so glad we have maynard all these years and no merry-go-round at ST

GREEN BAY – Jeremy Kapinos won’t be getting cut this week, but the Packers punter was put on notice by coach Mike McCarthy on Wednesday that he must improve.

Entering Sunday’s game at Tampa Bay, Kapinos is averaging 45.0 gross yards per punt and 33.9 net on 27 punts. The Packers rank 24th in the 32-team NFL in gross punting and 30th in net punting.

Packers opponents are averaging 13.3 yards per return, a number buoyed by several long returns that came when Kapinos’ placement wasn’t where the coverage units needed it to be.

“I think Jeremy could do a better job. He knows that. That's been addressed,” McCarthy said Wednesday. “I think he could be more consistent with the ball placement. I would like to see him carry over what he's accomplishing in the practice field and his workouts. I think he's improved vastly in his work since the spring, training camp, and during the practice week. But he can definitely improve his performance.”

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/blog/index.php?action=blog&blog_id=20&post_id=1270

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years?

thanks

I called this one back in August.

 

13. The Packers punters will be ranked in the bottom five in the NFL.

http://boards.chicagobears.com/forums/thread/1746946.aspx

---

ROLL ON THUNDER
SHINE ON LIGHTNING
THE DAYS ARE LONG
AND THE NIGHTS ARE FRIGHTENING
NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY
AND THAT'S THE HELL OF IT

I was at the grocery store buying eight apples, and the clerk asked me if I would like a bag. And I said, "No, man, I juggle! But I can only juggle eight. If I'm ever here buying nine apples, bag 'em up!"

dbears54:

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years? thanks

Probably about the same number as QB's going through Chicago.

geno59:

dbears54:

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years?

thanks

Probably about the same number as QB's going through Chicago.

WOW that many, knew you sucked at punters but that would be scary : )

esp as you keep 2-3 qb's and only punter at a time,, : )

and guess this is more of that 'deflection" stuff some say shouldn't happen, beucase the question as "how many punters in greenbay".. which chicago qb's has nothing to do with.

dbears54:

geno59:

dbears54:

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years? thanks

Probably about the same number as QB's going through Chicago.

WOW that many, knew you sucked at punters but that would be scary : ) esp as you keep 2-3 qb's and only punter at a time,, : ) and guess this is more of that 'deflection" stuff some say shouldn't happen, beucase the question as "how many punters in greenbay".. which chicago qb's has nothing to do with.

Every team is not stocked with solid players at every position.  Look how long it took for the Bears to find a legit QB.  So the Packers need to improve the punting game-so what.  There are worse problems to have.  In the end, time will tell who is the better team, GB or Chicago.  As it stands, both teams are 4-3 with the Packers already beating Chicago during the first meeting.  Our losses came against a close game with the Bengals who pounded the Bears and two games against a very good Minnesota team.  We'll see how the Bears do against them.  I know where I'd put my money.

Just wanted a simple answer to 'how many punter s they had".

didn't mean for it to turn into a Qb slam or now a which team is better..

just a simple question didn't feel like looking up, figured it would ahve a simple answer for Pakcer fan.. oh well

dbears54:

Just wanted a simple answer to 'how many punter s they had". didn't mean for it to turn into a Qb slam or now a which team is better.. just a simple question didn't feel like looking up, figured it would ahve a simple answer for Pakcer fan.. oh well

I'm not trying to start an argument over it.  In all seriousness, I don't know nor care.  Do I want the punting game to improve?  You bet but my concern now is that O-line.  I don't like seeing a good QB like Rodgers getting killed out there.

