transfers
scott sypniewski

Exit Scott Sypniewski Comment Count

Adam Schnepp

Scott Sypniewski31 Twitter

According to his Twitter bio, Michigan long snapper Scott Sypniewki won’t be returning to the program for his redshirt senior season in 2017. Sypniewski has been Michigan’s starting long snapper since 2014, appearing in 34 games over the past three seasons. Redshirt sophomore PWO Andrew Robinson appears to be next in line to take over as Michigan's starting long snapper.

Sypniewski’s departure leaves Michigan with 25 available scholarships. They have 26 recruits currently committed; with the usual expected (and unexpected) offseason attrition, the 32-man class we’ve heard rumblings about seems feasible from the perspective of available scholarships.

Comments

Quailman

December 27th, 2016 at 12:24 PM ^

I'm honeslty a little surprised at how many people are surprised by this. 

Sypniewski did very good job and wish him all the best.

But UM was one of the only teams out there still using a scholarship on a LS. Im fairly sure 5 years of giving a scholarship to a LS would be unprecedented. Using a scholarship on LS is a tactical disadvantage. Again, to say nothing of Scott himself, but just about the theory of using your 85 schollies. 

From all accounts, Robinson and Cheeseman are pretty good and don't cost UM a scholarship. There shouldnt be a big, if any, drop-off. I would've thought this would've been about the most obvious of the departures. 

Joined: 08/30/2013

MGoPoints: 19683

Quailman

December 27th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

And I think people are overstating Sypniewski's skills. He was good, but its not like hes an All-American wunder-snapper. Having a 5th-year LS is not some huge advantage like a 5th-year OL or something. Honestly how many UM fans knew who the LS was before Sypniewski got a scholarship or Glanda caught that pass against Va.Tech?

Joined: 08/30/2013

MGoPoints: 19683

dragonchild

December 27th, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^

Um, long snapper is not a playmaking position in most cases.  If they're their own ally on special teams coverage then great, but there's a high floor for performance (and a ceiling basically just an inch higher) with very little room to wiggle below that.  In fact if they stand out then that's usually a very BAD sign.  I'm not saying it's a huge advantage, nor do I necessarily advocate he get a 5th year, but expecting the long snapper to MAKE PLAYS is a disingenuous expectation for the position.  Sypniewski didn't really stand out and that's what most reasonable people would ask of someone like him.

He was on scholarship and that was fine.  He's leaving and that's fine too.  It's not like there's some pendulum that needs to be swung hard in the other direction here.

Joined: 10/13/2011

MGoPoints: 60722

Quailman

December 27th, 2016 at 12:59 PM ^

Sorry, I completely missed the part where I said I expected a LS to make plays and be a play-maker, but I did read the part where you agree with me that there isnt an advantage to a 5th year LS. Even though you tried to put words in my mouth, you did back-up my point when you say its not a play-making position. It's important and i wont deny that. But its not a play-making position that can't be filled by a walk-on or preferred walk-on like the ones currently on UM's roster. 

Go back and read my posts in this thread. I've said many times that I thought Sypniewski was a good LS and did his job. I'm not "swinging a pendulum in a different direction here." Im just suprised that people are surprised at why he'd be leaving.

Joined: 08/30/2013

MGoPoints: 19683

dragonchild

December 27th, 2016 at 1:25 PM ^

Sorry, I completely missed the part where I said I expected a LS to make plays and be a play-maker

It doesn't look good for you to completely miss it, since I put it right there.

"wunder-snapper"

If there's a distinction between a "wunder-snapper" and a whatever isn't, then that implies there's a valid difference in expectation between some acceptable baseline and some theoretical performance threshold well above it (whatever qualifies for "wunder-snapper").  That's an ignorant perspective of what a long snapper does, and there is no other rational interpretation for your choice of words.

If you meant to say something else then fine.  However, getting petulant about what you said, doesn't change what you said.

Joined: 10/13/2011

MGoPoints: 60722

grumbler

December 27th, 2016 at 1:44 PM ^

Wow, you post this and complain that people are putting words in your mouth? :)

Of course there is an advantage to having a fifth-year long-snapper.  Merely asserting that there isn't is not an argument.  Experience counts at every position.

The question is what you give up to have the scholarship to pay for that experience. Clearly, the coaches think the price is too high, and so have very reasonably let Syp know he won't be asked back for a fifth year.  That he has done a great job doesn't mean that his experience is worth another year of scholarship.  

Giving a snapper the scholarship from the beginning means that the staff loses flexibility.  A walk-on's scholarship is always year-to-year, so the coaches can use that scholarship to best meet the needs of the team, even if a walk-on loses a scholly for a year or so.  That's the real advantage to letting Syp go:  you can offer one more long shot and, if that doesn't come through, still use the scholly on the PWO.

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14099

dragonchild

December 27th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

until something goes wrong.  Long snapper is more analogous to air traffic controller than any other football position.  Every damn short-sighted entitled bean-counter thinks it's a necessary evil, waste of space and a cost to "optimize" until something goes wrong, but then something goes VERY wrong.

