Yeah, and it cost the Giants the playoffs.

For a long snap I could have, certainly. But any cutting whatsoever would have put me on the ground in pain again. It's kinda hard to play any football postion beyond deep snapping and kicking with any kind of knee injury.

I know. I was just playin' with ya. My cousin has had a bad knee since he was an adolescent. I know all about what he's gone through. He played hoops on blacktop and he could barely walk the next day.

The Texans had that one snap hit the holder in the head.

I agree, as good as Gammon is, it would be nice not to have to dedicate a roster spot. Once again, I am glad I do not have to make that decision. He has made it look so easy, but I do remember the pre-Gammon era though.

Agreed, he has proven that he is not exactly made of glass.

So, no back up long snapper? What happens if he gets hurt?

Did you bother to check the depth charts on nfl.com?

You'd be suprised.

per nfl.com:
Kansas City: 2 long snappers listed, Gammon not listed elsewhere on depth chart, Allen starting DE.

Baltimore: 2 long snappers (Maese, Katula) -- long snappers only.
Buffalo: 2 long snappers (Schneck, Preston) -- Preston listed as backup guard.
Cincinnati: 1 long snapper (St. Louis) -- long snapper only.
Cleveland: 1 long snapper (Pontbriand) -- long snapper only.
Denver: 2 long snappers (Leach, Lepsis) -- Leach #4 TE, Lepsis starting Guard.
Houston: 1 long snapper (Pittman) -- long snapper only.
Indy: 1 long snapper (Snow) -- long snapper only.
Jax: 1 long snapper (Zelenka) -- long snapper only.
Miami: 2 long snappers (Denney, Zgonina) -- Denney long snapper only, Zgonina backup DT.
New England: 1 long snapper (Paxton) -- long snapper only.
NY Jets: 2 long snappers (Dearth, Dreessen) -- Dearth #3 TE, Dreessen #2 TE.
Oakland: 2 long snappers (Treu, Grove) -- True starting Center, Grove backup Center.
Pittsburgh: 1 long snapper (Warren) -- long snapper only.
San Diego: 2 long snappers (Binn, Foley) -- Binn long snapper only, Foley starting OLB.
Tennessee: 1 long snapper (Amato) -- listed as #3 OLB

That's just the AFC. KC is unique in that it's just one of few that have a starter at another position as their backup long snapper. Oakland's long snapper is also their starting center.

Actually, I did check the depth charts a little bit, and I was suprised. The few teams I checked did have dedicated LS.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. I just think there have been a lot of times where that extra roster spot might have been beneficial.

It's great to have the "best long snapper in the league", but for whatever reason, both Pittsburgh and New Orleans learned to live without Gammon. It would be nice if we could too, and replace him with a player that actually adds something else to the depth chart.

While we're at it, let's get rid of T. Rich too. All he does is lay people on their backside. He hardly ever carries the damn ball.

Great comparison. :rolleyes:

Stop embarrassing your parents.

Most if not all teams have a dedicated long snapper, KC's not losing anything having a specialist in that role.

Both NO and Pittsburgh have dedicated long snappers. Gammon just happens to be KC's.

Yea, bite me!
:D

Gammon is the best in the league at what he does, works for the league minimum, and doesn't bitch about it. Where else.... in any other sport... does that happen.

Apparently times have changed, it wasn't always like that. I guess I'm wrong in thinking other teams are getting depth out of their LS.

It's not that I don't like Gammon and what he's done for us. I just think if we had a LS that also provided depth, we could have maybe kept a guy like Lilja or Gado on our roster ( just examples, not saying they would have made it),v or it would allow us to activate a guy like Thorpe so we could get him some reps.

The only other player on the team you could make a comparison to is Gary Stills, since all he does is play special teams. Judging by our coverage units, it looks like we're wasting a roster spot on him too.