Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

[Diesel]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

I am curious to hear Wally's reasoning why he didn't EXPECT that O'Neill was going to be a viable bang for the buck going forward to justify working out the roster space issue in the short-term.

That is a concern. Another concern of mine about Shaw is his mental toughness in pressure situations. Missed game winners and even that shanked punt out of his endzone in Mtl

[boydo]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

Wad was a 73% career FG kicker too...and 42 yard avg on Punts...

Just sayin that Shaw has room to grow still. We can all agree that Wally has a knack for evaluating talent so maybe there was more to this than the dolla dolla billz...

[Angelus]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

Not joking at all. Most teams are utilizing two roster spots and paying two contracts that add up to more than Shaw makes.

I like our situation better than all clubs except Montreal and Calgary. I'll take ours over the Riders using an import and a non-import spot. I'll take ours over the Bombers where they're air-lifting in Sandro. I'll take ours over BC's, where they have to now figure out a succession plan for the ageless McCallum (43) and will either be expending draft picks and almost certainly going to a 2-kicker system to replace him within the next few years. Toronto's situation with Waters was good, but not appreciably better than ours statistically, and they were using an import to do it. I don't believe it's their long-term ideal. Hamilton has Bartel, who is a similar punter to Shaw and Congi, who can be an elite FG kicker, but has had 4 seasons in the mid 70's% including the current one - again two spots, two salaries and not much to show for it.

I get what you are saying. But at the end of the day, your guy has to be able to make kicks and kicks to win games. Shaw continually puts up average FG percentages despite "being a fourth year pro" as you stated yourself. I think there are very few people outside Edmonton who would take our kicking situation over many of the teams you have listed above. Actually, very few inside Edmonton as well.

Shaw is a fourth year pro, but is only handling all the duties for the second season. He's not a guaranteed thing, but I truly believe that he's going to be a stable, productive, upper-half kicker and punter for close to the next decade while utilizing only one roster spot. He was given the contract because the Esks believed that he'd get that much or more on the open market if he was allowed to get there. Do you believe that Hervey is THAT out of touch with what other guys like Whyte and McCallum are making? Do you believe that based on what the Esks have seen of Shaw, in games and in practice, that they are naively optimistic in their assessment of his potential?

Yes, I do. GM's make mistakes all the time. Shaw is 29 and still floundering to become a decent kicker all while making way more than he should be. This contract is a mistake by Ed. I am not saying he is out of touch with what others are making, but he has overrated Shaw's ability and is paying him more than he is worth. Do you honestly think that if he was released today, another team would pick him up for the same money? No way. Not a chance in my mind.

I believe you're dead wrong in your characterization of the contract. He's being paid because he's uniquely qualified to take on all three roles, using one NI roster spot. We have been spoiled by someone like that in the past, and give your head a shake if you think he came cheap.

There is a difference between doing all 3 roles and doing them well.

You used career when it was convenient to make your point and you used this season when that helped your point. Stats only tell part of the story at best and don't account for kicking to a specific spot for coverage teams, field position elements, onside kicks, etc.

Nah, I used career because that's what I was looking at. Fine, use this season's numbers then. They aren't any better....

And I have seen nothing about his intangibles that make me think he is worth getting paid what he is. Haven't seen him convert an onside kick that I remember. Haven't seen him been exceptional at the coffin corner. Haven't seen much of anything except average punting and average field goals and better than average kickoffs. Oh wait, I do remember him missing every game winning field goal he has attempted.

Any GM can try and retain guys by paying them what they are worth at that moment in time, but they're usually going to be outbid by those willing to pay for expected future performance or they'll look bad for paying a guy that delivers diminishing returns. Shaw's contract was more about keeping him off the market and what they expect him to be worth in the years to come than it was about his market value in 2013. In the Eskimos' opinion (read Hervey), Shaw is EXPECTED to be good enough that the contract will make sense over its duration. I am curious to hear Wally's reasoning why he didn't EXPECT that O'Neill was going to be a viable bang for the buck going forward to justify working out the roster space issue in the short-term.

It sounds to me like this was a matter of them wanting him to extend to continue as McCallum's backup and O'Neill having other ideas in mind. Who knows. I'm sure Wally knows kickers can be found no problem on the open market, something we seem to have struggled mightily with.

We agree that this is not a case of replacing a long time vet, but we obviously very much disagree on the rest. While he's not a vet and he hasn't proven to be an all-star yet, I believe that he has proven the ability to solidly fill three roles and he has seemingly won the confidence of the organization to carry those going forward. Last season, he was among the best punters in the league statistically (only behind Dales) and among the best kickoff guys too, while being 6th in FG%.

