|
this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by lee909 Im a little confused and down right bored with this thought process that Jimmy played in the slot so is a WR rather than a TE. What does Slot Receiver Mean? A type of receiver in ...
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
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 lee909
![]()
Brandon Gibson Randell Cobb Eddie Royal Wes Welker Tavon Austin Jericho Cotchery all lined up at the wide out position LESS than Graham did. Jason Avant Danny Amendola Santana Moss lined up wide about the same percentage of the time as Graham. Wouldn't they all have be designated as Tight Ends? |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
5000 POSTS! +
|
Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal
Originally Posted by Utah_Saint
Which shows the point that the league is changing. ![]()
The old TE of just sitting down on the line and blocking doesnt exists. Maybe there is a case for the TE position to not exists anymore and for receivers are just put into one group but while the position exists a player drafted as a TE,listed as a TE,played Probowls as a TE makes,all Pro as a TE he is a TE |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
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 lee909
I agree that there needs to be an overall change to player designations, but, in my opinion, a player needs to have the right challange his designation. Or, the player should have the right to refuse to play in certain positions if it's going to reduce the amount of money he will be paid. ![]()
The quickest way to change is if someone challanges the old system. Teams won't, they don't want to pay more for receiving tight ends. Wide receivers won't because they don't want to risk falling down into the "slot" receiver if that means they'd make less than a wide receiver. The league might but they're pretty busy re evalutating the point after. There's no good way to define receivers anymore. Sean Payton refers to the franchise tag system as "antiquated." Says it was only a matter of time before a guy like Jimmy Graham battled it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
10000 POST CLUB
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 19,043
|
Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal
Originally Posted by Utah_Saint
![]()
What you are missing about lee's post is that "slot receiver" is not a Wide Receiver position, it is not a position of any sort, it is a role that multiple positions line up in TE, RB, WR. Similar to holder for the place kicker... Scat back is not a position either. Graham didnt line up as a tackle which is a position, he lined up in a role. The CBA outlines the positions, if a guard plays tackle then that is a position, not a role. |
Last edited by TheOak; 04-10-2014 at 01:52 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
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 TheOak
I didn't miss it. As a matter of fact, that's the whole point. ![]()
Graham lined up as a wide out more than any of those players. Why would they be any more of a wideout than Graham. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
10000 POST CLUB
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 19,043
|
Re: Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal
Originally Posted by Utah_Saint
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. |
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau
Last edited by TheOak; 04-10-2014 at 02:25 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
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 TheOak
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
10000 POST CLUB
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 19,043
|
Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal
Originally Posted by Utah_Saint
![]()
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
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() 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 10:15 AM | 5 |