New commit
- Thread starter kougkurt
- Start date
There is VALUE in getting a kicker, punter, that can kick or punt it on a regular, consistent basis into the End Zone, and pooch punt it, then kill it at the 1 to 4, etc, hardline, and in so doing pin them in bad starting field position, and controlling the field position game, and not giving up monster returns.
It’s funny we finally got a kickoff coverage team full of assassins and NOW we get a guy that can launch it out of the end zone. Oh well I’ll take it. One less thing to worry about
We are using 4 scholarships on special teams only players. This strikes me as excessive.
Well, considering the cluster of this recruiting cycle it makes more sense to scholly a kid who’s in for 4-5 plays a game than a 3rd string Big Sky level O-Lineman who’s never going to see the field. If there’s ever a time to go heavy on specialists it’s now.
The first scholarship kickoff specialist I remember was Adam Holiday. He was worth the scholarship. I have no issue with signing another kickoff specialist.
This is poor roster management, missed evaluation or not willing to pull scholarships. Or just dumb. Not impressed.
In every organization you have to evaluate just how important it is to have a specialist in one area who also provides solid back up in others. If it is important enough, then you award a scholie (in college football) to get the individual. In private industry, you simply bonus them accordingly. Now that we have NIL, I'm not really sure if a school with the NIL budget is maybe ahead of the game to give NO scholies to special teams folks and simply pay them well...that sounds really funny as I say it, but there may be some logic there. As things stand today, though, I think that having a back up in a specialist position is important, and if a lead specialist in one area (kick offs) is a competent back up in another (FG's and extra points....maybe punter as well, given his resume), then I don't have a problem with a scholie.
You only need 2,3 scholarships, 3 at most if your going to have scholly kicker and punter.
You have 1 scholly kicker who can CONSISTENTLY do near perfect kickoffs(KICK OUT, INTO END ZONE) and fg's, extra points, etc.
And 1 scholly punter who can consistently punt 49+ yards, pooch kick on 1 to 5 yard line, and kill it, have it die there, an or lets coverage kill it there.
And maybe, maybe not as a option, have a scholly that can do 1 of the things almost as good as the other 2 kickers, punters, and ok in others to be a back up in case the kicker, punter get injured.
But 4, is EXCESSIVE. no need for 4. After the 2nd, maybe, maybe not 3rd scholly, you have 1,2,3 preferred Walk On's.
2,3 scholly s + 1,2,3 preferred Walk On's, is enough to cover kicking, punting, and will insure a QUALITY kicker, and punter.
4 is EXCESSIVE, and a waste, and takes a scholly from another needed area.
And your evaluation, development should be good enough that you won't ever get 4 scholly.
You have 1 scholly kicker who can CONSISTENTLY do near perfect kickoffs(KICK OUT, INTO END ZONE) and fg's, extra points, etc.
And 1 scholly punter who can consistently punt 49+ yards, pooch kick on 1 to 5 yard line, and kill it, have it die there, an or lets coverage kill it there.
And maybe, maybe not as a option, have a scholly that can do 1 of the things almost as good as the other 2 kickers, punters, and ok in others to be a back up in case the kicker, punter get injured.
But 4, is EXCESSIVE. no need for 4. After the 2nd, maybe, maybe not 3rd scholly, you have 1,2,3 preferred Walk On's.
2,3 scholly s + 1,2,3 preferred Walk On's, is enough to cover kicking, punting, and will insure a QUALITY kicker, and punter.
4 is EXCESSIVE, and a waste, and takes a scholly from another needed area.
And your evaluation, development should be good enough that you won't ever get 4 scholly.
I"m assuming not all 4 are scholarship kickers/punters.....maybe a long snapper, too? If that's the case, it doesn't sound so bad to me.
Glad Cougar
I see long snapping this way…
WSU has collected the 85 best, most talented, most athletic kids they can find from across the nation… and not 1 of these kids can be coached up to throw a football between their legs? Not 1 of these coaches making hundreds of thousands of dollars as a glorified middle school PE teacher is talented enough to take 1 of these 85 kids and teach them how to throw a football between their legs?
Putting a kid on full scholarship as a long snapper is a colossal failure as a coaching staff.
What makes it specialized? Some kid throws a football between his legs 5,000 times?
