I think there’s some really good points being made about the value of the touchback kicker, as opposed to the points kicker. However, the one thing still leading me to value the points kicker is that a team can improve their special teams to limit runbacks on kickoffs. If you take the touchback kicker, the only thing you can do to improve his performance is get a better offense, which seems a much taller order – even though I acknowledge that his performance may be a huge boost to the team’s defense.
I’d go with B, the great kick-off over the great fieldgoal specialist. As others have noted, the question itself is a little outdated, as with the new rule change, there’s a lot more touch backs, and also kickers are pretty accurate in general these days. A couple years ago before the kick-off line was moved up five yards, it would be a no-brainer for the kick-off specialist.
So, sure, you’re probably only talking a few points on paper either way, between making a few more fieldgoals or having slightly better defensive field position on average. But there’s a few other things to keep in mind here. For instance, even a great kicker isn’t a whole lot better inside 40 yards than an average kicker, and as you get farther out other factors come into play. So, say you have a kicker that can make a lot more than average over 50, say 80% instead of 67%. You still have a chance of missing and the cost goes up more and more farther back. Game situation will come into play, as well as traditional coaching logic. For instance, if you’re down by 4 with 3 minutes left and you’re facing a 4th and 5 on the 33, that’s either a 50 yard field goal that really won’t help much, or a poor chance on converting. Most coaches would probably go for it, but if you had a really badass kicker, maybe you kick it, saving some time, hope you can stop them, and then hope you can get in range for another with a minute or so left. But even still, most coaches wouldn’t go for that, because they’d be afraid of the press conference on Monday about how bad a call it was if it fails.
Similarly, kickoffs still are a big deal. Even if the average field position isn’t all that different between a touchback and a ball typically returned to say the 22 as it was last season, it’s not just about the field position, it’s about shifting momentum. That is, a touchback is a guarantee start from the 20. If it’s returned, maybe they’re stopped a little short at the 15, which is actually slightly better, or a little farther, but there’s going to be some decent run backs. And a run back doesn’t have to be for a touchdown to be significant. Just getting it out to the 35 or 40 can give them an advantage in field position or mean a fieldgoal which otherwise might have been a punt, or a touchdown that might have otherwise been a field goal. In other words, stats only tell part of the story in football, because other aspects of the game affect it.
And, also, as someone else pointed out up thread, I’d have a hard time seeing a kicker who could kick 50+ yard field goals with any consistency, but then didn’t also have the leg strength to get above average touchbacks on kickoffs too, though I could easily see the inverse since accuracy is more important on field goals. Either way, he’d have to be one hell of a damn good kicker, particularly at 50+ to account for such field position. And really, if he’s that good of a kicker and can’t kick off, it very well may be worth a roster spot just to have a kick off specialist or find someone else on the roster that can do it or whatever.
No, there simply isn’t. Unless teams start kicking FGs on first down, there are simply only so many drives that peter out in normal human FG range.
A typical year sees the league leader around 40 attempts per season. The difference between 85% and 95% is thus 4 FGs a season at most.
In contrast, there are about 80 kickoffs per team per year, meaning the difference between starting on the 20 and the 40 each and every drive is 1600 yards. If we look at the expected points based on field position, it’s 40 points over the course of the season. It’s not even close.
It doesn’t make intuitive sense, because when the other team kicks a 40 yard FG, we credit the defense and never think “if they’d started the drive 20 yards farther back, they’d be punting now,” and because we feel FGs as risky and chancy events even though, in the modern game, they aren’t.
It’s much like the way we feel safe driving on city streets and nervous when sitting in a plane, even though the actual probabilities clearly say otherwise. We value the illusion of control, and we fear the large, visible disaster more than the million smaller ones, even though the latter are more damaging.
Ravenman’s post is a perfect example of this. It makes perfect emotional sense – it just doesn’t line up with what empirical data tells us.
As noted, that would be a much more challenging proposition. If the OP had postulated a robokicker that could routinely nail 65 yarders, that would start to change the equation, because now you’re adding FGs in situations where teams usually punt.
But as I read the OP, he didn’t.
Debatable, but that isn’t the question here. We’re not talking about punting instead of kicking the FG or going for it on 4th down (which is what announcers usually mean about “playing for field position.”), it’s about giving up a 100 yards a game, which definitely does equate to points, in exchange for one extra FG a month.