dbears54:

so glad we have maynard all these years and no merry-go-round at ST GREEN BAY – Jeremy Kapinos won’t be getting cut this week, but the Packers punter was put on notice by coach Mike McCarthy on Wednesday that he must improve. Entering Sunday’s game at Tampa Bay, Kapinos is averaging 45.0 gross yards per punt and 33.9 net on 27 punts. The Packers rank 24th in the 32-team NFL in gross punting and 30th in net punting. Packers opponents are averaging 13.3 yards per return, a number buoyed by several long returns that came when Kapinos’ placement wasn’t where the coverage units needed it to be. “I think Jeremy could do a better job. He knows that. That's been addressed,” McCarthy said Wednesday. “I think he could be more consistent with the ball placement. I would like to see him carry over what he's accomplishing in the practice field and his workouts. I think he's improved vastly in his work since the spring, training camp, and during the practice week. But he can definitely improve his performance.” http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/blog/index.php?action=blog&blog_id=20&post_id=1270

Well, after further review, most of this entire article is CRAP.

Is Kapinos averaging 45.0 yards per punt? Yes he is. Where does that rank in the NFL? 13th. For the record, Brad Maynard ranks 29th in the NFL with an average of 40.3.

This article also mentions some sort of rank of "24th in gross punting." Well that's for total yards! And that figure is based on the number of punts each team has. The Packers have a high-scoring offense. So by default, they don't have to punt as often as other teams. So of course their total punting yards are going to be down. THAT'S A POSITIVE STAT!

In terms of total punting yards, four of the "top" five come from Oakland, Kansas City, Buffalo and Cleveland - four of the worst teams in the NFL. They punt a lot. So duh, they're going to have a higher total of gross punting yards.

And which regular punters are on the bottom of that list? Well it's the punters from New England, Pittsburgh, New Orleans and Indianapolis. And gee, those are some of the best teams in the NFL.

Maybe Kapinos needs to place his punts in a better area. But that's the only critical thing here. The rest of the article is garbage.

---

ROLL ON THUNDER
SHINE ON LIGHTNING
THE DAYS ARE LONG
AND THE NIGHTS ARE FRIGHTENING
NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY
AND THAT'S THE HELL OF IT

I was at the grocery store buying eight apples, and the clerk asked me if I would like a bag. And I said, "No, man, I juggle! But I can only juggle eight. If I'm ever here buying nine apples, bag 'em up!"

30th in net punting.

Article is Spot on,, means unlike a maynard, who booms it directiionally, so they can't be retrurned or fair catched thus a great NET yardage and no big runs back...

kapinos is either OUTKICKING his coverage, meaning his gross avg high but useless because they have time to catch and runback, leading to TD's and bad field position -hence 30th in NET PUNTING

or he is not kicking directionally where his coverage goes, also leading to Big returns

no one cares about gross averages..

Give me a kicker hs a 40 gross that NETS 39 yards with less than 10 returns all year and no big runs

then a punter with 45 gross,but 30 net with 20 returns and a few long returns with maybe a td or 2

article and mcarthy's comments spot on if understand the kicking game and realize no one cares abour gross averages

dbears54:

30th in net punting.  

Wrong - for the same reasons as I stated previously. Because this 30th rank they have listed is in terms of TOTAL YARDS IN NET PUNTING.

And of course teams that don't punt as much are going to be ranked lower. Again, five of the top six punters in terms of net punting yards are the punters from Oakland, Cleveland, Buffalo, Kansas City and St. Louis. Why? Because they punt a lot more often!

What we need to find out is where each punter ranks in terms of net punting AVERAGE PER PUNT.

---

ROLL ON THUNDER
SHINE ON LIGHTNING
THE DAYS ARE LONG
AND THE NIGHTS ARE FRIGHTENING
NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY
AND THAT'S THE HELL OF IT

I was at the grocery store buying eight apples, and the clerk asked me if I would like a bag. And I said, "No, man, I juggle! But I can only juggle eight. If I'm ever here buying nine apples, bag 'em up!"

IHATETHEBEARS:

dbears54:

30th in net punting.  

Wrong - for the same reasons as I stated previously. Because this 30th rank they have listed is in terms of TOTAL YARDS IN NET PUNTING.

