SB recivers and WR

Which is faster... a SB reciver or a WR?

Which is a better blocker... a SB reciver or a WR?

It Should Be The You Have Your Fast, Tall, High Jumpers As WR And Your SBs Are Smaller, Stronger And Better At Taking A Hit. The Reason Behind This Is So You Have The Speedy WRs Running Down The Sidelines For The Deep Pass And The SBs For The Over The Middle Short Gains. However Over The Last Few Years It Appears As If Those Stareotypes Have Been Completely Switched Around. With Guys Like Cavil And Copeland Playing SB I Appears That Couches Are Trying To Keep Their Faster Guys Closer To The QB To Increase Their YAC Yards And The Guys With More Reliable Hands On The Outside As To Always Catch Those Lofty Out Passes. These Are My Thoughts On It Anyways.

They have always had big guys on the inside as well. Remember Ray Elgard??
Its really way to hard to say, there isn't really a formula for it. Some recievers excel at WR, some at SB

Typically your burners are on the outside like Tucker....
.its easier to isolate a WR on a corner by flooding the opposite side, where as SB are subjected to more coverages, hence being more open to Hits.... SB (should) be better blockers but not always the case...you will see audibles calling for a SB to stay and block a blitzing LB or DB, that's why a Clermont style SB is so valuble..

All that being said... I think it is much more difficult to play slotback than WR...how many times do you see guys Like Stegall & Simon getting there bell rung, yet returning to play after seeing stars and still putting up the Big numbers offensively.

Guys afraid to be knocked out of their shoes, like Jason French, should play WR so they can just be pushed out of bounds. Hmmm... well, in fact, they should not be playing at all, but if you have no one else, better play them at WR.

Guys who can get crunched from all sides without dropping the ball and without complaining, like Ben Cahoon, should be SB. Really, as anyone ever seen Cahoon lose its temper because of a savage hit?

Anyone know what the difference is in American football (don't think we have this term here) between a split end and a wide receiver? I heard on the weekend so and so at the split end position and am wondering if this translates to slot back maybe up here?

SB ROCK!!! BTW!

The split end is a tight end who doesn't line-up right next to the offensive line. He is about 10 yards appart from the line, thus "splitting" from his teammates (and the tight end is called as such because he and the line are kept tight). Split ends rarely have to block for the QB because they are too far away to be really effective, so they do ressemble our slotbacks...

They Ressemble Our Slot Backs Except That They're Really TE And They Useally Line Up On The Line Whereas The Slot Backs We All Know And Love Tend To Run Up To The Line Like A Strong Side Reciever In The AFL.