POLL: Would you rather have #1 Kicker or Punter

[Bonez3]

The result of the other option is a low level (bottom 25%) performer.

So, if you choose kicker, you get a low level punter.

My pick is punter 8 days a week. The amount of touches in a game compared to kicker and the overall yardage differential that can be accomplished is a no brainer to me. Sure, everyone remembers tyhe missed 42 yarder to cost team the game. But,through the course of the season more wins will ride on the foot of the punter.

Vote and reply

[pjfootballer]

I voted kicker because I want the points. The punter won't have 6-10 opportunities to down the ball inside the 20. Maybe once or twice a game. I do like the field position, but I want a kicker who can get me points.

[redskinss]

honestly i dont even see how its close. obviously its important to have a good punter for field position but given the choice i gotta go with kicker all day.

if a punter fails to pin a team deep your defense can still bail you out but if a kicker is shanking game winners theres nothing you can do to recover from that.

[ouvan59]

Sadly, we haven't had either in a really long time.

[braindx]

Gano won us games last year, and lost us multiple games too.

You'd rather have a guy who can actually win you all of those games.

Mark Moseley = NFL MVP 1982

[GhostofSparta]

As a Redskins fan, I vote for kicker for the following reasons:

-I've spent years seeing this team drive the field only to sputter in the Red Zone. And we've lost a lot of close games over the years. Yes, I'd rather have TDs, but as seen this preseason with Shayne and in years past with Gano and Suisham even a gimme FG is not guarantee for this team. I'd rather get 7 than 3 sure, but I'd rather have 3 than 0.

-Having a guy like Rocca who can coffin-corner kick it is nice, but honestly, how many times have we seen our D take the field with the opponent pinned inside the 5, only to give up a 95+ yard TD drive? All too often for me.

A punter can be a great asset with a decent defense. A kicker can win games by scoring points. I vote Kicker and it's not even close.

[Bonez3]

Don't forget, we're talking best Punter in league, so you're getting big leg and great accuracy. I think the difference between the best Punter and the bottom 25% is huge. The difference in Kickers is marginal. Even a bad kicker can make a 50 yarder, and most kickers are equal inside 40. That marginality makes the difference to me.

A good punter wins you more games than you'll ever know. A good kicker wins you a game or two and you never forget.

[pjfootballer]

Well the Raiders have had probably the best punter in the league (Lechler) and they have nothing around him. So, like I said, a punter will only get a couple of shots at a kick inside the 20. While field position has become important in today's game, it's also important to have a kicker that can hit 80% of his FGs. You narrowed it down to only game winning kicks.

[Audible_Red40]

I would take an idiot kicker who gets liquored up and runs his mouth off = points!

[kevinklein]

Wow, can't believe I'm one of the only ones who chose punter.

[Skin'Em84]

I took kicker, but it was close. A top level punter gives you a HUGE advantage in field position..having an opponent pinned inside the 20, 6 times a game? That'd be phenomenal. You'd have good field position the entirety of the game. With a good run game, and a solid defense, you have a playoff team right there.

However, gotta go with the points. As the OP stated, he'll hit 55+ yard FGs consistently. You can't pass that up. That's basically points every time you get in their territory.

[PokerPacker]

I'm going with Punter. Having seen the difference between a team with bad punters the past few seasons with Derrick Frost, Durant Brooks, and Jeremy Kapinos, having a guy who can boot the ball high and far or pin the ball inside the enemy's 5 really helps out the D. I think the number of points against prevented is greater than the number of points gained by having a kicker who can hit the long ball. Even the #1 kicker is going to be inconsistent from 50+ yards out, and when he does miss on those long kicks, that puts the other team in great field position.

[Destructis]

Always take the points.

[SonOfWashington]

Gotta go with the kicker.

[Warhead36]

Kicker for sure. I think some of you guys are overhyping Punters. I'm not saying field position isn't important but if your defense is good, than it won't matter if the opponent starts at the 5 or the 20 you're probably going to get the ball back with decent position anyway. A kicker that is money inside 50 yards is a huge asset. Once you break the 35 yard line and you know you've got 3 points in the bag you can start being a lot more aggressive offensively, it just opens up a lot of options.

Don't forget either that if you choose Punter, it means you get a bad Kicker. A bad Kicker means missed FGs which also results in big swings of field position. Those 45-50 yard FGs are usually the difference between winning and losing. I'll take the 3 points and giving the other team the ball at the 20.

