Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

04-10-2014, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by TheOak

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.

TheOak · 04-10-2014, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Utah_Saint

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.

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.

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://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.

B_Dub_Saint · 04-10-2014, 04:34 PM

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

jlouhill · 04-10-2014, 04:36 PM

rezburna · 04-10-2014, 04:37 PM

Graham hasn't challenged it. I respect that.

saintsfan403 · 04-10-2014, 05:20 PM

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.

Utah_Saint · 04-10-2014, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by B_Dub_Saint

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!!

ScottF · 04-10-2014, 05:57 PM

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

ChrisXVI · 04-10-2014, 06:07 PM

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.

brees84 · 04-10-2014, 06:18 PM

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

04-10-2014, 03:46 PM	#11
Threaded by Utah_Saint Site Donor 2019 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 3,521 Rating: (0 votes - average) Originally Posted by TheOak 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.
Views: 4643

04-10-2014, 04:17 PM	#12
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,027	Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal Originally Posted by Utah_Saint 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. 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. 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://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.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

04-10-2014, 04:34 PM	#13
B_Dub_Saint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lafayette, LA Posts: 2,345 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal What the hell happened to this thread. Lets get excited about resigning THE GINGER GIANT! ScottF likes this.

04-10-2014, 04:36 PM	#14
jlouhill 500th Post Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Denton, Tx. Posts: 692	Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

04-10-2014, 04:37 PM	#15
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 7,935	Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal Graham hasn't challenged it. I respect that.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

04-10-2014, 05:20 PM	#16
saintsfan403 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: WHO DAT NATION Posts: 2,261	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. B_Dub_Saint likes this.

04-10-2014, 05:34 PM	#17
Utah_Saint Site Donor 2019 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 3,521	Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal Originally Posted by B_Dub_Saint 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!! ScottF likes this.

04-10-2014, 05:57 PM	#18
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	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

04-10-2014, 06:07 PM	#19
ChrisXVI 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 11,482	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.

04-10-2014, 06:18 PM	#20
brees84 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 3,015	Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal He wrote today that Jimmy has 3 years to file grievance.
brees84 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 3,015

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/65424-loomis-no-deadline-graham-deal.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal	This thread	Refback	04-10-2014 11:15 AM	5