Of course it isn't. But it does show you which one is, by far, the least important of the three.
As to your examples, in every single one of those games I can cite dozens, and I do literally mean dozens, of plays by the offense and the defense that if they had just come out differently would have affected the outcome of the game just as much. For instance in the Michigan - Michigan State game this year, on the last Michigan drive what if Michigan would have run for a first down on one of their three plays before the punt? Doing that would have meant that they didn't even need to punt the ball. Or what if on the Michigan State possession before that Connor Cook didn't take a sack when Michigan State was on the Michigan 36 yard line, and then follow that up by throwing three straight incompletions? Then maybe Michigan State just kicks a field goal and wins 24-23. Or what about the possession before that when after they got to the Michigan 40 yard line Cook threw three straight incompletions, the third of which hit his receiver right in the hands? What if he had completed one or two of those passes? The one that hit the guy in the hands would have given Michigan State a first down. Or what about the possession early in the fourth quarter when Michigan took over the ball at the Michigan State 28 yard line but couldn't get a first down and had to settle for a field goal? What if they had scored a touchdown there? Or what about the Michigan State possession that spanned the end of the third quarter and into the fourth quarter, when they got to the Michigan 32 yard line and then threw four incomplete passes in a row to turn the ball over on downs? What if they had run the ball there and gotten into field goal range? What if they had completed one of those passes and gotten another first down?
See how this works? In a close game we can go back and look at literally dozens of plays, including a few special teams plays, and say that if that play would have just turned out differently it could have changed the whole outcome of the game. And the fact of the matter is that almost all of those dozens of plays are offense/defense plays and not special teams plays. Do you know why? Because there are a lot more of them. Which makes those two phases of the game a lot more important.
The plays I listed were notable because of the simplistic nature of the results. These weren't 53-yard FGs.
McAfee missed a 19-yarder and a 24-yarder against Pitt. Those are extra points. They should be able to be taken for granted, no exceptional effort required.
The Michigan punter simply needed to catch the snap. Didn't even need to punt the ball. Just catch a snap that is right to him. That should be able to be taken for granted.
Similarly for Pitt in 2009.... simply having the holder catch a clean snap, and the extra point isn't botched, at worst the game goes OT.
A bad kicker can't be hidden. A bad LB can be replaced or "hidden" within the scheme if the other 10 guys are good. A bad single player on offense or defense, except for the QB, can be hidden somewhat.
So while defense and offense represent 150 plays per game and special teams represent around 30 plays per game..... those 30 plays are the difference between winning and losing often enough to matter.
As to the topic of my OP..... a bad PK cannot be hidden. And it is one player in which an upgrade is immediately evident. Exhibit A is the 2015 Steelers.
Of course, given the choice between a top notch QB and a top notch PK, everyone would take the QB. But that's a false choice that never really exists.
Upgrading the PK in *NO* way impacts the ability to upgrade the offense and defense. For college teams, a single scholarship spot for a quality kicker is more valuable than a 4th-team OL who never sees the field. For pro teams, a quality kicker almost never impacts the salary cap so it doesn't impact the quality of your other units.
The subject of the OP was this.... Chris Blewitt isn't good enough. His missed kicks directly impacted the strategy in the Miami game. His missed chip shot yesterday was meaningful in this way: After Whitehead's TD, Pitt would've been within one score. Again after Ollison's long TD, Pitt would've been within one score. That changes the strategy BOTH teams employ the rest of the game. His missed chip shot was a gut punch to the team, just as his missed kicks against Miami were. You are underestimating the value of those missed kicks.
Now... if you are done being obtuse and looking for an argument, maybe you can address the actual subject of the OP. Should we be looking at bringing in a quality kicker to supplant Blewitt.... before he costs us a game or two next year?