Again, they’ve got 85 kids on full scholarship. Have a long snapper Survivor. Find someone, anyone to do this.
I only have high school experience, so I'm probably not up to par.
Long snapping can be done two ways. "No look" is the better way and since you are not looking, takes a lot of repetition to achieve both reliability and consistency. Any fully competent long snapper does it this way. His blocks are solid since he has eye contact with the rusher, not the guy receiving his snap.
If you have to throw a generic center or guard into the mix to do this without a lot of practice, then he is looking at the guy receiving the snap. And he can get by with a lot less repetition because he is looking back, but he will also get crushed by the right rushing DL, because if his head is down he gets smeared. The guards to either side of the center have to pinch down and try to protect a rush up the middle, since the center is pretty much going to be laid to waste.
Biggs is talking in terms of a semi-long contest to see who is most likely to perform, then staying with that guy to develop him. That as opposed to a dedicated scholie. Can it work? Yes. The main obstacle is not the kids, but instead the coaching. Kurt is right when he says it is specialized today. But that is because it is easier for the coaching staff, for a variety of reasons, including it takes less time.
Ultimately, you do what works best for you. If the assistants are legitimately putting so much time into recruiting that they can justify a scholie to simply shift some work from their workload, then that is a discussion that the HC can have. On the other hand, if the coach who should be developing the long snapper is simply lazy, then that is all there is to discuss. I don't know the situation well enough to comment. With a whole new coaching staff, the more certain approach is a scholie. Whether they do that for the next kid after this one depends upon how the staff develops. That remains to be seen.
At least, that is the view from my porthole. Other portholes might see a different view.
Long snapping can be done two ways. "No look" is the better way and since you are not looking, takes a lot of repetition to achieve both reliability and consistency. Any fully competent long snapper does it this way. His blocks are solid since he has eye contact with the rusher, not the guy receiving his snap.
If you have to throw a generic center or guard into the mix to do this without a lot of practice, then he is looking at the guy receiving the snap. And he can get by with a lot less repetition because he is looking back, but he will also get crushed by the right rushing DL, because if his head is down he gets smeared. The guards to either side of the center have to pinch down and try to protect a rush up the middle, since the center is pretty much going to be laid to waste.
Biggs is talking in terms of a semi-long contest to see who is most likely to perform, then staying with that guy to develop him. That as opposed to a dedicated scholie. Can it work? Yes. The main obstacle is not the kids, but instead the coaching. Kurt is right when he says it is specialized today. But that is because it is easier for the coaching staff, for a variety of reasons, including it takes less time.
Ultimately, you do what works best for you. If the assistants are legitimately putting so much time into recruiting that they can justify a scholie to simply shift some work from their workload, then that is a discussion that the HC can have. On the other hand, if the coach who should be developing the long snapper is simply lazy, then that is all there is to discuss. I don't know the situation well enough to comment. With a whole new coaching staff, the more certain approach is a scholie. Whether they do that for the next kid after this one depends upon how the staff develops. That remains to be seen.
At least, that is the view from my porthole. Other portholes might see a different view.
I was going to say just about exactly this. But it is hard to snap to punter depth with your head up.
If you’re willing to turn a linebacker or tight end - who’s never done it before - into your long snapper, you’re accepting that your punter is also going to need to be a high jumper who’s also able to field a grounder. You’ll rarely see your punter receive a snap that’s on line and between waist & chest.
And, if your guy can’t figure out how to snap with his head up, you’ll get the added pleasure of frequently seeing your long snapper doing an impression of a bowling ball rolling toward the punter.
Unless you’re a team that plans to never kick or punt, you need a good long snapper. It’s fairly critical to actually getting a kick away. If you find a recruit who can already do it reliably…sign him. Preferably you find that skill in someone who can do something else too. But I think it’ll be easier to teach a long snapper another position than to teach another position to be a long snapper.
Repetition. Coaching. Over and over and over and over again.
It would have to be a pretty fantastic snapper to get a scholarship.
Simon Samarzich is WSU's long snapper. I assume he's on scholarship. He was ranked the nation's #2 long snapper coming out of high school by 247 Sports. I don't know how many high schoolers specialize in long snapping nationwide, but he came to Pullman with a good reputation. (Apparenty, he was a tight end in high school as well, but probably not good enough to play TE in college). As someone else mentioned, a team is going to use a long snapper on numerous plays throughout a game (punts, FGs, extra points) and I have no problem giving a scholarship to a guy if it means you have a reliable snap on those numerous plays. It's more important than an 8th string wide receiver, IMO.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
You can’t get him enough reps in fall camp to make him reliable, especially if he’s got to practice at another position. It’s not as easy as it looks.
