Cowboys | SS Williams may be released this week

[RoadRunner]

Amazing what a good pass rush does for enhancing DBs abilities ain't it.

The pass rush made up for a nearly nonexistant secondary. Nearly 60 sacks, and yet the Cowboys only came up with 8 interceptions. We were very lucky.

This scares the hell out of me wondering about a downward trend in sacks next year. If that happens, and the secondary is as poor as it was in 2008, you will see lots of deep balls being caught or drawing PI flags.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Oh well, hopefully this is true and one over-paid, over-hyped, obsolete, non-producer is out of the way.

 

[YosemiteSam]

He may also be restructured. This isn't news. The possibility of his release has even been discussed by him.

I figured in Dallas' best interest to restructure #38. Free up cash this season with the ability to cut him lose next season without cap implications.

 

[juck]

RW cannot play in the 3-4.Obviously there is a difference cause since we switched RW sucked.I wanna see Henry to FS he played it all thru college and he can cover in that position.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

RW cannot play in the 3-4.Obviously there is a difference cause since we switched RW sucked.I wanna see Henry to FS he played it all thru college and he can cover in that position.

It was not the 3-4 that changed Roy. It was the loss of Woodson at his side IMO.

He was all world when Woodson was there and began a decline after Woodson got hurt and eventually retired.

 

[adbutcher]

I'll certainly defend him (or any other player) against any false and exaggerated statements. But he barely played in 2008, and I've already said everything I needed to say about the seasons before that. Of course, some people still make idiotic statements about him that have been proved incorrect, but I don't see the point of saying the same things over and over and over again. At some point, you just have to realize that some people will never get it and will continue to spout the same myths as if they were true.

I am glad that some can break from the cycle of redundancy. It is easier said then done for the majority here. Then again, that is how agendas work, the incessant beating of the same drum, repeatedly until some more dance to their music.

 

[adbutcher]

It was not the 3-4 that changed Roy. It was the loss of Woodson at his side IMO.

He was all world when Woodson was there and began a decline after Woodson got hurt and eventually retired.

Prior the injury, Roy had a very good camp and was playing pretty good. If he is willing to restructure I don't see any downside from bringing him back.

 

[AbeBeta]

I'll certainly defend him (or any other player) against any false and exaggerated statements. But he barely played in 2008, and I've already said everything I needed to say about the seasons before that. Of course, some people still make idiotic statements about him that have been proved incorrect, but I don't see the point of saying the same things over and over and over again. At some point, you just have to realize that some people will never get it and will continue to spout the same myths as if they were true.

and as I noted before, many "myths" were really more reflections of people taking some statements (e.g., "Roy can't cover anyone") far too literally. In many cases, the myth busting was nothing more than folks patting themselves on the back for burning down straw men.

 

[AbeBeta]

At least you will have a guy who is hungry for success again.

that piece there is the real issue.

the first time a player loses that hunger is one time too many.

 

[theogt]

You are right.

We have moved on to bigger and better things.

Like how Jason Garrett was singularly responsible for our collapse in Philadelphia.

*shoots self*

Right, because lord knows I've made that argument over and over.

Or not.

 

[tunahelper]

Hopefully this will mean Henry is moved to FS and Hamlin to SS.

 

[Cowboyz88]

Some of you guys just can't admit you're wrong (you know who you are). Even when the truth is staring you in the face.

Fact is: Roy DID play in 2008, but just gave us more of the same mediocrity that some refuse to see, so you conveniently try to sweep it under the carpet.

See if this stat line sounds familiar: Average of two tackles per game, NO passes defended, NO INTs, NO forced fumbles, and on and on.

Now, I admit that three games does not a season make, but remember, according to Roy (and his family...err...fans here), we were going to see the NEW and improved, sleeker and meaner Roy. Instead, we got more of the same, and you keep beating the same drum. What was that definition of insanity again?

And, to me, the Cowboys bringing Roy back for 2008 season was akin to a gambler losing on a big bet, but stepping up to that table "just one more time" hoping to make up for some of his losses. House got Blackjack.

