Garrison Sanborn

[thebandit27]

Pop! This has been something I have had a hard time contemplating the last few years, especially with the increasing modifications to the sport. I have felt that gameday roster counts should increase to account for specialty positions, relative to the growing quantity and quality of athleticism available. Either that, or as some have presented, start making some tough decisions on who dresses/makes the cut. Would it be more beneficial to dress an extra nickel linebacker, a rarely used bruiser FB, or a guy that can kick the ball 5-10 yards deeper than my FG guy? How do you predict/determine which guy actually carries more value?

 

If roster sizes are expected to remain the same, it serves as a huge advantage any team that can go out and find an all in one kicker, maybe even one that can also complete most of the job of a punter. Or finding decent positional depth that can snap like Sanborn. I understand the extreme skill a man like Garrison has, and can truly see that most times a swiss-army knife type of player is just not consistently dependable (looking at you Brad Smith) - but it seems to me that more effort should be put towards coaching and developing talent in shared positions.

 

Cant we just feed Dan Carpenter a bunch of red-bull and have him soar kick-offs a few yards deeper? Cant we just stop punting altogether? ;-)

 

Good first post and I agree on the bolded. I've long been a proponent of making positional players that can long-snap a secondary priority on the roster. For example, why not carry a backup center and a backup TE, that will make your game day roster, that can also long snap?

[DC Greg]

Sanborn is not one of the best longsnappers in the league. His snap times are upwards of .68, the standard for NFL snappers. While he's never chucked one over a punters head, his snaps are often low. Luckily punters are usually good about scooping them and getting them off. As a snapper, he is mostly consistent overall. Mid to top mid range snapping talent.

 

On the flip side of what you want your long snapper to do (admittedly much less important than the snap itself by NFL standards) is blocking and coverage. Both of these are hardly his strong suits. He is looks very out of place running down field and trying to make tackles against real NFL caliber athletes. Not sure how much better Lee Smith would be, but if he can snap decently, you save a roster spot for a real player. You're certainly not losing anything on the coverage team by not having Sanborn on the roster.

[Best Player Available]

Sanborn is not one of the best longsnappers in the league. His snap times are upwards of .68, the standard for NFL snappers. While he's never chucked one over a punters head, his snaps are often low. Luckily punters are usually good about scooping them and getting them off. As a snapper, he is mostly consistent overall. Mid to top mid range snapping talent.

 

On the flip side of what you want your long snapper to do (admittedly much less important than the snap itself by NFL standards) is blocking and coverage. Both of these are hardly his strong suits. He is looks very out of place running down field and trying to make tackles against real NFL caliber athletes. Not sure how much better Lee Smith would be, but if he can snap decently, you save a roster spot for a real player. You're certainly not losing anything on the coverage team by not having Sanborn on the roster.

I love snapper. Espcially if it's fresh!

[Ralonzo]

Is very tasty!

[VirginiaMike]

Cant we just feed Dan Carpenter a bunch of red-bull and have him soar kick-offs a few yards deeper? Cant we just stop punting altogether? ;-)

If the Bills keep two kickers, it will be a moronic move rivaling any dumb move Buddy ever made. Almost a dumb as wasting the draft pick on Hoplins to begin with. The team is not that talented to be able to afford the two kicker luxury. Carpenter is our kicker - his kick-offs are good enough.

[Nanker]

He's no Chesterton Reinwagglenstyn, that's for sure. So they'll probably keep him.

Yes. But that said, Chase and Sanborn makes a fine cup of coffee.

[The Dean]

If you cut your long snapper, you need to have TWO rock solid options to replace him, if those guys are also position players who get some action. You simply cannot be without one. Then you have to ask yourself, are these two guys going to be active every week?

 

I agree that keeping two place kickers seems like a waste of a roster spot. But a consistent LS is a good use of that last spot,. Let's face it, the guy that would fill that spot would be inactive most every week.