Have you seen how many reps backups get? Or walk ons? It’s a lot of standing around. And once you’ve got kids doing it for years… it pays off.
Easy or not, how many reps does it take?
To get a guy to be consistently on target and not get rolled by the defense? A lot. And honestly, most of the guys on any team are never going to get there.
Look at it this way:
- you would not go into a season without a punter or a kicker, with the plan of teaching a wide receiver to punt and a linebacker to kick.
- You're also unlikely to go into a season without a backup QB, on the assumption that you can teach your punter to be QB.
- You're unlikely to rely on your punter or kicker to make tackles in the return game. That's why it makes the highlight reel when one of those guys makes a good hit. Most punters and kickers just can't tackle reliably.
Same thing with a long snapper - it's a niche that most players can't fill, and if you try to make someone learn it who's not equipped to do it, it makes things harder for your punter, kicker, holder, and all of your blockers.
Your examples are ridiculous. This is not a high level skill. This doesn't require high end DNA. It doesn't require hours of film. It doesn't require high end athleticism. Middle school kids can be taught to do it effectively. High school kids can be taught to do this effectively. How many reps do you think the high school kid getting a scholarship has in? These kids aren’t putting in any more hours or have any more ability than the kids on the team now. It is a kid that made a commitment to learning how to do it and getting the reps needed to be good at it. The idea that you can’t find and coach a kid to do it effectively from winter to fall camp is ludicrous.
It is throwing a ball between your legs. Do it 300 times per day from January to August with 10 kids and you will have someone.
Just checked the rosters of all Pac-12 schools. Every team has at least one (most have more than one) dedicated long snapper on the roster. That's all they do, they play no other position. As far as I can tell, many of them, if not most, are on scholarship. Didn't bother checking other P-5 conferences, but I suspect it's the same story. It's not just a WSU thing.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
I think Biggs, and 95 both have a valid point. I can see both sides. Which side is right, I don't know, but maybe both sides are partially right and wrong, DEPENDING on the SITUATION, which, what kids, recruits you get, and the level of play(Highschool, Div 3, Div 2, Div 1, FCS, FBS), etc.
Maybe you split the difference, combine, find a middle ground between the side, depending on situation.
I would think that you can probably get a number of preferred Walk on Long Snappers, with the idea, that either 1 of them can be found, developed that can do the job, or that as Biggs said maybe someone already on the roster can be taught, but if not then have one of the preferred Walk On's.
It just seems like a waste of a valuable scholly, to use scholly on long Snappers.
Blue bloods can afford that.
WSU can't afford that.
If WSU can use a preferred Walk on, or someone on the roster can be taught, that should be done, as it saves a scholly.
Maybe you split the difference, combine, find a middle ground between the side, depending on situation.
I would think that you can probably get a number of preferred Walk on Long Snappers, with the idea, that either 1 of them can be found, developed that can do the job, or that as Biggs said maybe someone already on the roster can be taught, but if not then have one of the preferred Walk On's.
It just seems like a waste of a valuable scholly, to use scholly on long Snappers.
Blue bloods can afford that.
WSU can't afford that.
If WSU can use a preferred Walk on, or someone on the roster can be taught, that should be done, as it saves a scholly.
Im sure it isnt. Im sure a lot of teams do.
On the list of things that coaches have to teach, this isnt the hardest.
On the list of DNA the coaches have to recruit, this isnt at the top of the list.
Ever hear Leach’s response to NFL coaches that questioned college QBs that played in shot gun offenses? Along the lines of “if you cant coach a guy to take a snap and run backwards three steps how are you in the NFL?”
For the millions of dollars paid to the coaching staff, hell for the millions of dollars paid across the entire Pac 12 coaching staffs, they seriously cant teach snapping??? But yet high school coaches can be counted on to prepare such crucial skills??? get outta here
Well, kicking isn't a high level skill either. All you have to do is swing your foot and hit a ball. So why do so many teams have trouble finding a reliable kicker?