And of course teams that don't punt as much are going to be ranked lower. Again, five of the top six punters in terms of net punting yards are the punters from Oakland, Cleveland, Buffalo, Kansas City and St. Louis. Why? Because they punt a lot more often!

What we need to find out is where each punter ranks in terms of net punting AVERAGE PER PUNT.

UH NO!

averaging 45.0 gross yards per punt and 33.9 net on 27 punts

the 33.9 NET avg is 33th in league, and has ZERO TO DO WITH TOTAL YARDS!.. you are spewing wrong info again, sorry as you can see from the link below NET IS NEt and MANY have different total yardage, you are wrong

here is the NET AVG STATS:(actually 33rd, but 30th by active kickers)

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PUNTING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PUNTING_NET_AVERAGE&d-447263-n=1

33 Jeremy Kapinos GB P 27 1,214 914 58 45.0 33.9

and here is another way to look at it.. he's given up the 4th MOST return yards in NFL,, despite being lechter having 2X THE AMOUNT OF KICKS RETURNED

hes' given up 240 yards on 18 returns OUCH

( once again none of that nosnense about total yards or gross)

the other guys above 200 have 32,34 and also 18 and most in top 15 have 20 or more

and can see maynard given up only 78 yards in 11 returns, which means alot better Filed position

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PUNTING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PUNTING_RETURN_YARDS&d-447263-n=1

geno59:

dbears54:

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years?

thanks

Probably about the same number as QB's going through Chicago.

HAHAH you gotta admit, that was hilarious.....and true =(

---

Will you choose no?
O yes
O no
\

dbears54:

and here is another way to look at it.. he's given up the 4th MOST return yards in NFL,, despite being lechter having 2X THE AMOUNT OF KICKS RETURNED hes' given up 240 yards on 18 returns OUCH ( once again none of that nosnense about total yards or gross) the other guys above 200 have 32,34 and also 18 and most in top 15 have 20 or more and can see maynard given up only 78 yards in 11 returns, which means alot better Filed position http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PUNTING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PUNTING_RETURN_YARDS&d-447263-n=1

He's given up? Hardly.

But you see, that is a legitimate ctiticism. The rest of the article is crap. That was my point.

---

ROLL ON THUNDER
SHINE ON LIGHTNING
THE DAYS ARE LONG
AND THE NIGHTS ARE FRIGHTENING
NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY
AND THAT'S THE HELL OF IT

I was at the grocery store buying eight apples, and the clerk asked me if I would like a bag. And I said, "No, man, I juggle! But I can only juggle eight. If I'm ever here buying nine apples, bag 'em up!"

IHATETHEBEARS:

dbears54:

and here is another way to look at it.. he's given up the 4th MOST return yards in NFL,, despite being lechter having 2X THE AMOUNT OF KICKS RETURNED hes' given up 240 yards on 18 returns OUCH ( once again none of that nosnense about total yards or gross) the other guys above 200 have 32,34 and also 18 and most in top 15 have 20 or more and can see maynard given up only 78 yards in 11 returns, which means alot better Filed position http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PUNTING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PUNTING_RETURN_YARDS&d-447263-n=1

He's given up? Hardly.

But you see, that is a legitimate ctiticism. The rest of the article is crap. That was my point.

the whole POINT of the article WAS THE YARDS GIVEN UP AND HE ws on notice if he doesnt directionally kick better he's gone

*you* tried to turn it something it wasn't by saying the nonsense about gross yardage that mde no snese and not germaine to being 30th IN NET PUNTING( and 4th most yards given up in returns with not many returns makes it even WORSE!)

and again you were WRONG for telling me I had the wrong info, but as usual you ducked admitting your mistake..lol

The 30th ranking WAS ON NET YARDAGE NOT the gross nonsense you tried claiming

geno59:

dbears54:

geno59:

dbears54:

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years?

thanks

Probably about the same number as QB's going through Chicago.

