I agree with removing Gould was the right move but his replacement was never the right move.
And again I will say posters need to check the stats before posting.
Robbie is currently 29/31 on FGs since we released him. That's just shy of a 94% hit rate. And how has Barth done since he arrived?
That would be 29/39 for a whopping 74% hit rate. Of course he was cheaper but then you usually get what you pay for.
But he wasn't 94% when he was cut he was 84% over his last 3 years, which isn't worth keeping; especially when you consider how much he was getting paid. Barf in his prev three years before coming to Chicago was 89%. So better then Gould's; not to mention Goulds xp misses and lack of leg on kickoffs, and his always inability to do an onside kick
And again I will say posters need to check the stats before posting.
Robbie is currently 29/31 on FGs since we released him. That's just shy of a 94% hit rate. And how has Barth done since he arrived?
That would be 29/39 for a whopping 74% hit rate. Of course he was cheaper but then you usually get what you pay for.
But he wasn't 94% when he was cut he was 84% over his last 3 years, which isn't worth keeping; especially when you consider how much he was getting paid. Barf in his prev three years before coming to Chicago was 89%. So better then Gould's; not to mention Goulds xp misses and lack of leg on kickoffs, and his always inability to do an onside kick
I’m with Ric on this one. Gould has had a nice resurgence in his career but he wasn’t playing that way when he was released.
I don’t blame Pace at all for moving on from a player who was declining and overpaid. Failing to find an adequate replacement is another thing of course.
I guess the part you're all missing is that he recovered from that slump and since then he's been about the most accurate PK in the NFL. What happened prior to all this was history when he was released. SINCE we released him he's been an ace but an ace for two other teams and instead we had a PK who was an ass.
Let's look at another example. Manning was released by Indy following his neck injury and a decline in his play. Denver signed him. Who did he take to two SBs, Indy or Denver? Players have slumps. Especially kickers but a vet like Robbie worked those issues out and recovered. So again, who would you all have rather had these past two years, Robbie or Barth?
How is it we can post complaining about other players on offense we've released or traded without replacing their production and yet here some of you are trying to use reverse logic? If Robbie never recovered then you're right. He was done. But that's not what happened and as it turns out he became ultra effective and again we let a productive player go.
I really don't know how to present it much clearer than that but if you all want to use your reverse logic to justify it that's up to you. I'm just gonna stick with the facts as they are.
I guess the part you're all missing is that he recovered from that slump and since then he's been about the most accurate PK in the NFL. What happened prior to all this was history when he was released. SINCE we released him he's been an ace but an ace for two other teams and instead we had a PK who was an ass.
Let's look at another example. Manning was released by Indy following his neck injury and a decline in his play. Denver signed him. Who did he take to two SBs, Indy or Denver? Players have slumps. Especially kickers but a vet like Robbie worked those issues out and recovered. So again, who would you all have rather had these past two years, Robbie or Barth?
How is it we can post complaining about other players on offense we've released or traded without replacing their production and yet here some of you are trying to use reverse logic? If Robbie never recovered then you're right. He was done. But that's not what happened and as it turns out he became ultra effective and again we let a productive player go.
I really don't know how to present it much clearer than that but if you all want to use your reverse logic to justify it that's up to you. I'm just gonna stick with the facts as they are.
Exactly. Part of what makes a good evaluation as well a good business decision is to be able to evaluate and know whether a player is still a good player or whether his skills have deteriorated and you should move on. This is like a Julius Peppers thing. Peppers was not done, but our crack coaching staff felt he was.
Same here. It is not a perfect science, but Gould was far from done. We seemed not to be able to see that. All this stuff about he was not doing well are excuses. Yes, he was not doing well. That is only half the story. The other part of the story is -- is he still worth keeping? The answer should have been a yes. Now this does get complicated by his compensation. He was making too much for what his production was at the time. But how many times does a rusher have a slump? Often. They don't get cut right away. Normally they get to try to come out of it. Was Gould offered some sort of lesser compensation with maybe some incentives and he turned it down? Was he just let go?
