Re: The Chicago Bears Offseason Thread

[Handlebar McSkullet]

Gould is worth it just for that game winner againt the hawks in the playoffs.

[CubColtPacer]

I believe very, very strongly on if you feel a kicker is reliable, you should pay him top dollar. The difference between a top kicker and an also ran is only between 2-3 million dollars. If you put that 2.5 million somewhere else, the upgrade you could get at another position is simply not worth the likely downgrade at kicker, because for most positions 2.5 million doesn't buy you very much. As the cap continues to grow over the next 5 years, that 3 million becomes less and less important.

 

Gould has been one of the most accurate kickers in the league the last couple of years, the Bears offense is right in that range where they'll end up using him a good amount. It's a smart investment overall.

Edited May 13, 2008 by CubColtPacer

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

 

Gould was still the most accurate kicker in the league between 20-50 yards last year, and the Bears offense is right in that range where they'll end up using him a good amount. It's a smart investment overall.

of course you could always invest in improving the offense itself, so it doesn't have to settle for so many FG's. This deal sucks. Kickers are like MLB relievers...very volatile.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Gould was still the most accurate kicker in the league between 20-50 yards last year, and the Bears offense is right in that range where they'll end up using him a good amount. It's a smart investment overall.

of course you could always invest in improving the offense itself, so it doesn't have to settle for so many FG's. This deal sucks. Kickers are like MLB relievers...very volatile.

 

That doesn't make much of a dent in the offensive budget though, and now you've got another potential hole.

 

Gould obviously doesn't deserve to be the highest paid kicker in football. That won't last long though, just like Josh Brown's reign at the top lasted for a month or 2. In 2 years, he may no longer be in the top 5 in contracts.

 

At the same time, the kickoff thing is a big problem. That may be the reason why this turns out to be a poor deal, even with the Bears really needing him for field goals. I'll have to give that one more thought.

[jersey cubs fan]

You know i remember you saying before that he sucked like crap kicking off and i was like 'he aint that bad' but when you said that then i investigated the stats and he does indeed suck...like league worst or almost worst. But yes his FG% is good and thats weighs more to me but $ per $ this is high. With the Bears defense im not upset they dont go for long field goals, i prefer the opposing offense to work their way down the field, so im not to strongly opposed to his lack of FG length.

 

That's the point though, when you never attempt field goals past 48 yards, it's kind of easy to keep your % up. That being said, he's been in the league 3 years and has only had a good % in one of those 3. In 2005 and 2007 he was completely unimpressive.

 

I don't have a problem with the strategy of not attempting really long field goals. I do have a problem paying a guy who can't kick them the most money of any kicker in the league.

[jersey cubs fan]

I believe very, very strongly on if you feel a kicker is reliable, you should pay him top dollar. The difference between a top kicker and an also ran is only between 2-3 million dollars. If you put that 2.5 million somewhere else, the upgrade you could get at another position is simply not worth the likely downgrade at kicker, because for most positions 2.5 million doesn't buy you very much. As the cap continues to grow over the next 5 years, that 3 million becomes less and less important.

 

Gould has been one of the most accurate kickers in the league the last couple of years, the Bears offense is right in that range where they'll end up using him a good amount. It's a smart investment overall.

 

He was only among the most accurate in 2006, and the only reason his percentage is high is because he never even attempts long ones. He's a high percentage kicker on chip shots and extra points. That's dime a dozen stuff right there.

[Chocolate Milk]

I like the "Highest Paid Kicker in NFL history" shtick. This is starting to lose it's edge when every new free agent signing makes that player the highest paid player at his position in the history of the NFL. The salary cap is going up significantly every year. This shouldn't be a surprise. It's not like the Bears think he's the best kicker in the history of the NFL.

[jersey cubs fan]

I like the "Highest Paid Kicker in NFL history" shtick. This is starting to lose it's edge when every new free agent signing makes that player the highest paid player at his position in the history of the NFL. The salary cap is going up significantly every year. This shouldn't be a surprise. It's not like the Bears think he's the best kicker in the history of the NFL.

 

Doesn't matter. He's not even close to the best kicker in the NFL now and never should have been close to the highest paid. Whether that lasts a week or a season is inconsequential. It's irresponsible cap management and bad business. For a team that talks about prioritizing contracts and paying their own, it's absurd that they reward a mediocre kicker who skipped voluntary workouts with an inflated contract while they have meaningful players in need of deals.

[Soul]

I like the "Highest Paid Kicker in NFL history" shtick. This is starting to lose it's edge when every new free agent signing makes that player the highest paid player at his position in the history of the NFL. The salary cap is going up significantly every year. This shouldn't be a surprise. It's not like the Bears think he's the best kicker in the history of the NFL.

 

Doesn't matter. He's not even close to the best kicker in the NFL now and never should have been close to the highest paid. Whether that lasts a week or a season is inconsequential. It's irresponsible cap management and bad business. For a team that talks about prioritizing contracts and paying their own, it's absurd that they reward a mediocre kicker who skipped voluntary workouts with an inflated contract while they have meaningful players in need of deals.

