Jump to content

"Ideal/great slot receiver"


NFLExpert49

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Every effective outside receiver can play in the slot. Not even debatable. There is not one thing that playing in the slot demands that playing outside doesn't demand more of. 

Ability to: sustain blocks on off tackle runs, run dig routes through linebacker traffic, identify coverage in the middle of the field, be able to run routes in space without benefit of sideline, etc.

You seem to just have a bizarre vendetta against slot receivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StocktonSav said:

Ability to: sustain blocks on off tackle runs, run dig routes through linebacker traffic, identify coverage in the middle of the field, be able to run routes in space without benefit of sideline, etc.

You seem to just have a bizarre vendetta against slot receivers.

"Sustain blocks on off tackle runs." You're blocking a DB. Same as if you're lining up outside.

"Identify coverage in the middle of the field." There is no added difficulty of identifying coverage in one area of the field vs. any other.

"Run dig routes through linebacker traffic." There is nothing about lining up in the slot that makes running a deep in more difficult. It makes it easier. 

"Be able to run routes in space without benefit of the sideline." Uh, the sideline helps the CORNER, not the receiver. The sideline HINDERS the receiver. That is precisely the reason it is much more difficult to win outside than it is inside. Lining up in the slot is playing wide receiver on easy mode.

What's bizarre is you actually trying to deny basic football facts. There is no such separate position as "slot receiver." Every receiver to have ever played the game any significant number of snaps lined up in the slot plenty of times. There is no specific "skill set" for lining up in the slot that differs from any other receiver. The reason slow smurfs have come to be regarded as "slot receivers" is in the modern shotgun spreadfest era started by Belichick and the Patriots (with influence from the run-and-shoot from the past), teams usually put their weakest receivers - their 3rd and 4th guys - in the slot, because that is the only place where they can win. If they put them outside, it would give them no threat out there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

"Sustain blocks on off tackle runs." You're blocking a DB. Same as if you're lining up outside.

Safties and linebackers will frequently cover the slot. Definetly not the same as blocking a CB on the outside. Nor is the responsibility as important given its proximity to the play. Not to mention instances where a down block on a defensive end are required. 

"Identify coverage in the middle of the field." There is no added difficulty of identifying coverage in one area of the field vs. any other.

Unquestionably more difficult given the increase in variables (ie more defensive players and their corresponding assignments in the surrounding area.) Particularly in zone heavy defensive schemes. "Finding the soft spot in the zone" is inherently more difficult from the slot position.

"Run dig routes through linebacker traffic." There is nothing about lining up in the slot that makes running a deep in more difficult. It makes it easier. 

By definition, an outside receiver would be further away from the box. So that generally only occurs in more slow developing plays. So such routes would occur far less frequently than a slot receiver who must do so repeatedly. Fearlessness of contact is more necessary for the slot position as a result.

"Be able to run routes in space without benefit of the sideline." Uh, the sideline helps the CORNER, not the receiver. The sideline HINDERS the receiver. That is precisely the reason it is much more difficult to win outside than it is inside. Lining up in the slot is playing wide receiver on easy mode.

See middle of the field comment above. There is a distinct benefit on certain routes to knowing there is not a defender behind/beside you. 

What's bizarre is you actually trying to deny basic football facts. There is no such separate position as "slot receiver." Typically called the Y receiver (basic football fact) Every receiver to have ever played the game any significant number of snaps lined up in the slot plenty of times. Pure hyperbole and "lining up" doesn't reflect effectiveness. There is no specific "skill set" for lining up in the slot that differs from any other receiver. The reason slow smurfs have come to be regarded as "slot receivers" is in the modern shotgun spreadfest era started by Belichick and the Patriots (with influence from the run-and-shoot from the past), teams usually put their weakest receivers - their 3rd and 4th guys - in the slot, because that is the only place where they can win. If they put them outside, it would give them no threat out there.

If playing in the slot is "easy mode" then wouldn't every team put their best receiver in the slot on every play?

If the slot requires no specific skill set, why do "smurfs" succeed inside and not outside? Shouldn't it be the same? There's no difference but one's easier? Pick one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, StocktonSav said:

 

1. If he's blocking down, his only job is to get in the way. Anyone can do that. Even QBs can block players in that regard. The idea that the smurfs whom people label "slot receivers" have to be better blockers than the bigger receivers is pretty comical. 

2. Uh, no. A receiver on the outside trying to find a soft spot in zone is heading towards the exact same areas of the field a slot would be. He has to identify the exact same things. 

3. Fear of what contact? You're not allowed to jam a receiver after 5 yards. It's clear you have never actually watched a football game before where you actually paid attention to what route running looks like. And if you're referring to taking a hit in traffic after catching it...the outside receivers are heading into the same traffic with any of those same types of routes, and have the same risk of getting hit. The "linebacker traffic" from zone coverage doesn't go away just because you are starting from the outside before breaking in. 

