Houston could have slid down a spot or two and still landed their target, and they probably would have found teams interested in moving up for Bush

Honestly, I doubt that's true.

I've said this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating: the economic argument definitely plays a role here. Reggie Bush's contract, if it was the same as Williams's, would've been not just huge. It would've been the second-largest contract (in terms of total money) for a running back ever.

Not a rookie running back. Any running back. Only Shaun Alexander's was larger, and his was 8-year instead of 6-year. In terms of per-year money, I think it'd be the largest ever.

The draft isn't entirely about getting the best player available, and draft boards know that - they'll never rank a kicker first overall, for instance, even if he's the best kicker in the history of the game, and even if the entire rest of the draft is mediocre. It just won't happen.

I just think they haven't fully realized what the rest of the league has about running backs - that they're simply not worth $9M/year. Quarterbacks are, defensive ends are, cornerbacks are, and left tackles are, and maybe wide receivers are. But running backs aren't.

And I think that had a ton to do with it. Devoting such a huge amount of money to a running back would make it impossible for them to actually build a defense, for instance.

And this is true for just about every other team in the league. How long's it been since a running back got picked first in the draft? Eleven years. Since then, it's been WR, T, QB, QB, DE, QB, QB, QB, QB, QB, and now DE - and to be honest, we're basically in a completely different economic era than 1995 for the teams.

I just don't think a running back will ever go number 1 in the draft again - not if the owners are looking at the numbers. You're just asking too much of the running back. He doesn't just have to be good - he has to be the absolute best in the game.

Williams doesn't have to be the best in the game to not be a wasted pick. He just has to be one of the top 10 or so DEs. That's a much lower bar.

Well said, Pat. Still -- Bush went #2. I'm too beat to look up what that implies for his contract, but it's something nearly as unreasonable.

Is the bizarro salary model of the draft, having nothing to do with the way players and positions are valued for veteran players, the price of maintaining this crowd-pleasing anachronism?

Pat successfully articulated what I've been trying to say since roughly November. I tip my hat to you, sir.

HOLY COW!!! i know vince young was great at texas and has rare, once in a generation tools, no one can deny that. but that it appears that he wasn't making the line calls is baffling!!! what team is forced to have their tight end make the line calls??? maybe im overreacting to that fact? if TE david thomas was really making the line calls instead of VY, then the patriots really got good value on him because not only is he athletic and a pass catching threat, but he's smart too.

RE: Steve McNair - I though the new CBA said there was no such thing as June 1 cuts, but that teams can make one cut at any time in the offseason and spread the hit over 2 years? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that was the case.

As for drafting a RB #1 overall, I think that in the case of Reggie Bush it probably would have been worth it. That's the opinion of someone from England who's never watched a game of College football and has no idea how good Reggie Bush is beyond all the hype. But if he's as good as they say he is then it seems he can basically ensure your team is facing 8 in the box formations for the next 8-10 years. The benefit that will give to your WRs as well as having the premium runner is probably worth #1 money more than a guy who can be negated by one decent offensive tackle.

Personally, I think that a DE shouldn't go at #1, because you can get just as much pressure from good scheming as you could from a line made up of Warren Sapp (at his prime), Kris Jenkins (when not fat and injured), Julius Peppers and Dwight Freeney.

Actually, with that line, maybe not. You might not even need any other defence. Not that you'd be able to afford them.

Positions worth #1 overall (unless there's a player who's ridiculous talented) IMO: QB, CB, LB, OT, WR.

Of course, I'm probably wrong.

I’m too beat to look up what that implies for his contract, but it’s something nearly as unreasonable.

You'd be surprised - it's about a $10-15M drop from 1st to 2nd. That's about $6-7M/year, which means he needs to be one of the best RBs in the game - but not the best, ever.

It seems silly to say that the drop from 1st to 2nd is enough to make an RB affordable, but hey, when you're talking $2-3M/year... yeah, that's a big drop.

As for drafting a RB #1 overall, I think that in the case of Reggie Bush it probably would have been worth it.

Let me stress again what I said: is he better than Shaun Alexander? Than Edgerrin James? Than LaDainian Tomlinson? Because essentially none of those guys is getting as much as Mario Williams is getting, and Bush likely would've wanted more.

