Players that are ST only…how much value do they have?

[NoSaint]

7 hours ago, Pete said:

You can get all fancy discussing % roster spot spending nuances

it’s all about final score.  If Bills return a punt for game winning score, we win game- what % is that worth?

if converse happened and we lost in those circumstances, because we were rigid with 5% roster ST allotment(instead of prioritizing ST), how does that factor in?

We should strive to be top notch in all 3 phases.  Marv Levy was a huge proponent of special teams.  And those Bills special teams were special.  #89 and Pike were all time great ST tandem

It’s a simple reality that last year only 2 punts were returned for touchdowns. 
 

do you think that is more likely to win you a game, or a backup DB blowing coverage lose you a game?

 

there’s of course nuance and if you can find a guy that does both - awesome. But saying it worked 30 years ago as a strategy is ignoring changes in on and off field rules, advances in strategies etc… it’s much more of a “don’t mess up” segment of the game than a “win the day” section now. There are many fewer returns. That there are far less plays isn’t just silly numbers when discussing where to devote resources.

[Mango]

7 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

Just because a guy is young, doesn’t mean he’s good. Does it mean there’s a chance they develop into something good or better than a core ST? Yeah, that’s absolutely the case. 
 

Unfortunately for young players that weren’t high draft picks/projected starters… they need to play ST or else they’re a waste of a roster spot as a LB6 or WR7. There aren’t enough snaps to go around for guys like that or they’re inactive on game day in favor of a ST guy. 
 

The NFL isn’t set up for you to stash young guys… at least not if you want to win. 

So what’s the recommendation? Keep guys that can’t play ST that will be WR7 or CB6 and will never see the field? 
 

That’s a worse investment than a WR7 or CB6 that will never see the field BUT will play a high end ST. 

This is one thing that drives me nuts about the league these days. Not that it used to be good at that stuff. But I don’t understand why there isn’t more requirements for the players to be in the facility. I mean; I get the CBA. But larger roster sizes and getting everybody in the building June 1 for 20-30 hours per week of walk throughs, technique, body maintenance; and film review would do so much to increase the product on the field. 

[benderbender]

The better question is how to justify a player like Moss who is both a backup AND plays 0 special teams. If someone already said this, then I totally agree and it's about time someone said that. *starts slow clap*

[Rew]

8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

It’s a simple reality that last year only 2 punts were returned for touchdowns. 
 

do you think that is more likely to win you a game, or a backup DB blowing coverage lose you a game?

 

there’s of course nuance and if you can find a guy that does both - awesome. But saying it worked 30 years ago as a strategy is ignoring changes in on and off field rules, advances in strategies etc… it’s much more of a “don’t mess up” segment of the game than a “win the day” section now. There are many fewer returns. That there are far less plays isn’t just silly numbers when discussing where to devote resources.

 

Who sees more snaps with modern day rules, your gunner or wr6?  No matter how you cut it, the guy you would put in the roster in place of some of the ST players is depth only.  He'll take very few (if any) snaps at primary position or not be active most games.  You want him for injury depth, but that can easily be accomplished on the PS.

 

Assuming the the 3 aforementioned ST players make the roster, who is the hypothetically cut that you'd rather have?  Do you really think they'll play more snaps per game or over the course of the season?  Why would you want someone who will in all likelihood never play over someone who plays a dozen snaps per week on plays that are very punishing if you F it up?

 

The only way ST is sacrificed is if one of our depth/developmental guys they love overperforms and looks like he won't make it through to the practice squad.  We want guys who will actually play on our game day roster and use inactives, PS, and ongoing communication with free agents to be the injury hedge. Not saying it will be the exact same guys as last year, but expect a few "ST guys" on the regular active roster indefinitely.

[Paul Costa]

I’d cut all 3. Keep our top 4 RB’s. Hodgins, and Giles-Harris, Lee or Spector. ST will be fine. Add the aforementioned LB’s & a DB to take gunner responsibility’s. 

