Time to call Gresham?

[SeaToTheHawks]

That's a lot of numbers, very convincing.

But if the LS snaps it over the kickers head, and the opposing team picks it up and runs it back for the winning touchdown, how does that show up in the numbers?

Or if a bad snap causes the kicker to miss a "gimmee" go ahead field goal and the Seahawks lose, how is that represented?

I can see a scenario where not bringing back Clint Gresham could cost us a SuperB Owl.

Because singular plays in a game of 100+ don't cost the game. What happened earlier in the game to even be in that position? Did the QB that touches the ball 40 times a game (thus more important) throw 2 int?

 

[kidhawk]

That's a lot of numbers, very convincing.

But if the LS snaps it over the kickers head, and the opposing team picks it up and runs it back for the winning touchdown, how does that show up in the numbers?

Or if a bad snap causes the kicker to miss a "gimmee" go ahead field goal and the Seahawks lose, how is that represented?

I can see a scenario where not bringing back Clint Gresham could cost us a SuperB Owl.

Because singular plays in a game of 100+ don't cost the game. What happened earlier in the game to even be in that position? Did the QB that touches the ball 40 times a game (thus more important) throw 2 int?

It doesn't matter whether anyone really considers a loss as coming from one play or 12, the fact is, we will likely be in many close games and turnovers and field position are key components to winning close games. Nobody notices when the LS makes good snaps all day, but one mistake can turn a close game from w W into an L.

 

[RobDaHawk]

I think we all know that if we dont do something right now about the long snapper, it will cost us a game or two. Almost a certainty

Not saying we shouldn't resign Gresham, but a LS will never be worth 1 or 2 games in terms of added value.

A snapper sailing balls out of reach from the holder or the punter can cost you ANY game. Thats a fact

Still not 1 or 2 games of added value over a replacement. I know that's primarily a baseball stat, but most will understand the relevant comparison here.

What you guys are arguing has points to different sides. However one view has more in text in this instance. Playing the percentages of the long snapper in the overall outcome of a game reminds me of playing CRAPS at a casino. Is it always a safe bet to just play the don't pass line with triple odds behind it? Sure, it's the highest percentage to win, but what if the shooter gets in a 45 minute roll and never craps out. Then it would have been wise to have placed the numbers and made some real money during that 45 minute period.

The rate of success for the team to win changes during the course of a game. (They are going to have higher odds to win if they're up by 30 points.) Just as each roll at a craps table is independent of each other. (My last roll has absolutely no effect on my next physically.) So in this way of looking at it, your .65% of an outcome could be much higher if the game scenario changes to where that long-snapper's ability comes down to say 10% of the final outcome.

I don't know, I understand what everyone was trying to say. Just had to post and confuse everyone a little more. haha :irishdrinkers:

 

[chris98251]

Those with long memories going back to Holmgrens days when we let a long snapper go and it cost us what three games, over the head punt snaps, blocked punts since they were off line, missed field goals because of high snaps and rushed kicks.

They may not touch the ball a lot, but if you don't have a good one you know it, I think they brought in 3 or 4 guys to finally settle on someone that could get the job done. That was after the season started and it cost us.

I never wanted LS to be an issue again, they don't make that much but have a lot bigger impact on the game then people give them credit for until you don't have a good one.

 

[camdawg]

Those with long memories going back to Holmgrens days when we let a long snapper go and it cost us what three games, over the head punt snaps, blocked punts since they were off line, missed field goals because of high snaps and rushed kicks.

They may not touch the ball a lot, but if you don't have a good one you know it, I think they brought in 3 or 4 guys to finally settle on someone that could get the job done. That was after the season started and it cost us.

I never wanted LS to be an issue again, they don't make that much but have a lot bigger impact on the game then people give them credit for until you don't have a good one.

Without looking it up, wasn't it the 2006 season when we started out with Boone Stutz? And if he didn't cost us games, he put solid wins into real jeopardy? Like the season opener at Detroit that we barely won, 9-6. I think we should've had at least another couple of field goals, but they were blocked due to bad snaps. And Boone was so bad, we picked up Derrick Rackley to replace him in mid-season?

 

[Hawkstorian]

Boone Stutz is still out there.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

A long snapper is never going to be the sole reason for a loss, however football is a game of inches, and a bad snap could cost you those inches you need to win.