Personally, I think that a DE shouldn’t go at #1, because you can get just as much pressure from good scheming

Heh. I think the 2005 Eagles would disagree with you there. DEs are really, really valuable - which is why they get paid what they do. But anyway, whether or not DEs are overpaid is kindof beside the point. Teams do spend $8-9M/year on DEs. They don't spend it on RBs.

(unless there’s a player who’s ridiculous talented)

The best punter in the history of the game would never go first overall in the draft - not even if he could pin the opposing team at the 1 on every single punt. The position's just not worth that much money - not because the player's not worth it. But because you still need the other components of the team, and you do get what you pay for.

Pat, you lead to an interesting question. I think a punter who could punt the ball to the one yard line every single time would be a first round pick. How high would he go? I mean, he'd be the best defensive player on the team, right? I'd say top 10, easy.

Man, it gets really boring having to read teams being slighted for passing on Jimmy Williams and Winston Justice over and over again.
Perhaps they slid so far for good (and not just character related) reasons. I mean, Aaron Rodgers didn't fall all the way to GB the previous year out of the clear blue sky. Just because Mel Kiper says it's so doesn't mean it is.

#4
I thought a lot of centers made the line calls. If I recall correctely, that's how they do it in GB.

Not to mention the legendary Babatunde Oshinowo.....

Not being as draft-invovled this year, I miseed the story on that guy. Seriously, why did he last so long (not to mention, who is he)?

How high would he go? I mean, he’d be the best defensive player on the team, right? I’d say top 10, easy.

I doubt it. I'd say 10-15 - at that point, you're paying roughly $2M/year, which is just really, really high for a punter, not insane.

Part of the reason that I used a kicker as an example is that it's easy to understand that they simply can't contribute as much as other positions can - there are games when a punter never comes in (or doesn't come in until very late). You don't want a $4-5M/year guy sitting on the sidelines. Not a good use of money.

RB is similar - they just don't contribute to winning as much as a QB/T/DE/CB/WR does. More than a punter, sure.

I suppose it depends on the team, but if I had a team with a average or worse offense, I think I'd spend the #1 overall pick on a punter that could down it at the 1 every single time. As post #7 said, at that point he's an investment in the defense. Even a mediocre defense (handicapped by the huge amount of money dedicated to the punter) could do well if the opposing offense was starting at the 1 five or six times a game.

Well, keep in mind said robo-punter couldn't kick off, and turnovers also would give the offense perfectly fine field position. Really, there are a number of games each year where a punter barely plays.

Re: 5

Can teams even spread out the cap hit for a guy cut/released in the last year of his contract (like McNair is)? I would have thought that only applied for guys with at least two years left.

Ignoring how good they are as players, I somehow doubt that Randy Moss and Terrell Owens will "easily merit enshrinement."
Also, I don't know how true this is, but I read an ESPN article that argued that Jimmy Smith would make Cooperstown if he had similar achievements in baseball, but that Canton has too high of a bar.

15 - I agree with that. They should let more players in the hall than they do. With the pittance they admit every year, there are a bunch of very deserving old-timers that will never make it.

Re: 15, 16

Yes, they should let more in, especially on defense and the offensive line.

I would gladly pay 5/6 mil. a year for that robo punter. You'd just have to shift the focus of your team, build a great defense, and a very, very mediocre offense that basically doesn't turn the ball over, period.

It'd probably be a team posting a lot of baseball scores (10-0, 8-0), but you'd have a great chance of winning.

Man, I love this site...

It’d probably be a team posting a lot of baseball scores (10-0, 8-0), but you’d have a great chance of winning.

Why? Every time your team scores (and once a game), the other team gets to start at the 20 yard line. If your defense has such a strong chance of stopping the team at the 20 yard line, why is the robo punter important?

Otherwise, you don't have that good of a chance of winning, because every time you score, the other team has a good chance of scoring again.

What would the DPAR of a robo-punter be, and how does that compare to the DPAR / salary for WR's and TE's, position players not factoring into every play? That should give an idea of a robo-punter's worth, salary-wise.

