Cowboys | SS Williams may be released this week

[adbutcher]

but you are also guilty of the same comedic approach with your "one of the better safeties in the NFL" line - comparisons to Troy P and Adrian Wilson? Come on. Average your take and Yoshi's and we are probably close to the truth.

Not really. If we based our argument on the countless posts that refuted the myths surrounding Roy. Nether one of us can conclude much from 2008 because he didn't finish. However, to me it was obvious that tackling in our secondary suffered when he went down.

The bottom line for me, I am neither a pro or con Roy W. I just want to win and I want good football players; I still think he can play and serve a role for the Cowboys. In my opinion you cant go around cutting players that can still play because of personal ducks...ahem, agendas. If he is restructured, what harm could it be to the team? He is still a phenomenal special team player and he still brings the wood when he tackles.

 

[wileedog]

Not really. If we based our argument on the countless posts that refuted the myths surrounding Roy. Nether one of us can conclude much from 2008 because he didn't finish. However, to me it was obvious that tackling in our secondary suffered when he went down.

The bottom line for me, I am neither a pro or con Roy W. I just want to win and I want good football players; I still think he can play and serve a role for the Cowboys. In my opinion you cant go around cutting players that can still play because of personal ducks...ahem, agendas. If he is restructured, what harm could it be to the team? He is still a phenomenal special team player and he still brings the wood when he tackles.

That's not remotely the same thing as saying he is on par with Polomulo or Wilson, both of whom routinely make game impacting plays and stay on the field for 3 downs.

And personally I don't agree that he is still a hard - or even good - tackler. I think he has lost confidence and gotten hesitent. My opinion, YMMV, but I think we are better off starting fresh with a younger guy who doesn't have the baggage and is still hungry to succeed. A restructured Roy playing on running downs is a progress stopper for a much needed longer term solution, and still leaves a potential liability on the field for good OCs to exploit.

 

[Idgit]

Does it make it OK to pretend you don't understand exactly what people are saying when they say he fumbles every time he gets sacked?

See, that's the problem. You know what they mean but refuse to acknowledge that.

This is all rehash, but the problem is that you don't know what they mean. You might know that they don't mean what they actually said, but beyond that there's very little informational content to work with.

Letting it slide indulges people who think there's merit in being emotional and imprecise. What possible point is there in letting posters get away with that when you know that you probably disagree with them principally re: the thread topic?

 

[AbeBeta]

This is all rehash, but the problem is that you don't know what they mean. You might know that they don't mean what they actually said, but beyond that there's very little informational content to work with.

Letting it slide indulges people who think there's merit in being emotional and imprecise. What possible point is there in letting posters get away with that when you know that you probably disagree with them principally re: the thread topic?

Pretending you don't know what they mean is nothing but diversion. If you don't know what they mean then you likely have problems understanding anything in day-to-day conversation.

The principal is clear - Roy gets fat in the off season, Roy doesn't have strong coverage skills, Roy does deliver as many big hits as he used to etc.

You try getting one of the myth people to actually engage in a discussion of Roy's skills and performance -- takes a ton of arm twisting and still all you get is "admittedly coverage is not Roy's strong suit" or something equally weak. But you throw out something like "Roy never delivers big hits" and you get some pedantic correction pointing to some game in 2006.

 

[AbeBeta]

Not really. If we based our argument on the countless posts that refuted the myths surrounding Roy. Nether one of us can conclude much from 2008 because he didn't finish. However, to me it was obvious that tackling in our secondary suffered when he went down.

The bottom line for me, I am neither a pro or con Roy W. I just want to win and I want good football players; I still think he can play and serve a role for the Cowboys. In my opinion you cant go around cutting players that can still play because of personal ducks...ahem, agendas. If he is restructured, what harm could it be to the team? He is still a phenomenal special team player and he still brings the wood when he tackles.

That our secondary suffered when he went down suggests that he is better than Keith Davis and Pat Watkins. That tells us very little.

I don't think that I've ever called for Roy to be cut -- my stance has been he needs to restructure if he wants to stay here because he clearly has not produced at the level of his current salary.

 

[Rampage]

Not really. If we based our argument on the countless posts that refuted the myths surrounding Roy. Nether one of us can conclude much from 2008 because he didn't finish. However, to me it was obvious that tackling in our secondary suffered when he went down.