[The Dean]

8 hours ago, Allen2Diggs said:

The one that I find most ridiculous is long-snapper. Your backup center should just be the long-snapper.

 

Ever wonder why EVERY team has a long snapper? Why don't they all use the backup center?

 

Well, the long snapper spends the ENTIRE day practicing with ST, snapping for the P and the K.  Also many backup centers also are backup guards or even tackles. So, when does this backup center/long snapper get to learn their jobs when the O and ST practice separately?  

 

Just like the idea of using the #2 QB as a holder, it simply doesn't work in today's NFL. 

 

I find many on this forum give ST the short shrift.  Don't they realize that the average ST play is FAR more important than the average offensive or defensive play?  Virtually every ST play involves a scoring play or a potentially big change in field position.  The idea that "this backup can do that job" doesn't answer the question, "Can this backup do that job EXCELLENTLY and consistently, and still learn his position to be EXCELLENT should he be needed on O or D?"

[maddenboy]

9 hours ago, Pete said:

It’s not a question how many spots we deadicate to special teams.  It’s a matter of having the best available.  Surely you dont have a problem if Bills used 1 roster spot on Slater.

Slater isn’t available unfortunately.  Kumerow is one of better gunners in NFL.  Taiwan Jones is beast on special teams.  As is Siran Neal.   They are our best available.  If there was better available, go sign them.  But there is lots of shoddy special teams in NFL.  And there would be big drop off from those 3 ST play IMO

3 phases to game.  Why not try and excel at all 3 phases?

I suspect ALL teams keep guys just for special teams.  I suspect that most fan-bases grouse and complain.

 

But if ALL teams do it, its not a competitive disadvantage for us to do it. 

 

for instance, the QB situation is different.  If most teams keep 2, and we suddenly keep 3, now we have a conversation about why we are wasting a roster spot.

[Cash]

9 hours ago, Georgie said:

Several of the young LBs could conceivably replace Matakevich on defense AND special teams.

Can they, though? Serious question: How do you know?

 

4 hours ago, jwhit34 said:

 

Back in the Super Bowl years they had Tasker and Mark Pike as special teams only but Tasker could play WR. I think that's okay, it will be interesting to see what young guys step up and become the next standouts on STs. 

Tasker was such an interesting case. Only got a shot at WR late in his career due to injury, and was electric for like a season and a half. But he was pretty much a gadget player on an offense that didn’t have many great weapons at that point. Hard to say he would’ve made a bigger impact as a WR than as a Special Teamer. (And for the record, I haven’t ever seen anyone say that; just my own musings.) 

 

My own hot take:

Certainly special teams have less impact now than they did in the 90s. But it’s still not zero. So there’s a balance to be struck - how bad does a gunner need to be before it’s a major liability to the team? Maybe with Araiza’s leg and aggressive 4th down strategy, the bar is extremely low. Or maybe Araiza will be inconsistent enough that the bar will be fairly high. The point is, there is a bar there. 

 

This coaching staff/FO have so far shown that they want a “core” group of special teamers - a leadership group of experts who can hold the less experienced players accountable. To this point, they’ve (IMO) shown that they want those to be “guys who can play in a pinch”, but not guys who are part of the offensive or defensive gameplans. I’m certain they’ve cut better pure RBs than Taiwan Jones. So I’m not sure who forms that core ST group, but I’m sure it’ll exist in some form. 

[Buffalo Junction]

2 hours ago, The Dean said:

 

Ever wonder why EVERY team has a long snapper? Why don't they all use the backup center?

 

Well, the long snapper spends the ENTIRE day practicing with ST, snapping for the P and the K.  Also many backup centers also are backup guards or even tackles. So, when does this backup center/long snapper get to learn their jobs when the O and ST practice separately?  

 

Just like the idea of using the #2 QB as a holder, it simply doesn't work in today's NFL. 

