DMN Blog: Scouts' take on Roy Williams (Yes, another Roy thread)

[WoodysGirl]

1:01 PM Fri, May 30, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Albert Breer http://www.***BANNED-URL***/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg E-mail http://www.***BANNED-URL***/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg News tips

Is this overkill? Sure it is. But we're trying to be as fair to Roy as possible here.


Our own Jean-Jacques Taylor did a "Camp Countdown" piece on the Cowboys for the Sporting News. In there, he has a rival scout's take on Roy:

"First, he's not as bad in coverage as everyone thinks. He has some flaws, but the Cowboys don't do a good job of keeping those hidden and they expose him, especially in quarters (cover 4), where he sometimes has to cover a receiver 40 yards down the field. He's much better underneath, where even if he gets beat, there's plenty of help behind him to keep it from being a big play. "Roy can be good in coverage because he's been good in the past. But he has to be technically sound. Too many times, he's not. He doesn't stay low enough in his backpedal and he has stiff hips. If he's low, then he can quickly get in and out of breaks and stay with the man he's covering.​

"He also needs to do more film study, because he's not an instinctive player. The more he studies, the more familiar he can become with different route combinations and the more he can anticipate certain routes given the down and distance."​

I will say that the Cowboys placing Williams at nickel linebacker was one way of keeping him underneath. And if you're going to try and keep him underneath on running downs, then you're playing an awful lot of cover-3 and putting more pressure on the other DBs to cover larger areas. So I wouldn't put all of this on the coaches. Also, so you know, in his TSN piece, JJT says that the Cowboys are, indeed, championship worthy and calls a 13-3 season.



http://www.***BANNED-URL***/images/ice3/icons/blog.gif Comments (0) Leave comment | http://www.***BANNED-URL***/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg E-mail entry

 

[Chocolate Lab]

He has some flaws, but the Cowboys don't do a good job of keeping those hidden and they expose him, especially in quarters (cover 4), where he sometimes has to cover a receiver 40 yards down the field.

Did this scout watch us last year?

He's much better underneath, where even if he gets beat, there's plenty of help behind him to keep it from being a big play.

That pretty much is what we did last year.

 

[Stash]

"He also needs to do more film study, because he's not an instinctive player. The more he studies, the more familiar he can become with different route combinations and the more he can anticipate certain routes given the down and distance."

This speaks to my biggest grip with him.

I think his struggles are more mental than physical.

And I'm hopeful that he spends more time in the film room and that he turns things around and shuts up his critics (self included).




​

 

[Rampage]

I didn't think he was good underneath. I don't know how many times a pass was completed with Roy underneath and reeves over the top and vice versa.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I didn't think he was good underneath. I don't know how many times a pass was completed with Roy underneath and reeves over the top and vice versa.

I think that was the scheme. Of course, they would prefer them to break up the pass, even if it's underneath. But I think they rather give up the underneath passes, than the big play.

 

[Rampage]

I think that was the scheme. Of course, they would prefer them to break up the pass, even if it's underneath. But I think they rather give up the underneath passes, than the big play.

maybe i hope not but maybe. hopefully Roy/Reeves was just a bad combo and hopefully Roy/pacman or Roy/jenkins will be better.



lots of hope in this post.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

He also needs to do more film study, because he's not an instinctive player. The more he studies, the more familiar he can become with different route combinations and the more he can anticipate certain routes given the down and distance."

I really have to disagree with this portion.

I think Roy Williams' biggest asset coming out of college was how instinctive he was.

Now, if the scout is referring to his lack of instinctiveness when the ball is in the air, I have to agree with that.

Also, I wonder how the scout knows that Roy Williams needs to watch more film?

 

[Maikeru-sama]

I didn't think he was good underneath. I don't know how many times a pass was completed with Roy underneath and reeves over the top and vice versa.

I can't remember what opponent we were facing, but there was one game where the enemy took advantage of that combination quite a few times.

 

[Stash]

I can't remember what opponent we were facing, but there was one game where the enemy took advantage of that combination quite a few times.

Actually, that would be the 2007 season.......

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Actually, that would be the 2007 season.......

That is a bit of an exaggeration .

 

[Stash]

That is a bit of an exaggeration .

A bit yeah....

:

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I think Roy Williams' biggest asset coming out of college was how instinctive he was.

If you mean "instinctive" like how Lemmings jump off of cliffs during migration or how a whale can mysteriously beach itself, then yes, I would agree with this statement.

 

[theogt]

I didn't think he was good underneath. I don't know how many times a pass was completed with Roy underneath and reeves over the top and vice versa.

Underneath passes are high percentage passes. Good QBs should consistently have 70+ completion percentage on those passes. So if he gets less than 70% of his passes complete he's doing a good job.

But people obviously don't see it that way.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Underneath passes are high percentage passes. Good QBs should consistently have 70+ completion percentage on those passes. So if he gets less than 70% of his passes complete he's doing a good job.

But people obviously don't see it that way.

What about 69.8%? Should we round that up or would that classify as good?

 

[theogt]

What about 69.8%? Should we round that up or would that classify as good?

We should spend 20 pages arguing over the topic.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

We should spend 20 pages arguing over the topic.

Or we could talk about the prospects of Conoleeza Rice joining up with KISS, whatever.