The bottom line for me, I am neither a pro or con Roy W. I just want to win and I want good football players; I still think he can play and serve a role for the Cowboys. In my opinion you cant go around cutting players that can still play because of personal ducks...ahem, agendas. If he is restructured, what harm could it be to the team? He is still a phenomenal special team player and he still brings the wood when he tackles.

:laugh2: did anybody see Roy's poor attempts at tackling during the philly game? go back and watch them bounce off his poor attempts at tackling in that game.

 

[This is Our Year]

The end of a error is coming for Roy with the Cowboys.

 

[Idgit]

Pretending you don't know what they mean is nothing but diversion. If you don't know what they mean then you likely have problems understanding anything in day-to-day conversation.

The principal is clear - Roy gets fat in the off season, Roy doesn't have strong coverage skills, Roy does deliver as many big hits as he used to etc.

You try getting one of the myth people to actually engage in a discussion of Roy's skills and performance -- takes a ton of arm twisting and still all you get is "admittedly coverage is not Roy's strong suit" or something equally weak. But you throw out something like "Roy never delivers big hits" and you get some pedantic correction pointing to some game in 2006.

I'm constantly asking people to clarify what they mean in everyday conversation, so you've got a point there. It's not a good argument for not just saying what you mean, though. It doesn't take more time to be precise. Just more thought.

But us myth-people are orders of magnitude more likely to respond on point in an actual conversation about RW's skills. I've had countless conversations about his thick hips, being slow to read and commit, how he's not adept enough in coverage to make up for an ILB who can't drop back deep enough to make a QB put air under a ball, how the game has changed underneath him and how he's probably under-performing his current contract.

I don't think my assessment of his relative ability differs much at all from what you've posted above. I just personally can't tolerate a lot of butt-hurt exagerated whining from a fanbase that can't handle it's collective unrealistic expectation not being met.

 

[AbeBeta]

I'm constantly asking people to clarify what they mean in everyday conversation, so you've got a point there. It's not a good argument for not just saying what you mean, though. It doesn't take more time to be precise. Just more thought.

So this is clearly a problem with a few posters who are overly rigid and can't, like most people, infer meaning from context.

It shouldn't be everyone else's problem that some folks are too thick or too stubborn to understand what people mean when they say "Roy can't cover" -- it is obvious that only the stupidest fan in the world would suggest that any NFL DB literally can't cover anyone. Folks are saying what they mean, it is just that some refuse to use the context of the statement as a clue to its meaning.

For example, if tonight your wife or girlfriend were to say "we don't have anything in the fridge!" Would you a) immediately run to the fridge wondering what happened to all the condiments in the door or the milk you bought for coffee? or b) recognize that she was telling you there wasn't anything to make for dinner. Clearly you'd have to be stupid if you responded a, but that is exactly what the myth people have done in this and other threads.

But us myth-people are orders of magnitude more likely to respond on point in an actual conversation about RW's skills.

That's funny b/c in the famous myth thread, getting any sort of legit conversation our of certain people was seriously like pulling teeth.

 

[Idgit]

So this is clearly a problem with a few posters who are overly rigid and can't, like most people, infer meaning from context.

It shouldn't be everyone else's problem that some folks are too thick or too stubborn to understand what people mean when they say "Roy can't cover" -- it is obvious that only the stupidest fan in the world would suggest that any NFL DB literally can't cover anyone. Folks are saying what they mean, it is just that some refuse to use the context of the statement as a clue to its meaning.

For example, if tonight your wife or girlfriend were to say "we don't have anything in the fridge!" Would you a) immediately run to the fridge wondering what happened to all the condiments in the door or the milk you bought for coffee? or b) recognize that she was telling you there wasn't anything to make for dinner. Clearly you'd have to be stupid if you responded a, but that is exactly what the myth people have done in this and other threads.

Or, c) explain that she might have been exaggerating because there actually are things in the fridge to eat if you're willing to get creative.

But that's not a good analogy, b/c I love my wife and I'm willing to put up with a certain degree if helplessness and exaggeration from her. If I were to come home to a perfect stranger in my house, wailing and sniveling because they expected something to eat and they didn't like what was actually in the fridge, it would be a different conversation. And not because I'm rigid, or unwilling to infer meaning that isn't necessarily there.

