This statement is an interesting study in faulty logic.
Yes, it is better to make FGs than get 10 extra yards on punts, but to therefore conclude that it is better to lose 10 yards per punt so as to make sure some bad snaps are converted does not follow.
How many bad snaps that would not have been saved by an average punter. There have been few bad snaps, and an average punter should have handled the ones I saw, but say there are one or two bad snaps a season that would result in a missed FG without good reactions by the holder. (That is excessive - there aren't 32-64 missed FGs a year in the NFL due to bad snaps) Of the one or two a season, how many of those snaps if not handled would actually have affected the outcome of the game?
And why is it assumed that Hanson is the only punter in the universe who can adjust to an errant snap?
Another flaw in the statement: the extra ten yards is not nearly as important as pinning the opponent inside the 10 yard line, Hanson's biggest failure.
So rather than lose 10 yards per punt and not pin the opponent inside the game, why not just get a punter who can do those two things AND adjust to a bad snap?