FirstAndGoal
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,435
- Reaction score
- 1,654
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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...
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.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
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.
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. ...
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.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.
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!
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."
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."
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.