There are plenty of times when an extra 5 yards of field position on the opening kickoff means the difference between winning and losing. Those times are just a lot harder to spot.
Ok look furt,you and your damn “stats” and “logic” and “critical thinking skills” are really starting to be a buzzkill here, but I’m gonna try anyway.
From what I can tell you’re going under the assumption that a non-touchback kickoff = points, when that simply isn’t the case. However with the stats given in my field-goal kicker, the points are practically guaranteed.
You have to figure that the team that has my field goal kicker would attempt more FGs than your average team because he’s so automatic within that 50+ range, so accounting for the extra kicks that are happening, even with the 1%-5% miss rate, the points given are going to exceed league averages.
It’s less a matter of field position than it is number of possessions. Even getting the ball on the 40 there will be times my opponent will score a TD, there will be times when they kick a FG, there will be times when my cheerleaders make out with each other causing a fumble we recover, they’ll miss kicks (more often than me) etc. Their margin of error on what they can accomplish per possession is WAY littler than mine because at the end of the day, they need to gain the same amount of yards as me to score.
They have to go from the 40 to the 20 (40 yards) or so in order to attempt a pretty well makeable field goal, which they have a greater chance of missing than I.
I have to go from the 20 to the 40 (40 yards) to virtually guarantee points. At the end of the day the both of us have to travel the same amount of yardage for what amounts to guaranteed points, with me having the advantage on percentage.
If our offenses are the same, and our defenses are the same, and the only difference between us is the quality of our special teams, then my odds are exponentially greater to win every time my defense prevents a TD.
Because at the end of the day all I need to do is prevent a TD. As long as my offense can match their 40 yard gains, I get points each and every time.
Yes, it is. More accurately, it represents a greater likelihood of points. If you’re letting them start on the 40 every time, a MUCH greater likelihood of points. No, it doesn’t become manifest every time, or even most of the time, but it’s an enhanced probability that we can quantify, in the same way we calculate the cost of hundreds of other enhanced risks (e.g. investing, insurance rates, etc).
Russian Roulette is perfectly safe 5/6 of the time, but it’s still more dangerous than a guaranteed punch in the mouth.
-
No, not that often. Again, a FG is only attempted when a drive stalls out within a given range. An NFL team gets about 12 possessions a game. On average, about 2.5 of those are going to end in TDs, and 1.5 in turnovers. Of the 8 that are left, 2 already are FG attempts, and the vast majority of the rest are punts taken from outside FG range. The all-time record for FG attempts in a season is 52. You’re not going to get much above that.
-
To the extent that you do start attempting more kicks, that may hurt more. If you have fourth-and-inches on their 12 and take the 3 because it’s automatic, your accurate kicker is enticing you to bad strategy. Unless it’s late and the FG is decisive, you’re better off going for the first down: you’ll likely get it, and if you do you’ll likely score 7, not 3 (and barring turnover, 3 will still be the worst you can do), and worse-case scenario you pin them deep.
[/QUOTE]
Your math is wrong.
You have to go 45 yards to get into range (a kick from his 35 equates to a 52 yarder, which is the range the OP says you’ll have a 95% chance).
Starting from his 40, he only has to go 25 yards to get to the same range, where real-life kickers hit about 70%. If he gets 30 yards, it’s a 90% kick.
Ergo, it’s 45 yards for 95% vs. 30 yards for 90%. There’s a much greater than 5% chance you won’t get the 15 yards.
Sigh…after not having internet for a day and a half I was hoping for some grand revelation to help me fight back
But alas my last hope was thinking that we went the same amount of yards for me to have greater points, and as usual, math is my downfall.
I’m still taking my 99% kicker cuz I’m not a quitter…but I can see how it might not be the best decision in the world
You, furt, are now my greatest enemy
Beware!
LOL.
I’m unemployed. I have to get my little victories where I can! 
I’m increasingly certain that many Dopers have me set to Ignore.
The enhanced probability not only “can be” quantified, but has been quantified as shown at the website I linked to. Advancing from the 20 to the 40 is worth about 1 point for a team’s final score difference.
:dubious: Yes, and I cited you. Post #14.
:smack: Sorry. Lynch me for skimming.(*) 
(* - This is a Mafia Game -ism.)