[NoSaint]

If you cut your long snapper, you need to have TWO rock solid options to replace him, if those guys are also position players who get some action. You simply cannot be without one. Then you have to ask yourself, are these two guys going to be active every week?

 

I agree that keeping two place kickers seems like a waste of a roster spot. But a consistent LS is a good use of that last spot,. Let's face it, the guy that would fill that spot would be inactive most every week.

 

ultimately, the discussion with sanborn vs someone else is at your 45th player, not your 53rd. a little tweak from your standard 5th rb vs 6th wr vs 9th lineman debate.

 

 

[The Dean]

ultimately, the discussion with sanborn vs someone else is at your 45th player, not your 53rd. a little tweak from your standard 5th rb vs 6th wr vs 9th lineman debate.

 

Indeed, And the last guy in the depth chart, in those positions, typically is inactive. They are there, on the roster, in case of injury. The LS plays a key role in every game.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Indeed, And the last guy in the depth chart, in those positions, typically is inactive. They are there, on the roster, in case of injury. The LS plays a key role in every game.

 

well, i guess my point is that the 45th guy IS active and CAN contribute weekly. the 53rd is very literally inactive. This one could be the difference between having hopkins active, or a bryce brown/dixon active IF you can roll it into a positional player like smith or a lineman that is already active.

 

 

the fight for 45 is slightly different than the fight for 53 which is injury depth, and protecting developing players.

Edited August 12, 2014 by NoSaint

[Bills Fan since '64]

Quality, consistent long-snapping is a lot harder than holding for FGs, and requires a lot more practice time.

And you know this exactly how?

[The Dean]

well, i guess my point is that the 45th guy IS active and CAN contribute weekly. the 53rd is very literally inactive. This one could be the difference between having hopkins active, or a bryce brown/dixon active IF you can roll it into a positional player like smith or a lineman that is already active.

 

 

the fight for 45 is slightly different than the fight for 53 which is injury depth, and protecting developing players.

 

Yes, my bad. I gotcha. Well, that's an activation issue then, not a roster issue. You COULD make Sanborn inactive for a game. But the chance you need that 45th player is fairly slim (unless you guess right that week). The chances you need a good snap at some time during the game are almost certain,. That's why I say you need at least two players on the roster (and probably more like 3-4) who can deliver a quality long snap, with consistency, if you drop the LS roster spot. Hey maybe that's no problem...but I doubt it.

 

Let me try to ask this another way. How many NFL teams don't employ a long snapper (maybe this has been addressed in this thread). What position does the LS on those teams play?

[CountryCletus]

Through a quick google search, I couldn't find one nfl team that doesn't have a dedicated long snapper

[MRW]

If the Bills keep two kickers, it will be a moronic move rivaling any dumb move Buddy ever made. Almost a dumb as wasting the draft pick on Hoplins to begin with. The team is not that talented to be able to afford the two kicker luxury. Carpenter is our kicker - his kick-offs are good enough.

I'd say the lower the talent level of the team, the easier it is to justify spending a spot on a second kicker, no? Not that I think they should, given the changes to kickoffs in recent years.

[CountryCletus]

I really don't think that LS is where we need to sacrifice to make room for Hopkins... I also think he would be a great luxury to have, seeing as though he's been booting kicks out of the end zone

[The Dean]

I really don't think that LS is where we need to sacrifice to make room for Hopkins... I also think he would be a great luxury to have, seeing as though he's been booting kicks out of the end zone

 

Indeed. Because the Bills happen to have a PK who is very good, but doesn't seem to have the leg to boom it out of the end zone and an aging punter. I would hope the time comes when either the PK or the punter can handle kickoffs and get touchbacks.