I don't know the answer to either of those questions and of course they are relevant. From what I see though, Fox is not good at player evaluation and he has "his guys". Now I don't like Fox much, so maybe I am fabricating this, but to me Gould slumped and he had his boy in the wings and never really did a true risk assessment on Gould. That has been his thing. Pretty impulsive and rash player decisions.
I guess the part you're all missing is that he recovered from that slump and since then he's been about the most accurate PK in the NFL. What happened prior to all this was history when he was released. SINCE we released him he's been an ace but an ace for two other teams and instead we had a PK who was an ass.
Let's look at another example. Manning was released by Indy following his neck injury and a decline in his play. Denver signed him. Who did he take to two SBs, Indy or Denver? Players have slumps. Especially kickers but a vet like Robbie worked those issues out and recovered. So again, who would you all have rather had these past two years, Robbie or Barth?
How is it we can post complaining about other players on offense we've released or traded without replacing their production and yet here some of you are trying to use reverse logic? If Robbie never recovered then you're right. He was done. But that's not what happened and as it turns out he became ultra effective and again we let a productive player go.
I really don't know how to present it much clearer than that but if you all want to use your reverse logic to justify it that's up to you. I'm just gonna stick with the facts as they are.
Exactly. Part of what makes a good evaluation as well a good business decision is to be able to evaluate and know whether a player is still a good player or whether his skills have deteriorated and you should move on. This is like a Julius Peppers thing. Peppers was not done, but our crack coaching staff felt he was.
Same here. It is not a perfect science, but Gould was far from done. We seemed not to be able to see that. All this stuff about he was not doing well are excuses. Yes, he was not doing well. That is only half the story. The other part of the story is -- is he still worth keeping? The answer should have been a yes. Now this does get complicated by his compensation. He was making too much for what his production was at the time. But how many times does a rusher have a slump? Often. They don't get cut right away. Normally they get to try to come out of it. Was Gould offered some sort of lesser compensation with maybe some incentives and he turned it down? Was he just let go?
I don't know the answer to either of those questions and of course they are relevant. From what I see though, Fox is not good at player evaluation and he has "his guys". Now I don't like Fox much, so maybe I am fabricating this, but to me Gould slumped and he had his boy in the wings and never really did a true risk assessment on Gould. That has been his thing. Pretty impulsive and rash player decisions.
Peppers was done in a 4-3 in Chicago. He stated when he signed w/GB he had wanted to play in a 3-4 for a long time.
There is a huge difference in kicking in Soldier field then in Levi stadium.
I guess the part you're all missing is that he recovered from that slump and since then he's been about the most accurate PK in the NFL. What happened prior to all this was history when he was released. SINCE we released him he's been an ace but an ace for two other teams and instead we had a PK who was an ass.
Let's look at another example. Manning was released by Indy following his neck injury and a decline in his play. Denver signed him. Who did he take to two SBs, Indy or Denver? Players have slumps. Especially kickers but a vet like Robbie worked those issues out and recovered. So again, who would you all have rather had these past two years, Robbie or Barth?
How is it we can post complaining about other players on offense we've released or traded without replacing their production and yet here some of you are trying to use reverse logic? If Robbie never recovered then you're right. He was done. But that's not what happened and as it turns out he became ultra effective and again we let a productive player go.
I really don't know how to present it much clearer than that but if you all want to use your reverse logic to justify it that's up to you. I'm just gonna stick with the facts as they are.
There is a little apples vs oranges in your argument.
Robbie's FG percentage is up over his last couple of years at the Bears and he ranks something like 5th in the NFL as far as FG % goes. But his XP % is still down, SF ranks 19th on the NFL. As I recall he was let go because he was expensive and was struggling in two areas. First he was struggling with the new XP distance and he was missing longer FGs (like over 45 or 46 yds). All of that is still true. His long field goal percentage is around 50% this year.
