My statistical case against keeping a long snapper

[FirstAndGoal]

Um, if you kick 75 times a season, that means you kick more than once a game. The 3 points is based on 1 kick. If the kicker kicks 5 field goals and wins the game by 6 points, those field goals were pretty important I'd say. Your analysis makes no sense.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Jeff, thanks for starting a thread that has actually prompted some decent discussion.

With that being said, I don't agree with you. As others have pointed out, some of your estimates include "plug" numbers. In the absence of accurate, on point, hard data you had to use what is available, I guess. Can't fault you for that too much. However, one thing that is missing is the computation as to the incremental benefit of efffectively adding your 46th player to game day roster. I suggest it is pretty near impossible to calculate. Most likely, he is going to be exclusively a STer too, out there for most of the same plays as a LS. However, in my opinion the value of that 46th player who contributes on ST is far less that the loss of a reliable long snapper who you know is not gonna turn the game around with a snap over the punter's head or botched FG.

Just another way to think about it...

Thanks, nothing wrong with a GOOD arguement right?
I agree its just the 46th guy being active...but its also being able to keep that one extra development type guy. A team like ours PS is going to constantly be raided, and at some point one of these guys is going to win a game/games for someone else. Between the raiding and our point differential I still would have to think more than once about keeping a guy just because its worked in the past. And I will still wonder if keeping long snappers is a fad that wont, at some point, reverse onto itself. Alot of people are high on a guy like Guyton or Slater.....STers at best, and I dont think the NFL has specialized to the point where every team has a LS, the next Hester, and the high jumper that blocks FGs. Who knows...

 

[jmt57]

There's lies....damn lies...and STATISTICS!

BB will never,ever,ever.....like,ya know,
NEVER.go without a designated Long-snapper.

.......don't even go there

Actually, I'm rather surprised that he does go with the specialist, the long snapper, given his (BB's) other decision making. More than any other coach, he looks for versatility in his players and the roster spots they represent. From a LB that can also be a DE, to a LB/S, a WR/DB, LB/TE, DL/FB, ILB/OLB, an OL that can play G,T, or C, etcetera, BB uses versatility to expand depth and overcome injuries probably better than any other coach. From that perspective, a designated long snapper is a bit of a surprise.

For some reason I seem to recall that there were long snap problems at some point when Paxton was out at one point (can't recall if it was injury, or maybe cut and then re-signed perhaps?) though I can't say for sure. Maybe somebody else's memory on this is better than mine. If true, it could have a lot to do with BB's decision making regarding Paxton.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The problem going without a designated long snapper like Lonie Paxton isn't just the expertise and ability, though that is real nice to have.

It's the fact that the designated long snapper - simply because he doesn't do anything else during the course of the football game - is less likely then any of the backups/position players to get himself injured or dinged up in such a way performance becomes an issue.

Equally importantly, IIRC, the rules are designed in a way that protects long snappers (the D can't line up directly over a LS), so Paxton is even less likely to be injured. And don't forget the speed aspects (Paxton can get the LS off about as fast as anyone in the NFL), either.

 

[Lamanai]

A team like ours PS is going to constantly be raided, and at some point one of these guys is going to win a game/games for someone else. ...

I'm not sure this is supported by facts. In the past it has been extremely rare for a Pats Patriots PS (or any team's PS for that matter) player to have been raided. I just doesn't happen. In the very rare instance that a player is picked up (the last one I can recall that spent meaningful active time on another roster is the backup RB the Colts snagged, Chapman?). In any event, do these guys really become playmakers for other teams. Again, odds are well belo those of losing a game on account of a bad snap.

Since I am jsut going on memory, perhaps others here can provide a list of players in recent years that have been picked up by other teams.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Has Lonnie ever botched a snap? I can't remember one.

Here a few examples of why you keep a dependable long snapper:

Cowboys vs. Seattle 2006: Granted the snap looked pretty good, but Romo dropped it, the Cowboys lose a playoff game (the Pats 1st round pick goes two spots higher).

