 
On production alone perhaps not, but he locked down the position for 15+ seasons, 250+ games.  More importantly, for all his faults, Al Davis knew his brand better than anyone and the Polish Cannon fit the Raiders brand perfectly. Easy to vote yes on this one. 

 
Not in a thousand years. The marginal value between kickers is almost meaningless. It's certainly not worth a solid chance at a franchise-type impact player.

Even if I absolutely knew that Janikowski would be a good kicker for 15 years there is no way I make that pick. And the Raiders certainly didn't know that at the time. 

The only dumber pick on a kicker was Tampa Bay selecting a kicker in the 2nd round... which is bad, very bad... but even worse, they traded up to do it. Awful. How are these guys so terrible at basic numerical analysis and value? Blows my mind how they got their positions.

 
On the surface, I would say no for reasons stated above. But maybe to tell the full tale someone needs to look back on if there was a round full of players who could be argued as being better picks than him.

 
Shrugs said:
On the surface, I would say no for reasons stated above. But maybe to tell the full tale someone needs to look back on if there was a round full of players who could be argued as being better picks than him.
Click to expand...
Like Shaun Alexander two picks later?

 
The † indicates they made at least 1 Pro Bowl

17    Oakland Raiders    Sebastian Janikowski †    K
18    New York Jets    Chad Pennington †    QB
19    Seattle Seahawks    Shaun Alexander †    RB
20    Detroit Lions    Stockar McDougle     OT
21    Kansas City Chiefs    Sylvester Morris     WR
22    Seattle Seahawks    Chris McIntosh     OT
23    Carolina Panthers    Rashard Anderson     CB
24    San Francisco 49ers    Ahmed Plummer     CB
25    Minnesota Vikings    Chris Hovan     DT
26    Buffalo Bills    Erik Flowers     DE
27    New York Jets    Anthony Becht     TE
28    Indianapolis Colts    Rob Morris     LB
29    Jacksonville Jaguars    R. Jay Soward     WR
30    Tennessee Titans    Keith Bulluck †    LB
31    St. Louis Rams    Trung Canidate     RB
            
32    Cleveland Browns    Dennis Northcutt     WR
33    New Orleans Saints    Darren Howard     DE
34    Cincinnati Bengals    Mark Roman     S
35    San Francisco 49ers    John Engelberger     DE
36    Philadelphia Eagles    Todd Pinkston     WR
37    Atlanta Falcons    Travis Claridge     G
38    Pittsburgh Steelers    Marvel Smith †    OT
39    Chicago Bears    Mike Brown †    SS
40    Denver Broncos    Ian Gold †    LB
41    Arizona Cardinals    Raynoch Thompson     LB
42    New York Giants    Cornelius Griffin     DT
43    San Diego Chargers    Rogers Beckett     SS
44    Green Bay Packers    Chad Clifton †    OT
45    Denver Broncos    Kenoy Kennedy     SS
46    New England Patriots    Adrian Klemm     OT
47    Oakland Raiders    Jerry Porter     WR
48    San Francisco 49ers    Jason Webster     CB
49    Dallas Cowboys    Dwayne Goodrich     CB
 

 
Absolutely.  He's been a consistent and good mainstay for the team for 16 years.  

If you look down the draft, there are only three players that the Raiders had available to them that had any type of 3+ year run of worthwhile value (I mean, we can pick nits and argue semantics but in terms of "no brainer" value...).  Pennington, Shaun Alexander and Tom Brady would have been better picks, with the benefit of hindsight but the rest of these guys were nothing. Sure, there are a couple of one year pro bowl performances (but the way the PB is, somebody has to go to the thing and its sometimes marginal players filling in for guys who are not available).  But nobody outside that list of three that you can look at and say, "now, if we had that guy, we would have set a franchise building block".

So yeah, SEABASS was a fine pick for the Raiders and he's still there and that is worth something.  The Raiders have went nearly TWO DECADES without wasting a pick on a kicker. There's value in that. 