 

I find many on this forum give ST the short shrift.  Don't they realize that the average ST play is FAR more important than the average offensive or defensive play?  Virtually every ST play involves a scoring play or a potentially big change in field position.  The idea that "this backup can do that job" doesn't answer the question, "Can this backup do that job EXCELLENTLY and consistently, and still learn his position to be EXCELLENT should he be needed on O or D?"

Agree. Just watch some of the GB playoff losses over Rodgers career…. Multiple onside kicks, blocked kicks, blocked punts, onside kicks, etc. They possibly would have been to another 2-3 Super Bowls in the last 11 years with good special teams. It certainly matters in the modern NFL. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

12 hours ago, Allen2Diggs said:

 The one that I find most ridiculous is long-snapper. Your backup center should just be the long-snapper.

Go watch the video Belichick discusses this. It’s much more technical than you think. Plus everyone has one so it is not a disadvantage.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

The difference between the best and worst punt coverage teams last year was roughly 7 yards per punt. The difference in total yards per game was about 20 yards. The biggest factor in determining yards per game given up was the number of punts returned. Rams only had 9 total punts returned all year. Bills had 17. A few teams had over 40.
Want to give up less punt yards, have a great offense. The rest doesn’t matter.  

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

2 hours ago, Cash said:

Can they, though? Serious question: How do you know?

 

Tasker was such an interesting case. Only got a shot at WR late in his career due to injury, and was electric for like a season and a half. But he was pretty much a gadget player on an offense that didn’t have many great weapons at that point. Hard to say he would’ve made a bigger impact as a WR than as a Special Teamer. (And for the record, I haven’t ever seen anyone say that; just my own musings.) 

 

My own hot take:

Certainly special teams have less impact now than they did in the 90s. But it’s still not zero. So there’s a balance to be struck - how bad does a gunner need to be before it’s a major liability to the team? Maybe with Araiza’s leg and aggressive 4th down strategy, the bar is extremely low. Or maybe Araiza will be inconsistent enough that the bar will be fairly high. The point is, there is a bar there. 

 

This coaching staff/FO have so far shown that they want a “core” group of special teamers - a leadership group of experts who can hold the less experienced players accountable. To this point, they’ve (IMO) shown that they want those to be “guys who can play in a pinch”, but not guys who are part of the offensive or defensive gameplans. I’m certain they’ve cut better pure RBs than Taiwan Jones. So I’m not sure who forms that core ST group, but I’m sure it’ll exist in some form. 

Not disagreeing with you. You are correct that is what McD wants. 
I think many of us just disagree with that philosophy. In the end it doesn’t matter much. We are only really talking about it affecting maybe one roster spot for a marginal player. 
 

[That's No Moon]

12 hours ago, Allen2Diggs said:

The one that I find most ridiculous is long-snapper. Your backup center should just be the long-snapper.

I remember when lots of teams did this and bad snaps on kicks were somewhat common. Balls over people's heads, balls wide of the holder, balls at the punter's feet, etc.  When is the last time you can remember a terrible snap on a kick? Long snapping isn't remotely the same thing as normal snapping or shotgun snapping. If you're going to have a guy like Taiwan Jones whose only job on the team is to run down field and attempt to make a tackle on kicks, it kinda makes sense to make very very sure that all of your kicking snaps are spot on given that they directly cost you points when they are bad for held kicks and are hugely terrible plays that almost always lead to points against you when you screw them up for punts.  That doesn't even get into how having a good long snapper helps placekicker accuracy because the timing is consistent when the snap is the same speed in the same location every single time. For Christ's sake we are seriously scrutinizing about how the holder HOLDS THE BALL at this point. IMO, it's a ton easier to find a guy who can run reasonably fast and who is willing to sacrifice his body to make tackles than it is to find a guy who can make clean long snaps in all weather conditions. 

 

 

[artmalibu]

I can recall a few times the Bills lost in the  playoffs and a super bowl due to special teams.    

 

I cant recall any games where I thought we lost because because the RB-3 or WR 6 were not good enough.....

 

So, to think that special teams are not important enough to use roster spots on is a little crazy.