4. Slot receivers get one-on-one matchups at most. They frequently get no man coverage - only LBs in zone. Outside receivers are the ones who have to worry about the players behind the corresponding corner (safeties). Once a slot receiver beats his one man, it's over. It's just so obviously way easier in every regard that it's unreal to me that you are actually trying to contest it. There's a reason every receiver labeled a "slot receiver" was a late round pick/UDFA coming out of college. 

5. Calling it the "Y" receiver doesn't make it a separate position. Every talented receiver will line up everywhere to the point where you can't even label him an X, Y, or Z. The position is "wide receiver," not X/Y/Z. Aside from in the playbook, nobody ever tried to classify WRs as being one thing until the advent of the inferior receivers catching freebee short passes out of the slot.

6. Uh, no. It's not hyperbole at all. Literally every receiver to have ever played the game any significant number of snaps has lined up in the slot numerous times. That is a simple fact, like saying that the earth is round.

7. No, because then defenses would adjust their coverages to focus on the slot receiver (based on predictability), and the offense would be more limited with where they could go with the ball because their weaker receiver wouldn't be able to get open on the outside. Having, say, 4 guys on the field who could beat the coverage, is better than having only 3. It is harder to defend a receiver in the slot, as I noted before, but the sum of having more guys who could get open is preferable to putting your best receiver in the slot on every down and defenses doing their best to take him away (while with some added limitations to what they can do), while having a receiver lining up outside who provides no threat whatsoever. 

8. Because playing in the slot is much easier. There is absolutely no ability you need inside that you don't need outside, but there are many abilities that you need outside that you don't need inside. The lesser receivers can't play on the outside; they can only play inside. Whereas actually talented receivers can play anywhere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NFLExpert49 said:

1. If he's blocking down, his only job is to get in the way. Anyone can do that. Even QBs can block players in that regard. The idea that the smurfs whom people label "slot receivers" have to be better blockers than the bigger receivers is pretty comical. 

Sounds like a crappy slot receiver to me. The truly good run blocking slot receivers do more than "get in the way."

2. Uh, no. A receiver on the outside trying to find a soft spot in zone is heading towards the exact same areas of the field a slot would be. He has to identify the exact same things. 

So if they are going in the same areas of the field, how is being in the slot easier? Getting open "outside" is not the same area of the field, right? We're going in circles here.

3. Fear of what contact? You're not allowed to jam a receiver after 5 yards. It's clear you have never actually watched a football game before where you actually paid attention to what route running looks like. It appears to me that your understanding of route progressions and play development are founded on Madden and not real football. And if you're referring to taking a hit in traffic after catching it...the outside receivers are heading into the same traffic with any of those same types of routes, and have the same risk of getting hit. But do they do so as frequently as slot receivers? No. The "linebacker traffic" from zone coverage doesn't go away just because you are starting from the outside before breaking in. 

4. Slot receivers get one-on-one matchups at most. They frequently get no man coverage - only LBs in zone. Wait, they get one on one the most, but never get man coverage? Do you want to explain how that makes sense? Outside receivers are the ones who have to worry about the players behind the corresponding corner (safeties). So in your world, safeties typically line up way out wide, directly behind the outside corners? Interesting alignment. Cant say I see that very often. Once a slot receiver beats his one man, it's over. It's just so obviously way easier in every regard that it's unreal to me that you are actually trying to contest it. There's a reason every receiver labeled a "slot receiver" was a late round pick/UDFA coming out of college. Hyperbole again. In recent memory, Cooper Kupp, Christian Kirk, DJ Moore and Anthony Miller come to mind.

5. Calling it the "Y" receiver doesn't make it a separate position. Every talented receiver will line up everywhere to the point where you can't even label him an X, Y, or Z. The position is "wide receiver," not X/Y/Z. So there's no functional difference in the required skill set from a flanker, split end, or slot? You're a wide receiver purist. A world where all receivers are homogenized. Neat. Aside from in the playbook, nobody ever tried to classify WRs as being one thing until the advent of the inferior receivers catching freebee short passes out of the slot. Kind of contrary to the history of the sport but sure.

6. Uh, no. It's not hyperbole at all. Literally every receiver to have ever played the game any significant number of snaps has lined up in the slot numerous times. Like literally, like every single word in that sentence is literally the most hyperbolic thing I've literally ever read in my entire life. Literally. That is a simple fact, like saying that the earth is round. I mean technically it's spherical since it's not a two dimensional plane. Or is it... whoa deep stuff. But sure, I catch your drift.

