Redskins sign K Billy Cundiff

[PennSkinsFan]

The Redskins have signed former Raven and recently cut veteran Billy Cundiff. The job is not Gano's, yet.

http://dcprosportsreport.com/2012/08...billy-cundiff/

[ISF]

Gano has been released. The job is Cundiff's. This is bad move, IMO. Cundiff was 1 for 9 from 50+ yards last year. If you factor out the Gano blocked kicks, which the coaches said were not his fault, then Gano had better numbers last year. This doesn't make sense, the Redskins went through the birthing pains with Gano, why not ride him out, young leg should get nothing but better.

This is probably going to be David Akers 2.0 for us.

[PennSkinsFan]

Just getting ready to update that. Gono's job lasted one day in 2012

[ISF]

Normally I have been pretty happy with the personnel moves made by Bruce and Shanny, but this one is a real head scratcher. Just don't see the rationale. This move will bite is in the long run I fear, either through missed kicks from Cundiff or Gano catching on somewhere else and really sticking it to us, ala Akers.

[SkinsGuru]

not sure i see the upgrade here . . . Cundiff is old and wasn't much better than Gano (if at all) last year . . . hmmm

[PennSkinsFan]

Might be basing it on consistency under 40 yards. Hwoever, weren't Gano's 5 misses under 40, all blocks. Can all the blocks really be blamed on just gano?

[ISF]

Might be basing it on consistency under 40 yards. Hwoever, weren't Gano's 5 misses under 40, all blocks. Can all the blocks really be blamed on just gano?

Shanny already on record saying blocks were not Gano's fault. You can only apply Gano's successful FG % on the non blocked kicks to the 5 that were blocked, no guarantee he would have made all of them. I'm not questioning the decision to replace Gano, but the choice of Cundiff does not seem to be a statistically significant improvement.

[PennSkinsFan]

Cundiff did have a significantly better touch back percentage, 57.9% to 43.8%. I think if anything, this is a wash.

[Crazy Horse]

one thing nobody has stated here is the fact that shanny and the coaches see gano kick every day.now personally,i would have rather seen them keep rackers over cundiff,but i would be shocked if gano turns out to be half the kicker akers is.half the time the guy can't hit water if he fell off a fishing pier.a lot of those kicks had bad blocking but just as many were lower trajectory.i would have rather kept rackers,but i ain't crying over gano.

[ISF]

I don't think any of the debate is about replacing Gano, it's who they replaced him with. Cundiff was 1 of 6 from 50+ last year, Gano was 4 for 6 from 50+ last year. The differences in their respective success rates is statistically insignificant. Last year, Cundiff was rated the 31st best kicker in the league, Gano was 30th. Rackers was around 15. Rackers is the one they should have kept based on statistics.

The only advantage Cundiff has is on touchback %. But I submit, when has any team ever stated "If we had more touchbacks, we could have won the game!" or "Missing that last touchback really hurt us!"?

There is a logic in this move that escapes me.

And technically, Gano hits water about 75% of the time when falling off a pier, not including when he is caught (blocked) before hitting the water.