 
Making a point here by bringing up the experience of a team I'm familiar with.

The worst and best picks the Saints ever made were kickers:

- Worst - Russell Erxleben - 1.11 in 1979 overall IIRC, a debacle of massive proportions. This selection sent the Saints on to a 1-15 disaster in 1980.It was a symptom of dysfunction that did not go away for years.

- Best - Morton Andersen - 4.86 in 1986, the team based on tough defense and hard running was almost built around the concept that if you got to the 35 you could score. Thus the goal line was moved up 35 yards, you just had to hit that 3 times to get to 9 point instead of 1 time 35 yards deeper for 7. Ultimately he single footedly kicked the falcs to their one and only Super Bowl, a disgusting fact that much of western civilization has never gotten over.

I only say that to point out that a great kicker brings extraordinary stability to a franchise. The Raiders had tough times but they have had one constant for years - their kicker.

Overall I say yes, Sea Bass was a good, worthwhile pick.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another vote for Hell No.

ETA: and I like what he has done with his career.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I voted "no" in this case, but as a Ravens fan, if you asked me whether I would rather have Justin Tucker or our 2017 first round pick I would say Tucker without hesitation. Hell, I would give two first round picks to have Tucker for the 2011 AFC championship. The 2-3 actual elite kickers that are in the league at any given time are worth a premium pick. Tucker has won a lot of games with clutch kicks. The rest of the kickers (including, for his entire career, Janikowski) don't have much marginal value.

 
Everyone passing on Brady until pick 199 was the travesty of the 2000 draft, not Seabass in the first round. And rounds 2-6 were not memorable at all. You could argue that Shane Lechler was the best non-Brady pick after round 1 and the Raiders drafted him too.

 
I said yes. Not because he was the best available player, but that he's lasted on the team for so long. I don't recall too many times the Raiders lost games because of the kicker. Maybe it happened a lot and I just wasn't paying attention, but that doesn't seem to have been a big issue for them.

Put it this way: When you think of first-round busts that set a team back, I don't think anyone would say Janikowski qualifies as one. Maybe "not a bust" is alow standard, but to have a guy for 15+ years, I'd say he was worth it. 

 
Nah.

If you grade on a curve that Al Davis would have ficked it up anyway, totally worth it.  And when he was drafted, most Raider fans loved it. Me included. We had terrible kickers the year before.

But he has not been a clutch guy, Shanahan invented icing the kicker on Sea Bass, never forget.  He has missed his share of kicks he should have made, never mastered the onside, and has never been considered a top 3 kicker for any long stretch.

I love Sea Bass too, he's a Raider, having a chubby Polish wangsta at kicker for the team is great, and he's gotten in better shape since he came in the league.

But when great kickers are found as UDFA on the regular, he's not worth it.

 
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
I said yes. Not because he was the best available player, but that he's lasted on the team for so long. I don't recall too many times the Raiders lost games because of the kicker. Maybe it happened a lot and I just wasn't paying attention, but that doesn't seem to have been a big issue for them.

Put it this way: When you think of first-round busts that set a team back, I don't think anyone would say Janikowski qualifies as one. Maybe "not a bust" is alow standard, but to have a guy for 15+ years, I'd say he was worth it. 
Click to expand...
Sea bass didn't lose the raiders games, they were out of them by the 2nd half. Sure in hindsight you can look at that particular draft and there isn't a lot of names that stick out, but where were guys like Jason Hanson and morten Anderson drafted? Vinitiari and gostkowski? It's difficult for kickers these days to stick in the league because of minimum vet salaries being higher than what teams want to spend on a kicker. 

