Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

    I genuinely hate these threads. Whenever a player is released, some people suggest the Eskimos should sign them. Usually it makes no sense, but signing Hugh O'Neill and eventually releasing Shaw would be a step in the right direction.

    Grant Shaw is 6 years older than Hugh O'Neill and probably comes at twice the price tag.

    The knock on O'Neill has been his kickoffs and his punting. For kickoffs he is 59.5 which admittedly, is in the lower half of the CFL. But did you know Shaw, who is supposed to have an incredible leg, only has an average of 61.6. I'm willing to bet O'Neill could easily make up that 2 yard difference through hard work.

    Punting. Grant Shaw has a punting average of 41.8 yards. O'Neill is lower but only by 1.6 yards. Again, this difference can be made up through experience and hard work. He is six years younger after all.

    For field goals, you have a very small sample size when it comes to O'Neill. He is 4/5 in his career. This does not include the 5 FG he hit in the first preseason game this year. You probably aren't sure what you have here.

    But with Shaw, you are very sure what you have. You have a career 73% kicker (93 attempts) and a guy who is 0/3 when it comes to game winners in Edmonton.

    I realize that if you made this move, we'd have nothing to show for the Ray trade. But who cares. That ship has sailed and it is time to move on. I believe Hugh O'Neill could be our Paredes, or Milo, or Congi, or whoever you want to name. Everyone picks up good kickers for nothing, it's our time to do the same.

    In a nutshell:
    He is 6 years younger. He is way cheaper. You probably get an upgrade at field goals and growing pains at everything else.
    "No one entertains the thought that maybe God does not believe in you." - Bo Burnham

    #2
    Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

    I 100% agree.
    He's Canadian. He's a U of A product. Shaw at the very least needs someone to push him. Burke Dales is a great punter but that's it, he's no threat for field goals. THe Esks wouldn't be giving up anything to get him. I'm sure he would come given he did his university here and if he doesn't work out, you cut him.

    It sure as hell would be nice to have a kicker that made a field goal once in a while when it freaking matters.
    Blindly accept whatever they do and if it doesn't work out, I guess there's always next year.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

      x2 100% agree

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

        Agree, however, there is no way IMO how Ed let's Grant go, as he was the most important FA of the off season for him to re-sign.

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

          Wouldn't mind seeing him here. Sounds like he may not be willing to be on anyone's PR any longer. Wonder if Wally was shopping him prior to the release?
          I will not, for a moment longer, support an organization who chooses to cowardly kneel where they once fiercely & proudly stood

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

            I'm not averse to signing O'Neill as a complement to Shaw, a younger, cheaper, healthier and more versatile Burke Dales if you will, but not as any kind of immediate replacement for Shaw.

            Stats can tell the story that someone wants. You chose to use his career FG %, which is 3% lower than his past two seasons with the Esks in a full-time role, while you chose to use this year's punting average, which is 2 yds less than his career average and 4.3 yds less than last year. While I agree that Shaw has yet to show himself as a reliable FG kicker, I believe he has amply demonstrated top tier leg strength on punting and kickoffs beyond what O'Neill has to date. If you hypothesize that O'Neill could add a few yds through hard work (which I agree with) surely you must acknowledge that Shaw has the potential to do the same or more based on what he's already shown at this level.

            In my mind, age is a non-issue in that a 29 year old, triple role kicker would logically be expected to have another 7-8 years left on his career. That more than covers the period of time I expect us to be planning for. I don't believe that either Shaw or O'Neill have honed their craft to the peak of their potential by any means, but would be awfully interested as to why Buono would give up on a project with this kind of perceived promise. I would also dispute that O'Neill is likely to be cheaper other than in the short-term, as if he performs well as a three-role kicker, he too would get a market contract similar to Shaw's. It is only if he under performs that he remains cheaper imo.

            Currently, I am of the belief that we don't have to worry about our kicking game for the foreseeable future, and that is a positive that many teams cannot claim. Adding O'Neill would be a potential luxury for depth and developmental ultimately possibly open the door to trade Shaw for value if O'Neill shows enough. For now though, coming off a release where he was the heir-apparent, I think it is totally jumping the gun to look at him as a replacement for Shaw.
            Life is Good.

