Tuesday, August 4, 2015

2015 Season Countdown: #26 Scott Sypniewski

Scott Sypniewski
Name: Scott Sypniewski
Height: 6'1"
Weight: 224 lbs.
High school: Ottawa (IL) Marquette
Position: Long snapper
Class: Redshirt sophomore
Jersey number: #43
Last year: I ranked Sypniewski #32 and said he would be the starting long snapper. He started all twelve games at long snapper.

I would be fibbing if I told you that long snapper scuttlebutt abounds. The average Michigan fan probably couldn't tell you the name of Michigan's long snapper last year, and that's probably a good thing. I vaguely remember a lone questionable snap on a field goal attempt last season, but it was just a little low and those types of things tend not to make the news. I can say from personal experience that having poor play from a long snapper is extremely damaging to a team and can change a lot of game strategy, so minimizing mistakes is a huge deal. With a new, dedicated special teams coach, I would expect Sypniewski to remain solid. The lone backup long snapper listed on the roster is Andrew Robinson, a redshirt freshman walk-on from Troy (MI) Athens, but tight ends and linebacker types have often dabbled in the long snapping arts.

Prediction: Starting long snapper

20 comments:

  1. If I'm not mistaken, this is your first "starter" designation, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe so, yes. Although you could probably put Delano Hill in a "part-time starter" category since I think there will be certain packages where he'll begin the game.

      Delete
  2. Parody of LanknowsAugust 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM

    Bullshit! Sypniewski shouldn't be ranked one spot above 28! Get a clue, you ignoramus!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not bad - but I try not to curse or name call. Otherwise - spot on!

      The name is a little too obvious though...have you considered Lankdontknows? Lacknows?

      Delete
    2. Now to really parody Lanknows, make sure you reply to every person's comment, because they need to know your opinion on their comment, and leave at least two comments of your own.

      Delete
    3. I feel so hurt. Maybe I should change my name to Anonymous.

      Delete
    4. Please don't. We wont know which comments to avoid reading.

      Delete
    5. I'll think about it. -l

      Delete
  3. Thunder, what's your opinion on using a scholarship for a longsnapper? Obviously at least a few coaches think it's worth it. Do you agree or do you think a walk-on, TE/LB moonlighter is adequate?

    Thanks! The countdown is a fun way to goof off at work, by the way. I enjoy the site.

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  4. The long-snapper ranking is annual tradition I look forward to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another annual tradition -- my 20% serious plee to stop kicking. Use walk-ons for XPs and kickoffs, quit punting, and then put those scholarships to good use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know there's a strain of football philosophy that eschews punting. Apparently some statistics bear out the thinking. Still, I find it interesting that *none* of the top coaches in the game follow the approach.

      I agree that punting from the opponent's 40 is of questionable value ... but what about when you're backed up inside your own endzone. Wouldn't you agree having a consistent ability to boom it 60 or 70 yards in that case is worth it?

      Or is the thinking more, "Don't allow yourself to be backed up into your own endzone?"

      Delete
    2. IMO - just because something isn't done, doesn't mean it isn't right. It just takes someone(s) with courage to Do The Right Thing.

      1 scholarship kicker = 4 years of scholarships = 4 extra red-shirts.

      I do think if you are devoting 4 scholarship to the kicking game (between snappers, punters, kickers and a backup or red-shirt guy) you are probably doing something sub-optimally.

      I also do subscribe to the theory that coaches generally suck at game theory. But yeah - there are obviously limits to the not-kicking thing. There are obviously times when the marginal gain of having a good kicker matters a lot, so the conventional approach could be the right one too.

      The question is if you are better off using the scholarships on someone else and just having a guy who punts it 50 yards instead of 60. So you sacrifice 10 yards a punt, and you do that X number of times a year...when does the resulting loss in field position become worth it, or not worth it. I don't have an answer, but I think its up for debate. It does seems plausible that 4 red-shirts could be worth using a walk-on punter or place kicker just like 4 red-shirts are probably worth the marginal impact of using walk-on fullbacks.

      We've had a lot of kickers like Wile who can both punt and kick. We've seen QBs become effective at pooch punting. There might be a better way to do it than giving a scholarship to every specialist.

      I think the answer your question Don is: don't allow yourself to be backed up into your own endzone often enough for it to matter.

      Delete
    3. Well of course you wont ever allow yourself being backed up into the endzone. Not with the extra scholarship for a receiver, or a lineman. How could you think they'd ever be in their own endzone?

      Delete
    4. >> The question is if you are better off using the scholarships on someone else and just having a guy who punts it 50 yards instead of 60.

      That's the nub of it ... is a scholarship for a punter worth it? I can easily see the argument that is not ... unless that punter is *exceptional," and by that I mean consistent 60+ yards with the occasional "OMG, that punt went 80 yards!"

      Field goal kickers who can consistently split the uprights from 50+ yards is another matter. That's probably worth a scholarship.

      Delete
  6. I agree with ranking this guy above Ty Isaac.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How many a's are in the word "plea"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. How many a's are there in plea?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why burn a scholarship

    ReplyDelete