The Kansas City Chiefs have a problem at kicker.
It’s a statement that’s been true all season, but the biggest red flag of the entire year came late in Sunday’s must-win game against the Los Angeles Chargers. After Gardner Minshew’s final pass to Travis Kelce was intercepted, ending the game and eliminating Kansas City from the playoffs, one thought immediately came to mind: Where was Harrison Butker?
Why didn’t the Chiefs turn to their $25,000,000 kicker when the game (and their entire season) was on the line? Why did they instead put the ball in the hands of a backup quarterback who, before that moment, hadn’t thrown a single pass all season?
I think this highlights a primary problem the Chiefs have with Butker that could present a huge problem going forward: They don’t trust him. Or, at least, their trust in Butker clearly isn’t as high as it once was.
Butker has been lights out throughout his career. Regardless of his regular season form, he always made the biggest kicks on the biggest stage when Kansas City needed him the most. So why, in the biggest spot of 2025, didn’t the Chiefs turn to him?
The Kansas City Chiefs’ late pick revealed a troubling lack of confidence in the NFL’s highest-paid kicker.
With the game on the line, who would you trust more: your backup quarterback, who hasn’t played all season and was just thrust into the huddle during a do-or-die practice, or the highest-paid kicker in the NFL? The answer should be obvious. The fact that this is not the case – or that leaders have opposed the measure – highlights the scale of the problem.
To be clear, this would have been a difficult and long kick, probably at least 58 yards. But why do you pay your kicker over $6,000,000 a year if he doesn’t want to at least attempt a kick like that? Butker’s average salary is more than five times that of Minshew this year. Isn’t that an indicator that it should be the most reliable option?
Of course, other factors come into play. It was second down, there were 20 seconds left and the Chiefs still had a timeout. They didn’t have to kick from that spot, so it made sense to try to gain extra yards. On top of that, there was a delay of game penalty on the snap right before Minshew’s interception that pushed Kansas City back five yards.
But the play call indicated the Chiefs thought they needed a big piece to get within range of Butker. They shot deeper in double coverage rather than executing a short pass or even a run to gain four or five yards.
Distance is of course the biggest obstacle. After his pregame and halftime kicks, Butker reportedly told the coaching staff what his range was in each direction based on the conditions. Maybe he said anything beyond 50 yards toward that particular end zone was out of his reach. Maybe the Chiefs just decided they didn’t want to take a chance on a field goal from the 39-yard line.
Regardless, and whatever the reasoning, I keep coming back to one central issue: Why do you pay the most money to a kicker at his position if you don’t want him to kick there? Butker had a 59-yarder against the Chargers in Brazil in the season opener, a 56-yarder at Arrowhead against the Eagles in Week 2 and a 54-yarder when the Chiefs played the Giants in Week 3.
Despite his accuracy issues, he clearly still has a strong leg. But since missing a 56-yard field goal against the Ravens in Week 4, Butker hasn’t had a single attempt of more than 50 yards. Nine weeks.
Sure, the Chiefs may not have had many opportunities to attempt field goals in that range, and we know Kansas City was more aggressive on fourth down, especially at midfield. But this extra aggression could very well be linked to a lack of confidence in the kicking game.
Butker’s form has undoubtedly been poor. He’s made 84.6 percent of his field goals this season, which is below league average and the third-lowest mark of his career. That figure is just 0.6 percent higher than his conversion rate last year (84.0 percent), and his extra point percentage — 87.9 percent — is the lowest of his career and ranks 23rd in the league. These are not good numbers. They’re even uglier when you factor in what Kansas City pays for them.
Honestly, given the way the season has gone, I don’t think I would have expected Butker to make that kick even if the Chiefs had turned to him. But if that’s true — and the Chiefs think the same thing — a base salary of $5,805,000 is an awful lot to pay a kicker you don’t fully trust, who you can’t count on for long kicks and who has also struggled to make shorter ones.
The Chiefs should have trusted their star kicker, who gets paid millions of dollars to kick goals in moments exactly like this, instead of a backup quarterback who was in the game for five plays. The fact that they didn’t says a lot.
Kansas City won’t cut Butker, at least not yet. He carries a $10,000,000 dead cap hit next season, and it would cost the Chiefs money to remove him from the roster.
Paying top dollar for a kicker who doesn’t perform well and doesn’t seem trustworthy is a big deal. The Chiefs are going to have to figure it out.