[SCD]

I understand the love for Sanborn, he fits the role, and is a relative lock year after year. I would not imply that he not get his deserved roster spot this year. I do question why this role cannot start to be farmed or taught (and others to a far greater extent, vis a vis Potter, Hopkins)

 

I know not all things can be compared, and perhaps I have a treasure trove of ignorance in the matter, but when there is someone in my company that is the expert, and nobody close behind him, I see a wide open opportunity for myself or another to start filling that gap. My lack of understanding stems from why more college, and even high school kids dont start perfecting this skill, while still filling their solid intended role. Its not like the long snapper needs to recall copious amounts of formations, personnel groupings and plays?

 

Or perhaps I have it backward? Would Garrison Sanborne ever be able to play much besides special teams? Why or why not?

 

Cletus, your point is heard, but I wonder of all the teams, how many play another position or cover to some degree an OL assignment? Is this truly dedicated?

 

This is my curiosity across many specialty positions. As NoSaint had pointed out, it can start to take a toll on a rosters depth. So much so, that you end up losing talented position players that you no longer have the abilty to call up when injuries occur mid-season - because another team has seen that they may have a great upgrade over their current positional depth (Joquie, Nelson, dare I say Tank, as more recent examples)

[CountryCletus]

 

 

Indeed. Because the Bills happen to have a PK who is very good, but doesn't seem to have the leg to boom it out of the end zone and an aging punter. I would hope the time comes when either the PK or the punter can handle kickoffs and get touchbacks.

 

I think this will be a grooming year for Hopkins... Maybe next year, if he's ready, he can replace Carpenter. That would also free up a couple bucks for FA or retaining current talent...

 

Approx $1,749,500 worth....

[The Dean]

I understand the love for Sanborn, he fits the role, and is a relative lock year after year. I would not imply that he not get his deserved roster spot this year. I do question why this role cannot start to be farmed or taught (and others to a far greater extent, vis a vis Potter, Hopkins)

 

I know not all things can be compared, and perhaps I have a treasure trove of ignorance in the matter, but when there is someone in my company that is the expert, and nobody close behind him, I see a wide open opportunity for myself or another to start filling that gap. My lack of understanding stems from why more college, and even high school kids dont start perfecting this skill, while still filling their solid intended role. Its not like the long snapper needs to recall copious amounts of formations, personnel groupings and plays?

 

Or perhaps I have it backward? Would Garrison Sanborne ever be able to play much besides special teams? Why or why not?

 

Cletus, your point is heard, but I wonder of all the teams, how many play another position or cover to some degree an OL assignment? Is this truly dedicated?

 

This is my curiosity across many specialty positions. As NoSaint had pointed out, it can start to take a toll on a rosters depth. So much so, that you end up losing talented position players that you no longer have the abilty to call up when injuries occur mid-season - because another team has seen that they may have a great upgrade over their current positional depth (Joquie, Nelson, dare I say Tank, as more recent examples)

 

Well I think the issue here isn't that it's so hard to learn. But you need to practice it constantly to be consistent at a high level---just like every other position. And of course, you can't be playing a position where there is a good chance of being injured. Plus when the long snapper is on the field points lie in the balance. Those are some of the most important plays in the game--and the LS plays a key role.

[SCD]

Well I think the issue here isn't that it's so hard to learn. But you need to practice it constantly to be consistent at a high level---just like every other position. And of course, you can't be playing a position where there is a good chance of being injured. Plus when the long snapper is on the field points lie in the balance. Those are some of the most important plays in the game--and the LS plays a key role.

 

This is the crux of my conundrum. If aside from Sanborn, Lee Smith practices the position this year, it tells me two things.

A.) Lee Smith is a roster lock in the case of in-game injury to LS, not only based on his TE blocking ability (travel that thought across the other teams)

B.) If a LS injury occurs, the Bills sign an LS FA after said game because this man "practices" the position for the majority of his career

 

Certainly signing a FA LS should not be too much of a challenge. If there are 32 LS men in the league and your man goes down, would it not make sense to just sign the 33rd best LS? So why is there such an importance placed here? If this position can win or lose games/field position/opportunities, why isnt there more talent out there?