If punting to the 1 is worth about 0.5 points (I suspect it is more), and a team punts 6 times per game, robo-punter's yearly DPAR is about 48, which is higher than the top DPAR's for WR and TE.

If i had a robo punter i woul'nt even bother with paying any more than minimum salary to my offense and punt on 1st down every time they got the ball. Then spend my money on a harsh d-line that could stop the run and pass rush and safety the opposition a whole lot. That way you don't need to kick off. except at the opening of a half.

Is there a league specification of what the number one pick has to be paid or is it entirely down to the team and player to negotiate?

21, if I was facing that team, I guess I'd just punt back on 1st down myself and wait for your guy to muff a return or your long-snapper to sail one over your robo-punter.

The time we'd have!

I suppose we'd both be playing punt block on every down. Your robo-punter would have an excellent chance of not making it to December if he faced a 9-(highly-irritated)-man-rush 20-50 times a game.

Is there a league specification of what the number one pick has to be paid or is it entirely down to the team and player to negotiate?

There's a league specification for the allotment of the #1 pick to a team's rookie salary pool. The teams and players negotiate for the total vaulue, but the first year is set. The total value is usually close to the maximum you can get given the other restrictions for rookie contracts.

21, if I was facing that team, I guess I’d just punt back on 1st down myself and wait for your guy to muff a return or your long-snapper to sail one over your robo-punter.

That would be hilarious. See, I'm still not convinced that robo-punter would be worth more than $2-3M/year.

I think, though, I'm going to stop using the robo punter as that example. How about "the world's best punter" instead. That example seems pretty clear.

ROBO-PUNTER does not miss snaps. ROBO-PUNTER will catch any snap within 20 yards of him with his extendo-arms, and he never ever has a kick blocked, not after he kicked a punt straight through a nickel back playing special teams who attempted to jump in front of one of ROBO-PUNTER's robo-punts. That was the only punt ROBO-PUNTER has ever not kicked to the one yard line, it only got to the 9 yard line because it was weighed down with the nickel back's intestines.

ROBO-PUNTER will usher in a Brave New World of punting-centric football, where punters are the highest paid players and ROBO-PUNTER is the highest paid of them all. All will live in fear of the ROBO-PUNTER, but they will also LOVE him, because he will have shown everyone the ONE TRUE WAY to play football, and that is the way ROBO-PUNTER plays football, by punting it to the one yard line. Offenses will tremble, defenses will rejoice, and the fans will wonder in awe at the MAJESTY of ROBO-PUNTER.

All hail ROBO-PUNTER.

Re 23,

If we're talking "world's best punter", I agree with you. If I were a GM, I would pay maybe $800k/yr for Ray Guy in his prime. But I'd happily give $8M/yr to ROBO-PUNTER.

My personal dream has been a one-legged punter that does a moonsault each time he kicks the ball.

Is there any way we could combine this with ROBO-PUNTER technology?

Re #5

you can get just as much pressure from good scheming as you could from a line made up of Warren Sapp (at his prime), Kris Jenkins (when not fat and injured), Julius Peppers and Dwight Freeney

Even with good scheming, you need talent. Good scheming did not help Donatell or Bates in Green Bay, despite their successes in Atlanta and Miami.

Man, it gets really boring having to read teams being slighted for passing on Jimmy Williams and Winston Justice over and over again.

I agree, but don't know how we can get away from it, given our attempt to be systematic with the draft analysis.

Not to rehash the debate over the BPA analytical system, but I wonder whether players that are passed over for other players in their position might be different than vs. passed up for other positions. If, like Jennings & Pope, other guys at their spot are coming off it is obviously is not solely about drafting "need" vs "BPA", and rather that the NFL scouts saw something they didn't like... I'm really intrigued by the BPA analysis, but think there are just so many opportunities for guest articles and further refinement... wish I had the time or brains to do it.

With that, I'll take the opportunity to say again that this is the best football site on the web. The systematic analysis (BPA, DVOA, DPAR, Success rate, etc.) on this site is truly awesome, and if you understand them for what they are (tools for understanding, not definitive law), it leads to some of the best analysis I've seen (by both the FO guys, guest writers, and the folks in the msg boards).