 

[AbeBeta]

Or, c) explain that she might have been exaggerating because there actually are things in the fridge to eat if you're willing to get creative.

But that's not a good analogy, b/c I love my wife and I'm willing to put up with a certain degree if helplessness and exaggeration from her. If I were to come home to a perfect stranger in my house, wailing and sniveling because they expected something to eat and they didn't like what was actually in the fridge, it would be a different conversation. And not because I'm rigid, or unwilling to infer meaning that isn't necessarily there.

Yes, the c option. Also known as being pedantic.

The fact is that you knew exactly what was meant by that statement, yet play dumb when you hear "Roy can't cover" and whine about how people need to be precise.

 

[Wimbo]

Cowboys | SS Williams may be released this week
Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:55:11 -0800
Calvin Watkins, of The Dallas Morning News, reports the Dallas Cowboys may release SS Roy L. Williams this week.

Wanna make a Million $$$?
Sell " JENKINS " name strips for the thousands of fans who own a #31 Williams Jersey.



... just send me my royalty check.

 

[MonsterD]

Ya, I'm kinda gettin tired from holding this full nelson..

Slate I want Brace too, I hope that he dropped in the draft in case we get him in the third if we use the 2nd on something else.

 

[Idgit]

Yes, the c option. Also known as being pedantic.

The fact is that you knew exactly what was meant by that statement, yet play dumb when you hear "Roy can't cover" and whine about how people need to be precise.

Yah. I'm the one who's being pedantic.

Your argument that I'm supposed to understand that the phrase 'Roy can't cover' does not literally mean that 'Roy can't cover' but literally means 'something else that I'm supposed to determine from context' is absurd.

For many posters, imprecision is shorthand. For others, it's a dodge for opinionated ignorance. Maybe from experience we can generally tell the two types of posters apart, but we shouldn't have to. And when you're called on to make it clear what category of poster you fall into, I don't see what's the big deal in taking the time required to express yourself clearly.

 

[romo2witten]

I am glad that some people are beginning to see through all of the BS the media is throwing around these days.

 

[AbeBeta]

For many posters, imprecision is shorthand. For others, it's a dodge for opinionated ignorance. Maybe from experience we can generally tell the two types of posters apart, but we shouldn't have to. And when you're called on to make it clear what category of poster you fall into, I don't see what's the big deal in taking the time required to express yourself clearly.

and for those in the myth busting crew, that short hand becomes an excuse to posture, try to look smart, and avoid all real conversations about their favorite player's shortcomings.

 

[AbeBeta]

Your argument that I'm supposed to understand that the phrase 'Roy can't cover' does not literally mean that 'Roy can't cover' but literally means 'something else that I'm supposed to determine from context' is absurd.

And your continued claim that you don't know exactly what others are saying is just stubborn ignorance. For an adult to claim that he needs exact precision in your criticism otherwise you don't get the gist of it reduces you to the role of a petulant child.

Have fun acting a quarter of your age and continuing to earn your screen name.

 

[Idgit]

And your continued claim that you don't know exactly what others are saying is just stubborn ignorance. For an adult to claim that he needs exact precision in your criticism otherwise you don't get the gist of it reduces you to the role of a petulant child.

Have fun acting a quarter of your age and continuing to earn your screen name.

Dude. Relax. Let's not get personal, ok?

There's no expectation of exact precision from anybody. Actually saying more or less what you really mean so that other people understand where you stand is generally sufficient.

 

[RoadRunner]

Dude. Relax. Let's not get personal, ok?

There's no expectation of exact precision from anybody. Actually saying more or less what you really mean so that other people understand where you stand is generally sufficient.

Nah, you are resorting to semantics arguments so you can be annoying just for the sake of it. It works as you push the buttons, then get to act defensive as you did with this post. Manipulative.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I want to get out all my hate for Biscuit while I can.

Roy needs to send everyone of his paychecks to Darren Woodson. Without Woody (and a couple seasons of freelancing) Roy would've been one of the biggest busts in Cowboys history.

I don't see him finding much work after this following season. He just doesn't seem to care about football.