Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 87
  1. #51
    Veteran DeadlyDynasty's Avatar
    My Team
    Buffalo Bills
    Post Count
    26,081
    This makes it harder, but I will always root for Andy Dalton no matter what.

  2. #52
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    This makes it harder, but I will always root for Andy Dalton no matter what.
    why does it make it harder? and why still root for him, it's not like the tyrod team did anything with that. and y'all had a much better team last year than that year.

  3. #53
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    Pretty disingenuous to use the ceilings for jeudy/lamb but the floor for Ruggs in your analysis
    who'd you expect me to compare him to, desean jackson? tyreek hill? Ruggs isn't really a great deep threat even for his speed, but to succeed in the NFL he'll have to learn... because at his small frame he's going to need to take advantage of his speed to get separation as much as possible... the slants over the middle he caught at Bama will quickly get him injured by NFL linebackers waiting in those shorter 11/1 o'clock zones to deliver a punishing blow

  4. #54
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    who'd you expect me to compare him to, desean jackson? tyreek hill? Ruggs isn't really a great deep threat even for his speed, but to succeed in the NFL he'll have to learn... because at his small frame he's going to need to take advantage of his speed to get separation as much as possible... the slants over the middle he caught at Bama will quickly get him injured by NFL linebackers waiting in those shorter 11/1 o'clock zones to deliver a punishing blow
    dont care how you want to rationalize it, but you compared ceilings of 2 guys (jeudy is nowhere near as physical as AB) to the floor of the 3rd is disingenuous no matter how you slice it

    i was on record before the draft that i prefer both judy and lamb to ruggs, not trying to say ruggs is the better prospect. but calling him a JJ Nelson comp is absurd

  5. #55
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    dont care how you want to rationalize it, but you compared ceilings of 2 guys (jeudy is nowhere near as physical as AB) to the floor of the 3rd is disingenuous no matter how you slice it

    i was on record before the draft that i prefer both judy and lamb to ruggs, not trying to say ruggs is the better prospect. but calling him a JJ Nelson comp is absurd
    I wouldn't say JJ Nelson is a floor, there's also Dri Archer and John Ross who have had worse careers.

    John Brown? better comparison?

  6. #56
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    I wouldn't say JJ Nelson is a floor, there's also Dri Archer and John Ross who have had worse careers.

    John Brown? better comparison?
    small black fast guy. great comparisons! do you actually watch these guys play at all? just say no and move on.

    dri archer
    Last edited by spurraider21; 05-05-2020 at 06:32 PM.

  7. #57
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    small black fast guy. great comparisons! do you actually watch these guys play at all? just say no and move on.

    dri archer
    John Ross yeah I've seen him play quite a bit. Archer barely played but he was supposed to be the goat Z receiver by the way Avante talked him up.

    Ruggs has to be a Z receiver or perhaps a slot to make it given his size, speed and stature. But to be a Z receiver, aka the guy the OC sends deep almost every play if nothing else as a decoy, there's an art to it... it's more than just having a fast top speed. You have to sell the comeback the way DJax and Tyreek do it. Otherwise the corners do nothing but sag off and don't really respect the guy to do anything but run a deep nine. Not to mention a deep threat archetype receiver is probably the worst scheme fit for Carr. But like you said he ran slants... won't work at his size in the NFL (unless the LBs are playing a stupidly wide technique for some reason), but perhaps running drags might if he can get horizontal leverage on the CB and stay under the LBs. We'll see.

  8. #58
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    John Ross yeah I've seen him play quite a bit. Archer barely played but he was supposed to be the goat Z receiver by the way Avante talked him up.
    dri archer was a running back

    Ruggs has to be a Z receiver or perhaps a slot to make it given his size, speed and stature. But to be a Z receiver, aka the guy the OC sends deep almost every play if nothing else as a decoy, there's an art to it... it's more than just having a fast top speed. You have to sell the comeback the way DJax and Tyreek do it. Otherwise the corners do nothing but sag off and don't really respect the guy to do anything but run a deep nine. Not to mention a deep threat archetype receiver is probably the worst scheme fit for Carr. But like you said he ran slants... won't work at his size in the NFL (unless the LBs are playing a stupidly wide technique for some reason), but perhaps running drags might if he can get horizontal leverage on the CB and stay under the LBs. We'll see.
    for s sake, bro, just stop.