Plus, as a Broncos homer I love comments like: "(Ed. note: If they don’t put Rod Smith in the Hall of Fame, they might as well just close the thing.)" ;-)

if I was facing that team, I guess I’d just punt back on 1st down myself and wait for your guy to muff a return or your long-snapper to sail one over your robo-punter.

Yes, but you're punting from your own 1, so your punts are much more likely to be blocked, returned for a touchdown, or to chip-shot FG range.

Re:

Whether a player will help the team win should be the primary factor in drafting, but should certain teams take attendance effects into account? Obviously, teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, Giants, and Jets don't have to be concerned about this, but what about the Falcons? Atlanta is a notoriously bad sports city attendance-wise, even for winning teams - the Braves have often failed to sell out playoff games, and the 1999 Falcons sold out only 2 games, despite a Super Bowl appearance the year before (the 1998 Falcons only sold out 2 games as well). Yet the Falcons have sold out every game for the last 4 seasons, the 4 years in which Michael Vick has been the starting QB.

If we’re talking “world’s best punter�, I agree with you. If I were a GM, I would pay maybe $800k/yr for Ray Guy in his prime. But I’d happily give $8M/yr to ROBO-PUNTER.

See, the thing is, though, I didn't mean "the best punter that has played the game" - I meant "the best punter imaginable." ROBO-PUNTER (tm) might be worth $8M/yr, but honestly, any real punter you can practically imagine would not be worth a first overall pick.

The same can be said for fullbacks, for tight ends, for kickers, for safeties, and for running backs.

And, honestly, even in ROBO-PUNTER's case, you've still got to massively overhaul the team to take advantage of his laserbeam eyes, for a strategy that may or may not work in the NFL - and it's understandable that no GM would be willing to take that risk. Interestingly, that's a good analogy for Reggie Bush, because the Texans would have had to overhaul their offense to take advantage of Bush. Otherwise you've got a $9M/year lead weight on the team that could be replaced with a $500K/year undrafted rookie for nearly equivalent production.

or to chip-shot FG range.

No, no, FGs would be bad for Tim's ROBO-PUNTER team. It means they need to kick off. 3 points isn't worth that risk.

Travis, I think one would have to be very naive NOT to think so. I'm sure the Atlanta brass considered Vick's marketing appeal. I'll bet Houston was very tempted to take Vince Young for the marketing possibilities. If Houston wasn't a football hotbed, they may have done just that.

No, no, FGs would be bad for Tim’s ROBO-PUNTER team. It means they need to kick off. 3 points isn’t worth that risk.

They are, if there's little time remaining in either half.

I think one would have to be very naive NOT to think so. I’m sure the Atlanta brass considered Vick’s marketing appeal. I’ll bet Houston was very tempted to take Vince Young for the marketing possibilities. If Houston wasn’t a football hotbed, they may have done just that.

True, but I haven't seen the attendance consideration mentioned in any of FO's post-draft analyses.

Houston is a football hotbed, but not necessarily a pro football hotbed. The Texans are selling out every game right now (new team + new stadium helps), but the last pro team to call Houston home left, largely because of attendance issues (granted, the Astrodome was no longer a suitable facility).

No, no, FGs would be bad for Tim’s ROBO-PUNTER team. It means they need to kick off. 3 points isn’t worth that risk.

How is ROBO-PUNTER at drop kicking?

For that, you have to wait for ROBO-PUNTER 2.0.

Re:22, Seeing as i can punt to the one everytime i dont need to return punts ever so theres no chance of a muff. To stop youre rush and robo punter getting injured ill guess ill have to invest in a robo long snapper who can hike to ball about 50 yards.

I guess the way you stop my team is by sending on Todd Sauerbrun to have a fight with robo punter and getting robo punter ejected for killing him.

To stop youre rush and robo punter getting injured ill guess ill have to invest in a robo long snapper who can hike to ball about 50 yards.

See, that's where Robo Industries gets you. ROBO-PUNTER, $9M/year. ROBO-LONGSNAPPER, ten billion dollars.

I'd pay handsomely for ROBO-PUNTER's services too. I just want to know what his jersey number is so I can properly genuflect in this forum--he's clearly replaced old No. 12.