7. No, because then defenses would adjust their coverages to focus on the slot receiver (based on predictability), and the offense would be more limited with where they could go with the ball because their weaker receiver wouldn't be able to get open on the outside. Having, say, 4 guys on the field who could beat the coverage, is better than having only 3. It is harder to defend a receiver in the slot, as I noted before, but the sum of having more guys who could get open is preferable to putting your best receiver in the slot on every down and defenses doing their best to take him away (while with some added limitations to what they can do), while having a receiver lining up outside who provides no threat whatsoever. 

Much better. Really close to making some logical points here. Except, if it's easier, wouldn't top receivers play in the slot a majority of the time at least, since not every play for the reasons you stated above? Wouldn't rosters be just filled with "outside" type receivers instead of "smurfs"?

8. Because playing in the slot is much easier. There is absolutely no ability you need inside that you don't need outside, but there are many abilities that you need outside that you don't need inside. The lesser receivers can't play on the outside; they can only play inside. I would say this is equally true of lesser outside receivers. The one trick go route pony for example. Whereas actually talented receivers can play anywhere.  I agree with this last part. Elite receivers can play anywhere. Their skill set is applicable from any position typically. That's why they are elite.

Be honest, did Julian Edelman steal your girlfriend or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StocktonSav said:

 

1. No, they don't. Their job is just to get in the way to allow the back to get to the outside. Nobody is asking Cole Beasley to block Brandon Graham as though Beasley is a TE/OT.

2. It's easier because the corner (when there even is one) doesn't have the sideline to help him defend, nor safety help over the top (although a team could do that in theory, the reality is that that's really not a thing with NFL defenses, since teams more frequently deploy their best receivers from outside, for reasons I mentioned). But of course, the slot is often just working against a linebacker. In case you weren't aware of it, linebackers are not as good in coverage as corners. Watch Julian Edelman on the plays at 0:14 and 1:55.

Ebukam and Littleton are not Talib and Peters. That's what lining up in the slot does for a receiver.

3. Outside receivers make traffic catches MORE frequently than slot receivers. Watch the Edelman video and show me where he's going into "LB traffic." Beating a LB one-on-one with everything spread out is not "LB traffic." 

4. It makes sense if you actually learn how to read. I said "AT most," not THE most. 

5. No, safeties line up inside and then react to outside receivers, providing deep help against outside receivers. They ignore the smurf slot running his shallow in. 

6. None of those guys you listed are athletically limited to the slot. 

7. A bunch of vague straw man and non sequiturs in a patronizing tone. You don't have an argument.

8. "Literally" means, "not hyperbole or exaggeration" (by the way, the word you have been looking for is, "exaggeration;" hyperbole refers to intentional exaggeration. Accusing someone of hyperbole is like accusing someone of sarcasm). And what I am saying is literally the case. There is not a single example of a receiver who played a significant number of snaps in the NFL who didn't play plenty of snaps in the slot. Not one. Not 1. That's the whole point. If you want to know the main limiting factor for any receiver playing in the slot, it's the time period - and therefore system - he was in. If you go back far enough, most teams ran most plays out of the pro set (no slot receiver). But no matter who it was, over the course of a decent-sized career, they would get their share of plays lined up in the slot. 

9. Why would they? Did you miss the part about how it's better for an offense to have guys who can win at every spot on the offense, rather than making one of the spots a dead end? Imagine switching Randy Moss with Wes Welker. Which of these guys do you think would be more adversely affected: Moss being covered inside by some linebacker or nickel corner, or Welker having to try to win against a top tier corner who uses an inside technique, forcing him against the sidelines? 

10. The one trick go route guy has absolutely no problem playing in the slot. He can beat linebackers covering him with the best of them. He can also run his go route deep just as much inside. 

11. Edelman isn't even the best example of what I'm talking about. His predecessor is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

1. No, they don't. Their job is just to get in the way to allow the back to get to the outside. Nobody is asking Cole Beasley to block Brandon Graham as though Beasley is a TE/OT.

2. It's easier because the corner (when there even is one) doesn't have the sideline to help him defend, nor safety help over the top (although a team could do that in theory, the reality is that that's really not a thing with NFL defenses, since teams more frequently deploy their best receivers from outside, for reasons I mentioned). But of course, the slot is often just working against a linebacker. In case you weren't aware of it, linebackers are not as good in coverage as corners. Watch Julian Edelman on the plays at 0:14 and 1:55.

Ebukam and Littleton are not Talib and Peters. That's what lining up in the slot does for a receiver.

3. Outside receivers make traffic catches MORE frequently than slot receivers. Watch the Edelman video and show me where he's going into "LB traffic." Beating a LB one-on-one with everything spread out is not "LB traffic." 

4. It makes sense if you actually learn how to read. I said "AT most," not THE most. 

5. No, safeties line up inside and then react to outside receivers, providing deep help against outside receivers. They ignore the smurf slot running his shallow in. 