Giants vs, 49ers 2003?. Bad snap from a guy they signed out of retirement, and the Giants lose a playoff game.

So that is TWICE IN 4 YEARS, that a bad sanp has cost a team a plyaoff game, and you want to cut the long snapper? Does anyone want to lose a playoff game, to keep an extra WR on the roster?

Plus he makes a decent amount of tackles for a long snapper, he was an Offensive lineman (most long snappers are/were TE) so he blocks better than most, and he has recovered at least one fumble that I can remember.

The other thing you have to take into consideration is the timing of the place kicker, if you start messing around with the snapper, the kicker's timing is going to be off.

His career highlights from Patriots.com:
Paxton has snapped on 10 game winning field goals, including the game-winning 48-yarder at the end of Super Bowl XXXVI.
Paxton enters the 2008 season having played in 125 games for the Patriots, the second highest total of any player currently on the team (Tedy Bruschi, 176). Paxton's 125 games in a Patriots uniform tie Ted Johnson for the 31st highest total in franchise history.
Paxton's consistency helped Stephen Gostkowski set an NFL record with 74 successful extra points in 2007. He was a perfect 74-for-74.
Paxton snapped on every punt, extra point and field goal attempt in the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons.
Paxton's consistency helped the Patriots set a franchise record by hitting an NFL-best 93.9 percent of their field goals (31-of-33) in 2004. Including a 48-for-48 performance on extra points, the trio of Paxton, kicker Adam Vinatieri and holder Josh Miller produced 79 successful kicks in 81 attempts (97.5 percent).
Paxton has recorded 13 career special teams tackles, including a career-high three in 2005 and 2006. Additionally, he has recorded three special teams tackles in the playoffs, including a career-high two in 2005.
Patxon enters the 2008 season having handled long snapping duties for the Patriots for 64 straight regularseason games.
Paxton handled the Patriots long-snapping duties for 61 consecutive games, spanning from his NFL debut in the 2000 season opener until Week 14 of the 2003 season.


This goes under the "if it aint' broke, don't fix it" and Paxton ain't broke.

 

[spacecrime]

Wow, this one sounds familiar:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?p=96270#post96270

May 2006 thread titled: "There's no way Lonie Paxton makes this team."

Brilliant.

Yeah, I just looked that thread over. Not Patsfans finest hour. A decent football discussion that degenerated into yet another "only idiots would think that" barbfest.

Post # 9 in that thread:

Let's just dump Brady, who can only play QB! He's wasting a roster spot! Get the Redskins on the phone! Anything to clear a roster spot for these deities ..er.. hyped rookies!

Sure. If you don't have anything substantive to add to a discussion, avoid facts and resort to hyperbole and ridicule. Say that a LS is equally important to a team as a franchise QB, and that cutting Lonnie Paxton would have the same effect on the team as cutting Tom Brady.

As you said, "Brilliant."

For those who think that Paxton is so indispensible, how many botched snaps were there the year he was on IR? You know, the year we signed a middle school teacher from LA who had been out of football for years to long snap and won a superbowl with him long snapping?

I am perfectly fine with BB dedicating a roster spot for a long snapper, but I would not be the least surprised if eh found a guy who could play OG or TE or LB or something and long snap as well.

The key for me is not whether or not we need a decicated LS, but rather who is the better long snapper. If you can find a TE who can long snap as well as Paxton, it makes sense to double up and cut the guy who can only long snap.

That's the difference not understood in the "If you cut a LS because he can only long snap, you must also cut Brady because he can only throw footballs (which isn't even true) analogy."

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

That's the difference not understood in the "If you cut a LS because he can only long snap, you must also cut Brady because he can only throw footballs (which isn't even true) analogy."

That analogy breaks quickly b/c of the number of snaps the QB takes compared the LS.

If BB thinks we need a dedicated LS, me thinks he is right. If BB decided to go with a hybrid I would be cool with that too. He knows more football than me.

What I am surprised we haven't seen anywhere is a guy who can be both a place kicker and punter.