[FireChans]

4 hours ago, artmalibu said:

I can recall a few times the Bills lost in the  playoffs and a super bowl due to special teams.    

 

I cant recall any games where I thought we lost because because the RB-3 or WR 6 were not good enough.....

 

So, to think that special teams are not important enough to use roster spots on is a little crazy.

We may have won a few more games with Wyatt Teller on the team.

[Alphadawg7]

Players on the back end of the depth chart...how much value do they have at their respective positions?   

 

Fielding the top offense in the AFC 2 years in a row, our 5th WR (McKenzie) averaged just 25 rec and 240 yards for the season, and that includes a 17 game season, injuries to Brown, Sanders, and Beasley over that span.  No one behind him even had 100 yards.  Devin and Moss have dominated the run production too over that span.  

 

So, keeping a 6th and/or 7th WR that does not improve ST doesn't really make a lot of sense given they wont likely see many, if any, snaps on the filed as a WR.  Same with a 4th/5th RB.  

 

Yet being able to vastly improve a 3rd unit (Special Teams) is more valuable than someone just sitting on the bench with no role for the entirety of a game.  I would rather be strong in all 3 phases of the game than weaken one just to keep a guy who wont play at their respective positions.  Its not an exact science either though, maybe you have a very good but not yet ready young player you know you cant stash on PS, well then you may need to keep him and find a ST player to stash at another position. 

 

But overall, unless you got someone that is too good to let go, those deeper guys really need to be able to improve ST if they want to make the team.  That is why every coach will preach the best way to make the team is on ST for those deeper bench guys.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

21 hours ago, BTB said:

Kumerow, Matekevich & Jones. How do they justify keeping all 3, considering 2 of the 4 ST units(kickoff & kickoff return units) have been neutered 2/3 of the time(just a rough guess on my part) by touchbacks?

 

Therefore, they keep 3 guys mainly for punt & punt return teams?  Seems like a luxury to me. 1 of the 3 players…ok. 2 of the 3…tough sell. All 3…no way.  Not when good young players will be cut to keep the ST’ers on the roster. 

 

Well your traditional #5WR, #3 RB, and #4LB don't usually play much at all over the course of a game.  They can obviously fill in in a pinch, but they're active on gamedays for ST snaps.  

 

Who are we cutting to keep them?  Duke Johnson is unlikely to make it here.  Baylon Spector projects to someday be Matakevich and can probably go to PS.  Hodgins I guess you could make an argument for - but you can probably just stash him on 53 and cut Sweeney.  Are Duke Johnson, a 7th rounder who might fit on the PS, and tommy sweeney worth giving up core special teamers?  

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

Are Duke Johnson, a 7th rounder who might fit on the PS, and tommy sweeney worth giving up core special teamers?  

 

This is exactly the point and the answer is, self-evidently, no. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

59 minutes ago, FireChans said:

We may have won a few more games with Wyatt Teller on the team.

 

They traded him - and it likely had nothing to do with special teams.  I think the Juan Castillo year was probably not a good start.  In 2019 they knew the line sucked, brought in a new line coach as well as Spain, Morse, Feliciano, Ford, Nsekhe, Long - as well as Bates and Boettger.  He was essentially usurped by Spain and Feliciano at starting G, Long can dress as a depth G/C, and bates and Boettger were more positionally flexible.  Ford started at T for much of the year and Nsekhe was swing tackle.  

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

They traded him - and it likely had nothing to do with special teams.  I think the Juan Castillo year was probably not a good start.  In 2019 they knew the line sucked, brought in a new line coach as well as Spain, Morse, Feliciano, Ford, Nsekhe, Long - as well as Bates and Boettger.  He was essentially usurped by Spain and Feliciano at starting G, Long can dress as a depth G/C, and bates and Boettger were more positionally flexible.  Ford started at T for much of the year and Nsekhe was swing tackle.  

They traded him because he didn't have a roster spot..... because of special teams players.