6. None of those guys you listed are athletically limited to the slot. 

7. A bunch of vague straw man and non sequiturs in a patronizing tone. You don't have an argument.

8. "Literally" means, "not hyperbole or exaggeration" (by the way, the word you have been looking for is, "exaggeration;" hyperbole refers to intentional exaggeration. Accusing someone of hyperbole is like accusing someone of sarcasm). And what I am saying is literally the case. There is not a single example of a receiver who played a significant number of snaps in the NFL who didn't play plenty of snaps in the slot. Not one. Not 1. That's the whole point. If you want to know the main limiting factor for any receiver playing in the slot, it's the time period - and therefore system - he was in. If you go back far enough, most teams ran most plays out of the pro set (no slot receiver). But no matter who it was, over the course of a decent-sized career, they would get their share of plays lined up in the slot. 

9. Why would they? Did you miss the part about how it's better for an offense to have guys who can win at every spot on the offense, rather than making one of the spots a dead end? Imagine switching Randy Moss with Wes Welker. Which of these guys do you think would be more adversely affected: Moss being covered inside by some linebacker or nickel corner, or Welker having to try to win against a top tier corner who uses an inside technique, forcing him against the sidelines? 

10. The one trick go route guy has absolutely no problem playing in the slot. He can beat linebackers covering him with the best of them. He can also run his go route deep just as much inside. 

11. Edelman isn't even the best example of what I'm talking about. His predecessor is. 

Does this make every team stupid for not doing this? Does cone time factor in? Edelmen and Welker must have better cone times than most top end WRs. Gotta imagine a big wr like M. Thomas isn't as shifty.

Also Welker had never been seen before in the nfl. No one had a scheme for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iothar said:

Does this make every team stupid for not doing this? Does cone time factor in? Edelmen and Welker must have better cone times than most top end WRs. Gotta imagine a big wr like M. Thomas isn't as shifty.

Also Welker had never been seen before in the nfl. No one had a scheme for him.

For not doing what? 

LOL, Welker was seen before by the Chargers and Dolphins and neither team thought much of him. He was the Dolphins' 3rd receiver behind Booker and Chambers. And then after leaving New England, he signed with the Broncos for relative peanuts and returned to being a 3rd receiver behind Thomas and Decker, and later Thomas and Sanders.

Nobody tried to scheme for him because nobody cared about him. Teams don't game plan to stop "slot receivers." That's why you see them beating linebackers and jogging uncovered so often. 

The Patriots are unique in the way they spam opponents with underneath crap to their slot receivers in the same way the 49ers were unique in dumping it off to both backs in the flat to the extent they did, which is why Derek Loville caught 87 passes for them in 1995.

As for cone times...yeah, most smaller receivers will have better cone times. It's not necessary in the slot. Linebackers and nickel/dime backs aren't as agile as top tier corners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

For not doing what? 

LOL, Welker was seen before by the Chargers and Dolphins and neither team thought much of him. He was the Dolphins' 3rd receiver behind Booker and Chambers. And then after leaving New England, he signed with the Broncos for relative peanuts and returned to being a 3rd receiver behind Thomas and Decker, and later Thomas and Sanders.

Nobody tried to scheme for him because nobody cared about him. Teams don't game plan to stop "slot receivers." That's why you see them beating linebackers and jogging uncovered so often. 

The Patriots are unique in the way they spam opponents with underneath crap to their slot receivers in the same way the 49ers were unique in dumping it off to both backs in the flat to the extent they did, which is why Derek Loville caught 87 passes for them in 1995.

As for cone times...yeah, most smaller receivers will have better cone times. It's not necessary in the slot. Linebackers and nickel/dime backs aren't as agile as top tier corners. 

Teams dont scheme for 1200-1500 yard recievers? Thats why I call every team stupid who doesn't replicate if it is so easy and no one covers them.

Also the Dolphins were garbage in the early 2000s and he was a rookie with san diego. They didn't know what they had and went 12-4. No one tries to mess with 12-4 chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, iothar said:

Teams dont scheme for 1200-1500 yard recievers? Thats why I call every team stupid who doesn't replicate if it is so easy and no one covers them.

Also the Dolphins were garbage in the early 2000s and he was a rookie with san diego. They didn't know what they had and went 12-4. No one tries to mess with 12-4 chemistry.

Teams don't scheme for receivers who average 10.5 yards per catch and score 4 touchdowns on the year. They're too busy worrying about the other receivers and their bigger plays, which in New England's case, started with Randy Moss and finished with Gronkowski.

The fact that Welker himself didn't do it anywhere else is proof that it's scheme, not talent. Otherwise, he would have done it in Miami, and he wouldn't have wound up behind the likes of Eric Decker and Emmanuel Sanders in the pecking order in Denver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...