 

[pats1]

Yeah, I just looked that thread over. Not Patsfans finest hour. A decent football discussion that degenerated into yet another "only idiots would think that" barbfest.

Post # 9 in that thread:



Sure. If you don't have anything substantive to add to a discussion, avoid facts and resort to hyperbole and ridicule. Say that a LS is equally important to a team as a franchise QB, and that cutting Lonnie Paxton would have the same effect on the team as cutting Tom Brady.

As you said, "Brilliant."

For those who think that Paxton is so indispensible, how many botched snaps were there the year he was on IR? You know, the year we signed a middle school teacher from LA who had been out of football for years to long snap and won a superbowl with him long snapping?

I am perfectly fine with BB dedicating a roster spot for a long snapper, but I would not be the least surprised if eh found a guy who could play OG or TE or LB or something and long snap as well.

The key for me is not whether or not we need a decicated LS, but rather who is the better long snapper. If you can find a TE who can long snap as well as Paxton, it makes sense to double up and cut the guy who can only long snap.

That's the difference not understood in the "If you cut a LS because he can only long snap, you must also cut Brady because he can only throw footballs (which isn't even true) analogy."

Hey, we all have our skeletons in the closet. You have Paxton, I have Pass.

(BTW, by backup I meant a Hochstein, nor a McDermott or Kinchen, who were replacements)

But I'm not in the "let's argue a 2 1/2 year old point" mood, anyway.

 

[pats1]

That analogy breaks quickly b/c of the number of snaps the QB takes compared the LS.

If BB thinks we need a dedicated LS, me thinks he is right. If BB decided to go with a hybrid I would be cool with that too. He knows more football than me.

What I am surprised we haven't seen anywhere is a guy who can be both a place kicker and punter.

Last time that was tried was the Falcons in 2006 with Mike Koenen. By the end of the season, they had a 46-year old Morten Andersen kicking.

Paul Ernster is another one of those guys who can do both, but he's bounced around with a lot of teams lately, more as a punter.

 

[jeffbiologist]

There seems to be alot of off topic stuff in this thread... But my last point was with the evolution of our high scoring offense and the number of OL we have coming in it would make sense to try and find one that can be both a backup OL AND a LS. And the arguement about "keeping the guy clean" is now thrown out because of the special rules they have protecting him anyways.....a guy with a bum knee should be able to go out there and still do this job right? NOT a big tackler if his personal best is 3/yr. And if the roster spot is taken by a guy like Aiken, who blocks ONE punt and plays on every ST, it may offset the 5% potential bad snaps. Again, it might not be good for every team, I suggest it might be good for a high scoring team like this!

 

[fgssand]

NO case can be made......keeping a long snapper with the consistency of Lonnie Paxton is well worth the roster spot.

It is so comforting to not worry about snaps for field goals, punts and extra points.

There is simply not a case you could make that would sway me, ever, unless a player happened to come along that also played a position and never muffed a snap - highly unlikely.

It only takes one muffed snap to potentially ruin a playoff run.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

We used to have question/answer exchanges with players here on patsfans.com. Ian would ask for questions for a specific player and we would submit them to him. That player would answer a few of those questions and his replies would be posted.

Anyway, I once asked Lonnie Paxton if he ever tried to play any other positions or if he just felt like being a long snapper was enough on it own.

He said he doesn't try to play other positions and that BB and he (paxton) feel like long snapping is enough on it own. He also said that most other teams were moving that way.

I was kind of suprised by the answer.

But BB has consistently carried a designated long snapper... even pulling a guy who was long in retirement a few years back when we had injuries... can't remember that dudes name. I think he was teaching science at some college or something like that.

 

[stinkypete]

How many times have you seen the Belichick Patriots lose a game even partially due to a bad snap? It never happens. It doesn't happen to good teams because good teams have good long snappers.

Cut Paxton and replace him with someone inexperienced, you wind up with games lost due to stoopid freak plays, like botched snaps returned for touchdowns, or bad snaps on late game field goal and PAT attempts. Want to know what that's like, talk to a Lions fan.