    X receiver means you line up at the line of scrimmage
    Z receivers means you get to line up off the line of scrimmage (the TE will line up on the line of scrimmage on that side of the line)

    Those are their literal definitions.

    As for the implications, the X receiver has to deal with jams at the line, while Z gets free releases. that actually means your Z typically gets to run a wider route tree, while the X has to pose a threat to beat the jam corner, either with physicality or winning over the top. they typically run more vertical routes to combat press.

    it doesnt necessarily mean one guy is your #1 or #2 receiver. It depends on personnel. While it's not a 100% set thing, Julio typically plays the X for the Falcons because he destroys jam attempts (Ridley is a sharp routerunner and occupies the Z). Same with Hopkins. On the other hand, Cooper almost exclusively has been the Z for the Cowboys (except when he's in the slot). That doesn't mean Cooper only runs vertical routes and decoys . Look at the video below. Cooper almost never lines up directly at the line of scrimmage. That makes him a Z by definition on all those plays.



    On the other hand, Brandin Cooks played almost exclusively the X for the Rams (his speed punishes press coverage) while Woods played the Z despite not having much downfield speed, but his route running made use of the free releases. So your claim that being a fast, vertical route guy makes you a Z, is just a stupid comment as usual.

    He fits kind of into any system. This guy can play,” McVay said. “But I think specific to some of the things that we look for with the traits and the characteristics from our ‘X’ receiver: Being able to take the top shelf off the coverage, being able to win on some underneath iso’s when you’re getting bump coverage. He’s put that on tape, really, over the last four years. And that was something that we were really excited about. And when we had the opportunity to potentially acquire him, we wanted to be aggressive about pursuing that.”
    For the raiders, Tyrell Williams is currently the X (3rd round pick Bryan Edwards will push him for that spot), while Ruggs will occupy Z. That doesnt dictate his route tree as being purely vertical. In fact, it means he will be asked to run a wider variety of routes.
    Last edited by spurraider21; 05-05-2020 at 09:01 PM.

  9. #59
    I am amazed at some people I know with the incredible depth of knowledge they have about so many sports. It's really PhD-level info on such unimportant stuff

  10. #60
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    I am amazed at some people I know with the incredible depth of knowledge they have about so many sports. It's really PhD-level info on such unimportant stuff
    ... byproduct of genuine curiosity and having been able to work from home with no kids for more or less the past year

    yeah i've probably spent way too much time on the subject, its just funny when people talk out of their ass.
    Last edited by spurraider21; 05-06-2020 at 12:47 AM.

  11. #61
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    Kansas City Chiefs
    Post Count
    63,212
    I am amazed at some people I know with the incredible depth of knowledge they have about so many sports. It's really PhD-level info on such unimportant stuff
    Maybe I should have grabbed a microscope and learned about vaccines as a kid instead of playing outside and sitting on the couch with Dad on Sundays.

    Too late now.

  12. #62
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    ... byproduct of genuine curiosity and having been able to work from home with no kids for more or less the past year

    yeah i've probably spent way too much time on the subject, its just funny when people talk out of their ass.
    It was a good write up; however, I would argue that size and brute force at WR, not so much speed, is the best attack against press coverage. A smaller fast guy at X usually gets blown up or even pancaked within the 5 yard window by the Sherman's and Ramsey's (formerly, Talib, Mel Blount) of the world.