Punters and kickers (kicking off) are an important part of the D. That's one reason I think the touchback and inside the 10 stats for punters are not usually weighted enough, and gross and net yards are overweighted.

I always favored the Colts having a KO specialist, whether it was Danny Kight (suyrprisingly effective) in 1999, or some of the schmoes they had recently (less effective, but they pissed off Vandy, so that's a plus). 8 more yards on a KO, especially when you KO 5+ times a game, probably mean the opposition has to get a handful of first downs and a few more points than they otherwise would have. How many $1M per year DBs are worth that? In a close game, say the Indy/Cincy shootout last year or the Indy/KC shootouts in years past (yes,I reveal my team preference here), where it devolves to "the last team with the ball wins," pinning somebody 5 yards deeper regularly could make all the difference. of course, cough cough, those are the types of games where the punters spend more time reading Proust than wearing their helmets....

In fact, a great skill for a mere mortal punter (forgive me, ROBO-PUNTER, for speaking well of others in your position) would be to punt a high one about 35 yards gross, but high enough to get 3 team mates down there to stop the guy EVERY TIME. The every time is important, because if you play somebody with a Dante Hall twice a year, it's nice to not worry about that random killer return. I THINK this is what Dr. Z loves about Mike Scifres in SD--hang time baby.

ROBO-PUNTER is of course preferable. Do his balls just die at the 1 yard line, cratering into the turf like a good 9-iron shot, or is there a chance of the dreaded roll into the endzone for a TB? (forgive me, ROBO-PUNTER, for doubting your greatness....)

Oh, and on a serious note, we need to look not only at "need" but also the system a player will enter into, which the article brings up regarding Houston's 3-4/4-3 defensive switcheroo. A few years ago, Indy "overreached" in everyone's eyes by taking Freeney at #11. Too small, some said, one trick pony.

Well, maybe, but how does that decision look now? He was a need, for sure, and the system--including the offensive approach of scoring big with multiple flashy weapons--allows Freeney to do what he does best. If Indy had an O like Balto has the past five years with good running, no passing, and low-scoring games, then there would be far fewer chances to rush the passer, and Freeney would look like a bit of a first round bust (through no fault of his own).

The same logic makes Addai a potentially super pick at #30, or even at #15 if they had the chance, since they do not need the rebirth of John Riggins--they need in their system someone who can do 3 things effectively. He does not NEED to rush for 1,500 yards, but the RB position needs to allow the offense to function more or less as it has--Edge was always a team player and his philosophy of "I do what I do" paid off--he took pride in every aspect of the game.

Oh, and on a serious note....

Sorry Bob, you already lost me. I'm scheming how best to handle ROBO-PUNTER.

Oh, and on a serious note, we need to look not only at “need� but also the system a player will enter into, which the article brings up regarding Houston’s 3-4/4-3 defensive switcheroo.

In an extreme example, a fullback wouldn't be on a team's draft boards if they don't use fullbacks. Now, they might want to convert him, but converting a player has got to lower their draft stock, as you're not as sure how the player will perform at the new position.

Or in a less extreme example, Cover-2 corners. I wonder if there's a way of looking at the measurables of the players (like height, weight, 40 time, etc.) and then coming up with something like similarity scores to the 'preferred measurables' on the team, and using those along with the draft stocks to adjust the BPA.

I always favored the Colts having a KO specialist, whether it was Danny Kight (suyrprisingly effective) in 1999, or some of the schmoes they had recently (less effective, but they pissed off Vandy, so that’s a plus). 8 more yards on a KO, especially when you KO 5+ times a game, probably mean the opposition has to get a handful of first downs and a few more points than they otherwise would have. How many $1M per year DBs are worth that?

The problem with the Colts kickoff specialists, in my mind, is that the team occasionally decides they can't afford the roster space and went with Vanderjagt as the kickoff kicker.

Of course, they do this at the worst possible time, like the playoffs, and end up with the Worst Playoff Kickoff Of All Time.

Speaking of Hangtime, would ROBO-PUNTER have a ROBO hang time of like 10-12 seconds so the rushing gunners can takle and kill the returner?