WOW that many, knew you sucked at punters but that would be scary : )

esp as you keep 2-3 qb's and only punter at a time,, : )

and guess this is more of that 'deflection" stuff some say shouldn't happen, beucase the question as "how many punters in greenbay".. which chicago qb's has nothing to do with.

Every team is not stocked with solid players at every position.  Look how long it took for the Bears to find a legit QB.  So the Packers need to improve the punting game-so what.  There are worse problems to have.  In the end, time will tell who is the better team, GB or Chicago.  As it stands, both teams are 4-3 with the Packers already beating Chicago during the first meeting.  Our losses came against a close game with the Bengals who pounded the Bears and two games against a very good Minnesota team.  We'll see how the Bears do against them.  I know where I'd put my money.

C'mon Geno, who are you crappin? The Bengal/Packer game was not that close.. GB got a garbage time TD and fluke onside kick at HOME to keep it close and make it interesting.

You, and IHTB, seem to be so positive on how good and lock these Vikings are going forward. All I know is, the weather is going to turn worse and Minnesota has known to choke many a time... it is far from over. Sure they are good but they are not that good and I am not ready to crown their you know what's just yet. BTW, I will remember your "I know where I'd put my money" statement as the game in late December in Chicago gets closer....

wisco:

geno59:

dbears54:

geno59:

dbears54:

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years? thanks

Probably about the same number as QB's going through Chicago.

WOW that many, knew you sucked at punters but that would be scary : ) esp as you keep 2-3 qb's and only punter at a time,, : ) and guess this is more of that 'deflection" stuff some say shouldn't happen, beucase the question as "how many punters in greenbay".. which chicago qb's has nothing to do with.

Every team is not stocked with solid players at every position.  Look how long it took for the Bears to find a legit QB.  So the Packers need to improve the punting game-so what.  There are worse problems to have.  In the end, time will tell who is the better team, GB or Chicago.  As it stands, both teams are 4-3 with the Packers already beating Chicago during the first meeting.  Our losses came against a close game with the Bengals who pounded the Bears and two games against a very good Minnesota team.  We'll see how the Bears do against them.  I know where I'd put my money.

C'mon Geno, who are you crappin? The Bengal/Packer game was not that close.. GB got a garbage time TD and fluke onside kick at HOME to keep it close and make it interesting. You, and IHTB, seem to be so positive on how good and lock these Vikings are going forward. All I know is, the weather is going to turn worse and Minnesota has known to choke many a time... it is far from over. Sure they are good but they are not that good and I am not ready to crown their you know what's just yet. BTW, I will remember your "I know where I'd put my money" statement as the game in late December in Chicago gets closer....

You're on Wisc.  You and I may disagree but the Vikings are for real this year due to Favre.  I stand by my statement that the Bears do not stand a chance against them and will put my money where my mouth is.  Could I be wrong?  Sure but I'm willing to wager I'm not.  PM me for what you might have in mind.  I'm game.  There's no way you'll convince me the Bengals manhandled the Packers like they did the Bears.  The Packers stayed in it till the end while it was over for Chicago before the first quarter ended.  In addition, how is the first half considered "garbage time?"  Packers and Bengals were tied at halftime 21-21.  Bengals scored 10 points in the second half while GB kicked a field goal and were driving towards the goal line when time expired.  The game was indeed close.  Bears/Bengals at 45-10 was not.

geno59:

wisco:

geno59:

dbears54:

geno59:

dbears54:

Hey PF or geno.. how many punters have the pakcers been through the last 7-8 years?

thanks

Probably about the same number as QB's going through Chicago.

WOW that many, knew you sucked at punters but that would be scary : )

esp as you keep 2-3 qb's and only punter at a time,, : )

and guess this is more of that 'deflection" stuff some say shouldn't happen, beucase the question as "how many punters in greenbay".. which chicago qb's has nothing to do with.

