- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Seeking clarification on the WR/TE reps (sorry for another Jimmay thread)
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:35 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:35 am
I'm a bit confused as to how they designate his snaps at TE vs WR. I am sure that this has been covered here at some point, but I have been busy and unable to keep up on the site lately. The argument is that Jimmay has technically lined up at WR more than at TE. So here's my confusion:
The rule states that he is a TE or WR based on where he is lined up when the ball is snapped. Yes or No?
If yes, does this account for any motions? It is my understanding from a purely observatory view that, although he may have been a WR by the snap of the ball greater than 51% of his plays, he has started out lined up at TE more but has shifted to the WR spot. (I hope that makes sense) It seems to me that the rule does not take into account where he began his formation and only where it ended. If this is the case, then the rule is really poorly contracted.
Anyone with clarity on this?
The rule states that he is a TE or WR based on where he is lined up when the ball is snapped. Yes or No?
If yes, does this account for any motions? It is my understanding from a purely observatory view that, although he may have been a WR by the snap of the ball greater than 51% of his plays, he has started out lined up at TE more but has shifted to the WR spot. (I hope that makes sense) It seems to me that the rule does not take into account where he began his formation and only where it ended. If this is the case, then the rule is really poorly contracted.
Anyone with clarity on this?
5
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:52 am to Midget Death Squad
It makes 0 sense because the dude is a TE and thats the bottom line.
A qb who lines up yards behind the ball is not a rb he is still a qb but in shotgun formation.
A linebacker who walks up to the line does not become a lineman.
Jimmy is a TE
A qb who lines up yards behind the ball is not a rb he is still a qb but in shotgun formation.
A linebacker who walks up to the line does not become a lineman.
Jimmy is a TE
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:52 am to Midget Death Squad
Will Junior Galette be a DE or LB next season when he wants a long term deal is the real question.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:58 am to tenderfoot tigah
quote:
A linebacker who walks up to the line does not become a lineman.
False. Ask Terrell Suggs. This exact thing happened some years ago.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:09 am to SaintEB
Guessing the same thing would apply to Junior if it came down to it since Suggs kind of set the bar specifically in the same situation. I think the real problem is the franchise tag system needs to be revamped anyway. There's no true distinction anymore between positions. Pretty much every eligible receiver is exactly that, especially in the Saints offense. I expect one of these types of franchise disputes every year going forward if this case results in more money for the player. It will get out of hand before they determine to fix it.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 10:14 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:12 am to Midget Death Squad
Is a tight end who can't block a tight end? 
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:16 am to liquid rabbit
quote:
Is a tight end who can't block a tight end?
I think it depends more on the base package... You have TEs that motion into fullback, vice versa, WRs who motion into RBs (end-arounds), RBs who motion into the slot, HBs who motion into QBs, vice versa... it's not clear anymore, prime reason why the presumably "clear-as-mud" rules of the franchise tag need to be completely overhauled. Until then you will have players being overpaid for positions they don't earnestly play.
Eta: and no, I am not saying that I think Graham is not worth a hybrid TE/WR paycheck, I am saying he is not worth WR tag money ($12.3M Base). Neither in short-term nor in a contract.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 10:27 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:27 am to Midget Death Squad
Another way to look at it: how many snaps do real wide receivers line up at TE? Almost never. Jimmy did that a lot.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:45 am to buzwa
quote:
Another way to look at it: how many snaps do real wide receivers line up at TE? Almost never. Jimmy did that a lot.
Or another way to look at it is how many times did Jimmy line up against another team's #1 or 2 corner....and what was the result?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:03 am to SaintLSUnAtl
Look at his numbers when covered by a LB vs. being covered by a CB or safety. It's safe to say he did a lot more damage vs. LB's than DB's.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:41 am to SmellslikeKevinBacon
quote:
Look at his numbers when covered by a LB vs. being covered by a CB or safety. It's safe to say he did a lot more damage vs. LB's than DB's.
precisely! Teams have figured that out. He's manageable. Just put a taller corner on him and he's essentially neutralized.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 2:30 pm to Midget Death Squad
Well this thread didn't go the way I had hoped. Expected? Unfortunately so
Posted on 6/19/14 at 9:32 am to tenderfoot tigah
quote:
It makes 0 sense because the dude is a TE and thats the bottom line.
A qb who lines up yards behind the ball is not a rb he is still a qb but in shotgun formation.
A linebacker who walks up to the line does not become a lineman.
Jimmy is a TE
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News