 

I know. I can't figure it. Sometimes these contracts come out of the blue like this and it's......HUH?

 

What, will Angelo argue that Gould wouldn't have signed for less? No way he can make that argument. I'm darn near certain he would have been willing to sign for money less than this, and been perfectly happy. And since he's clearly not the best kicker in the NFL (though I still like him), I can't understand why??

 

It's the nonsensical things like this that make me take a step back on Angelo sometimes. I realize he's done good things, but still.

[SpongeWorthy]

I like the "Highest Paid Kicker in NFL history" shtick. This is starting to lose it's edge when every new free agent signing makes that player the highest paid player at his position in the history of the NFL. The salary cap is going up significantly every year. This shouldn't be a surprise. It's not like the Bears think he's the best kicker in the history of the NFL.

 

Doesn't matter. He's not even close to the best kicker in the NFL now and never should have been close to the highest paid. Whether that lasts a week or a season is inconsequential. It's irresponsible cap management and bad business. For a team that talks about prioritizing contracts and paying their own, it's absurd that they reward a mediocre kicker who skipped voluntary workouts with an inflated contract while they have meaningful players in need of deals.

 

He most certainly is close to the best kicker in the NFL. Maybe our coverage unit is just that good but his kickoffs haven't really hurt us and his FG kicking has been excellent. Among the best in the league over the last two years.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst.php

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst2006.php

 

Where Gould is involved, our kicking game has been pretty much undeniably excellent over the last two seasons.

 

FO measures FG efficiency/effectiveness based on the percentage of attempts that are successful from that distance and adjusted for field and weather conditions.

 

If you want to argue about Gould's contract in terms of an opportunity cost with respect to other needs, that's fine. Saying he's mediocre simply isn't valid. Personally I think the whole "highest paid in the leauge" angle is being overblown in light of an ever increasing salary cap and the fact that he's pretty damn good.

Edited May 13, 2008 by SpongeWorthy

[CubColtPacer]

I believe very, very strongly on if you feel a kicker is reliable, you should pay him top dollar. The difference between a top kicker and an also ran is only between 2-3 million dollars. If you put that 2.5 million somewhere else, the upgrade you could get at another position is simply not worth the likely downgrade at kicker, because for most positions 2.5 million doesn't buy you very much. As the cap continues to grow over the next 5 years, that 3 million becomes less and less important.

 

Gould has been one of the most accurate kickers in the league the last couple of years, the Bears offense is right in that range where they'll end up using him a good amount. It's a smart investment overall.

 

He was only among the most accurate in 2006, and the only reason his percentage is high is because he never even attempts long ones. He's a high percentage kicker on chip shots and extra points. That's dime a dozen stuff right there.

 

Gould doesn't kick a lot of chip shots (35 yards and less). He's way down the list in the 30 yards or less categories.

 

He's 24 out of 28 the last 2 years on kicks between 40 and 49 yards (12 out of 14 each year). That's the most attempts in the entire league from that distance. Gould connected at a 85.7% rate from that distance each of those years, while league average was only 74.2 in 2007 (I didn't take time to calculate league average for 2006).

 

And you should be happy he doesn't kick a lot from 50+. Those kicks are really bad bets, and shouldn't be used for anything but buzzer beating situations or any situation where you absolutely need a field goal to win or tie.

[CubColtPacer]

I like the "Highest Paid Kicker in NFL history" shtick. This is starting to lose it's edge when every new free agent signing makes that player the highest paid player at his position in the history of the NFL. The salary cap is going up significantly every year. This shouldn't be a surprise. It's not like the Bears think he's the best kicker in the history of the NFL.

 

Doesn't matter. He's not even close to the best kicker in the NFL now and never should have been close to the highest paid. Whether that lasts a week or a season is inconsequential. It's irresponsible cap management and bad business. For a team that talks about prioritizing contracts and paying their own, it's absurd that they reward a mediocre kicker who skipped voluntary workouts with an inflated contract while they have meaningful players in need of deals.

 

He most certainly is close to the best kicker in the NFL. Maybe our coverage unit is just that good but his kickoffs haven't really hurt us and his FG kicking has been excellent. Among the best in the league over the last two years.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst.php

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst2006.php

 

Where Gould is involved, our kicking game has been pretty much undeniably excellent over the last two seasons.

 

FO measures FG efficiency/effectiveness based on the percentage of attempts that are successful from that distance and adjusted for field and weather conditions.

 

If you want to argue about Gould's contract in terms of an opportunity cost with respect to other needs, that's fine. Saying he's mediocre simply isn't valid. Personally I think the whole "highest paid in the leauge" angle is being overblown in light of an ever increasing salary cap and the fact that he's pretty damn good.

 

Yup, he was helped by a little bit of down year in kicking overall last year. Taking a quick look at the numbers, it looks like he finished 3rd in field goal effectiveness both years.

[tfarks]

I might have just not paid any attention and missed the post but how much of this is actually guaranteed? This contract might be heavily incentive laden and he might only be paid middle of the road which seems plenty fair to me.