I don't know if that guy was on scholarship but the takeaway is that you probably don't want to cheap out on your special teams crew.  I'd rather human folly stop short of "we only learn from self-inflicted disasters" but here we are.  Using a scholarship on a long snapper is fine.  It is not an inherent "tactical disadvantage" (it can certainly be wasted on a bad snapper but that goes for any position).  It's a different sort of priority than handing that 85th scholarship to your fourth string linebacker or whatever, depending on how comfortable you are with your walk-on crew.  Maybe you're fine with them but I can think of worse uses for a scholarship.

I think this has more has to do with, he's already been here four years, has his degree, and we have two other long snappers on the roster.  It made sense to have a scholarship long snapper until it didn't.

Joined: 10/13/2011

MGoPoints: 60722

dragonchild

December 27th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^

But I am a former engineer, so I've seen plenty of OEMs set millions on fire to save a few dollars.  At this point I'm convinced it's engrained in modern American culture, to the point that very few people have the mindset to properly assess the long snapper position.  I'm probably being a little too testy, I admit it, but I see a larger problem in the way some of the arguments are being made.

Joined: 10/13/2011

MGoPoints: 60722

Quailman

December 27th, 2016 at 1:11 PM ^

Regarding your last paragraph: that's exactly what I've said throughout this thread.

Regarding the first part: Oh, I totally get the whole "you'll think its not important until it goes wrong" argument. And yeah, when it goes wrong for a LS, it goes wrong. But a scholarship LS can make a bad snap just the same as a walk-on. Moores saved a bad snap in the Ohio State game after UM tied it or we wouldnt have had to even worry about if Barrett was short or not. But a walk-on often is just a successful as a scholarship LS most of the time and most teams out there seem to get along just fine using a walk-on at the position.

Think of it this way, both a walk-on and scholarship QB can throw a pick. But that walk-on is not as likely to turn around the next possession and throw a strike for a TD as the scholarship QB. The difference, in most cases (I know, Jordan Kovacs) between a walk-on a scholarship player at other positions is more noticeable and impactful. LS could be in the game 0-10 times a game. If you can find someone who can do that job well without spending a resource on it, and you can use that resource somewhere else, you are optimizing the talent level of your team.

Joined: 08/30/2013

MGoPoints: 19683

pearlw

December 27th, 2016 at 12:45 PM ^

The decision to invite him back or not is entirely based upon their view of Robinson/Cheesman. Unless you have been to practice alot and have good insight into that, its hard for anyone here to say they knew this was coming. Its a matter of weighing the extra scholarship vs the dropoff to the next guy. There certainly will be a dropoff as Sypniewski is starting over those guys but hard to comment from the mgoblog board as to the extent of the difference.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/09/2011

MGoPoints: 4657

kehnonymous

December 27th, 2016 at 12:28 PM ^

Wishing him the best of luck wherever he lands, of course.  

As to how this impacts the team going forward, it should be a minimal loss - that's not a dig against Sypneiwski, but more my overwhelming faith that we will be so dialed in next year that we will not punt at all, thereby obviating the need for a long snapper.

Joined: 11/25/2011

MGoPoints: 32992

NOLA Wolverine

December 27th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

Good on the kid for turning this skill into free college and great job not making any headlines since your commit post, but yeah, we probably don't need to be tying up scholarships on kids that we are setting out to only play long snapper from the get go.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 7308

Wal-Mart Wolverine

December 27th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

Shallman will be gone.  He probably would have been a star in East Lansing but always thought he could play RB instead of FB.

Joined: 01/03/2016

MGoPoints: -892

Mr. Yost

December 27th, 2016 at 3:49 PM ^

Injuries...he wouldn't have been a star anywhere if he kept getting hurt.

But as for the position. They should've just said, you're playing FB/H-Back or you can transfer and play RB after his freshman year.

No reason to have him out there trying to be a RB or LB. It was never going to work. He shouldn't have made it out of fall camp as a RB. He should've redshirted, became a FB and he could be in there scoring TDs and breaking off long runs.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

KC Wolve

December 27th, 2016 at 4:17 PM ^

Good luck sir, I hope you enjoyed the fuck out of your time. I remember when he signed and I thought, holy shit, this dude is getting a full ride to Michigan to long snap. Not taking anything away from as others have repeatedly said, but what a deal!!!!



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/09/2010

MGoPoints: 12674

TheBorg

December 28th, 2016 at 1:18 PM ^

parents read this blog, do refrain from using the f-word.  Certainly the mgoblog community has a better vocabulary and need not resort to gutter language.  Show some class guys. The use of foul langauge - particularly in this case - makes no sense whatsoever.  

Joined: 01/13/2011

MGoPoints: -180

TheBorg

December 29th, 2016 at 7:43 PM ^

your words hurt me so much, wah waah wah.  Your banal comment requires you to look in the mirror and recite the banality above 100 times, but make certain you add the following words: "I need to" and then recite your self-affirming comment.

Joined: 01/13/2011

MGoPoints: -180