FS and Roy Williams Question - Secondary flexibility

[neosapien23]

THANK YOU, can anybody name 5 STRONG SAFETIES that are better in coverage that Roy Williams?

Troy Polamalu, Adrian Wilson, Ed Reed, Rodney Harrison, and Cory Chavous.

 

[AdamJT13]

Troy Polamalu, Adrian Wilson, Ed Reed, Rodney Harrison, and Cory Chavous.

Nope, definitely not, probably, nope and maybe (but not nearly as well as he used to). And both of those guys who might be better (Reed and Chavous) are more typical of free safeties. Neither of them had a single sack or tackle for loss last season.

 

[Alexander]

Nope, definitely not, probably, nope and maybe (but not nearly as well as he used to). And both of those guys who might be better (Reed and Chavous) are more typical of free safeties. Neither of them had a single sack or tackle for loss last season.

Then that points once again to the fact that we are using him improperly then.

But Roy Williams is not considered strong in coverage.

He may be according to you, but around the league, that is not high on the list of his superlatives.

 

[Alexander]

I think that the media has taken something, and convinced the world of it. If you want to bash him, then I will say he lundges at the player to tackle last year, but normally, he goes for the kill shot. I didn't see Roy in Man on Man getting burned much last year and I recorded every game, and watched every position closely. But I don't believe everything I hear in the media.

Hardly.

If anything, the media has brainwashed the populace the opposite direction.

Williams was outstanding in coverage his rookie season. Since then he has been abused and exposed consistently.

It could be the weight, our scheme, but it is not like he is some coverage whiz that just happens to be misjudged by the media who has an axe to grind.

He is what he is. He should be an in the box safety. He does not need to be left out to dry in coverage.

 

[AdamJT13]

Then that points once again to the fact that we are using him improperly then.

But Roy Williams is not considered strong in coverage.

He may be according to you, but around the league, that is not high on the list of his superlatives.

Around the league, he's considered good in coverage -- and great at everything else. Even in coverage, he's considered excellent at breaking up passes, intimidating receivers and making plays on the ball (12 interceptions for a safety's first four seasons is a rather high number). Coverage is not his strong suit, which isn't surprising, since he's around 230 pounds, but he's hardly below-average compared to other safeties. He's still above-average at it.

 

[Alexander]

Around the league, he's considered good in coverage -- and great at everything else. Even in coverage, he's considered excellent at breaking up passes, intimidating receivers and making plays on the ball (12 interceptions for a safety's first four seasons is a rather high number). Coverage is not his strong suit, which isn't surprising, since he's around 230 pounds, but he's hardly below-average compared to other safeties. He's still above-average at it.

It all depends upon the benchmark. What is "average" coverage for a strong safety in the NFL? Of course he is better than the average strong safety because most strong safeties are utilized better.

I don't find his abilities in coverage acceptable for the way we use him. And that is very much not his fault because we do use him deep knowing good and well he will struggle.

Our FS talent has been so bad, we have had to use him that way because even an overweight Roy Williams is better than the rubbish we have rolled out there since Woodson retired.

 

[AdamJT13]

It all depends upon the benchmark. What is "average" coverage for a strong safety in the NFL? Of course he is better than the average strong safety because most strong safeties are utilized better.

Huh? He's better in coverage because he's not utilized better? How is that supposed to make sense?

He's better because he can cover better than most safeties -- strong or free.

 

[Alexander]

Huh? He's better in coverage because he's not utilized better? How is that supposed to make sense?

He's better because he can cover better than most safeties -- strong or free.

You are completely wrong. Put him in a scheme as a true deep centerfield free safety and count the touchdowns.

 

[AdamJT13]

You are completely wrong.

No, you are.

Put him in a scheme as a true deep centerfield free safety and count the touchdowns.

What, one? Two? There'd be fewer of them than with most safeties.

 

[ddh33]

I would have thought that by now people would know better than to argue with Adam.

What's funny is that if Roy was playing deep cover all by himself and allowed 1-2 touchdowns, people would act like he was burned all the time. How do I know that? Because they did all year...

 

[Alexander]

No, you are.