RE 9

Most centers do make the line calls what they were saying about VY and I do not belive it for a second is that the TE was actually making the calls to hike the ball and what formation they were running.

RE 38

not to metion Maitenece cost and product delays on upgrades for ROBO-PUNTER and ROBO-LONGSNAPPER. you would figure that those costs wuld run about 4-5 million a year. and what happens when you buy your ROBO-PUNTER and the next week it is made obsoltete by ROBO-PUNTER 2.0? Who can now drop kick, kick FG's, and Kick off, and place every kick off at the 1 YD line every time?

This has been far the funniest FO commentary ever. Better than the great Millen jokes, or the great Ron Mexico jokes. I literally thought I was going to hurt myself laughing at one point.

Robo Punter would be a first pick, period.

And you wouldn't have to pay him no more than twice the top punter fee regardless of his number 1 status.

Even if his length was max 50 yards. First Pick.

Oh and the real question is.

Manning... Brady...

or Robo Punter

Discuss... But quickly before it's turned into it's own thread.

#24

Thanks. I just sprayed snot all over my screen and my boss is looking at me funny wondering how java code can be so hilarious.

So how to beat ROBO-PUNTER. Well, the only way he can score is through the defense or a blocked punt or something. So you never punt and minimise the chance of a TO. Run between the tackles for 4 downs, confident that he'll punt on 1st down no matter where the line of scrimmage is (even if its the 2) and pray for a long run or a 0-0 draw.

And you wouldn’t have to pay him no more than twice the top punter fee regardless of his number 1 status.

Now that, I flat disagree. There's zero incentive for a pick to sign a contract below their draft level, and those are pretty much set in stone by previous years.

The case in point is typically Sebastian Janikowski, whose contract was not significantly different from those around him (yes, Pennington's was larger with incentives, but the base contracts were similar).

First pick this year was getting $50+M/6 years, no matter what position they played.

Otherwise, they'll just hold out. Since they're the largest portion of the rookie pool, they make it significantly more difficult to sign the remaining picks by holding out.

Enough with the jimmy smith garbage, he doesnt even come close to making the hall of fame. Go play a game of Madden with the jaguars. that is how good jimmy smith is and he never even leads the league in recieving if you simulate a season. Moss led recieving last time i simulated a season. Anyone who thinks jimmy smith should be in the hall of fame is so so so so so so wrong it fuuny

Re: 44

Of course ROBO-PUNTER has a hangtime of 10+ seconds! That's how he ensures that the punts are all downed at the 1, since the gunners always catch the punts and the returners never get a shot. Note that a team with ROBO-PUNTER never has to look for quality special teams coverage guys, since any 3rd string WR's and CB's will do.

Is it too late to put ROBO-PUNTER references into the book? I think I would pay double price just to see that.

I've never understood why teams don't allow players to hold out anyway...

If you're picking first, and your choice is Alex Smith, low ball him and let him hold out. Might as well save the cash, and not blow it.

I mean, by all means trade down, but what is the harm really in letting a guy hold out?

Losing a percentage for a good player. Not overpaying a player. I think if you look at the first round picks over the years, versus what you could get for a guy in free agency, I bet it makes more sense just to not pick.

The NBA system is much better in that regard. I think the pay scale should be much smaller. That way, there's actual value for the worst teams in the league instead of a huge probability of a money sink with no value.

I understand wanting your team to sign your first pick, but at the same time, I don't want my team killing our cap for a guy that's not proven squat.

I'd rather my team trade down for anyone but the absolute best. Bush would work in this instance. Manning.

Not Alex Frickin Smith.

And if ROBO-PUNTER wants to hold out, let's see where he'll get the money for his lubricant... It gets very rusty in a lonly season. *bangs crowbar against hands* Rusty.. indeed...

Ah, ROBO-LS (TM). I should've known that was coming.

Either way, you still get baseball scores, because your offense won't be needing to score - and safeties lead to free kicks.

In any event, I'll wait for the 2.1 version. New features, and bug-free (a huge asset in a ROBO-PUNTER...). Now, would he make Superbowl MVP? League MVP? And just what kind of crazy incentives can you put in his contract? Ceiling lights broken?

