Pats Sign LB James Anderson and .......well There Goes My Mark Harrison @ TE Theory......

[supafly]

So for that reason, Sup and PC, Slater is the perfect example, because he is a ST specialist who is very good at what he does....but is it enough to reserve a roster spot that that kind of exclusive player? I'm not sure any more. Maybe I'll wake up next week and feel differently.

I actually think you may end up feeling slightly differently, Ken--although that's just a hunch. Like I said, I think you bring a great debate to the table and make a lot of valid points. I am just respectfully disagreeing with Matthew Slater--specifically, nothing more.

I think a guy like Slater has proven his worth in several different ways, and won't be going anywhere any time soon. Of course, that's just how I personally see it, meaning that he could get cut tomorrow

 

[captain stone]

I would be more amenable to keeping a ST-only guy like Slater who is absolutely useless as a position player on either side of the LOS if a roster spot could be saved by, for example, having our backup Center also be our LS or at least have our LS also be our #3/4 TE a la Mike Bartrum.

 

[supafly]

I would be more amenable to keeping a ST-only guy like Slater who is absolutely useless as a position player on either side of the LOS if a roster spot could be saved by, for example, having our backup Center also be our LS or at least have our LS also be our #3/4 TE a la Mike Bartrum.

I am certainly a proponent of giving players dual responsibilities as well, Captain. I'm sure that this is something that Belichick looks for in an attempt to save a roster spot or two.

I think we all agree with Ken's thinking, and he brings up a great point in the relevance (or lack thereof) at the ST positions due to the rule changes. I don't believe that there will be many who would agree with getting rid of our ST captain and one of the team vet/leaders, however--even if he's basically useless at the position of S/WR, or wherever the hell he supposedly plays.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I don't believe that there will be many who would agree with getting rid of our ST captain and one of the team vet/leaders, however--even if he's basically useless at the position of S/WR, or wherever the hell he supposedly plays.

Most of his offensive snaps came last year when he had a blocking assignment, as he was the best blocker in the WR corps. I would think LaFell would get those snaps now, for purposes of disguise if nothing else. Who knows what could finally tip the balance on Slater? KT has the off-the-line moves and straight-line speed that might turn him into a solid gunner, now that he has a year in the system to have learned the offense. Still, I'd think it would have to be a pretty convincing combination of circumstances, including injuries at other positions, to see Slater cut.

 

[mayoclinic]

I would be more amenable to keeping a ST-only guy like Slater who is absolutely useless as a position player on either side of the LOS if a roster spot could be saved by, for example, having our backup Center also be our LS or at least have our LS also be our #3/4 TE a la Mike Bartrum.

I am certainly a proponent of giving players dual responsibilities as well, Captain. I'm sure that this is something that Belichick looks for in an attempt to save a roster spot or two.

I think Tyler Ott is a very intriguing UDFA signing. Ott was the LS at Harvard for the past 3 years, but also played on special teams and was a solid blocking TE. I'd love to have one guy who can be the LS, #4 TE, and play on other ST units. Whether he can step up and seize the job is another matter entirely, but he's got a nice skill set.

 

[patchick]

I would be more amenable to keeping a ST-only guy like Slater who is absolutely useless as a position player on either side of the LOS if a roster spot could be saved by, for example, having our backup Center also be our LS or at least have our LS also be our #3/4 TE a la Mike Bartrum.

I think Tyler Ott is a very intriguing UDFA signing. Ott was the LS at Harvard for the past 3 years, but also played on special teams and was a solid blocking TE. I'd love to have one guy who can be the LS, #4 TE, and play on other ST units.

I think long snapper is a really interesting case study of special teams and roster building. As fans, we talk in frustration every single year about "wasting" a roster spot on a dedicated LS. Yet across the league, the LS who takes meaningful snaps at another position has gone the way of the quarterback/punter. The last I checked, every single team in the NFL carried a dedicated LS.

The long snappers who at least nominally play other positions are generally either linebackers or tight ends. (Despite the fact that they both snap the ball, long snappers today aren't backup centers; their responsibilities after the snap are very different, and they have to be a lot more mobile.) A good example is 6'4" 250-lb Zak DeOssie, who was drafted as a linebacker but ended up earning his roster spot at LS, ultimately giving up the charade that he was still a linebacker at all: http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2010/08/giants_zak_deossie_makes_trans.html

So let's say that a tight end like Ott can earn the LS job. What does his versatility get you? Does it save a roster spot? Probably not. I don't think anybody would be comfortable with just a rehabbing Gronkowski, Hooman and Ott at TE, so he'd be TE 4 -- a role they probably wouldn't otherwise carry. And they have to activate him on the 45 every week even if the TE's ahead of him are all healthy and vastly superior at that position.

Finding an NFL-caliber LS who is also a strong enough LB/TE and a good enough fit for your scheme that you'd want to give him a significant role in your offense or defense is a tall order. It seems to me that the likeliest route would be to train an existing backup LB/TE to long snap. But if it were even remotely easy to do that, somebody would be doing it!