I'm my mind the biggest thing is Robbie is no longer kicking in Soldier Field. IMO we are one of the worst places in the NFL for a PK. All things being equal, I would expect a PK to have better stats kicking off the turf at the Meadowlands or at Levi's Stadium than at Soldier Field.
My guess is that Robbie would be struggling if he were kicking for us right now. At the time the Bears let Gould go, I thought it was the right thing to do and still do. Now the selection of Barth is another issue.
We need an exceptionally good PK here in Chicago because of the field and the weather. IMO unless Santos has made a totally complete recovery, we likely didn't get much of an upgrade at PK. So we will have to make a new PK a priority in the off-season.
I guess the part you're all missing is that he recovered from that slump and since then he's been about the most accurate PK in the NFL. What happened prior to all this was history when he was released. SINCE we released him he's been an ace but an ace for two other teams and instead we had a PK who was an ass.
Let's look at another example. Manning was released by Indy following his neck injury and a decline in his play. Denver signed him. Who did he take to two SBs, Indy or Denver? Players have slumps. Especially kickers but a vet like Robbie worked those issues out and recovered. So again, who would you all have rather had these past two years, Robbie or Barth?
How is it we can post complaining about other players on offense we've released or traded without replacing their production and yet here some of you are trying to use reverse logic? If Robbie never recovered then you're right. He was done. But that's not what happened and as it turns out he became ultra effective and again we let a productive player go.
I really don't know how to present it much clearer than that but if you all want to use your reverse logic to justify it that's up to you. I'm just gonna stick with the facts as they are.
There is a little apples vs oranges in your argument.
Robbie's FG percentage is up over his last couple of years at the Bears and he ranks something like 5th in the NFL as far as FG % goes. But his XP % is still down, SF ranks 19th on the NFL. As I recall he was let go because he was expensive and was struggling in two areas. First he was struggling with the new XP distance and he was missing longer FGs (like over 45 or 46 yds). All of that is still true. His long field goal percentage is around 50% this year.
I'm my mind the biggest thing is Robbie is no longer kicking in Soldier Field. IMO we are one of the worst places in the NFL for a PK. All things being equal, I would expect a PK to have better stats kicking off the turf at the Meadowlands or at Levi's Stadium than at Soldier Field.
My guess is that Robbie would be struggling if he were kicking for us right now. At the time the Bears let Gould go, I thought it was the right thing to do and still do. Now the selection of Barth is another issue.
We need an exceptionally good PK here in Chicago because of the field and the weather. IMO unless Santos has made a totally complete recovery, we likely didn't get much of an upgrade at PK. So we will have to make a new PK a priority in the off-season.
Sorry Chuck, not buying the weather deal. It's cold and windy in NY too and SF isn't all that much different. Just not as cold at the extremes but in the fall it's often colder there than Chicago. And turf type would not make a difference either. Any good kicker who practices on both as Robbie did can adjust for both. He did practice indoors at Halas Hall.
To even make a statement like I bold faced is pure conjecture. It's a personal opinion and not supported by fact so like all of the others I have to reject it. The only issue I can agree to is the compensation one and we could have made an offer to reduce that but to the best of my knowledge we never did. Since all he made in NY was a vet minimum it's possible they could have worked something out. Did they even try? Even in SF he's only making $2 mil. I'd love to have him at that price.
Robbie has missed one XP this season (15/16) while Barth is 17/17. He's 19/21 (93.8%) on FGs vs 11/16 (68.8%) for Barth. I'll happily concede that 1 point for a missed XP if you'll give me the 12 points more Barth would have gotten us if he went 15/16 (93.8%) on FGs. Gould has missed only one FG from beyond 40 yards and he's 2/2 over 50. Barth has missed 4 kicks over 40 yards and he's 1/2 over 50.
