New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - Article Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)

- - Article: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal (https://blackandgold.com/saints/65424-loomis-no-deadline-graham-deal.html)

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 588120)

You are still missing it. "Slot Receiver" is not a Wide Receiver owned role. He didn't line up as a Wide Receiver, he lined up as a slot...

Just because traditionally a Wide Receiver lines up in the slot doesn't make it a Wide Receiver position... Just line a kick returner is not a Wide Receiver even though that role is normally played by Wide Receivers.
2013 NFL Player Returning Stats - National Football League - ESPN

In the strict language of the CBA there is no such position as a "wide out" or a "slot receiver".

BTW Jimmy Graham has the right to challenge and has chosen not to.

No, once again, I'm not missing it. Maybe if I put it this way.

Try not to think about the time at slot receiver.

Why would player A that only lines up wide 20% of the time be a wide receiver and player B that lines up at the wide receiver spot 25% not be a wide receiver?

Yes, I realize Graham hasn't filed a grievance. I don't think he will. Losing the appeal would cost him more in the negotiations than winning it could gain him. This is purely theoretical.

Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah_Saint (Post 588125)

Correct me if I an wrong but the % are not in favor of Graham being a WR based on him lining up at the Z/X/WR, they are only for the Y/Slot Receiver.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/04/11/nu3e6asy.jpg

Slot is between the Tackle and Wide Receiver.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotback

So is TE
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_end

Most of the talking heads are lumping Slot and WR snap counts together. Jimmy's true WR snap count is lower than 50%.

Look at how it is framed in the header.. "Slot is *traditionally* a WR, but they do make the distinction of the two.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/04/11/yqe7a9uj.jpg
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/b...43&src=desktop

This may be clearer.... Lance Moore and Jimmy Graham both play a lot of slot; one is a WR, the other is a TE.

The difference between Tight End and Slot is only whether he is on or off the line.... The difference between WR and Slot is 5-8 yards is say.

If Jimmy line up in the slot/Y more than 50% he is a TE, if he was an X/Z/WR more than 50% then he has an argument.

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

What the hell happened to this thread. Lets get excited about resigning THE GINGER GIANT!

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

Graham hasn't challenged it. I respect that.

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

The Saints never like to show their hand. There will be a deal done before training camp, but just because Mickey isn't coming straight out and saying exactly where they're at there will always be speculation.
Reminds me of SP's contract crap-up last year...when all the talking heads said he would sign with Cowboys.

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_Dub_Saint (Post 588137)

What the hell happened to this thread. Lets get excited about resigning THE GINGER GIANT!

Sorry, didn't mean to be a buzz kill.

Geaux Saints!!

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

Back to the OP
it seems the longer JG is 'unsigned' the more players we get. Jimmy's patience is helping us redefine our secondary

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

It's all a media creation, as evidenced by the fact that Jimmy doesn't seem to give a crap. Everyone knows a long-term deal will get done without any issues but it's Mike Florio over at TMZ, oops I mean PFT and his peers who insist that this is all so dramatic.

Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

He wrote today that Jimmy has 3 years to file grievance.