Kicker trade with Giants?

[Fritz]

I haven't seen either one, so I'm just riffing, but I'm not quite sure why everybody's so sold on Crosby over Rayner. They both sound darn good, and from what I recall, doesn't Rayner feature longer kickoffs?

I guess I won't be too upset with either one. I'm just hoping that middle school girl can pry a pick out of the Giants. I say Ted sends her off in a little plaid Catholic schoolgirl skirt to be sure the deal gets done...

[Bretsky]

I haven't seen either one, so I'm just riffing, but I'm not quite sure why everybody's so sold on Crosby over Rayner. They both sound darn good, and from what I recall, doesn't Rayner feature longer kickoffs?

I guess I won't be too upset with either one. I'm just hoping that middle school girl can pry a pick out of the Giants. I say Ted sends her off in a little plaid Catholic schoolgirl skirt to be sure the deal gets done...

Everybody likes the new kid on the block

Crosby has an absolute canon for a leg as well. I think Crosby can be a better long term kicker; that is why I like him

[Fritz]

Well, Bretsky, I haven't really seen either, and you're (literally) closer to the situation, so I'm down with Crosby if you are.

Besides, I think having a guy named "Mason" on the team will be good, especially now that the Packers have lost "Ingle."

[Guiness]

Honestly, I don't see THAT much difference between Rayner and Crosby. Don't forget Rayner was a draft pick as well - reasonbly high, wasn't he? Fourth round I think? Not that it matters, just that it's not like Crosby should get preferential treatment because a pick was used on him...

My guess is that TT has gotten at least as much as he could hope for from Crosby. Pushed Rayner in camp, and could (looking like will) unseat him. However, I think if something was offered for one or the other, he'd take it and happily move on with the other.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It was interesting to read (in another thread?) that Raynor has more trade value because he is battle-tested.

I guess they keep Crosby.

[falco]

Crosby may have kicked the record in Pittsburg, but Rayner kicked the record at Lambeau; I don't know, but I guess those would be close.

Rayner has also outkicked Crosby on kickoffs I think as well.

I would guess Thompson goes with Crosby. Although it wouldn't make sense to trade Crosby for a 6th or 7th, if you were planning on cutting him anyway at least its something for him.

The pick you placed in him is a sunk cost, so you can't look at its value when you look at moving him.

[LEWCWA]

The numbers I have seen has Rayner about 1/2 yard longer on kickoffs, but Crosby with about .4 longer hangtime. I'll take the hangtime anyday! Plus he's made more kicks, the guy has won the battle!

[Merlin]

I guess everyone is ignoring comments made by McCarthy (either him or 3T, I don't remember) where he said they may keep two kickers.

If all things are equal (which they are folks), you go with the veteran. These guys are tied. One has been a starter for 1 year, the other a rookie. However, Crosby has been kicking FG's every year in college where Rayner was only a kick off specialist with the Colts. Rayner for all intents and purposes is still a rookie with one exception, he has kicked at Lambeau in December in a real NFL game. One can only surmise that this experience has changed how he kicks for the Packers. Crosby is a good kicker, I like the kid. He doesn't have a better upside then Rayner like many have suggested. A few years younger maybe but not anything else. I wouldn't want to make a decision between the two let alone speculate on what they are going to do. The reality is, what do you do with two potentially good kickers? It's a win win situation unless you chose the guy who doesn't perform as well as the one you let go. But that really is an apples to oranges comparison because Lambeau is a unique place to kick.

That being said:

This is just more of fans jumping on the "new guy" bandwagon. If Crosby is our kicker and he fades down the stretch, will these same fans be bashing him next off season? History says, no. In fact history also says most of you won't admit you made a mistake let alone say you were wrong. But I guarantee whoever our kicker is, if he fades down the stretch and we bring in another kicker to compete, you will be on the "new guys" bandwagon once again.

[The Leaper]

If all things are equal (which they are folks), you go with the veteran.

