Greg Zuerlein

[Anonymous]

Dallas? I remember a few years ago they had a rookie kicker who was awesome. Then the next season he went to shyte for some reason. They cut him eventually after costing them probably 6 or 7 games.

I think Zuerlein will be fine. Few misses here and there, but for the most part solid.

Well, if you think about it, with a rookie kicker, potentially, more can go wrong then a few misses. How about kicking some kickoffs out of bounds at the wrong times. Or muffing it a time or 2 when he's the last tackler on a return.

That could happen with veterans too. Brown anyone? Veteran punters screw up as well as Donnie Jones can attest. Odds are what they are, but I like this kid's attitude. He was asked about pressure and he responded well with his remark about the size of the posts. Granted he's never been in front of tens of thousands with a game on the line while on National TV, so that does remain to be seen.

I think we know that the odds of something happening go up for a rookie qb. There's also the confidence spiral that can ensue if a rookie screws up, before he gets his "been there" legs under him. Having a rookie kicker is a risk, for sure. And it's really 3 rookies in 2. One, a rookie punter. Two, a rookie kicker. Three, a rookie holder--who also happens to be the punter (Hekker has never held for kicks before).

 

[-X-]

Thanks for the update. :neh:

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the update. :neh:

Now now. I started that by saying "I think we know that...." In other words, the point was precisely to reiterate the obvious. As a realist I'm just not going to be enthusiastic about the kicking situation until they prove otherwise. That's what accounting for the odds means. This is the realistic expectation....if they exceed or defy that, great, and if that happens, ya say so. But until then why sugarcoat it.

 

[-X-]

Thanks for the update. :neh:

Now now. I started that by saying "I think we know that...." In other words, the point was precisely to reiterate the obvious. As a realist I'm just not going to be enthusiastic about the kicking situation until they prove otherwise. That's what accounting for the odds means. This is the realistic expectation....if they exceed or defy that, great, and if that happens, ya say so. But until then why sugarcoat it.

Because I like sugarcoating. Why be realistic?

Aha! See? Neither one has any real merit, so shutty.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the update. :neh:

Now now. I started that by saying "I think we know that...." In other words, the point was precisely to reiterate the obvious. As a realist I'm just not going to be enthusiastic about the kicking situation until they prove otherwise. That's what accounting for the odds means. This is the realistic expectation....if they exceed or defy that, great, and if that happens, ya say so. But until then why sugarcoat it.

Because I like sugarcoating. Why be realistic?

Aha! See? Neither one has any real merit, so shutty.

Actually I think one does have merit.

 

[-X-]

Thanks for the update. :neh:

Now now. I started that by saying "I think we know that...." In other words, the point was precisely to reiterate the obvious. As a realist I'm just not going to be enthusiastic about the kicking situation until they prove otherwise. That's what accounting for the odds means. This is the realistic expectation....if they exceed or defy that, great, and if that happens, ya say so. But until then why sugarcoat it.

Because I like sugarcoating. Why be realistic?

Aha! See? Neither one has any real merit, so shutty.

Actually I think one does have merit.

Meh. It's all a matter of preference. I prefer to ignore realism; because, to me, it serves no real purpose in this situation.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the update. :neh:

Now now. I started that by saying "I think we know that...." In other words, the point was precisely to reiterate the obvious. As a realist I'm just not going to be enthusiastic about the kicking situation until they prove otherwise. That's what accounting for the odds means. This is the realistic expectation....if they exceed or defy that, great, and if that happens, ya say so. But until then why sugarcoat it.

Because I like sugarcoating. Why be realistic?

Aha! See? Neither one has any real merit, so shutty.

Actually I think one does have merit.

Meh. It's all a matter of preference. I prefer to ignore realism; because, to me, it serves no real purpose in this situation.

Well, see, to me, it does. Like the kickers. I don't plan on being disappointed in anything bad that happens--it's the expected norm. So like during the season some things go wrong and someone goes nuts about the kickers, I will just say, whadja expect--it was a calculated risk and should pay off next year but in the short term things were likely to happen. If however they sail through with no hitch, then I will say see they did far better than we had a right to expect, what a bonus.

I know different folks have different preferences and that's what makes conversation so interesting but I always like trying to get a clear picture of reasonable expectations.

Where that's getting defied is on the offense. It's unclear what year 3 in system 3 will mean for Bradford, it's unclear who their WRs are going to be (though they are obviously way better than 2010), and it's unclear how much Boudreau stabilizes the line and to what extent. But then that just means being realistic in this case amounts to being unsure.

 

[-X-]

 

[-X-]