Perhaps. Given that landing performance is predicated on no reverse, the issue isn't really not getting stopped, but brake energy and wear.
The contributing airlines, mostly major world players with large fleets, noted that the cost of reverser and engine maintenance exceeded the cost of replacement brakes by a significant margin.
We use reverse largely because our operational policy is to use autobrakes, and given a constant rate of acceleration, any reverse use means cooler brakes for the same stopping distance. Given typical two or three hour turns and usual max weight landings, we're concerned with keeping the brakes cool to minimize turnaround delays. For us, it's not the cost of engines or brakes, but the turn time that interests us most.
For the respondents to the paper cited above, the cost of reversing was higher than that of brakes. As reverse use is often cited as a way of "saving the brakes," I find the observations in the report to be of interest.