The post J.P. Darche year was a perfect example. Darche always had spot on snaps, he was cut to save money. That year they went through several snappers and had multiple games where poor snaps gave away points that would have pushed them to a win.

 

[HawkGA]

I think the thing SeatotheHawks is missing is that he (I'm playing the percentages here that you are male and am not meaning to offend if you aren't) is looking g at winning on a continuous scale but is really just a binary variable. Adding "wins" by simply making those wins stronger (or making wins weaker) is meaningless. Also, looking at points as averaged is meaningless. Costing a team, say, 1 point a game doesn't really do anything but you can't score 0.2 points so when those points come in a 14 point chunk in one game, then it does in fact matter.

 

[kearly]

I think we all know that if we dont do something right now about the long snapper, it will cost us a game or two. Almost a certainty

Not saying we shouldn't resign Gresham, but a LS will never be worth 1 or 2 games in terms of added value.

No it shouldn't. But this is a Seattle sports team we're talking about.

 

[Millen Hawk]

Last year we played 8 games that were decided by a 3 or fewer points. So I'd say the LS position is very important for our team. So far with the small sample size we've seen in preason it sure looks like our LS could cost us a game or two. Gesh and Hauschka have been the most consistent players over the past four season.

 

[LolaRox]

Yes, it's time, in fact it's past time. Call him now.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Weird math in this thread.

Look, regular season aside.

In the playoffs, especially in the later rounds, teams tend to be better & more evenly matched.

One bad call can therefore swing an entire game (as we have seen).

And we have ALL seen games that were evenly matched until 1 turnover ended up sewing it up.

So having a weakness that can turn into a turnover at any time, just is not smart. And yes, if it does not cost you reg season games, the chance it shows up in the playoffs is not terrible.

And if it shows up in the playoffs, your chance for winning is much less.

Now, why would you choose to lower your chance at victory in the playoffs just to save $200K? $500K?

 

[SeaToTheHawks]

Genuinely surprised at how few people here grasp the concept of value over replacement/wins added.

 

[chris98251]

Genuinely surprised at how few people here grasp the concept of value over replacement/wins added.

As well as if you don't learn from history it is doomed to repeat itself.

 

[tonyseahawk]

Genuinely surprised at how few people here grasp the concept of value over replacement/wins added.

As well as if you don't learn from history it is doomed to repeat itself.

WINNER

 

[bigskydoc]

Genuinely surprised at how few people here grasp the concept of value over replacement/wins added.

I'd ask Vikings fans about the value of 3 points in the playoffs or last year's Bengals or the 2013 Broncos about the cost of an errant snap.

 

[SeaToTheHawks]

Genuinely surprised at how few people here grasp the concept of value over replacement/wins added.

I'd ask Vikings fans about the value of 3 points in the playoffs or last year's Bengals or the 2013 Broncos about the cost of an errant snap.

Add another one to the board that doesn't get it.

 

[AgentDib]

In my view it's absolutely worth $200k in 2016 to upgrade from a bad long snapper to a great one. However, while I like Gresham as much as most of you lets not pretend that he never blew the occasional snap. At this point in the offseason he Hawks have seen Frese snap the ball a thousand times behind closed doors and a handful of snaps in two preseason games supplements that knowledge but does not replace it. They're in a good position to judge why the miscues occurred yesterday and whether they are indicative of a larger problem.

The Hawks have also historically shown good judgement on how best to stretch the salary cap. They know what that $200k represents this year and also what the benefits are of having a rookie on minimum salary down the road if they think a UDFA like Frese can give them what they would have gotten from Gresham. It may not seem like a big deal but this is one of many similar decisions made among the bottom 30 salaries on the roster and it adds up from year to year and allows them to spend money on their core players.

 

[Meeker]

I remember those post-J.P. Darche and I'd rather not repeat them...

 

[two dog]

Cutting Gresham was the biggest Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment for me all year.

I didn't understand it then and I still don't.
When they are juggling millions for other positions, to economize at one where
repeatable excellence is absolutely vital and where Gresham was like a machine,
seems to me to be a mistake.

The current kid reportedly never made a bad snap in college but has doubled up
by his second pre-season game as a pro.