[jersey cubs fan]

I might have just not paid any attention and missed the post but how much of this is actually guaranteed? This contract might be heavily incentive laden and he might only be paid middle of the road which seems plenty fair to me.

 

I believe he's guaranteed about $4.5m.

 

The highest paid kicker angle is not overplayed. Just because the cap is going up doesn't mean you have to overpay a kicker who can't kick for a lick from distance. The Bears put a tremendous about of effort into special teams. They have a highly compensated long snapper and more than most teams emphasize coverage units and returns. Gould is the weak link on kickoffs, and they have no faith in him from anything beyond 45. He was fine as an undrafted free agent, but it's a joke to make him the highest paid before he was even a free agent.

[Derwood]

i have no problem with my boy from Penn State getting paid. i'm a little biased though. it may not be a fiscally sound move by the Bears, but my cockles are warmed by the little towheaded Nittany Lion going undrafted, bouncing around camps, and then winning the starting job and getting paid

[Soul]

I mean I'm not in favor of busting the guy off the team or anything. I think he's done a fine job considering he came in with no credentials and has upped his game at least a couple levels. He's a good story, I like Robbie. It's just an unexpectedly large amount of money considering his shortcomings, that's all. The Bears have done a pretty good job covering those shortcomings, by having some of the best coverage people in the NFL on kickoffs, and limiting his chances from beyond 50 yards. But they should be able to still see it for what it is, and it looks like they do not.

[Burtonbell]

Well it's just an OK contract, as long as this doesn't effect Urlacher or Hester getting their money. I agree it's a little much, but he does get the job done better than most.

[jersey cubs fan]

I mean I'm not in favor of busting the guy off the team or anything. I think he's done a fine job considering he came in with no credentials and has upped his game at least a couple levels. He's a good story, I like Robbie. It's just an unexpectedly large amount of money considering his shortcomings, that's all. The Bears have done a pretty good job covering those shortcomings, by having some of the best coverage people in the NFL on kickoffs, and limiting his chances from beyond 50 yards. But they should be able to still see it for what it is, and it looks like they do not.

 

It's not just 50+, it's more like beyond 45.

[MPC]

the fact the bears picked gould up off the scrap heap shows how "dime a dozen" kickers are. they shouldn't invest this much money in him, his production can be replaced for a fraction of the cost.

[Soul]

the fact the bears picked gould up off the scrap heap shows how "dime a dozen" kickers are. they shouldn't invest this much money in him, his production can be replaced for a fraction of the cost.

 

 

IMO we tend to overvalue kickers & RBs, and undervalue QBs and WRs.

 

I would say we undervalue LTs, but I think we at least addressed that in the draft this time around.

 

I feel like our defensive priorities are much more in line with what I expect. Of course that's really not a surprise.

[Chocolate Milk]

It's irresponsible cap management and bad business.

I'm not really sure how you can say this when the details of how the contract is structured isn't known.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's irresponsible cap management and bad business.

I'm not really sure how you can say this when the details of how the contract is structured isn't known.

 

We know the total dollar value, guaranteed dollars and years. And we know it was signed a full year before reaching free agency.

[Derwood]

in other news, what's this crap about Urlacher sitting out of mandatory mini-camp because of a "contract dispute". hey jerk, you're under contract. there is no dispute

[jersey cubs fan]

in other news, what's this crap about Urlacher sitting out of mandatory mini-camp because of a "contract dispute". hey jerk, you're under contract. there is no dispute

 

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this has been an ongoing issue all year, and he's been expected to sit-out of things. Once Briggs was done this went on the front-burner, and Angelo has hinted that he's not about to bend in the least.

 

I'm somewhat neutral. Urlacher is under contract, but he's also a special case. Guys are asked to renegotiate for the team all the time, they can be cut at any time. And it's somewhat standard practice to give raises to players who are outperforming their contract. I believe Urlacher has been outperforming what has turned out to be a very team friendly contract. If he plays this year without a new deal, he will have a very good argument to make a stink next offseason. I think they can give in to him a little this year, but actually wind up saving a little in the longterm.

[Derwood]

in other news, what's this crap about Urlacher sitting out of mandatory mini-camp because of a "contract dispute". hey jerk, you're under contract. there is no dispute

 

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this has been an ongoing issue all year, and he's been expected to sit-out of things. Once Briggs was done this went on the front-burner, and Angelo has hinted that he's not about to bend in the least.

 

I'm somewhat neutral. Urlacher is under contract, but he's also a special case. Guys are asked to renegotiate for the team all the time, they can be cut at any time. And it's somewhat standard practice to give raises to players who are outperforming their contract. I believe Urlacher has been outperforming what has turned out to be a very team friendly contract. If he plays this year without a new deal, he will have a very good argument to make a stink next offseason. I think they can give in to him a little this year, but actually wind up saving a little in the longterm.

 

i understand that the NFL's salary system sucks, but pro athletes need to suck it up and honor their contracts. if he thought he was worth more, he should have asked for more money (or fewer years)