Don't see the logic there. A younger person could have more upside and be more valuable in the long term. If Rodgers played as well as Favre right now, we'd be starting Rodgers over Favre.

These guys are tied.

Again, I'm missing your logic. Every camp observer has pointed out that Crosby has kicked more consistently in camp, especially from long range.

Rayner for all intents and purposes is still a rookie with one exception, he has kicked at Lambeau in December in a real NFL game. One can only surmise that this experience has changed how he kicks for the Packers.

Not really. Rayner was pathetic down the stretch last year. Maybe you can HOPE he'll change how he kicks, but that is hardly a guarantee.

He doesn't have a better upside then Rayner like many have suggested.

Of course he does. The NFL forces kickers to use brand new balls (K balls) for kicking. It is common knowledge that one of the largest adjustments for kickers entering the NFL is getting used to kicking with these balls. Since Rayner has been in the league for 2 years (regardless of capacity) he has had a much greater opportunity to get used to the K balls. Crosby has not, which is why he possesses better upside as he gains experience kicking with that ball.

This is just more of fans jumping on the "new guy" bandwagon. If Crosby is our kicker and he fades down the stretch, will these same fans be bashing him next off season?

I look at it as if we know what we have with Rayner. He's got a big leg, but proved innaccurate down the stretch. Crosby has proven to have almost as big of a leg as Rayner in camp, and probably slightly more accurate. At worst, there won't be much of a difference between Crosby and Rayner based on what we've seen in camp (and what you've acknowledged as being equal). However, there exists the potential that Crosby is better and more accurate in poor weather. We won't know until he has a chance to prove himself in that capacity though. Rayner had a chance last year, and fell on his face.

[Partial]

I guess everyone is ignoring comments made by McCarthy (either him or 3T, I don't remember) where he said they may keep two kickers.

If all things are equal (which they are folks), you go with the veteran. These guys are tied. One has been a starter for 1 year, the other a rookie. However, Crosby has been kicking FG's every year in college where Rayner was only a kick off specialist with the Colts. Rayner for all intents and purposes is still a rookie with one exception, he has kicked at Lambeau in December in a real NFL game. One can only surmise that this experience has changed how he kicks for the Packers. Crosby is a good kicker, I like the kid. He doesn't have a better upside then Rayner like many have suggested. A few years younger maybe but not anything else. I wouldn't want to make a decision between the two let alone speculate on what they are going to do. The reality is, what do you do with two potentially good kickers? It's a win win situation unless you chose the guy who doesn't perform as well as the one you let go. But that really is an apples to oranges comparison because Lambeau is a unique place to kick.

snip.

Dude, its not like Rayner didn't kick in college, too. Rayner has missed more field goals in practice, and has .5 yards longer kickoffs but with less hang time. That hang time would allow our coverge units to get down there.

More accuracy + bigger boot = better kicker and that is why Crosby won't be cut.

[Bretsky]

Kicking competition still unsettled
Packers don't indicate what they'll do
By TOM SILVERSTEIN
tsilverstein@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Aug. 28, 2007

Green Bay - A miss here, a miss there, there's not much Dave Rayner and Mason Crosby can do about it now.

After 114 field-goal attempts apiece in practice and three conversions in three tries in exhibition games, there's almost nothing to distinguish one from the other. The two will kick again Thursday night against Tennessee but barring a major meltdown, the results are in and it's up to Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson to decide what to do.

Cut Rayner? Cut Crosby? Trade one or the other? Keep both?

It's too close to call at this point.

"Obviously, I've done everything I can control," Rayner said. "That's all I can control is kicking. I think I've kicked well. I think I kicked better in camp than I did last year. Maybe it might not be enough. I don't know."