 
Snorkelson said:
Sea bass didn't lose the raiders games, they were out of them by the 2nd half. Sure in hindsight you can look at that particular draft and there isn't a lot of names that stick out, but where were guys like Jason Hanson and morten Anderson drafted? Vinitiari and gostkowski? It's difficult for kickers these days to stick in the league because of minimum vet salaries being higher than what teams want to spend on a kicker. 
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm sure if teams could somehow pick out that Gostkowski or Hanson or Vinatieri with any reliability, they'd get a great deal in a later round. But most teams go through a carousel, and it costs them playoff spots. Whatever went wrong in Oakland, that wasn't one of their problems. If they were blown out of games, that's not his fault. If they went with another position instead, they likely would have been long gone years ago.

If teams want to go cheap on a kicker and take that risk, I don't care. They deserve what they get. I see the rationale in securing a great one for 10+ years. Is he really great? Well, he's reliable. I'm sure the Buccaneers are in a panic over their kicker. He's pretty much cost them one game already. 

Nobody would argue he was a steal, or a bust. He's not one of the best ever, and he's not a disappointment. I just think he's "worth it" as a 1st round pick.  The Raiders haven't had to go kicker shopping each off-season...or in the middle of a season. It's one thing they haven't had to deal with, really. There's value in that. 

I can see the argument that it was a dumb risk to roll the dice on a kicker that early. But it seems to have paid off. Maybe they were just lucky, but I don't think you can really complain about that pick. I'm not saying "brilliant move." I'm saying "worth it."

 
Mid 1st? No.  But if had been taken after Keith Bulluck in the first, it would have been a fine pick in hindsight. 

 
CletiusMaximus said:
On production alone perhaps not, but he locked down the position for 15+ seasons, 250+ games.  More importantly, for all his faults, Al Davis knew his brand better than anyone and the Polish Cannon fit the Raiders brand perfectly. Easy to vote yes on this one. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you don't understand football.

 
The correct answer is no, and will always be no for ANY kicker.

There is very little difference in value between kickers.

It does not matter how long he has been with the team.  

There were dozens of free agent kickers, and kickers drafted in late rounds, that were just as good as Seabass during that same time frame.

Has he done well?  Yes

Is a kicker ever worth a pick in the first 5 rounds?  No.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see the point, I think the same thing when the best guard or center comes off the board in the mid first and they have 12 years of solid play. I'm trying to think of an example, the pouncys maybe? Mike iupati? 

I'm sure if your favorite team drafted a kicker in the 1st next year you'll be screaming at the tv, even if said kicker has a 15 year career though.

Being a lions fan I can understand looking back at drafts and wishing we took player A instead of player B (read Ebron/obj). Should the raiders have taken Calvin over Jamarcus Russell? Well, yes, in hindsight, but who knew Russell would stop trying as soon as he got paid? He tried harder during his comeback attampt a couple years ago. He wasn't refined but could throw it like uncle Rico over mountains and was a big load to bring down. Sounds like cam. Wasn't cam. Gotta try for that thoug, right?

I don't remember if Seabass was that much better coming out of college and was kicking 55 yd fgs regularly but it's still quite a gamble. If BB, elway, mike tomlin want to reach for a kicker, fine. Ifthe  lions, raiders, or Browns do it, well, he's probably going be your best player for a decade, and with picks like that he won't have much competition. 

 
As a Bears fan my argument was that first round picks dont always pan out.  Getting a 15 year starter is worth it.  He set the NFL record for 50+ yard FGs.  Seems worth the gamble in my book

 
First round seems a little high, but in the third, I would say yes.  Eventhough if he could theoretically have first round value, why pick him there ? Was another team gonna pick him up that early?  The chances are next to zero.  So if you really want him, there is no reason to use a first round pick on someone who is almost certainly gonna be there in the third.  

 
Phenomena said:
Not in a thousand years. The marginal value between kickers is almost meaningless. It's certainly not worth a solid chance at a franchise-type impact player.

Even if I absolutely knew that Janikowski would be a good kicker for 15 years there is no way I make that pick. And the Raiders certainly didn't know that at the time. 