Last year Robbie was 100% on FG (10/10) whereas Barth was 73.8% (18/23) and missed at least one from every distance and two from over 50. The only area where Barth was better was XP. He only missed 1. Robbie missed 3. So again I'll give you those 2 points if you'll give me back the 15 points Barth left on the field with 5 misses. It's not apples to oranges at all Chuck. Robbie is and always has been a better PK. Those are the facts and that's all I'm goin' by. Other than that it's all a matter or personal opinion laced with a whole lot of "yeah buts". Look for yourself.
There is a little apples vs oranges in your argument.
Robbie's FG percentage is up over his last couple of years at the Bears and he ranks something like 5th in the NFL as far as FG % goes. But his XP % is still down, SF ranks 19th on the NFL. As I recall he was let go because he was expensive and was struggling in two areas. First he was struggling with the new XP distance and he was missing longer FGs (like over 45 or 46 yds). All of that is still true. His long field goal percentage is around 50% this year.
I'm my mind the biggest thing is Robbie is no longer kicking in Soldier Field. IMO we are one of the worst places in the NFL for a PK. All things being equal, I would expect a PK to have better stats kicking off the turf at the Meadowlands or at Levi's Stadium than at Soldier Field.
My guess is that Robbie would be struggling if he were kicking for us right now. At the time the Bears let Gould go, I thought it was the right thing to do and still do. Now the selection of Barth is another issue.
We need an exceptionally good PK here in Chicago because of the field and the weather. IMO unless Santos has made a totally complete recovery, we likely didn't get much of an upgrade at PK. So we will have to make a new PK a priority in the off-season.
Sorry Chuck, not buying the weather deal. It's cold and windy in NY too and SF isn't all that much different. Just not as cold at the extremes but in the fall it's often colder there than Chicago. And turf type would not make a difference either. Any good kicker who practices on both as Robbie did can adjust for both. He did practice indoors at Halas Hall.
To even make a statement like I bold faced is pure conjecture. It's a personal opinion and not supported by fact so like all of the others I have to reject it. The only issue I can agree to is the compensation one and we could have made an offer to reduce that but to the best of my knowledge we never did. Since all he made in NY was a vet minimum it's possible they could have worked something out. Did they even try? Even in SF he's only making $2 mil. I'd love to have him at that price.
Robbie has missed one XP this season (15/16) while Barth is 17/17. He's 19/21 (93.8%) on FGs vs 11/16 (68.8%) for Barth. I'll happily concede that 1 point for a missed XP if you'll give me the 12 points more Barth would have gotten us if he went 15/16 (93.8%) on FGs. Gould has missed only one FG from beyond 40 yards and he's 2/2 over 50. Barth has missed 4 kicks over 40 yards and he's 1/2 over 50.
Last year Robbie was 100% on FG (10/10) whereas Barth was 73.8% (18/23) and missed at least one from every distance and two from over 50. The only area where Barth was better was XP. He only missed 1. Robbie missed 3. So again I'll give you those 2 points if you'll give me back the 15 points Barth left on the field with 5 misses. It's not apples to oranges at all Chuck. Robbie is and always has been a better PK. Those are the facts and that's all I'm goin' by. Other than that it's all a matter or personal opinion laced with a whole lot of "yeah buts". Look for yourself.
It is a 4 year old study done by MIT. One take away is obvious, teams in the northern part of the US that play outside, on grass are the hardest for kickers and those that play in the better weather or indoors are the easiest.
Sorry Chuck, not buying the weather deal. It's cold and windy in NY too and SF isn't all that much different. Just not as cold at the extremes but in the fall it's often colder there than Chicago. And turf type would not make a difference either. Any good kicker who practices on both as Robbie did can adjust for both. He did practice indoors at Halas Hall.
