Players 2024 final

1

Chris Boswell

PIT· 17 G

41 FG made

2

Brandon Aubrey

DAL· 17 G

40 FG made

3

Cameron Dicker

LAC· 17 G

39 FG made

4

Jason Sanders

MIA· 17 G

37 FG made

5

Ka'imi Fairbairn

HOU· 17 G

36 FG made

Kickers — 2024 · ranked by FG made

#	Player	Tm	G	Grade	FG/gm	Att/gm	FGM	FGA	FG%	50+	Long	PAT	Pts/gm
1	Chris Boswell	PIT	17	76	2.41	2.59	41	44	93.2%	13	57	35/35	9.3
2	Brandon Aubrey	DAL	17	72	2.35	2.76	40	47	85.1%	14	65	30/30	8.8
3	Cameron Dicker	LAC	17	70	2.29	2.47	39	42	92.9%	9	59	33/36	8.8
4	Jason Sanders	MIA	17	62	2.18	2.41	37	41	90.2%	12	57	26/28	8.1
5	Ka'imi Fairbairn	HOU	17	68	2.12	2.47	36	42	85.7%	13	59	34/36	8.4
6	Daniel Carlson	LV	17	53	2.00	2.35	34	40	85.0%	7	54	23/25	7.4
7	Matt Gay	IND	16	56	1.94	2.31	31	37	83.8%	3	56	33/33	7.9
8	Wil Lutz	DEN	17	59	1.82	2.00	31	34	91.2%	5	55	46/46	8.2
9	Chase McLaughlin	TB	17	64	1.76	1.88	30	32	93.8%	8	56	54/56	8.5
10	Joshua Karty	LAR	17	44	1.71	2.00	29	34	85.3%	6	58	32/36	7.0
11	Jake Elliott	PHI	17	53	1.65	2.12	28	36	77.8%	1	50	47/48	7.7
12	Chad Ryland	ARI	13	60	2.15	2.46	28	32	87.5%	4	58	26/27	8.5
13	Cam Little	JAX	17	38	1.59	1.71	27	29	93.1%	5	59	27/27	6.4
14	Blake Grupe	NO	17	40	1.59	1.82	27	31	87.1%	6	57	31/33	6.6
15	Austin Seibert	WAS	9	83	3.00	3.33	27	30	90.0%	2	55	22/24	11.4
16	Jake Bates	DET	17	61	1.53	1.71	26	29	89.7%	6	58	64/67	8.4
17	Joey Slye	NE	17	36	1.53	1.94	26	33	78.8%	6	63	25/26	6.1
18	Jason Myers	SEA	17	43	1.53	1.76	26	30	86.7%	9	59	37/40	6.8
19	Younghoe Koo	ATL	14	48	1.79	2.43	25	34	73.5%	6	58	26/26	7.2
20	Tyler Bass	BUF	17	55	1.41	1.71	24	29	82.8%	4	61	59/64	7.7
21	Jake Moody	SF	14	51	1.71	2.43	24	34	70.6%	4	53	32/33	7.4
22	Will Reichard	MIN	13	66	1.85	2.31	24	30	80.0%	8	58	38/38	8.5
23	Eddy Pineiro	CAR	17	32	1.29	1.53	22	26	84.6%	1	53	33/35	5.8
24	Justin Tucker	BAL	17	53	1.29	1.76	22	30	73.3%	6	56	60/62	7.4
25	Cairo Santos	CHI	17	30	1.24	1.47	21	25	84.0%	8	54	25/26	5.2
26	Harrison Butker	KC	13	41	1.62	1.92	21	25	84.0%	2	53	29/31	7.1
27	Nick Folk	TEN	14	39	1.50	1.57	21	22	95.5%	6	56	25/25	6.3
28	Brandon McManus	GB	11	57	1.82	1.91	20	21	95.2%	3	55	30/30	8.2
29	Dustin Hopkins	CLE	16	17	1.12	1.69	18	27	66.7%	4	56	17/20	4.4
30	Evan McPherson	CIN	12	45	1.33	1.83	16	22	72.7%	3	56	37/38	7.1
31	Greg Joseph	WAS	8	47	2.00	2.50	16	20	80.0%	1	52	11/11	7.4
32	Matthew Wright	TEN	5	—	3.00	3.20	15	16	93.8%	1	50	6/6	10.2
33	Anders Carlson	SF	7	49	1.86	2.14	13	15	86.7%	3	58	12/15	7.3
34	Brayden Narveson	TEN	7	49	1.71	2.57	12	18	66.7%	0	47	18/18	7.7
35	John Parker Romo	MIN	4	—	2.75	3.00	11	12	91.7%	1	55	7/8	10.0
36	Cade York	WAS	6	46	1.50	2.17	9	13	69.2%	1	59	16/17	7.2
37	Graham Gano	NYG	10	24	0.90	1.10	9	11	81.8%	2	53	15/15	4.2
38	Greg Zuerlein	NYJ	8	28	1.12	1.88	9	15	60.0%	0	40	13/14	5.0
39	Matt Prater	ARI	4	—	1.50	1.50	6	6	100.0%	1	57	10/10	7.0
40	Zane Gonzalez	WAS	6	34	0.83	1.17	5	7	71.4%	0	48	19/19	5.7
41	Spencer Shrader	NYJ	4	—	1.25	1.25	5	5	100.0%	0	45	9/9	6.0
42	Riley Patterson	NYJ	5	—	0.80	1.40	4	7	57.1%	1	52	16/16	5.6

What this is. Finished box-score production from 2024, ranked by FG made. Per-game columns divide by games played, not games on the schedule, so a player who missed time is measured on the games he was in — and his season totals still show the games he missed. Minimum 4 games to be ranked, otherwise one big afternoon tops every list.

What it isn’t. None of this is a projection, a pick, or a prop recommendation — it is what already happened. Last season’s rate is a starting point for what a player does in a game, not a forecast of the next one: offense, role, and health all move underneath it. Target share and WOPR describe a player’s share of his own team’s passing game, so they compare roles, not players across teams.

About the grade. 0–100, where 50 is average for the position and 85+ is elite. It is box production, scaled by the defense it came against, pulled toward the positional average when a player has few games, then ranked within position — so a 90 quarterback and a 90 kicker are each elite for their own spot and are not comparable to each other in any other way. It needs 6 games, so players below that show — rather than a number built on a hot month.

What the grade can’t see. There is no charting behind it, so it rewards production over technique: the receiver who ran the route that freed someone else, and the back who picked up the blitz, get nothing for it. It is role-dependent by construction — a back on a run-heavy team gets more chances than an equally good back who touches it half as often. Kickers are not opponent-adjusted, because field goals are contested by distance and weather, not by the defense across the ball. And it grades a season already played; it is not a projection of the next one.

Regular season and postseason are kept separate on purpose. Playoff samples are small and the opponents are better; blending them into a season rate quietly flatters the players who got there. The grade is regular-season only, so it is not offered on the postseason split.