    A guy like Julio, Megatron, Metcalf is ideal for X because of the size AND speed advantage, but in theory if you had to choose one over the other, you pick a Brandon Marshall or Deandre Hopkins over a Tyreek Hill vs. press coverage. You want a Hill either motioning out wide or in the slot to take advantage of his speed and/or quickness, deep option routes, two way shallow/mid option routes, etc... not a face off at the LOS and getting roughed up by a bigger CB1.

    Ideally your best route runner guy plays the Y, not so much Z. But if you're running 12 or 21 personnel then he shifts to Z.

  13. #63
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    It was a good write up; however, I would argue that size and brute force at WR, not so much speed, is the best attack against press coverage. A smaller fast guy at X usually gets blown up or even pancaked within the 5 yard window by the Sherman's and Ramsey's (formerly, Talib, Mel Blount) of the world.

    A guy like Julio, Megatron, Metcalf is ideal for X because of the size AND speed advantage, but in theory if you had to choose one over the other, you pick a Brandon Marshall or Deandre Hopkins over a Tyreek Hill vs. press coverage. You want a Hill either motioning out wide or in the slot to take advantage of his speed and/or quickness, deep option routes, two way shallow/mid option routes, etc... not a face off at the LOS and getting roughed up by a bigger CB1.

    Ideally your best route runner guy plays the Y, not so much Z. But if you're running 12 or 21 personnel then he shifts to Z.
    Y is the tight end

    keep digging

  14. #64
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    Kansas City Chiefs
    Post Count
    63,212
    Ideally your best route runner guy plays the Y, not so much Z. But if you're running 12 or 21 personnel then he shifts to Z.
    Y is the tight end

    keep digging

  15. #65
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    its really funny tbh

    it would be like me trying to get into one of baseline bum and BUMP's math conversations while throwing out terms that i'm unfamiliar with

  16. #66
    Veteran
    Post Count
    10,694
    ... byproduct of genuine curiosity and having been able to work from home with no kids for more or less the past year

    yeah i've probably spent way too much time on the subject, its just funny when people talk out of their ass.
    You lend credence to Andy when you reply to his posts with genuine respones.

  17. #67
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    Y is the tight end

    keep digging
    no, Y receiver... slot receiver

    tight end can be in line, or a Y receiver on either side. In line TE is NOT "Y".

    in an 11 formation, yeah you might have a Y receiver on one side and a Y positioned tight end on the other (think a Ertz or any receiving tight end)

    but the Y receiver is the slot receiver, often (but not always) on the opposite side of the TE.

    in 5 wide for example you might have two Y's (slot WRs/TEs) AND an in line TE or a slightly off line TE... Too many formations to count honestly.

    But generally an Edelman/Welker has long been known as a "Y" receiver.

  18. #68
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    the Y is the TE by default. of course, if you have no TE, the terminology can adjust such that your slot receiver becomes the Y. almost every team uses a TE. the teams we have brought up... the cowboys, raiders, rams, texans, chiefs all use them regularly

    in order for a formation to be legal, you have to have 7 guys on the line of scrimmage, and the 5 guys on the interior are ineligible. this is your typical 5 OL. you have to have 2 players bookend them on the line of scrimmage, both of whom are eligible receivers. in a typical formation on one side of the line, you have a TE. that is your Y. on the other side of the line, you have your X lined up at the line of scrimmage. the Z typically lines up outside the TE



    you can also have the Z line up on the left side, usually in the slot. even then, the X and Y are your 2 eligible receivers who line up on the line of scrimmage. for most teams, the Y is almost always a TE.

    of course, if you took out the fullback from the picture above and instead added another wide receiver, they would line up in the slot, either by the X or the Z. that player must be OFF the line of scrimmage though (which is why they wouldn't be designated the Y).

    some teams like arizona basically dont use TE's. if you decided to have 4 WR or even 5, you still are REQUIRED to have 2 of them line up on the LOS. one of them would be your typical "x" on one side of the line, and the other would be designated the Y even if that player isn't positionally considered a TE. the cardinals with kingsbury ran a LOT of their plays with only 1 RB and 4 WRs, no TE's.