To even make a statement like I bold faced is pure conjecture. It's a personal opinion and not supported by fact so like all of the others I have to reject it. The only issue I can agree to is the compensation one and we could have made an offer to reduce that but to the best of my knowledge we never did. Since all he made in NY was a vet minimum it's possible they could have worked something out. Did they even try? Even in SF he's only making $2 mil. I'd love to have him at that price.
Robbie has missed one XP this season (15/16) while Barth is 17/17. He's 19/21 (93.8%) on FGs vs 11/16 (68.8%) for Barth. I'll happily concede that 1 point for a missed XP if you'll give me the 12 points more Barth would have gotten us if he went 15/16 (93.8%) on FGs. Gould has missed only one FG from beyond 40 yards and he's 2/2 over 50. Barth has missed 4 kicks over 40 yards and he's 1/2 over 50.
Last year Robbie was 100% on FG (10/10) whereas Barth was 73.8% (18/23) and missed at least one from every distance and two from over 50. The only area where Barth was better was XP. He only missed 1. Robbie missed 3. So again I'll give you those 2 points if you'll give me back the 15 points Barth left on the field with 5 misses. It's not apples to oranges at all Chuck. Robbie is and always has been a better PK. Those are the facts and that's all I'm goin' by. Other than that it's all a matter or personal opinion laced with a whole lot of "yeah buts". Look for yourself.
It is a 4 year old study done by MIT. One take away is obvious, teams in the northern part of the US that play outside, on grass are the hardest for kickers and those that play in the better weather or indoors are the easiest.
I did Chuck. But it leaves off at #6 and then lists the bests places to kick. What if NY and SF are #7 and #8? Would that make a difference? So this info is incomplete for anyone's purposes because we don't know where NY and SF rank and I really don't care. SF is a hybrid surface much like GB and Denver have. MetLife is artificial. Where are any stats that prove all PKs who kick on turf are more accurate than those who kick on natural grass, or hybrid surfaces?
NY and Chicago are northern teams and while SF is more temperate at the extremes there are many days when it's colder, wetter, and windier than Chicago especially in the fall when storms coming rolling in. So again it's mostly conjecture. PKs can adjust to their conditions or at least good one can. Robbie has and Barth has not. Even at Soldier Field Gould has been more accurate. End of story.
But all of this mean jack shit when you look at the respective stats of the two. Robbie is still the better PK and he established that much even BEFORE he left Chicago. What team or teams is Connor Barth the all time leading scorer for?
So.....while you all are busy trying to excuse us for once again letting a productive scorer leave while getting zilch in return I'm not. And at my house my fact based opinions count more than the rest of yours so we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. OK?
It is a 4 year old study done by MIT. One take away is obvious, teams in the northern part of the US that play outside, on grass are the hardest for kickers and those that play in the better weather or indoors are the easiest.
I did Chuck. But it leaves off at #6 and then lists the bests places to kick. What if NY and SF are #7 and #8? Would that make a difference? So this info is incomplete for anyone's purposes because we don't know where NY and SF rank and I really don't care. SF is a hybrid surface much like GB and Denver have. MetLife is artificial. Where are any stats that prove all PKs who kick on turf are more accurate than those who kick on natural grass, or hybrid surfaces?
NY and Chicago are northern teams and while SF is more temperate at the extremes there are many days when it's colder, wetter, and windier than Chicago especially in the fall when storms coming rolling in. So again it's mostly conjecture. PKs can adjust to their conditions or at least good one can. Robbie has and Barth has not. Even at Soldier Field Gould has been more accurate. End of story.
But all of this mean jack shit when you look at the respective stats of the two. Robbie is still the better PK and he established that much even BEFORE he left Chicago. What team or teams is Connor Barth the all time leading scorer for?
So.....while you all are busy trying to excuse us for once again letting a productive scorer leave while getting zilch in return I'm not. And at my house my fact based opinions count more than the rest of yours so we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. OK?
You should have paged down to the last page (page 14) where all of the stadiums are listed and not stop at the first time they are mentioned (page 4).