Rayner is the incumbent in this race and although his success rate on practice field goals (92 of 114, 80.7%) is slightly worse than Crosby's (98 of 114, 86%), he has a year of NFL experience and is more of a known commodity. Crosby, a sixth-round pick, has been cool as a cucumber during camp, but he hasn't faced the pressure of kicking in the Metrodome with 64,000 screaming fans in his ear.

The logical assumption, if the Packers don't keep both kickers, is that Rayner would draw more interest in the trade market than Crosby because of his experience and outstanding kickoffs. The Packers will be keeping a close eye on the exhibition finales of the Dallas Cowboys and New York Giants, both of whom have unsettled kicking situations.

In addition, the Atlanta Falcons found out Monday night that punter Michael Koenen might not be their best option for long field goals when he missed from 54 and 53 yards against Cincinnati. Kicker Billy Cundiff has hit six of seven attempts this summer but he doesn't have a strong leg and probably would need help on kickoffs and long field-goal attempts.

Neither Rayner nor Crosby has heard anything from his agent or anyone else about a potential trade, despite the fact the Packers have had trade discussions with other teams during the summer.

"We've tried to just stay focused on this right now," Crosby said. "I'm just focused on this right now and I'm focused obviously on this last game. I want to make this team and I'm focused on that, and then I'll take whatever happens after that. None of us know anything. We're just doing our thing."

The one thing the coaches and personnel people have done is keep both kickers in the dark about their status. They have not favored one over the other as indicated by the equal number of field-goal attempts they've taken in practice and games.

Crosby said he had no idea what the criteria would be, but he thinks hitting the right rhythm at the right time has given the coaches something to think about. Before missing from 52 yards Monday, Crosby had connected on 14 consecutive field goals in practice.

"I'm happy with how I've kicked," Crosby said. "I'm hitting the ball real clean, real solid. I think it is one of the better times I've been kicking. I still think I can get a little more on my kickoffs. I'm hitting them with good hang time, I just have to get through them a little more, get a little more distance. I feel solid. It feels good every time I go out there."

There is a possibility that if the Packers don't get the trade they want before the 53-man cutdown date Saturday, they'll hang on to both kickers and wait until a team faces a kicking crisis before offering one of the two in a trade. They might be able to greatly increase their leverage that way.

How exactly the kicking would be split up should both kickers remain is anybody's guess.

"A job is a job in the NFL," Rayner said. "If I'm on the roster here, I'm not going to complain one bit. I think if one of us isn't on the roster here this season we'll be somewhere else playing this season."

[BF4MVP]

I'd keep Crosby...

They have been pretty even, but Crosby has been slightly better, and he's younger..

[Merlin]

First of all I find it laughable that I even need to respond to this:

If all things are equal (which they are folks), you go with the veteran.

Don't see the logic there. A younger person could have more upside and be more valuable in the long term. If Rodgers played as well as Favre right now, we'd be starting Rodgers over Favre.

He is a kicker, not a QB so the age doesn't factor in. AND once again I suggest you read the entire post and not just pick and chose things to refute. I stated that there is not really an age difference between the two.

These guys are tied.

Again, I'm missing your logic. Every camp observer has pointed out that Crosby has kicked more consistently in camp, especially from long range.

I somehow don't think you understand what logic is. The Packers are saying that they are tied. That consistency when you look at the numbers and all factors isn't any different between them. So whoever these "camp observers" are, are spewing bias and nothing more.

Rayner for all intents and purposes is still a rookie with one exception, he has kicked at Lambeau in December in a real NFL game. One can only surmise that this experience has changed how he kicks for the Packers.

Not really. Rayner was pathetic down the stretch last year. Maybe you can HOPE he'll change how he kicks, but that is hardly a guarantee.

You can HOPE Crosby doesn't suffer the same horrible stretch once again, read the entire post instead of picking and choosing rebutle items. And yes, REALLY.

He doesn't have a better upside then Rayner like many have suggested.

