Should have been done a few years ago. Dude's making way to much cash for what he's been the last few years. If nothing else he should have had competition brought in.
We could debate all week about Robbie's contract. It was just one more hold over gift from Phil Emery but none of us balked at it when it was signed so we have to let that go. Let's focus on his kicking and not his paychecks.
Whether or not he deserved $4 mil or so this year is now a moot point. Now we're spending far less on a PK but we're also getting less for our money. Barth is not an upgrade over Robbie Gould and my concern is when the cold weather and the lakefront winds come rolling in later this fall we may well find out just how much of a downgrade Barth really is.
We do but the problem with his replacement is that he's marginally worse than Robbie has been over the past 5 or six years so other than some cash and cap space what have we gained?
To be honest I'd trust Robbie Gould to work out his issue before I'd trust Connor Barth to nail game winning FGs in Soldier Field in November and December but apparently John Fox doesn't and he's the HC not me.
Soul, you talked about comparing them, but lets not compare last 6y, lets compare last 2y, thats enough to have a proper argument, because Robbie, like others is not getting younger, and in his case better
I won't compare two because it's too short of a window to compare stats. You can if you like but I use stats every day of my life to analyze financial issues and investments and there are not enough data points for accuracy using just 2014 and 2015.
On top of that you'd have two outliers to consider. One for each. 2014 is the single worst year of Robbie's career in which he was injured and missed four games and it was the single best year in Barth's career yet he only played in 5 games and had just 16 attempts that year. So we'd have to throw one of the last two years out anyway as not being useful for statistical accuracy.
What alternative should I use then? Four years? Fours years and take out 2014 altogether?
Soul, you talked about comparing them, but lets not compare last 6y, lets compare last 2y, thats enough to have a proper argument, because Robbie, like others is not getting younger, and in his case better
I won't compare two because it's too short of a window to compare stats. You can if you like but I use stats every day of my life to analyze financial issues and investments and there are not enough data points for accuracy using just 2014 and 2015.
On top of that you'd have two outliers to consider. One for each. 2014 is the single worst year of Robbie's career in which he was injured and missed four games and it was the single best year in Barth's career yet he only played in 5 games and had just 16 attempts that year. So we'd have to throw one of the last two years out anyway as not being useful for statistical accuracy.
What alternative should I use then? Four years? Fours years and take out 2014 altogether?
I have absolutely no idea about Barth... I just saw Robbie failing lately, and it looks to me that someone who has spotted that too had a power to let him go... To be honest, I wouldnt have let him go this year, but if trend had continued I would def. wave goodbye in a year from now
End of an Era for sure. He has some Bears records.
His time was over, will be interesting to see if we will draft a new Kicker in Round 5/6/7
I'm really surprised we didn't use a 7th on one this year or at least bring a UDFA to camp. It was pretty clear after two seasons of decline that Gould was overpaid, if not past his prime.
I won't compare two because it's too short of a window to compare stats. You can if you like but I use stats every day of my life to analyze financial issues and investments and there are not enough data points for accuracy using just 2014 and 2015.
On top of that you'd have two outliers to consider. One for each. 2014 is the single worst year of Robbie's career in which he was injured and missed four games and it was the single best year in Barth's career yet he only played in 5 games and had just 16 attempts that year. So we'd have to throw one of the last two years out anyway as not being useful for statistical accuracy.
What alternative should I use then? Four years? Fours years and take out 2014 altogether?
I have absolutely no idea about Barth... I just saw Robbie failing lately, and it looks to me that someone who has spotted that too had a power to let him go... To be honest, I wouldnt have let him go this year, but if trend had continued I would def. wave goodbye in a year from now
Well if we want to compare the very latest stats we have from the preseason then we can do that.
Robbie's KO's averaged 67.2 yds vs 64.0 for Barth. So the leg power advantage would seem to go to Robbie here and that's been an issue some have griped about.
Barth only attempted one XP and made it in addition to two FGs made out of two attempts; a 33 and a 40 yarder.
Robbie attempted 3 XPs made one, missed one, had one blocked. He attempted 6 FGs and made 5 of them, his longest was a 43 yarder and I can't recall the exact yardage of the miss but it was over 45 yards if I recall correctly. He was 3 for 3 on FGs in the Cleveland game missed one XP and had one blocked.
On the basis of all this I'd still have to give Robbie and edge over Barth or looking at it differently then Robbie certainly didn't perform poorly enough to lose his job to Connor Barth if this had been a preseason competition between the two.
I think the bottom line here at least to me is this was a decision based entirely on saving cash and cap dollars neither of which was all that critical. We had ample cap space to sign Sitton even after having extended Long's deal if the cap hits were apportioned well but I also suspect Pace front loaded them because he had around $20 mil of cap space so all of that was his decision not what he was forced to do and for the most part Robbie was as much a cap casualty as he was released due to his sub par performance.