Every team is not stocked with solid players at every position.  Look how long it took for the Bears to find a legit QB.  So the Packers need to improve the punting game-so what.  There are worse problems to have.  In the end, time will tell who is the better team, GB or Chicago.  As it stands, both teams are 4-3 with the Packers already beating Chicago during the first meeting.  Our losses came against a close game with the Bengals who pounded the Bears and two games against a very good Minnesota team.  We'll see how the Bears do against them.  I know where I'd put my money.

C'mon Geno, who are you crappin? The Bengal/Packer game was not that close.. GB got a garbage time TD and fluke onside kick at HOME to keep it close and make it interesting.

You, and IHTB, seem to be so positive on how good and lock these Vikings are going forward. All I know is, the weather is going to turn worse and Minnesota has known to choke many a time... it is far from over. Sure they are good but they are not that good and I am not ready to crown their you know what's just yet. BTW, I will remember your "I know where I'd put my money" statement as the game in late December in Chicago gets closer....

You're on Wisc.  You and I may disagree but the Vikings are for real this year due to Favre.  I stand by my statement that the Bears do not stand a chance against them and will put my money where my mouth is.  Could I be wrong?  Sure but I'm willing to wager I'm not.  PM me for what you might have in mind.  I'm game.  There's no way you'll convince me the Bengals manhandled the Packers like they did the Bears.  The Packers stayed in it till the end while it was over for Chicago before the first quarter ended.  In addition, how is the first half considered "garbage time?"  Packers and Bengals were tied at halftime 21-21.  Bengals scored 10 points in the second half while GB kicked a field goal and were driving towards the goal line when time expired.  The game was indeed close.  Bears/Bengals at 45-10 was not.

I stand corrected... garbage time FG and then onside kick. I did not deny the Bears were given the wood shed in Cincy. I only disputed that the GB/Cincy game was a close one. It really was not. Down by 10 with 49 seconds left is not close. Cincy was protecting the deep ball on their FG drive, if I remember correct Rodgers ran for half the yards on that drive. They were giving him that.

Time will tell about Minnesota but you do not win division titles or championships in October... especially the Minnesota chokers.

The special teams problems start with coaching.

They kicked deep, on kick-offs, to Harvin and he torched the special teams.  The Vikings had incredible starting field position.

They changed to squibb kick, vikings fumbled the first one, leading to GB TD, the squibb another, and it lead to a three and out.

GB scores another TD or FG, then what do they do????

Kick it deep.  How stupid was that???

I don't blame the punter.  I'd like to see McCarthy step up to the microphone and say their kick-off strategy was completely DUMB and that it was all on him.

Vikings had incredible field position and it was mostly those kick-offs that killed them.

Plus Crosby missing a 51 yarder....I believe it was a 6 point game at that point, not sure, but he missed the thing and vikes got the ball at their 41....another easy score.

Kicking game is hurting.  Not necessarily the punts.

Cheers

---

2009 Green Bay Packers finish 11-5, sweeping the Bears. Aaron Rodgers finishes season with higher QB rating than Jay Cutler, Bears finish no higher than 8-8.

Is Jay Cutler the next Uncle Rico?

1950's 0 Championships, Bears Suck
1960's 1 Championships, Bears Suck, Packers 5 Championships
1970's 0 Championships, Bears Suck
1980's 1 Championship, Bears Suck
1990's 0 Championships, Bears Suck, Packers 1 Championship
2000's 0 Championships, Bears, still Sucking after all these years

In wardi's lifetime, Packers 6 Championships, Bears 2...Packers lead series by 15 games in wardi's lifetime....

Cheers

Who is this "Ward" and what is he back from?

Judging by your sanitized avatar, I'm guessing you like "Leave it to Beaver"?

Takeittothehouse23:

Who is this "Ward" and what is he back from? Judging by your sanitized avatar, I'm guessing you like "Leave it to Beaver"?

That's no crime. It's a great show.

---

ROLL ON THUNDER
SHINE ON LIGHTNING
THE DAYS ARE LONG
AND THE NIGHTS ARE FRIGHTENING
NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY
AND THAT'S THE HELL OF IT

I was at the grocery store buying eight apples, and the clerk asked me if I would like a bag. And I said, "No, man, I juggle! But I can only juggle eight. If I'm ever here buying nine apples, bag 'em up!"

dbears54:

IHATETHEBEARS:

dbears54:

30th in net punting.  

Wrong - for the same reasons as I stated previously. Because this 30th rank they have listed is in terms of TOTAL YARDS IN NET PUNTING.

And of course teams that don't punt as much are going to be ranked lower. Again, five of the top six punters in terms of net punting yards are the punters from Oakland, Cleveland, Buffalo, Kansas City and St. Louis. Why? Because they punt a lot more often!

What we need to find out is where each punter ranks in terms of net punting AVERAGE PER PUNT.

UH NO!

averaging 45.0 gross yards per punt and 33.9 net on 27 punts

the 33.9 NET avg is 33th in league, and has ZERO TO DO WITH TOTAL YARDS!.. you are spewing wrong info again, sorry as you can see from the link below NET IS NEt and MANY have different total yardage, you are wrong

here is the NET AVG STATS:(actually 33rd, but 30th by active kickers)

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PUNTING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PUNTING_NET_AVERAGE&d-447263-n=1

33 Jeremy Kapinos GB P 27 1,214 914 58 45.0 33.9

a shame once again you do not admit you had it wrong or, apolize for falsely accusing me of being wrong, when i had it 100% correct and gave you the where each punter ranks in terms of net punting AVERAGE PER PUNT.

dbears54:

dbears54:

IHATETHEBEARS:

dbears54:

30th in net punting.  

Wrong - for the same reasons as I stated previously. Because this 30th rank they have listed is in terms of TOTAL YARDS IN NET PUNTING.

And of course teams that don't punt as much are going to be ranked lower. Again, five of the top six punters in terms of net punting yards are the punters from Oakland, Cleveland, Buffalo, Kansas City and St. Louis. Why? Because they punt a lot more often!

What we need to find out is where each punter ranks in terms of net punting AVERAGE PER PUNT.

UH NO! averaging 45.0 gross yards per punt and 33.9 net on 27 punts the 33.9 NET avg is 33th in league, and has ZERO TO DO WITH TOTAL YARDS!.. you are spewing wrong info again, sorry as you can see from the link below NET IS NEt and MANY have different total yardage, you are wrong here is the NET AVG STATS:(actually 33rd, but 30th by active kickers) http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PUNTING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PUNTING_NET_AVERAGE&d-447263-n=1 33 Jeremy Kapinos GB P 27 1,214 914 58 45.0 33.9

a shame once again you do not admit you had it wrong or, apolize for falsely accusing me of being wrong, when i had it 100% correct and gave you the where each punter ranks in terms of net punting AVERAGE PER PUNT.

Are you capable of posting without baiting someone?

---

ROLL ON THUNDER
SHINE ON LIGHTNING
THE DAYS ARE LONG
AND THE NIGHTS ARE FRIGHTENING
NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY
AND THAT'S THE HELL OF IT

I was at the grocery store buying eight apples, and the clerk asked me if I would like a bag. And I said, "No, man, I juggle! But I can only juggle eight. If I'm ever here buying nine apples, bag 'em up!"

if you just admitted your mistake, after trying to tell me I was wrong- and when I take the time and effort to look up the stats and show you WHY I WAS CORRECT,

i would not have to ask again. it is a shame, you are quick to tell people they are wrong, but ignore the thread and posts when shown wrong ,and hadly ever admit you made a mistake, as seen by the above is the point

I'm not baiting, i'm asking you to reply to you accusing me of being wrong, when I was not.you were QUICK to try and say I was wrong, but sure didn't admit it when it was you that was wrong, is the point