I can only speculate on why it's not feasible. Maybe long-snapping is a really specialized skill that most players can't master. Or maybe it's too hard to perfect that skill when you have to squeeze it in around full defensive practices. Or maybe teams have found that they need their LS to be available for so many practice reps with the punter and kicker that they can't spare him for offense or defense. Regardless, the entire league seems to have decided that LS prowess takes precedence over versatility. And given the incredible havoc a shaky LS can wreak on a game, I can understand why.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think long snapper is a really interesting case study of special teams and roster building. As fans, we talk in frustration every single year about "wasting" a roster spot on a dedicated LS. Yet across the league, the LS who takes meaningful snaps at another position has gone the way of the quarterback/punter. The last I checked, every single team in the NFL carried a dedicated LS.

The long snappers who at least nominally play other positions are generally either linebackers or tight ends. (Despite the fact that they both snap the ball, long snappers today aren't backup centers; their responsibilities after the snap are very different, and they have to be a lot more mobile.) A good example is 6'4" 250-lb Zak DeOssie, who was drafted as a linebacker but ended up earning his roster spot at LS, ultimately giving up the charade that he was still a linebacker at all: http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2010/08/giants_zak_deossie_makes_trans.html

So let's say that a tight end like Ott can earn the LS job. What does his versatility get you? Does it save a roster spot? Probably not. I don't think anybody would be comfortable with just a rehabbing Gronkowski, Hooman and Ott at TE, so he'd be TE 4 -- a role they probably wouldn't otherwise carry. And they have to activate him on the 45 every week even if the TE's ahead of him are all healthy and vastly superior at that position.

Finding an NFL-caliber LS who is also a strong enough LB/TE and a good enough fit for your scheme that you'd want to give him a significant role in your offense or defense is a tall order. It seems to me that the likeliest route would be to train an existing backup LB/TE to long snap. But if it were even remotely easy to do that, somebody would be doing it!

I can only speculate on why it's not feasible. Maybe long-snapping is a really specialized skill that most players can't master. Or maybe it's too hard to perfect that skill when you have to squeeze it in around full defensive practices. Or maybe teams have found that they need their LS to be available for so many practice reps with the punter and kicker that they can't spare him for offense or defense. Regardless, the entire league seems to have decided that LS prowess takes precedence over versatility. And given the incredible havoc a shaky LS can wreak on a game, I can understand why.

Didn't we just see our dedicated LS snap the ball over the punter's head in a playoff game?

http://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/New-England-Patriots-catch-break-on-botched-punt-1-9135191

So much for practicing LS only.

Seriously, I've long ago given up the idea that we wouldn't carry a dedicated LS on the roster. But if someone like Ott can do the LS duties and can also play on other ST units and can serve as a Matt Mulligan type of blocking TE and the effective #4 TE (who probably wouldn't see action at the position unless in case of injury), then it would be a huge bonus.

Does it save a roster spot? Yes and no. Obviously, you're not expecting the player to be a regular TE. I agree that "finding an NFL-caliber LS who is also a strong enough LB/TE and a good enough fit for your scheme that you'd want to give him a significant role in your offense or defense" is too high a bar. (We found one of those - Rob Ninkovich, originally signed as a LS candidate - and once he proved he was worth a "significant role" the Pats abandoned him as a LS, except in emergency circumstances.) But it may eventually come down to keeping a 4th TE or a 6th WR, or a 6th LB who is really a STer only vs. a 10th DL. And if (and this is mainly speculation at this point) Ott can provide the same kind of ST capability as a 6th LB like Tracy White (pretty much a LB in name only, kept for his ST ability), and 4th TE depth similar to what Mulligan provided, then it would more easily allow the Pats to carry 5 LBs (giving up a 6th ST-only LB spot) and 3 TEs. Given the likely positional crunch, that would be a big plus. It would also allow for better positional depth on the active game day roster, since it would mean having one less active player who was essentially only a STer.

I don't know whether Ott (or anyone else) can realistically do all of that, but I'm intrigued.

 

[patchick]

Seriously, I've long ago given up the idea that we wouldn't carry a dedicated LS on the roster. But if someone like Ott can do the LS duties and can also play on other ST units and can serve as a Matt Mulligan type of blocking TE and the effective #4 TE (who probably wouldn't see action at the position unless in case of injury), then it would be a huge bonus.

No argument there, anything else a ST specialist can offer is like found money. I'm curious how many long snappers do play other ST roles on return teams, etc. I know DeOssie did until health issues got in the way, maybe it's more common than we think?

 

[captain stone]

I smell what you're cooking Patchick, but unlike you unfortunately I'm so old that I remember when LS
wasn't a dedicated position, and am now left to wonder how the league survived without a LS-only player. Perhaps my memory has gone up in smoke as the years have passed, but I don't recall seeing many more botched snaps then as I do now.