I could live with the decision a whole lot easier had Robbie lost a competition to a better PK but that isn't what happened and IMHO Connor Barth is not a better option than Robbie Gould. Just a cheaper one and sometimes you get what you pay for. We'll see.
End of an Era for sure. He has some Bears records.
His time was over, will be interesting to see if we will draft a new Kicker in Round 5/6/7
I'm really surprised we didn't use a 7th on one this year or at least bring a UDFA to camp. It was pretty clear after two seasons of decline that Gould was overpaid, if not past his prime.
Even if we accept that $4 mil or so was too much based on his recent performance does that justify signing a PK whose no better and maybe not even as good? Remember we haven't seen Barth attempt a 50 yard plus FG in late November with a 20 mph cross wind blowing in SF. Robbie was pretty good at making those.
Even if we accept that Robbie's days of being an exceptional kicker are over and at best he's average to slightly above average we just signed a guy to replace him whose very average. So how did getting rid of Gould make us a better team? There have been a whole lot of opinions tossed out in this thread that aren't based on any facts besides Robbie's paycheck.
Well I think my own feelings about it have been summed up pretty well by others and belli in particular. I guess it proves that no ones job is safe in the NFL when you're being paid $4 to do it if you fall short of expectations and there's no doubt that two missed PATs and a couple of missed FGs in preseason were less than expected of a vet like Robbie.
But this was a pretty cold move on the part of Fox and Pace and one that screams they'd completely lost their faith in him. IMHO it happened very quickly following the last game too or I believe they would have brought in other PKs and held a competition in camp. I get it but at the same time I also see it as a very knee jerk reaction and one that won't be a popular move in the minds of many Bears fans me included. I'm all for improving at any position but this move didn't improve a damn thing but the Bears bank balance.
My biggest gripe comes from the fact that historically Connor Barth is no better on kickoffs and has been less accurate than Robbie Gould has been over six years of his career. So what have we gained here? I'd say nothing except maybe $3.5 mil or so of cap space we didn't really need at the moment anyway and more cash in bank account which Ted Phillips always appreciates. So is this all about bringing in a PK who kicked well for just one year for Fox in Denver and but otherwise has been very average and been a warm weather PK his entire career?
We all have our opinions but based on some pure stats based fact this decision looks pretty ****ed to me.
PS: If anyone doubts their comparative stats I'd be happy to post them for everyone. Just ask!
I am guessing you have never been to Colorado between October and April. Denver is the extact opposite of a low wind, warm weather city.
Well I think my own feelings about it have been summed up pretty well by others and belli in particular. I guess it proves that no ones job is safe in the NFL when you're being paid $4 to do it if you fall short of expectations and there's no doubt that two missed PATs and a couple of missed FGs in preseason were less than expected of a vet like Robbie.
But this was a pretty cold move on the part of Fox and Pace and one that screams they'd completely lost their faith in him. IMHO it happened very quickly following the last game too or I believe they would have brought in other PKs and held a competition in camp. I get it but at the same time I also see it as a very knee jerk reaction and one that won't be a popular move in the minds of many Bears fans me included. I'm all for improving at any position but this move didn't improve a damn thing but the Bears bank balance.
My biggest gripe comes from the fact that historically Connor Barth is no better on kickoffs and has been less accurate than Robbie Gould has been over six years of his career. So what have we gained here? I'd say nothing except maybe $3.5 mil or so of cap space we didn't really need at the moment anyway and more cash in bank account which Ted Phillips always appreciates. So is this all about bringing in a PK who kicked well for just one year for Fox in Denver and but otherwise has been very average and been a warm weather PK his entire career?
We all have our opinions but based on some pure stats based fact this decision looks pretty ****ed to me.
PS: If anyone doubts their comparative stats I'd be happy to post them for everyone. Just ask!
I am guessing you have never been to Colorado between October and April. Denver is the extact opposite of a low wind, warm weather city.
Mike I hate to be the bearer of bad news here buddy or try to embarrass you because that's not my intent at all. But I actually live in Denver which makes me a virtual expert on the weather here in October, November, and December and the nine other months as well. On average it is much warmer and far less windy than the Chicago lakefront at that time of the year. It's one of the main reasons I moved here from the Midwest to begin with over 30 years ago so I have a whole lot of years to compare both climates as well.
Mile High Stadium is also a huge bowl and the field sits deep within that bowl so winds seldom have much of an effect on the kicking game like they do at Soldier Field. It's a very different environment both weather wise and the X factor of the field itself.
I've also seen Connor Barth kick here and despite our altitude and thin air his KO distance and net return yardage was much worse in 2014 than Robbie Gould's and Robbie was injured that year. Barth only kicked in 5 games in 2014 and he's no prize. He's a very average PK both in accuracy and leg strength which is why he was replaced even after he made 15 of his 16 (93.8%) attempts. He spent 2015 with warm weather Tampa Bay where his 82.1 % accuracy was lower than Gould's 84.6% and both missed one XP attempt.
All I'm saying is we didn't actually improve our PK and KO with this move. That's it.