The only dumber pick on a kicker was Tampa Bay selecting a kicker in the 2nd round... which is bad, very bad... but even worse, they traded up to do it. Awful. How are these guys so terrible at basic numerical analysis and value? Blows my mind how they got their positions.
Click to expand...
The Packers traded up to draft a punter named BJ Sander.  He lasted a short time in the league.  It was horrible.

 
Dr. Brew said:
Janikowski was valued by the Raiders as a 1st round pick because of his long leg. 

He's 53-94 on fgs over 50

Neil Rackers was also taken that draft much later and was 26-48 on 50+

Paul Edinger was also drafted and was 16-24 on 50+

So they all have similar percentage on long fgs. Obviously janikowski career has been 2 to 3 times as long as those two

First rounder? No
Click to expand...
Did Rackers or Edinger kick on infield dirt for 25% of their careers?

 
jon_mx said:
First round seems a little high, but in the third, I would say yes.  Eventhough if he could theoretically have first round value, why pick him there ? Was another team gonna pick him up that early?  The chances are next to zero.  So if you really want him, there is no reason to use a first round pick on someone who is almost certainly gonna be there in the third.  
Click to expand...
I thought Jason Hanson in the 2nd was ridiculous, but the guy was rock solid. Not great, but it was two decades of autopilot. Plus it was an acquired pick (56th.)

Their first two first picks that year were Robert Porcher & Tracey Scroggins - both starters for a decade, 156 sacks.

43 seasons between the 3, all with the Lions.

 
He was one of the most accurate kickers from long distance.  He expanded scoring drives by 5% every time out.  If he was part of a high scoring offense, He'd be top 10 in points already.  How many franchises would pass on that knowing what they know today?

 
There are way more reasons to argue that he was not worth a first round pick then there are that he was. For starters, I'm not buying the longevity argument. Plenty of kickers have kicked for 10-15 years or more. Just because they played for more than one team doesn't suddenly make them poor kickers. 

Seabass barey cracks the Top 40 in FG accuracy for his career. Yes, he ranks #10 all time in made field goals, but looking at the top scoring kickers they were mostly 4th-7th round picks or completely undrafted. 

The other thing is he never really was that outstanding of a kicker. IIRC, he's made one Pro Bowl. IMO, he did not ever provide that much of an advantage in the kicking game. 

We'll never know who the Raiders could have selected with that first round pick. Whether he would have been a HOFer or a complete bust is mostly irrelevant. For the production they got from Seabass, they didn't need to burn a first round pick. 

The other thing not being mentioned is that Oakland has regularly paid him at or near the top in terms of salary. IMO, that only compounded things. In this day and age, paying $4 million a year for an average kicker seems like a waste. Put another way, for a team that has been lackluster on offense and defense for awhile, it seems like Oakland really had no need to have the highest paid punter and kicker in the league. 

Granted, at the time Seabass was drafted, OAK was a contender and perhaps they thought he would be the one that pushed them over the top, but again, there was a chance they could have had an impact starter at a more important position. 

 
No. For the exact same reason that you'd never draft a kicker first in your fantasy league. It's shocking that any fantasy players would not get this,.

 
Dr. Brew said:
So because no one else in the league has, he's worth a first round pick?
Click to expand...
Didn't say that but there is a strong consensus that kicking off dirt does have an impact on the accuracy.  So it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison between Sebass and other kickers.

 
Not the worst pick, but no when you look at who was available after him (Alexander went two picks later).

 
Max Power said:
He was one of the most accurate kickers from long distance.  He expanded scoring drives by 5% every time out.  If he was part of a high scoring offense, He'd be top 10 in points already.  How many franchises would pass on that knowing what they know today?
Click to expand...
Every one.

 
spider321 said:
21 people have voted "Yes".

Now I know how we ended up with Hillary and Donald.

:wall:
Click to expand...
Yeah the majority of you are wrong.  Not a great value pick but considering the high number of bust I don't think it's turned out to be a terrible pick.  Hell the Raiders themselves have had much worse 1st rounders over the years.  