 

[mayoclinic]

I smell what you're cooking Patchick, but unlike you unfortunately I'm so old that I remember when LS
wasn't a dedicated position, and am now left to wonder how the league survived without a LS-only player. Perhaps my memory has gone up in smoke as the years have passed, but I don't recall seeing many more botched snaps then as I do now.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/13/bill-belichick-gives-special-teams-history-lesson/

 

[Danger Zone]

In the world of sports where a .350 batting average in baseball, 85% field goal percentage in football, and 90% from the free throw line in basketball make you an elite superstar, long-snappers are held to the expectation of perfection. A 100% success rate is assumed by the public and one miscue can make a snapper infamous. For instance, former long-snapper and 19-year NFL veteran Trey Junkin’s only moment in the spotlight was a botched snap in the Giants vs. 49ers playoff game after the 2002 season. Ten-year NFL player Brad St. Louis is known as the guy who cost the Bengals a chance at the 2006 playoffs due to a missed snap on an extra point in the last minute of a Christmas Eve game against the Denver Broncos. The media, fans, and opposing players only know long-snappers because of the single time that they failed in critical situations.

http://www.predictionmachine.com/football-long-snapping-overlooked-extremely-valuable

 

[captain stone]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/13/bill-belichick-gives-special-teams-history-lesson/

I refuse to click PFT, so could you give a synopsis of the article?

 

[Danger Zone]

I refuse to click PFT, so could you give a synopsis of the article?

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/...d-patriots&id=4701225&city=boston&src=desktop

Non-PFT link covering the same news conference with Belichick.

I've been trying to avoid/boycott PFT as well ever since I read Florio being a right smuck to the Jaguar's mascot about how many page-views the site gets.

 

[captain stone]

Thanks DZ. While it's nice to have a dedicated LS to whom one rarely gives a second thought,
it would also be nice not to have to scramble to fill other, more physically demanding positions
when the eventual injuries (and in our case, multiple injuries) occur.
This particular ship has sailed, likely not to be seen again.

 

[supafly]

Most of his offensive snaps came last year when he had a blocking assignment, as he was the best blocker in the WR corps. I would think LaFell would get those snaps now, for purposes of disguise if nothing else. Who knows what could finally tip the balance on Slater? KT has the off-the-line moves and straight-line speed that might turn him into a solid gunner, now that he has a year in the system to have learned the offense. Still, I'd think it would have to be a pretty convincing combination of circumstances, including injuries at other positions, to see Slater cut.

Interesting thoughts on the subject, but I have a hard time wondering how anyone could have honestly watched the games and not have seen Danny Amendola as our best blocking WR? He was singled out time and time again by many on the TV broadcasts, in interviews, and in many of the comments here on this forum as well.

As a matter of fact, not too long ago, our own poster 50 yard line showed some blocking stats (hopefully from football outsiders and not PFF) which proved Amendola to be one of the top blockers in the entire NFL from the receiving position. He was light years ahead of Edelman, which likely has a lot to do with their different responsibilities, much like your example of Slater--just on the opposite end of the spectrum. For a guy who is actually receiving AND blocking on any given play such as Amendola, he has been excellent in that regard, even if he's underachieved in some other areas.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Interesting thoughts on the subject, but I have a hard time wondering how anyone could have honestly watched the games and not have seen Danny Amendola as our best blocking WR? He was singled out time and time again by many on the TV broadcasts, in interviews, and in many of the comments here on this forum as well.

As a matter of fact, not too long ago, our own poster 50 yard line showed some blocking stats (hopefully from football outsiders and not PFF) which proved Amendola to be one of the top blockers in the entire NFL from the receiving position.

Interesting and something I will have to keep an eye on, as I hadn't noted him in particular, although Ridley and Blount obviously benefited from some long-held WR blocks. My comment was more related to the substitution pattern, where Slater would come in when in 3rd and short, when we weren't in a 3TE for whatever reason (injury springs to mind). It might have been a size consideration, as he was often blocking down on an OLB or DE, which is a challenge for someone of Amendola's size, even given all the technique in the world.

 

[PatsFan37]

I agree with PatChick and mayoclinic on LS being a dedicated spot. But I doubt it's because no one else can learn it. It is difficult, but for a million bucks a year guaranteed, wouldn't you make learning it a priority, especially if you're on the back end of the roster?

What makes the designated LS special, is he gets all the reps with the starting kicker and holder. That 3-man team learns a rhythm in all kinds of weather for getting a kick fired off in 2.3 seconds. In addition to snapping perfectly, you have to be taking reps with the kicking team, instead of taking reps with the TEs and LBs.

The position that shares a roster spot is the backup LS. That might be Nink, for all I know, and that guy gets a few snaps every so often with the starting kicker & holder.

 

[Brady6]

Harrison signed with the Chiefs.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/20/chiefs-sign-mark-harrison/

 

[Kontradiction]

Harrison signed with the Chiefs.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/20/chiefs-sign-mark-harrison/

Not a big loss at all.

 

[Brady6]

@captain stone way to shoot the messenger...