    notice how they have 2 receivers on the LOS, and 2 receivers off of it. one of them is the X, the other is the Y.

    so yes, many times the Y can be a slot receiver, but thats in situations where the team isn't using a traditional TE. admittedly Y is loosely used to describe anybody not on the boundaries, but like you see in the base formation i showed above, that has generally been TEs

  19. #69
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    the Y is the TE by default. of course, if you have no TE, the terminology can adjust such that your slot receiver becomes the Y. almost every team uses a TE. the teams we have brought up... the cowboys, raiders, rams, texans, chiefs all use them regularly

    in order for a formation to be legal, you have to have 7 guys on the line of scrimmage, and the 5 guys on the interior are ineligible. this is your typical 5 OL. you have to have 2 players bookend them on the line of scrimmage, both of whom are eligible receivers. in a typical formation on one side of the line, you have a TE. that is your Y. on the other side of the line, you have your X lined up at the line of scrimmage. the Z typically lines up outside the TE



    you can also have the Z line up on the left side, usually in the slot. even then, the X and Y are your 2 eligible receivers who line up on the line of scrimmage. for most teams, the Y is almost always a TE.

    of course, if you took out the fullback from the picture above and instead added another wide receiver, they would line up in the slot, either by the X or the Z. that player must be OFF the line of scrimmage though (which is why they wouldn't be designated the Y).

    some teams like arizona basically dont use TE's. if you decided to have 4 WR or even 5, you still are REQUIRED to have 2 of them line up on the LOS. one of them would be your typical "x" on one side of the line, and the other would be designated the Y even if that player isn't positionally considered a TE. the cardinals with kingsbury ran a LOT of their plays with only 1 RB and 4 WRs, no TE's.



    notice how they have 2 receivers on the LOS, and 2 receivers off of it. one of them is the X, the other is the Y.

    so yes, many times the Y can be a slot receiver, but thats in situations where the team isn't using a traditional TE. admittedly Y is loosely used to describe anybody not on the boundaries, but like you see in the base formation i showed above, that has generally been TEs
    I agree with your analysis 100%, but the league has been a 11 personnel majority league for at least a decade now, with nickel and/or dime, big dime etc. (sub packages) predominating on defense.

    The "base" 21 personnel (which matches a base 4-3 or 3-4 defense) that has always been the standard model of football, just isn't super common anymore, except with a few isolated teams that prefer run over pass like the 49ers and Ravens (the Cowboys in the Jason Garrett era ran 21 and 12 quite a bit as well).

    The Edelman's, Welker's of the world are considered Y's most likely because they're always flanked either by another outside WR off the line of scrimmage or a guy like a running back who they can "motion out" as a Z receiver.

  20. #70
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    admittedly a lot of this stuff is archaic and before you called people "wide receivers" they were specifically identified by where they were on the formation.

    your "x" receiver who lines up on the LOS was called the Split End
    your "z" receiver who lines up off the line was the Flanker
    your "y" who lined up on the LOS, usually right by the OL, was called the Tight End
    if one of your other guys lined up in the slot, they were called a "slot back"

    etc etc. now we've combined split end, flanker, and slot back into "wide receiver" and people just say "i'm a receiver"

    so the terminology is somewhat antiquated. still, X/Y/Z have defined meanings based on where a player lines up, and its inaccurate to simply call a slot receiver a Y unless they are lined up on the LOS

  21. #71
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    admittedly a lot of this stuff is archaic and before you called people "wide receivers" they were specifically identified by where they were on the formation.

    your "x" receiver who lines up on the LOS was called the Split End
    your "z" receiver who lines up off the line was the Flanker
    your "y" who lined up on the LOS, usually right by the OL, was called the Tight End
    if one of your other guys lined up in the slot, they were called a "slot back"

    etc etc. now we've combined split end, flanker, and slot back into "wide receiver" and people just say "i'm a receiver"

    so the terminology is somewhat antiquated. still, X/Y/Z have defined meanings based on where a player lines up, and its inaccurate to simply call a slot receiver a Y unless they are lined up on the LOS
    I guess you're technically correct based on that analysis.