Of course he does. The NFL forces kickers to use brand new balls (K balls) for kicking. It is common knowledge that one of the largest adjustments for kickers entering the NFL is getting used to kicking with these balls. Since Rayner has been in the league for 2 years (regardless of capacity) he has had a much greater opportunity to get used to the K balls. Crosby has not, which is why he possesses better upside as he gains experience kicking with that ball.

Now that's a stretch if I have ever heard of one. The balls are designed to be easier to kick, not harder to kick. WOW.

This is just more of fans jumping on the "new guy" bandwagon. If Crosby is our kicker and he fades down the stretch, will these same fans be bashing him next off season?

I look at it as if we know what we have with Rayner. He's got a big leg, but proved innaccurate down the stretch. Crosby has proven to have almost as big of a leg as Rayner in camp, and probably slightly more accurate. At worst, there won't be much of a difference between Crosby and Rayner based on what we've seen in camp (and what you've acknowledged as being equal). However, there exists the potential that Crosby is better and more accurate in poor weather. We won't know until he has a chance to prove himself in that capacity though. Rayner had a chance last year, and fell on his face.

There is absolutely no proof that Crosby is a better kicker in poor weather, none, zero, zip nada. He came from a "colder" climate. Forgive me if I am missing something here but how many games in November & December did he kick in the "weather" where the temperatures were what they are in Green Bay, or the weather for that matter? Although I agree Rayner choked in the end, there is nothing here that shows me Crosby will do any better. As far as Rayner making adjustments, that isn't a HOPE, that's a reality. He has said as much as have the special teams coaches. Face it, you are on the "new guy" bandwagon by your obvious bias, picked and chosen points out of context and your made up claims. Re-read my post and a year from now, come find me.

[Merlin]

I guess everyone is ignoring comments made by McCarthy (either him or 3T, I don't remember) where he said they may keep two kickers.

If all things are equal (which they are folks), you go with the veteran. These guys are tied. One has been a starter for 1 year, the other a rookie. However, Crosby has been kicking FG's every year in college where Rayner was only a kick off specialist with the Colts. Rayner for all intents and purposes is still a rookie with one exception, he has kicked at Lambeau in December in a real NFL game. One can only surmise that this experience has changed how he kicks for the Packers. Crosby is a good kicker, I like the kid. He doesn't have a better upside then Rayner like many have suggested. A few years younger maybe but not anything else. I wouldn't want to make a decision between the two let alone speculate on what they are going to do. The reality is, what do you do with two potentially good kickers? It's a win win situation unless you chose the guy who doesn't perform as well as the one you let go. But that really is an apples to oranges comparison because Lambeau is a unique place to kick.

snip.

Dude, its not like Rayner didn't kick in college, too. Rayner has missed more field goals in practice, and has .5 yards longer kickoffs but with less hang time. That hang time would allow our coverge units to get down there.

More accuracy + bigger boot = better kicker and that is why Crosby won't be cut.

Our resident "new guy" bandwagon President has put his two cents worth in. Rayner's professional focus was slated towards kick-offs prior to coming to Green bay. It isn't like he got the reps a normal kicker would or coached much at that while backing up Vanderjagt. Do you know that when Rayner missed the most field goals that Rodgers was his holder? Not that it should make that big of a difference but for some kickers it just might. Rodgers is the backup holder who proved he couldn't hold when Longwell was here. Coincidence? Maybe. Less hang time? How many of those balls that deep in the end zone have been returned again? His hang time was never a problem whereas John Ryan's is. So to bring the what? .4 of a second hang time difference into it and use that is kind of stupid.

[Partial]

.4 seconds is stupid to bring in but 1/2 of a yard isn't??!?

Fact of the matter is this: The Packers are going to say they're even or equal at this point in order to keep them both focused and hungry and to justify not cutting one yet. It is safe to say that Crosby is ahead by virtue of making more kicks.

Rayner is as good as gone if Crosby doesn't lose the job tonight by missing some kicks. Take that to the bank.