Yeah robo-punter might need upgrading to play in domes, as otherwises his punts might hit the roof and bounce down not at the one.

Of course robo-punter would be MVP he wins matches on his own all your defense needs to do is get a safety and you can win every matach 2-0.

Seriously, gentlemen.
Robo-Punter is not a machine, but a human. We all feel that he is out there somewhere... in the jungles of Kongo (full name Robo-Punter Obikwono) ... or on the vast plains of Ukraine. Unknown to the western sports eyes,
booming balls into the sky. Until he suddenly emerges.

Or watch the soccer world cup, we might just discover him.

I for one welcome our new Robo-Punter overlords.

Can we please have a 'Gil Thorpe vs ROBO-PUNTER' cartoon? Please?

Best. FO thread. Ever.

No kick coverage specialists are needed to down the ball. ROBO-PUNTER's punts land at the one and die there like a shot put, which HE could also routinely punt to the one.

What I can't figure out is this is the second time I've mentioned 'punter who always punts to the 1' and it didn't get nearly this kind of response the first time.

It's the ROBO-PUNTER addition, Pat. Now, it's compelling statistical thought AND an endearing mascot. Who can resist?

Agree with #60. I look forward to seeing robopunter analysis in a future mailbag column, since it's probably too late for PFP 2006 and I don't want to wait until 2007.

Would Robo-punter demand the number 5 shirt?

I have seen Robo-punter-esque games in rugby in England. When weather conditions are really bad teams don't want to pass wide with the ball (a dropped pass is too likely) so instead they kick it for field position straight to the opposition and hope they drop it. What normally happens is the receiving team kick it straight back for the same reasons. I saw a game finish 3-3 like this in Bath, and you are right, in a bizarre way it's quite entertaining. Everytime someone is under the ball waiting to catch it you get huge cheers.

Were I a GM assembling my team around ROBO-PUNTER, I would invest the next year's first round pick and a healthy (though not large enough to activate the "highest paid special teams alien, mutant, robot or cyborg" clause in ROBO-PUNTER's contract) sum in Super Mega Ultra Rackers, to ensure that I could kick field goals from opposition punts landing around the half-way line on first down with 100% accuracy. My all-scrub offense would consist entirely of Very Large Replacement Players, and would run two different plays (HB dive and FB dive) out of one set (2TE 3RB). It would enter the field only in goal line situations.

Oh and Bob, yes, I believe ROBO-PUNTER was developed following intensive study of genetic samples taken from Ronan O'Gara.

See, Mr Shush is stressing the point that I mentioned before. Even with ROBO-PUNTER, a GM would still have to be willing to build a team in a nonconventional NFL style.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being daring occasionally. But there's something to be said for choosing a strategy that's known to work rather than being daring and picking WRs as your first round pick 3 years in a row.

And that's what the Williams pick over Bush was - choosing a strategy that's known to work (a standard NFL team's salary structure) rather than one that isn't (an NFL team with a $9M/year RB).

I mean, everyone here might be convinced ROBO-PUNTER is the next Big Thing, but if you go ahead and build your team and ROBO-BELICHICK comes along and devises a 20-yard offensive play which always works against your ROBO-PUNTERless defense, well, now you've got to rebuild your team entirely from scratch. Whereas if you're the Texans, and you choose Williams, and he turns out to be a bust... you can just go ahead and pick up another DE, and the rest of your team isn't hampered by the fact that Williams didn't work out the way he was supposed to.

You know, the way Jonny Wilkinson played for England, it all makes sense now...

Pat, stop trying to bring the discussion back on point. :)

If ROBO-BELICHICK devises an offensive play that will gain 20 yards every time, his team will go 16-0 every year. I don't see how that affects ROBO-PUNTER at all. ROBO-PUNTER's team can fire the defensive coordinator or change some defensive personnel, right?

What makes you think that it's not Belichick who coaches ROBO-PUNTER. They even share the same press secretary.