It's time to leave the table.

 

[AdamJT13]

and as I noted before, many "myths" were really more reflections of people taking some statements (e.g., "Roy can't cover anyone") far too literally. In many cases, the myth busting was nothing more than folks patting themselves on the back for burning down straw men.

And just like last year, you're completely missing the point of that thread. I wasn't "myth busting." Everyone (or practically everyone) knew that every one of the statements I listed -- all of which were made by Roy's critics -- was false. The point of the list was that most of Roy's critics almost invariably resort to exaggerations and falsehoods in order to boost their argument. They can't simply look at the truth. But of course, you and a few others focused only on the wildest untruths Roy's critics use -- which obviously were never true -- and claim I set up straw men to knock down. Wrong -- all I did was list the "straw men" Roy's critics set up and point to as evidence. Even in this thread, you still see many of the same myths stated as facts, which proves my point again.

 

[khiladi]

You are right.

We have moved on to bigger and better things.

Like how Jason Garrett was singularly responsible for our collapse in Philadelphia.


*shoots self*

Nah, just the majority of it. Those that are defending Garrett are like the guys that have been defending Roy's play the last few years. I give RW the benefit of the doubt though, because Wade wasn't really calling this defense until after Roy got injured. He masked the ineptitude of Keith Davis, and Roy is way better than Keith Davis.

 

[khiladi]

didnt this guy get dumped by his girl a while back? maybe that impacted him. not saying it was just this...he probably stopped giving a damn when he got dumped and the money.


oh well

That, actually is a myth. Even Rowland confirmed it was Roy that dumped her. I think he stated in some interview that he took some compatibility test while they were engaged and he realized that he didn't want to get married to her. Says a lot about his intellect, though. Talk about some dumb reasoning.

 

[khiladi]

The pass rush made up for a nearly nonexistant secondary. Nearly 60 sacks, and yet the Cowboys only came up with 8 interceptions. We were very lucky.


This scares the hell out of me wondering about a downward trend in sacks next year. If that happens, and the secondary is as poor as it was in 2008, you will see lots of deep balls being caught or drawing PI flags.

Those 60 sacks came when Wade took over, and the turnovers dramatically increased during this time frame. There was not a single game that went with Wade as the main coach that the defense didn't force a TO, whetehr an INT or fumble. From Tampa Bay onwards, the Cowboys averaged around 2 TOs a game, which is pretty damn good. They averaged only 1 TO prior to Wade taking over, and 3 games they didn't even force a single TO. They had one 3 TO game, which skewed their overall performance during the Stewart tenure.

 

[AbeBeta]

And just like last year, you're completely missing the point of that thread. I wasn't "myth busting." Everyone (or practically everyone) knew that every one of the statements I listed -- all of which were made by Roy's critics -- was false. The point of the list was that most of Roy's critics almost invariably resort to exaggerations and falsehoods in order to boost their argument. They can't simply look at the truth. But of course, you and a few others focused only on the wildest untruths Roy's critics use -- which obviously were never true -- and claim I set up straw men to knock down. Wrong -- all I did was list the "straw men" Roy's critics set up and point to as evidence. Even in this thread, you still see many of the same myths stated as facts, which proves my point again.

And my point was that the "exaggerations" were more about you taking things too literally and you failing to understand that when people say things like "Roy can't cover" that it means "coverage is not a Roy's strong suit" - yes, some folks exaggerate and are imprecise with their language - however, those of us who are not robots understand that.

 

[codychi1]

Does anybody think Roy finding jesus ruined him? Took away his killer attitude?:suxiggle:

 

[AdamJT13]

And my point was that the "exaggerations" were more about you taking things too literally and you failing to understand that when people say things like "Roy can't cover" that it means "coverage is not a Roy's strong suit" - yes, some folks exaggerate and are imprecise with their language - however, those of us who are not robots understand that.

And ... you're still missing the point.

 

[AbeBeta]

And ... you're still missing the point.

No, as I've said before. I understand the point. And it is stupid.