Home
Arts and Entertainment
Dining
Music
News
Sports

Featured Advertiser:

With the 142nd pick of the 2009 NFL Draft, the Cincinnati Bengals select punter Kevin Huber, UC

Published April 26, 2009 at 6:28 p.m.
179065-with-the-142nd-pick-of-the-2009-nfl-draft--the-cincinnati-bengals-select-punter-kevin-huber--uc 179065-with-the-142nd-pick-of-the-2009-nfl-draft--the-cincinnati-bengals-select-punter-kevin-huber--uc

With the 142nd pick of the 2009 NFL Draft, the Cincinnati Bengals select punter Kevin Huber, University of Cincinnati. The Bengals had one of the worst punting performances in the league last year. With an offense that ranked dead last in the league, there was a certain disadvantage with a punter that didn't help the Bengals field position. In a division that's clearly defensive-oriented, having a quality punter only helps the Bengals field position and was addressed as a serious need. Now, if Huber could have been selected later in the draft, that's another debate.

..............................................................................
YEARPUNTSAVGLNGYDS
2005533.249166
2006250.551101
20075746.9622672
20086045.0642697

Rivals Scouting Report

Positives: Intelligent. Steady and level-headed. Good work ethic...Strives to get better at his craft and knows the way to the weight room. Excellent production. Very good leg strength. Nice placement to hem opponents inside the 20-yard line. Gets good lift and hang time...Only two punts leaked into the endzone as a senior. Served as the holder on placements. Well respected.

Negatives: Was less than impressive at the Senior Bowl. Get-off times are just average — 1.3 to 1.4 seconds. Could hasten his delivery. Did not punt his first two years at Cincinnati.

Summary: Good-sized, directional lefty who shows the ability to keep the ball outside the numbers. Hard worker with above-average leg strength to win a job.

...


Back | Read more at CincyJungle.com-Sports blog

Tagthis You must log in to tag articles
Separate tags with commas
Rate this now!
  • Average rating: 3.2
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Number of ratings: 6 - Average rating: 3.2