If ROBO-BELICHICK devises an offensive play that will gain 20 yards every time, his team will go 16-0 every year. I don’t see how that affects ROBO-PUNTER at all.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough about ROBO-BELICHICK. It's only a play that works when his team's on the 1 yard line and facing a defense from a ROBO-PUNTER team. After that he's normal.

I can just see ROBO-PUNTER making the Manning face now. "Dang that ROBO-BELICHICK!"

Forget ROBO-PUNTER, I want ROBO-ANNOUNCER, the one that always discusses the replays, stays on topic, and talks about the strategy of the play.

That's only slightly more wishful thinking than a punter that can punt every kick to the 1.

RE:71

ROBO-PUNTER would immediately counter by punting every kick to the 2.

You severely doubt the skills of ROBO-PUNTER.

I guess this just tells me how interested people are in talking about the AFC South.

glances at the actual teams in the AFC South

Oh, yeah. Never mind.

LMAO at #73.

The best thread ever just keeps getting better.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough about ROBO-BELICHICK. It's only a play that works when his team’s on the 1 yard line and facing a defense from a ROBO-PUNTER team. After that he's normal.

Now you're just being unrealistic. :)

No, unrealistic would be saying that ROBO-PUNTER loses to Arizona in the Super Bowl in the end zone after they use the sliding field to make his punts land just barely in the end zone for a touchback. Much to the shock and dismay of everyone in the stands.

You are all are forgetting that ROBO-SIDEJUDGE is going to blow the spot anyway.

77 - um, the Superbowl is in Miami. I believe you meant the Conference Championship, although how the Cardinals managed to get home field I'm not entirely sure.

So, we've narrowed ROBO-PUNTER to the NFC. Why would he possibly care about ROBO-BELICHICK then? Besides, isn't ROBO-BELICHICK already out on the market? Cleverly disguised as HOBO-BELICHICK?

Pat (and I'm quite sorry for this, people, it will only take a second), why do you figure the Texans would have to change their offensive philosophy to best use Bush's skills? Wasn't the whole deal about him that he would pretty much be the GOAT wherever you lined him up?

RE 80

because for the 10-11 years of usefulness that ROBOPUNTER would provide to his NFC team he would have to face off against ROBO-BELCHICK for the superbowl.

RE 79 this year yes, but i think Arizona has the 2008 or 2009 SB right? so then in his 2nd or 3rd year ROBOPUNTER would be faced with a scenario he may not like and then demand for a trade.

Pat (and I’m quite sorry for this, people, it will only take a second), why do you figure the Texans would have to change their offensive philosophy to best use Bush’s skills?

Well, I was mainly talking about the salary structure - that is, they'd have to settle for less than top-level DE/OLBs, for instance, which means they might want to prefer a different kind of defense (something like the Colts, for instance).

But I do think they might have to change their offensive philosophy. I don't think Bush really would be used well rushing 20-25 times a game - you'd want something more like Westbrook, Barber, or LaMont Jordan (with less of the sucking). He's a good enough receiver that you'd want to use that. Not sure if Kubiak wants that kind of offense.

Oh, and GBFL is right. I was talking about a future Super Bowl that Arizona managed to get to in the year they were the hosts.

I'm quite sure that ROBO-PUNTER is in the AFC, facing ROBO-BELICHICK each year. When he started punting to the 2 (thus beating ROBO-BELICHICK), everyone started saying how he had gotten the ROBO-MONKEY off of his back.

Hey guys think about this, what if the robo punter was the first openly gay football player. Or a black and gay football player, would you still want him on your team?

RE: 84

You single handedly killed the thread. While we may not like your tactics, we certainly think highly of the effort.

#84: Only if he's Jewish too.

re: 82

Cap-wise, I get it. Still, I don't think you'd have to change your offense regardless of him carrying 20-25 times the ball... just use him in different positions. Flexibility is not such a bad thing...

Or maybe I'm dreaming... :)

And yes, 84, ROBO-PUNTER can do no wrong. Even if he admitted to eating babies, we'd just understand it as necessary to his greatness. All hail the great... wait, does he have a number yet?

87: Yes, but it's in binary.

ROBO PUNTER is obvioualy not gay or straight. He's not even really male. And he doesn't have an off field life. Unless maybe they asked him to punt to the one from various places in the stands.