DMN Burnett Blog: What about his (Roy) coverage?

[khiladi]

Talk about a blog that was just an outright political defense of a player...

All Burnett said was that they played lots of zone, so the blame needs to be spread out. If all the Roy cheerleaders are going to use this as proof, than I don't want to here them say that the fault was not on Roy, but Reeves...

Hey, you can't blame Jacques Reeves for our coverage failures, because when Roy was playing zone, more often than not, so was Jacques Reeves...

 

[adamknite]

Talk about a blog that was just an outright political defense of a play...

All Burnett said was that they played lots of zone, so the blame needs to be spread out. If all the Roy cheerleaders are going to use this as proof, than I don't want to here them say that the fault was not on Roy, but Reeves...

Hey, you can't blame Jacques Reeves for our coverage failures, because when Roy was playing zone, more often than not, so was Jacques Reeves...

Burnett said that there are a lot of reasons why a fan could see a guy catch the ball. It could be a good pass on a zone defense, it could be the other player making a great play. He never said that "because the Cowboys play a lot of Zone, Roy Williams is not at fault". What he was trying to say was, not to jump to conclusions and just assume it was somebody's fault on every play, that it could have been the defensive play called or great execution by the offense.

He was using Roy as an example because he is the most widely blamed.

 

[khiladi]

Burnett said that there are a lot of reasons why a fan could see a guy catch the ball. It could be a good pass on a zone defense, it could be the other player making a great play. He never said that "because the Cowboys play a lot of Zone, Roy Williams is not at fault". What he was trying to say was, not to jump to conclusions and just assume it was somebody's fault on every play, that it could have been the defensive play called or great execution by the offense.

And we all know that. Which leads us to the statistics. The statistics themselves don't tell us everything, but the cheerleaders think they do. If one is arguing that blame can't be laid on a particular player because of what goes on before the snap and during the snap, than what to say about praise given to a player, say for 5 interceptions in 2006... 5 interceptions by Roy in 2006 could have been a result of plenty of cover-2 played by Parcells, which may have hid the deterioration in his coverage abilities. WHat plays were called, who put the player in a position to make a play, who knows? A play made by Roy Williams may just as much be a result of a great call by a coach.

How about last year? Roy could have been the one who busted coverage when Reeves let a guy catch the ball. But the Roy cheerleaders had no problem bashing Reeves. Now they are going to use this as proof that Roy isn't at fault... The fact is, if your going to use this article to defend Roy, then you can't blame Reeves either.

 

[adamknite]

And we all know that. Which leads us to the statistics. The statistics themselves don't tell us everything, but the cheerleaders think they do. If one is arguing that blame can't be laid on a particular player because of what goes on before the snap and during the snap, than what to say about praise given to a player, say for 5 interceptions in 2006... 5 interceptions by Roy in 2006 could have been a result of plenty of cover-2 played by Parcells, which may have hid the deterioration in his coverage abilities. WHat plays were called, who put the player in a position to make a play, who knows? A play made by Roy Williams may just as much be a result of a great call by a coach.

How about last year? Roy could have been the one who busted coverage when Reeves let a guy catch the ball. But the Roy cheerleaders had no problem bashing Reeves. Now they are going to use this as proof that Roy isn't at fault... The fact is, if your going to use this article to defend Roy, then you can't blame Reeves either.

My bad, I believe I misread your first post. For some odd reason I thought you were knocking Burnett for what he said about pointing the finger. I guess rereading would have helped.

My apologies.

 

[khiladi]

My bad, I believe I misread your first post. For some odd reason I thought you were knocking Burnett for what he said about pointing the finger. I guess rereading would have helped.

My apologies.

No need to apologize here man... I was just saying that this was a typical political defense by a teammate...

 

[Goldenrichards83]

No need to apologize here man... I was just saying that this was a typical political defense by a teammate...

Yea right. Finially what we have been saying has been verified by one of the players who really know the game. Spin it how you want but how he breaks it down the way he did there's nothing political about this at all.

 

[khiladi]

Yea right. Finially what we have been saying has been verified by one of the players who really know the game. Spin it how you want but how he breaks it down the way he did there's nothing political about this at all.

Surprise, surprise... Here comes a Roy cheerleader as predicted..

So then, the coverage melt-downs weren't Jacques Reeves fault?

No, it's clearly political...

BTW, does Newman not know the game? WHat about Jerry Jones, when he said Roy gets out of position, which results in the hore-collar tackles? What about Bradie James, saying he has every reason to believe Roy will improve. If there was no problem, then why even comment on it?

 

[Goldenrichards83]

Surprise, surprise... Here comes a Roy cheerleader as predicted..

So then, the coverage melt-downs weren't Jacques Reeves fault?

No, it's clearly political...

BTW, does Newman not know the game? WHat about Jerry Jones, when he said Roy gets out of position, which results in the hore-collar tackles? What about Bradie James, saying he has every reason to believe Roy will improve. If there was no problem, then why even comment on it?

What you fail to realise is noone is saying he didn't do bad things lastyear point is there aren't as overblown that the bashers and the media makes it out to be. Your so insistent on hanging Roy for everything wrong with our defense that you can't see what the guy is saying. Newman said what we have been saying all year but he also said he isn't a liability and some other good things but you want to throw those comments out the door. Political? Nobodys running for office. Its the truth, some people can't handle the truth. More knowledgeable fans will understand this.

 

[Idgit]

Surprise, surprise... Here comes a Roy cheerleader as predicted..

So then, the coverage melt-downs weren't Jacques Reeves fault?

No, it's clearly political...

BTW, does Newman not know the game? WHat about Jerry Jones, when he said Roy gets out of position, which results in the hore-collar tackles? What about Bradie James, saying he has every reason to believe Roy will improve. If there was no problem, then why even comment on it?