    But in today's world... it's sort of implied that an X/split end is a big receiver who can out-muscle guys for catches, they may or may not have a speed advantage but they're the best against press coverage. The Z/flanker takes the "top" off the defense with his speed and since he is just behind the LOS he doesn't have to be a big guy but he needs to be fast. And the "Y" is the guy with the two-way option routes lining up somewhere between the boundaries and the OL, whether a slot receiver or a tight end.

    In theory, of course.

    Now, given all that, can you explain for me the "Spider 2 Y Banana" play? Obviously you'd probably have heard of that one since you're a Raiders fan.

  22. #72
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    Oakland Raiders
    Post Count
    74,459
    I agree with your analysis 100%, but the league has been a 11 personnel majority league for at least a decade now, with nickel and/or dime, big dime etc. (sub packages) predominating on defense.

    The "base" 21 personnel (which matches a base 4-3 or 3-4 defense) that has always been the standard model of football, just isn't super common anymore, except with a few isolated teams that prefer run over pass like the 49ers and Ravens (the Cowboys in the Jason Garrett era ran 21 and 12 quite a bit as well).

    The Edelman's, Welker's of the world are considered Y's most likely because they're always flanked either by another outside WR off the line of scrimmage or a guy like a running back who they can "motion out" as a Z receiver.
    you're right, that the old 21 personnel is largely outdated. but even in the pats system, they ALWAYS used TE's. now they varied formations quite a bit, but this was a very typical look they would run



    edelman wouldn't be on the LOS all that often, so it would be technically inaccurate to call him a Y in a formation like this, even though he's in the slot. like i said, admittedly most people nowadays sorta ditched the old terms, call guys wideouts or slots, and sometimes people just loosely call anybody in the slot a Y even though thats supposed to designate a guy on the LOS

  23. #73
    Veteran DeadlyDynasty's Avatar
    My Team
    Buffalo Bills
    Post Count
    26,081
    why does it make it harder? and why still root for him, it's not like the tyrod team did anything with that. and y'all had a much better team last year than that year.
    You’d have to have been a Bills fan your entire life to fully understand it.

  24. #74
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    You’d have to have been a Bills fan your entire life to fully understand it.
    yeah I understand they didn't make the playoffs from 2000-2016, but it's not like 2017 went anywhere except a worse draft pick and an ugly loss to blake bortles.

  25. #75
    #AllLivesMatter® Millennial_Messiah's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Cowboys
    Post Count
    11,273
    you're right, that the old 21 personnel is largely outdated. but even in the pats system, they ALWAYS used TE's. now they varied formations quite a bit, but this was a very typical look they would run



    edelman wouldn't be on the LOS all that often, so it would be technically inaccurate to call him a Y in a formation like this, even though he's in the slot. like i said, admittedly most people nowadays sorta ditched the old terms, call guys wideouts or slots, and sometimes people just loosely call anybody in the slot a Y even though thats supposed to designate a guy on the LOS
    Exactly right. In old school terms Gronk would be the "Y", but most of today's analysts Edelman would be the "Y" and Gronk would be the "in-line tight end" or something like that. Dorsett in this case is the Z, even with the Miami CB closer to him in press than the other Miami CB is to the X; I can't tell who exactly the X receiver is... Gordon?

    Patriots also used a lot of 2TE formations in the past, especially when they had Hernandez. In that case who truly is the "Y" if you have both (ineligible) offensive tackles covered by in-line tight ends? In that case, one of the TEs would technically be the "X" unless he's lined up in sort of an H-back technique. But that would be awkward.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •