What is Slater's ST coverage play worth?

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yes. Larry Izzo was indeed a beast on special teams, but the difference between him and Slater is the fact that he was a linebacker who on occasion could actually come in and contribute on defense. I don’t think any good potential linebackers were cut to keep him on the roster. Slater on the other hand is classified as a receiver and will more than likely keep a young developmental receiver off the team.

Slater's "classification" as a WR means nothing regarding the position of the putative 53rd player he keeps off the team.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes. Larry Izzo was indeed a beast on special teams, but the difference between him and Slater is the fact that he was a linebacker who on occasion could actually come in and contribute on defense. I don’t think any good potential linebackers were cut to keep him on the roster. Slater on the other hand is classified as a receiver and will more than likely keep a young developmental receiver off the team.

Not really. Anytime Izzo took the field as a linebacker, it was as a measure of desperation. No different than seeing Slater on the field as a WR, really. He wasn't an actual linebacker any more than Slater is an actual wide receiver. They both earned their jobs entirely, 100%, through their special teams play. That's their position on the team.

 

[Don Kipines]

Yes. Larry Izzo was indeed a beast on special teams, but the difference between him and Slater is the fact that he was a linebacker who on occasion could actually come in and contribute on defense. I don’t think any good potential linebackers were cut to keep him on the roster. Slater on the other hand is classified as a receiver and will more than likely keep a young developmental receiver off the team.

The closest thing to a meaningful snap on defense that Larry Izzo ever played was in the last game of the 2003 season, at the end of a blowout, intercepting a pass to preserve a 31-0 win over Buffalo. Slater, technically an offensive player, has actually played more meaningful snaps on defense than Izzo ever did.

Izzo for most of his career was usually the eighth linebacker on the roster, behind guys like Bruschi, Colvin, Vrabel, Ted Johnson, Phifer, Chatham and even Don Davis. He played far less on D than, say, someone like Tracy White, who found his way on the field fairly often in games still in doubt.

 

[primetime]

As a starting place, yes. Although there's nothing about my thinking on this topic that would justify the use of the term "saber."

It was a polite way of saying swing your ****

You know, what you're doing when you posture that the forum is so beneath you that you merely intend to facilitate 'intelligent' conversation even though you've admitted you have nothing intelligent to say yourself

 

[PatriotReign]

Izzo was no different from, say, Tracy White: a ST stud who you never, ever wanted to see taking snaps on defense.

Izzo was much better than White, Koutovides, Tarpinian, or Rivera.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Izzo was much better than White, Koutovides, Tarpinian, or Rivera.

Much better at what? Playing linebacker? No, he really wasn't. That's why he almost never did.

 

[PatriotReign]

Much better at what? Playing linebacker? No, he really wasn't. That's why he almost never did.

A stud on special teams.

 

[Froob]

I agree with this, but moreover Slater's problem is he gives you nothing in terms of production, period, as a receiver.

I've complained about him in the past and honestly I just don't get the feeling he wants to play offense bad enough to get better and part of me wonders if that's why Belichick tried him instead on defense. Defensively at least he can potentially chase down a receiver or a back and tackle them. Offensively he just can't get open so expecting anything from him there is pointless.

But I love him as a special teams player. I just don't want to see him steal a receiver's roster spot from another guy who can at least give them something greater than "0" if - heaven forbid - they're down two or more players later in the year. We've already seen how that's played out and I'd rather not experience it again.

With all due respect Ian, I think it's more of a skill thing. Slater doesn't seem like a slouch to me. I mean, I could be out there practicing all day but at the end of the day, I don't have the skills to be an nfl caliber wide receiver. I'd rather have Slater than a mediocre to average wide out. The margin of error between going one and done and becoming super bowl champs is so small. If you have to punt with under 2mins to go in the super bowl vs a guy like DeSean Jackson I'd want my ST stud out there to make the play.

 

[Ian]

With all due respect Ian, I think it's more of a skill thing. Slater doesn't seem like a slouch to me. I mean, I could be out there practicing all day but at the end of the day, I don't have the skills to be an nfl caliber wide receiver. I'd rather have Slater than a mediocre to average wide out. The margin of error between going one and done and becoming super bowl champs is so small. If you have to punt with under 2mins to go in the super bowl vs a guy like DeSean Jackson I'd want my ST stud out there to make the play.

I think that's a fair assessment. My opinion of him came primarily because the guy has shown glimpses of being able to make a play, including the 46 yard bomb he caught in the first game of 2011 season - although that ended up being his only catch of the year. He was targeted just once in all of preseason last year, so clearly he's not in their offensive plans to the point where he didn't get any exhibition looks. It's just frustrating when they get into injury situations and he's forced to play - because he doesn't give them anything.

 

[lurker1965]

We can save much gnashing of teeth by not calling Slater a WR. He is, and has always been, a real slim back up DT that would have to go DE in a 3-4.

(I want to see him line up next to Wilfork once in camp just to read "analysis." Hey, it is one and a half hours past my bedtime and this seems hilarious to me.)

 

[ctpatsfan77]

We can save much gnashing of teeth by not calling Slater a WR. He is, and has always been, a real slim back up DT that would have to go DE in a 3-4.

(I want to see him line up next to Wilfork once in camp just to read "analysis." Hey, it is one and a half hours past my bedtime and this seems hilarious to me.)

Didn't Edelman line up at DE in 2011?

 

[JackBauer]

Izzo was much better than White, Koutovides, Tarpinian, or Rivera.

That's just plain wrong. Izzo sucked at LB, just like the rest of the ones you mentioned.

 

[primetime]

Izzo didn't really even play linebacker - like Slater, his listed position was a function of his size and the number he wore. He made one defensive play in anger his entire career in New England that didn't come in a blowout. He knocked down a Trent Green pass in a loss to KC in 2005. That's it. If anything, Tracy White and Niko Koutovides are substantially better linebackers, and that's saying something.

 

[Gumby]

I just wonder how other teams manage to stop other teams from returning punts and kick offs for TDs without the ace ST play of Slater.

very silly way of evaluating Slaters contribution (all or nothing -stop a td or you are nobody).

BB runs a bend-but-dont-break defense. key to that is the presumption that if you 'make the other guy travel the most yards and have to get the most first downs possible in that yardage' that he will make a mistake and give you back the ball with at least better field position than you last had.

the outsiders analysis never gives exact yardage #s but clearly stated slater stopped the return EVERY TIME at less than the league avg. To me that translates into at least one extra 1st down the opponent had to travel each time slater made a stop.

and as someone else sort of mentioned - he didnt get any credit for the number of plays he BLEW UP by breaking the jam - getting there first and making the returner re-route and get tackled for < avg by someone else. And if you WATCH THE GAMES - you know there are a lot of those when it comes to slater.

I think as a rough guess you can say an extra 1st down means a 10% less chance of scoring. Add up all those 10%s that Slater had an impact on. Even the best WRs only score 12-16 TDs in a season. IF SLATER played a large part in effectively stopping 16-30 scoring opportunities; then he is worth as a STer the equivalent of at least a #3 wr - let alone a #5.

 

[Bruins29]

And if you WATCH THE GAMES.

Oh, they watch the games. They just dont know what they are watching.

We have to remember, ST play isnt sexy. The intangibles a Slater brings dosen't show up on the score sheet or in the stats. A lot of people here are Madden/Fantasy Football guys. They cant for the life of them figure out why there is a guy on the roster, on offense mind you, who dosent seem good at scoring points.

Anyone who advocates replacing Slater with a "better" WR is just telling everyone that they have no idea how a football team is run nor how the game is played.

Just consider the source in these discussions.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

We have to remember, ST play isnt sexy. The intangibles a Slater brings dosen't show up on the score sheet or in the stats. A lot of people here are Madden/Fantasy Football guys. They cant for the life of them figure out why there is a guy on the roster, on offense mind you, who dosent seem good at scoring points.

Heck, IIRC, the Patriots kept Ray Ventrone for two seasons and ALL he did was KO coverage. He was just so good at it that he was worth keeping around (in fact, he was so good that the Patriots changed the way they lined up on KO coverage).

 

[Taxed in Maine]

These last two posts have hit the nail on the head.

Only a pinkhat is going to replace the best ST player in the league with a #6 WR with potential.

The other detail that noone has mentioned, because they are so focused on Sunday, is what Slater does Monday thru saturday. He is very a very intelligent kid and devours the OTHER teams play book. He is the de-facto Captain of the Scout team. Imitating the most important roles of the opposition every week.

Is your binkie WR going to be able to do that every week?

Bill has signed Slater to a contract the reflects what he contributes to the TEAM, not to your FF league.

 

[BTTA]

These last two posts have hit the nail on the head. Only a pinkhat is going to replace the best ST player in the league with a #6 WR with potential.

The other detail that noone has mentioned, because they are so focused on Sunday, is what Slater does Monday thru saturday. He is very a very intelligent kid and devours the OTHER teams play book. He is the de-facto Captain of the Scout team. Imitating the most important roles of the opposition every week.

Is your binkie WR going to be able to do that every week? Bill has signed Slater to a contract the reflects what he contributes to the TEAM, not to your FF league.

You are onstage alone arguing in a debate that doesn't exist in this thread. Nearly everyone is substantiating Slater's value and dismissing the idea that he should be counted as a WR.

 

[AzPatsFan]

As they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The beholder of Slaters beauty and value lies in one man, Bill Belichick and no one else...:snob:

 

[Ring 6]

Izzo was much better than White, Koutovides, Tarpinian, or Rivera.

No he wasn't. He almost never played defense, just like those 4, and also shares the characteristic that when each of them did, they were awful.

Unless you mean as a special teamer, and in that case he was better that each of them.