I think this article sums up nicely why those of us who didn't like the move, didn't like the move. It's a long article, but very well written and informative. At no point, have I thought that Aguayo wouldn't be an improvement over Barth. I assumed he would be, but that still didn't justify the cost. However, this article points out statistics that suggest that even that isn't as cut and dry as it seemed. Again, my dislike of the pick has never been about him not being better than Barth, this is just an additional point of concern. I'm including the comparisons to Barth, but the rest of the article is more relevant to what I didn't like about the cost. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2016/the-2nd-round-is-no-place-for-a-kicker We also must look at the replacement situation itself. The Buccaneers current kicker is/was Connor Barth [Barth was cut Monday by the Bucs]. Let’s examine Connor Barth vs Roberto Aguayo:Extra Points (last 4 years)Aguayo = 100%Barth = 99%Less than 40 yd FGs (last 2 years)Aguayo = 100%Barth = 100%Less than 40 yd FGs (last 4 years)Aguayo = 100%Barth = 98%40+ yard FGs (last 2 years)Aguayo = 64%Barth = 63%40+ yard FGs (last 4 years)Aguayo = 72%Barth = 78%There is absolutely nothing that screams out that Aguayo will be a night and day improvement over Barth....As for Connor Barth, how is this for clutch? The last five years Barth is 20/20 on FGs of 50 yards or less in the fourth quarter or overtime. No other kicker is 100% unless they have 7 or fewer attempts. Stephen Gostkowski and Steven Hauschka are the next most accurate kickers late in the game.Additionally, the last five years Connor Barth has never missed a FG 55 yards or less in the second half when the game was within 3 points (meaning down by as many as 3 points or up by no more than 3 points). His lone miss was a 56 yard attempt.