You're flat out wrong. It's not just throwing a ball between your legs. Anyone can do that. Doing it for punts means throwing a ball between your legs, either upside-down or blind, throwing it on a line and preferably in a tight spiral, and hitting a target roughly 2'x2' that's 15 yards behind you, and doing it knowing that as soon as your arms start moving, you've got less than a second to get the ball clear and get yourself set before you get hit by at least one guy who's got the advantage of moving forward.
Snapping in the shotgun isn't that hard. Most players could probably learn it in a couple weeks...although WSU has historically had a fair amount of trouble finding someone who didn't snap it to the QB's knees. Snapping for kicks isn't that much harder, although it depends on how good your holder is. For punts, it's hard. And if you're doing kicks and punts, it's completely different movements.
Snapping 300x per day from January to August will take hours every day - hours that you're taking away from them practicing at whatever their other position is. So what do you gain? Maybe you get a decent long snapper, but now they've stagnated or regressed at their other position.
Give CougEd 6 months and he is ready to go.
Sorry, middle school kids that cant play a lick and have zero talent are doing this across the country. This is not a skill that is so hard to master only a select few can do it. Especially if you have 85 *hand picked* athletes on scholarships AND millions invested in a staff specifically to teach football. And they can’t find a guy to snap? Get out.
And stop with the dipshit comparisons to other positions. Good grief.
I simply believe that a long snapper will be involved in many more plays per game/per season than a scholarship 6th string wideout, yet nobody complains about using a scholly on a fringe player who may never play in any meaningful way. How many plays is a long snapper involved in? All punts, all field goals, all extra points. Having someone who is skilled and reliable from day one in snapping the ball seems to be worth the price of a scholarship to me. As we know, games are often decided on the execution of a kick....and that involves a long snapper.
I do see Biggs point....and I know he values special teams, which includes the long snapper. If you can be assured that a walk on or a position player can reliably perform the long snapper duty, that's fine. I just think if you need some one who already has that special skill, it's worth one of the 85 scholarships given out by a team.
Glad Cougar
Certainly, if have bad luck, if have your preferred Walk On's, not develop into a GOOD long snapper, if no one on your roster can be taught, developed into a GOOD long snapper, and if your evaluations, despite being good evaluations, unluckily missed their mark, didn't pan out, etc THEN a scholly as a ultimate last resort for a long snapper would be ok in a way.
But realistically, it shouldn't come to that.
And the WSU's, Kentucky's, Kansas's, Ore St's, Rutger's, Duke's, etc, USUALLY don't use a scholly for long Snappers, and either use a preferred walk on long snapper, an or develop one from someone already on roster.
As to the 6th string WR thing. The reason why it's better to use a scholly on that or another position, instead of a long snapper, is because certain positions like WR, OL, etc, it's extremely important to have DEPTH, which can take a lot of bodies at the OL, WR positions, to develop that depth, and to have reliable back ups, and to have back ups to the back ups, starters in case of injuries.
Also even if a scholly is BURIED, 6th string on the OL, WR, charts, there has been times, when those players eventually, gradually became a starter, #1,2 back up, semi star, etc. If you take away that scholly player for a long snapper, then you see don't have the possibility of that OL, WR scholly player, becoming a starter, #1,2 back up, semi star, etc.
Also like I said the blue bloods, can afford to scholly a long snapper. A WSU type, really can't.
Yes having a long snapper is ultimately extremely important for kicks, punts, etc, and will be used more, then a 6th string WR, OL, etc. BUT even tho that's the case, can, should be able to either use a PREFERRED WALK ON, or develop someone already on roster.
A preferred Walk on Long snapper, unlike preferred walk ons at other positions are more able to do the job at most levels, teams, vs most competition, then most any other position, because it's a semi easier thing to do then the other football positions, or at least it can be taught, developed semi easier, then at other positions.
So really, should not need to spend a scholly on a long snapper, unless your a blue blood, and can afford to, don't care, or unless understaffed, don't have the time to find a preferred walk on, etc, to be the long snapper.
BUT if in an EMERGENCY, etc, you need to spend a scholly on a long snapper then you spend a scholly on a long snapper.
BUT either you should not be in that emergency, an or not BLOODY likely to be in that emergency.
So really should not need to spend a scholly on a long snapper, and should not spend a scholly on long snapper.