            #PizStrong

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

              I was looking at Lionbackers and one poster there says O'Neill was entering his option year and Wally and O'Neill's agent were far apart.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                Originally posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
                Currently, I am of the belief that we don't have to worry about our kicking game for the foreseeable future, and that is a positive that many teams cannot claim.
                Please tell me you are joking. And if you are not, name one team not named Winnipeg that has a worse kicking game than us.
                "No one entertains the thought that maybe God does not believe in you." - Bo Burnham

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                  Above all else that Angelus posted he is missing one major factor. The BEARD, for that reason alone he should be signed.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                    Originally posted by Angelus View Post
                    Please tell me you are joking. And if you are not, name one team not named Winnipeg that has a worse kicking game than us.
                    Forseeable future is the key. Shaw could be very good, for a very long time, despite the price tag. It'd be a risk going with O'Neill, but I don't see it happening with Ed.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                      Originally posted by Angelus View Post
                      Please tell me you are joking. And if you are not, name one team not named Winnipeg that has a worse kicking game than us.
                      There are CIS teams that have better kicking games than us....I agree 100% with you Angelus this is a move we need to make even if we still let Shaw handle punting and kickoffs and let O'Neill concentrate on his fg kicking until he's ready to add other duties this improves our kicking game by leaps and bounds.
                      In Rod we trust

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                        Originally posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
                        I'm not averse to signing O'Neill as a complement to Shaw, a younger, cheaper, healthier and more versatile Burke Dales if you will, but not as any kind of immediate replacement for Shaw.
                        That is fine. The reason I suggest it as a replacement is because Shaw makes so much money it is tough to justify two of these guy's on the roster. Absolutely insane contract in my mind. No other team in the league would pay Shaw that kind of $$. That alone is reason enough for his release.

                        Originally posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
                        Stats can tell the story that someone wants. You chose to use his career FG %, which is 3% lower than his past two seasons with the Esks in a full-time role, while you chose to use this year's punting average, which is 2 yds less than his career average and 4.3 yds less than last year. While I agree that Shaw has yet to show himself as a reliable FG kicker, I believe he has amply demonstrated top tier leg strength on punting and kickoffs beyond what O'Neill has to date. If you hypothesize that O'Neill could add a few yds through hard work (which I agree with) surely you must acknowledge that Shaw has the potential to do the same or more based on what he's already shown at this level.
                        I used career simply because we KNOW what he is. An average FG kicker who will probably never be >80% on a consistent basis and certainly not >90% like some of the elite. I think the fact he is 29 greatly limits his potential. He is getting past his prime. I know for kickers it's a different story and they can play longer, but I seriously doubt he can improve his leg strength on the other side of 30.

                        Originally posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
                        In my mind, age is a non-issue in that a 29 year old, triple role kicker would logically be expected to have another 7-8 years left on his career. That more than covers the period of time I expect us to be planning for. I don't believe that either Shaw or O'Neill have honed their craft to the peak of their potential by any means, but would be awfully interested as to why Buono would give up on a project with this kind of perceived promise. I would also dispute that O'Neill is likely to be cheaper other than in the short-term, as if he performs well as a three-role kicker, he too would get a market contract similar to Shaw's. It is only if he under performs that he remains cheaper imo.
                        I don't mind paying a kicker what Shaw makes provided he is good enough to make that. If O'Neill is good enough, he'll get paid what Shaw does. Shaw is not good enough to get paid what he is. That's the bottom line in my mind.

                        Originally posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
                        Currently, I am of the belief that we don't have to worry about our kicking game for the foreseeable future, and that is a positive that many teams cannot claim. Adding O'Neill would be a potential luxury for depth and developmental ultimately possibly open the door to trade Shaw for value if O'Neill shows enough. For now though, coming off a release where he was the heir-apparent, I think it is totally jumping the gun to look at him as a replacement for Shaw.
                        Was it not totally jumping the gun to trade for Grant Shaw (who never showed anything worthwhile) and naming him the starter? It's not like you are replacing a long time vet who has proven his worth. Shaw has proven nothing over his entire career. Maybe you aren't worried about the kicking game for the foreseeable future. Wish I could say the same.
                        "No one entertains the thought that maybe God does not believe in you." - Bo Burnham

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                          Originally posted by Section N View Post
                          Forseeable future is the key. Shaw could be very good, for a very long time, despite the price tag. It'd be a risk going with O'Neill, but I don't see it happening with Ed.
                          I am very worried about our kicking game for the foreseeable future. Anyone who isn't must be sleeping.
                          "No one entertains the thought that maybe God does not believe in you." - Bo Burnham

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                            Originally posted by Angelus View Post
                            I am very worried about our kicking game for the foreseeable future. Anyone who isn't must be sleeping.
                            Because of Shaw, or because he is the only kicker on the roster?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

                              Originally posted by Section N View Post
                              Because of Shaw, or because he is the only kicker on the roster?
                              Because of Shaw.

                              I don't care that he's the only kicker on the roster. Kickers can be found. Look at every starter in the league and then see how that team acquired him. Nobody except us traded an elite player for a kicker.

                              Someone is going to snap up O'Neill and for the next decade we are going to watch him flourish and Shaw continue to miss game winners while getting paid six figures.
                              "No one entertains the thought that maybe God does not believe in you." - Bo Burnham

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X