Here's another one. You're wrong, khiladi. Just deal with it. There's a difference between a player getting beat and having an inherent weakness of a defense exposed. In this post, Burnett is explaining to you that much of what happens to Roy in coverage is the result of the defense being exploited. If you choose not to hear that or can't understand it, that's on you.

Your Reeves question is a rabbit hole which nobody need go down. Newman didn't say anything different from what Burnett is saying. Everybody understands there is room for Roy to improve in coverage. The issue is with the catches that are unfairly attributed to his limitations.

 

[Goldenrichards83]

Surprise, surprise... Here comes a Roy cheerleader as predicted..

So then, the coverage melt-downs weren't Jacques Reeves fault?

No, it's clearly political...

BTW, does Newman not know the game? WHat about Jerry Jones, when he said Roy gets out of position, which results in the hore-collar tackles? What about Bradie James, saying he has every reason to believe Roy will improve. If there was no problem, then why even comment on it?

Talk about surprises and here comes a Roy basher talkin about conspiracy theories. Political?

 

[khiladi]

Here's another one. You're wrong, khiladi. Just deal with it. There's a difference between a player getting beat and having an inherent weakness of a defense exposed. In this post, Burnett is explaining to you that much of what happens to Roy in coverage is the result of the defense being exploited. If you choose not to hear that or can't understand it, that's on you.

Here comes another cheerleader...

I know what Burnett said. Tell me, how does this in any way refute my point? You do realize that not every play an offense makes is a result of them exploiting the scheme. That would predicate that the opposing offense knows every play that the defense calls out, does it not? So is Kevin Burnett seriously going to have us beileve every pass made against the defense was a result of the opposing offense knowing that they called?

Your Reeves question is a rabbit hole which nobody need go down. Newman didn't say anything different from what Burnett is saying. Everybody understands there is room for Roy to improve in coverage. The issue is with the catches that are unfairly attributed to his limitations.

No, my Reeves question isn't a rabbit-hole and we need to go down there. The same analogy applies to Reeves, as it does to Roy, if what your claiming is true.

If you don't get the receivers off the vertical land marks with a re-route/ jam your safeties are in the deep end of the pool. Know this if somebody underneath misses a re-route or jam it's either a touchdown or big gain.

WHat happens when the person, say Roy WIlliams, is playing LB and lets the receiver in his zone get in front of him, clearly allowing more space for the receiver to operate in the zone against the deep help? So is Kevin Burnnett saying that it was always the person who was suppose to jam the receivers fault when Roy messed up in coverage?

How does Newman saying Roy was a deer-in-headlights in certain plays in any way related to what KB said?

I have never been a believer that one man causes a team to lose. What may seem like Roy getting beat may be someone making a good play or a good call for the defense we're in. Let's develop this a little bit more. In cover two there are two areas are teams teams try to attack.

Was Jacques Reeves to blame or was he not?

 

[BigDFan5]

If you don't believe me check the stat sheet J.J. Taylor has them (I know because he gave them to me one day).

Any last minute questions for tomorrow?

hmmmm JJ Taylor

AdamJT13

 

[coach316]

Talk about a blog that was just an outright political defense of a player...

All Burnett said was that they played lots of zone, so the blame needs to be spread out. If all the Roy cheerleaders are going to use this as proof, than I don't want to here them say that the fault was not on Roy, but Reeves...

Hey, you can't blame Jacques Reeves for our coverage failures, because when Roy was playing zone, more often than not, so was Jacques Reeves...

Of the multiple citations given by Burnett in his post, to solely pick out this point and clearly ignoring all the others, highlights the agenda behind the poster.

 

[DallasFanSince86]

I agree with Kevin Burnett here, and I like how well he explained the coverages.

I enjoy reading his blog.

 

[tcity]

Put me down for not believing Roy totally sucked in coverage - blown his share of coverages but not as bad as some are making it out to be.

 

[DallasFanSince86]

and maybe the signal (Patriots).

:laugh2:

I found this quite funny.

 

[cowboyed]

I like to believe I am a balanced critic of Roy. I have previously acknowledged that Roy isn't the only player that has struggled in coverage at times. But clearly he has not been the playmaker he once was. That is one of the reasons Campo is now here, is that not true?

Especially this past season we have seen instances of Roy whiffing and mistackling that were rare events in previous seasons. Roy has regressed from being an impact player or difference maker to being a pedestrian safety with the exception upside of being a productive tackler.

I value Kevin Burnett's perspective as well as Newman's and particularly Campo since he was hired in part to get Roy Williams back to old form. If Roy Williams remains a Cowboy instead of being traded to a team of need such as the Panthers then I will soundly cheer for him, especially if he strongly exhibits an opponent preparation ethic.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

i absolutely hate the term "Roy cheerleader".. the man is a freaking Dallas Cowboy, he wears the star, and he has given us a ton of great memories and highlights in his handful of seasons with us.. he's an outstanding human being and a class act.. whether or not you like his playing of late, every single one of us should be a "Roy cheerleader" because he's a Dallas Cowboy..

 

[Goldenrichards83]

i absolutely hate the term "Roy cheerleader".. the man is a freaking Dallas Cowboy, he wears the star, and he has given us a ton of great memories and highlights in his handful of seasons with us.. he's an outstanding human being and a class act.. whether or not you like his playing of late, every single one of us should be a "Roy cheerleader" because he's a Dallas Cowboy..

 

[adbutcher]

i absolutely hate the term "Roy cheerleader".. the man is a freaking Dallas Cowboy, he wears the star, and he has given us a ton of great memories and highlights in his handful of seasons with us.. he's an outstanding human being and a class act.. whether or not you like his playing of late, every single one of us should be a "Roy cheerleader" because he's a Dallas Cowboy..