6th is not good enough. This is the problem with being an Eskimos fan lately. We are too satisfied with being average. This is a 1-5 team with a kicker hitting at 77% this season and 73% in his career. There are very few positions we do not need an upgrade at and kicker is certainly one that we should upgrade if possible.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[boydo]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

To be fair though...how many on-side kicks have we attempted in the last 10 years let alone with Shaw doing them? Most of the time we haven't played well enough to warrant one (close enough score) Coffin corner kicks - who knows, with the coaching the way it is - he might have been told not to do them. (which wouldn't surprise me at this point)

[Angelus]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

To be fair though...how many on-side kicks have we attempted in the last 10 years let alone with Shaw doing them? Most of the time we haven't played well enough to warrant one (close enough score) Coffin corner kicks - who knows, with the coaching the way it is - he might have been told not to do them. (which wouldn't surprise me at this point)

Yes, but if you want to bring up "intangibles" to say why you like a guy over what the stats say, then that's fair game.

[Sectionq]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

That is a concern. Another concern of mine about Shaw is his mental toughness in pressure situations. Missed game winners and even that shanked punt out of his endzone in Mtl

That's my biggest concern. He hasn't made a game winning field goal yet. Yes the one's he's had a chance to kick have been long but at some point you need to make the odd one. Last game vs Hamilton he was short. How the hell are you short? He's got the leg to kick 60+ yards.

He seems to make all the 45+ yard field goals 10 minutes into the game but with every minute that ticks off the clock, his accuracy decreases and forget about the last minute. Not a chance he makes anything with the game on the line.

[Angelus]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

How the hell are you short? He's got the leg to kick 60+ yards.

Does he? Has anyone seen it?

How do we know? Because Eric Tillman said so?

[boydo]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

True I guess. Not sure what it is, but I just don't think Shaw's been given a chance. If The 3 kicks were way off I would consider them choke. Maybe it's because one was pretty close for being so damned far out, another was ridonkulous wind to compensate for and the other...well...yeah it was still close. Close doesn't get points I know but it's not like the kid's completely useless here.

[Deathsdoorstep]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

You find out what you're made of when you get your chance to shine. If you don't.....

[West Coast Easy]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

This is Shaw's second full season as a full time kicker. In McCallum's first two seasons as a full time kicker his percentages were 70.2 and 71.8, while being only one year younger than Shaw at similar stages in their careers. So it is a fairly close comparison. Give up on Shaw now and you will be regretting it for the next 10 years when he is hitting them consistently from 40+ with the REDBLACKS.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

6th is not good enough. This is the problem with being an Eskimos fan lately. We are too satisfied with being average. This is a 1-5 team with a kicker hitting at 77% this season and 73% in his career. There are very few positions we do not need an upgrade at and kicker is certainly one that we should upgrade if possible.

We will have to agree to disagree.

We agree, his FG kicking has not been good enough, but I think it's defensible to sacrifice 10% on FG% (works out to 4-5 FGs over the course of the season - some meaningful and some not) to be able to dress an extra player elsewhere, especially when your punting and kickoffs put you near the top of the league. To have a top-half punter and a top-half FG kicker likely either There is no question that his FG kicking needs to improve, and I agree with Diesel, in that I have questions about his reliability in clutch situations and will continue to until he makes a few in a row.

I don't believe it's about settling though, just the same as I don't think we're settling with Reilly, but rather dealing with a guy that's still honing his craft. Some do it quicker than others, but some develop over time and remain excellent for years. McCallum spent four years bouncing around before he even got a steady gig, then he was below 80% on FGs in 7 of his next 9 seasons. Patience with a rebuild that is going in the right direction is a tough thing to ask for when you've come through some rebuilding that had to be started over a few times.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

Yes, but if you want to bring up "intangibles" to say why you like a guy over what the stats say, then that's fair game.

I brought up directional kicking, field position and onside kicks in asserting that they throw off the stats when you're looking at average distance. I don't believe he excels at any of them and wasn't representing that they were something that justified his salary. I truly believe his salary is justified by the roster spot(s) he saves.

Does he? Has anyone seen it?

How do we know? Because Eric Tillman said so?

Yes, I have seen Shaw hit from 60+ in practice and at training camp. It is a very different thing from trying to do it in a game, but the leg strength is there.

Look at his per-game punting averages this year, and you'll see that he's had games at 45, 46 and 48 yard averages, pretty much in line with what he did last year (46 yd average). The other three games were between 38-39.5 yard averages and two were in horrible rain and the third involved a shanked punt that was costly.

[Hugoagogo]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

On a related note, I'm not trying to defend Shaw, but Kerry Joseph has not been the most reliable holder for him. More than a couple occasions of laces pointing his way.

[Angelus]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

I don't have a problem with Shaw's punting. I have a problem with his outstanding ability to miss field goals. And he doesn't just miss by a little...sometimes he misses so badly the ball ends up closer to the sideline than the goal post.

And yes, I realize some of those could be a bad hold.

[Hugoagogo]

Re: Why we should sign Hugh O'Neill

I don't have a problem with Shaw's punting. I have a problem with his outstanding ability to miss field goals. And he doesn't just miss by a little...sometimes he misses so badly the ball ends up closer to the sideline than the goal post.

Maybe when it's time to punt we should have him try a field goal