 
Pipes said:
Yeah the majority of you are wrong.  Not a great value pick but considering the high number of bust I don't think it's turned out to be a terrible pick.  Hell the Raiders themselves have had much worse 1st rounders over the years.  
Click to expand...
:lmao:

How do you not understand that there is very little difference between a very good kicker, and an average kicker?

Yes, many first rounders bust, but the reward of guessing right on a more important position far outweighs the risk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99 said:
There are way more reasons to argue that he was not worth a first round pick then there are that he was. For starters, I'm not buying the longevity argument. Plenty of kickers have kicked for 10-15 years or more. Just because they played for more than one team doesn't suddenly make them poor kickers. 

Seabass barey cracks the Top 40 in FG accuracy for his career. Yes, he ranks #10 all time in made field goals, but looking at the top scoring kickers they were mostly 4th-7th round picks or completely undrafted. 

The other thing is he never really was that outstanding of a kicker. IIRC, he's made one Pro Bowl. IMO, he did not ever provide that much of an advantage in the kicking game. 

We'll never know who the Raiders could have selected with that first round pick. Whether he would have been a HOFer or a complete bust is mostly irrelevant. For the production they got from Seabass, they didn't need to burn a first round pick. 

The other thing not being mentioned is that Oakland has regularly paid him at or near the top in terms of salary. IMO, that only compounded things. In this day and age, paying $4 million a year for an average kicker seems like a waste. Put another way, for a team that has been lackluster on offense and defense for awhile, it seems like Oakland really had no need to have the highest paid punter and kicker in the league. 

Granted, at the time Seabass was drafted, OAK was a contender and perhaps they thought he would be the one that pushed them over the top, but again, there was a chance they could have had an impact starter at a more important position. 
Click to expand...
Good post. Generally agree with first bolded part.

As far as the second, think that is more hindsight, as when you think of the best kicker in the NFL over the last decade, Viniateri come readily to mind more easily. But Seabass had a lot of juice coming out of college, for both the accolades (back-to-back Lou Groza awards -- still the only K to do this -- and becoming Miami's 3rd top all time scorer in just three years) and for the strength of his leg. I remember him howitzer-ing kickoffs through the uprights regularly. Sure, he was only in one Pro Bowl, but he set a record in that game, too (most successful XPs in a Pro Bowl Game).

His accuracy was never top notch (especially early in his career), but what other kicker in the league (and arguably ever) would you even think about trying a 76 yard FG into a stiff wind? The guy reputedly has one of the strongest legs ever on an NFL kicker, and while you may not buy the longevity argument -- admit that it, too, is a 20/20 hindsight proposition -- for a team like the Raiders to not have to think about the position for over 15 years at least gave them an opportunity to spend picks and FA dollars elsewhere. There is some value in that proposition, if not first round value.

And when I look at the list of those names drafted around him? Sure Alexander is there, but in terms of the others, it's not as if we passed up another Megatron. Bulluck has the same number of Pro Bowl games as Seabass.

Another item -- I believe there are only 3 kickers in the HoF -- Blanda, Lou Groza, and Jan Stenerud.

Stenerud, the last guy in, made 373 FG with a 66.8% accuracy rating (not sure they charted these stats for Blanda and Groza's day)

Seabass has 388 and an 80.2% accuracy record.

Not saying the guy is a lock for the Hall, or that there aren't other kickers playing today who won't get in. But Seabass' stats and longevity seem to put him in the running, so I ask you: is a HoF player (even at K) worth a first round pick?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyLayne
**MNF Lions at 49ers** (+3.5, 50.5) 8:15
10 11 12
Replies
550
Views
6K
Neil Beaufort Zod
Neil Beaufort Zod
Ministry of Pain
10+ Offensive Linemen projected 1st Round '24 Draft...they ain't all gonna make it
Replies
9
Views
480
QuizGuy66
QuizGuy66
doeseatplace
Jags 2025--Focus on "raising the floor of this football team." To 5 wins?
2
Replies
87
Views
3K
IHEARTFF
I

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top