[TheREALJBird]

I voted punter. Having someone who can continuously put the ball inside the 5 would do wonders for a defense, and would add stress upon the opposing offense.

[ixcuincle]

Number one kicker

[BlueinBuf]

Everyone talking about field position think about this if you have a crappy kicker that means no touchbacks on kickoffs which will most likely translate to good starting field position for your opponent. I'll take the kicker.

[DeMarco Murray 29]

Kicker by far.

We have an elite punter in McBriar. Still we suck at kicking field goals.

So easy answer for me.

[GhostofSparta]

A bad Kicker means missed FGs which also results in big swings of field position. Those 45-50 yard FGs are usually the difference between winning and losing. I'll take the 3 points and giving the other team the ball at the 20.

I think this point is being vastly overlooked. A good punter can pin a team inside the 5, but a bad kicker means a missed FG which means the other team is most likely starting outside their own 20 anyway. If you have a kicker that can't make it from the 30, other teams are starting near their own 40. That means unless you're inside the 20, you're better off punting to pin a team than trying for points. And that's a recipe for disaster. You simply can't have a kicker where you're better failing to go for it on 4th and goal from the 5 than missing a FG from inside the 10.

For comparison's sake, the difference between best and worst punter last year was about 10 yards net average. Meanwhile, Gano hit only 69% of his FGs. If he had been a top 5 kicker, making over 90% of his kicks, he would have made an addition 8.5 FGs, so round that up to 9 to put it over 90%. That's an extra 27 points, and some of those are game-winners.

To drive this home, the Redskins scored 302 points last year, and gave up 377. Add those 27 points, and it's 329 to 377. Still not that impressive. But take out the disaster that was the Eagles game, and it looks a little better: 301 points for and 318 points against.

Last year, the Redskins went through 3 punters. They totaled 89 punts for 3635 total punt yards and a net of 3048. That's 40.8 and 34.2 average respectively. The best punter last year was The best average last year was Matt McBriar with 47.9/punt the best net average was also his at 41.7. With 65 punts, McBriar averaged 4 a game. So yes, you're looking at about 30 yards of difference in field position per game. Now if you combine that with having a piss-poor kicker like Gano was statistically last year, then despite him kicking about 2 FGs a game and missing 1 of them for 7 yards, you're gaining about 23 yards of field position while sacrificing 3 PPG.

Some of you think we have the defense that can overcome losing 3 points but not 23 yards. I do no. I think our defense would be better off with points on the board while giving the opposing offense about 4 yards of a better start on each drive (assuming 23 yards is averaged out over 6 drives).

So in summation: this team already has a bottom ranked kicker. Gano can improve, and I hope to God he does. But after last year, I'd much rather have a reliable kicker who can score an extra 30 points in a season (and save 70 yards of field position all on his own by just making the damn kick) than a punter that averages 10 yards/punt better over a season.

[pjfootballer]

Steve Weatherford led the league with 42 punts inside the 20. That's a little over 2 a game. Looking at the stat page, there were only 6 punters that had 32 or more inside the 20. So most punters are averaging less than 2 per game. Not alot of chances per game. And I'd like to see them change the stats to inside the 10. starting at the 15 is not too bad. I'll take the points from a good kicker. Also, if a good kicker consistantly hits from 35-50 yards out, he can boom the kickoff out of the endzone.

[brdawk20]

Why did the Redskins ever cut David Akers? How many close games could you have won with him as your kicker?

[pjfootballer]

Why did the Redskins ever cut David Akers? How many close games could you have won with him as your kicker?

He was raw and young and it was I believe in the 1998 or 1999 season when we were actually competative and he missed a couple of kicks in the game. We signed a veteran after we cut him, but I can't remember who it was.

[thebluefood]

Really depends on what kind of team I've got. If I have a good offense and a so-so defense, I'll take the kicker. The offense will probably make it to the red zone more times than not and should they sputter when they make it there, I want to make sure I walk away with points. If I have a good defense and a crappy offense, then I'll take the punter to keep it close.

[SkinsFTW]

Redskins went to 4 Super Bowls between 82 and 91 and usually had a good/great kicker, never had an even average punter though.

I'll go with Kicker too. We'd have finished like 4-5 in 1982 without Moseley.