Kenny F'ing Powers said:
I think he was correcting the name of the route, and he's correct. When a running back heads to the flat, you don't call it a slant to the sideline. Players in the backfield don't usually follow the same verbiage as players on the line. It's semantics and does nothing to take away from the value of the piece.
To clarify, I used "slant" to physically describe the direction of the route, not as conventional nomenclature for the type of route. It was either "slant" or "diagonal" and, being the obsessed writer/editor, I opted for fewer syllables. But I failed to foresee the confusion that would cause, so I appreciate Bucket1923 raising the question because he's 100% correct that it wasn't a "slant route" by definition.
However, it doesn't really resemble a wheel route, which entails an initial path parallel to the LOS followed by either a hard cut or an accelerated curve to turn upfield and run parallel to the sideline. Sanu does none of that. He runs diagonally from the backfield. In fairness to Bucket1923, the play (and his route) ends so quickly that it's impossible for us to discern what the rest of his route was designed to do. I mean, he's barely gone 4 yards before he sees Green catching the pass and being engulfed by Collins, so he just says "eff it". Maybe the plan was to have him turn on the jets, but I doubt it.
I can only assume that, like the routes of the other receivers, his was intended to pick up the first down as the priority, with any additional yardage considered gravy. Since Dalton never really looks in his direction (at least from what we can gauge by his head position), it appears Sanu's route was a backup plan or a decoy. Or Dalton became a deer in headlights when the coverage scheme shifted.