:laugh2:

I know you are, but what am I?

I am amazed at your thin skin as far as Williams is concerned. This isn't the first time you have gotten snippy about it. But carry on, off you go.

Fact is this. You dismissed all of the five safeties that were mentioned. And the two that conceiveably could be better, you wrote off that they were free safeties.

Now you appear to be asserting he is better than most safeties, free or strong. Which is it?

Nope, definitely not, probably, nope and maybe (but not nearly as well as he used to). And both of those guys who might be better (Reed and Chavous) are more typical of free safeties. Neither of them had a single sack or tackle for loss last season.

Tackles for loss are typically the domain of a strong safety who crashes the line of scrimmage. And in that regard, he has no peer.

It appearently isn't enough to call him the best strong safety in the NFL. But you are hell-bent on asserting he is the best in the league, free or strong.

That is wrong. Period.

What, one? Two? There'd be fewer of them than with most safeties.

What is this "most" business?

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a time in history that has a collection of truly good safeties, particularly in coverage. In fact, the talent is so thin, that there are older corners being converted left and right just to field competent units.

It is the tallest dwarf syndrome. But unfortunately, there are midgets named Ed Reed, Brian Dawkins, Rodney Harrison and Troy Polamalu that are taller.

 

[LarryCanadian]

Well I'm pretty proud of myself for starting this thread, it's got a few opinions flowing.

My original premise is not that "Roy Williams" is "bad" in coverage. It is that he is BETTER, and more of a PLAYMAKER close to the line of scrimmage or in the shorter to mid routes across the middle where he still intimidates the hell outta every receiver and jusifiably so. In fact because Roy is very talented in general the team uses him in all sorts of important roles, often coverage ones, because he is decent. But that is because he's the best option. Take away that need and let him use his attack instincts around the ball more would be my preference.

When Roy is called apon to be the 2nd guy to cover the deep ball against other teams fastest/best handed receivers I don't think this is his biggest strength.

Those were my points.

Roy has been about big hits and so sometimes isn't a make contact and wrap up kind of guy. He has also been called "one biscuit short of being a linebacker". Why use this guy to cover deep. What I'm saying is if you get a faster, ball hawk true free safety in there whose strength is FS and let Roy do his thing a little closer to QB/RB/TE then we improve not only at FS but at SS as well.

I like the player alot, just in case that isn't clear. I think Reed and Palamulo (sp?) are better farther down field in coverage though. I think noone hits as hard or intimidates like Roy.

Larry

 

[Alexander]

My original premise is not that "Roy Williams" is "bad" in coverage. It is that he is BETTER, and more of a PLAYMAKER close to the line of scrimmage or in the shorter to mid routes across the middle where he still intimidates the hell outta every receiver and jusifiably so. In fact because Roy is very talented in general the team uses him in all sorts of important roles, often coverage ones, because he is decent. But that is because he's the best option. Take away that need and let him use his attack instincts around the ball more would be my preference.

You said it very well. I completely agree.

When Roy is called apon to be the 2nd guy to cover the deep ball against other teams fastest/best handed receivers I don't think this is his biggest strength.

But some think he is "better than most" in that regard.

Sorry, I don't find his skills in this regard acceptable. I guess it boils down to standards. Frankly, I don't want him covering the deep pass on a regular basis because he isn't good at it.

I like the player alot, just in case that isn't clear. I think Reed and Palamulo (sp?) are better farther down field in coverage though. I think noone hits as hard or intimidates like Roy.

Once again, solid point. Just because one points out the issues that should be obvious doesn't mean the implication is that he is a bad player or even overrated.

He just is better at somethings and woefully average at others. We need to eliminate the situations we put him in where he can be exposed.

 

[bobbie brewskie]

Well I'm pretty proud of myself for starting this thread, it's got a few opinions flowing.

My original premise is not that "Roy Williams" is "bad" in coverage. It is that he is BETTER, and more of a PLAYMAKER close to the line of scrimmage or in the shorter to mid routes across the middle where he still intimidates the hell outta every receiver and jusifiably so. In fact because Roy is very talented in general the team uses him in all sorts of important roles, often coverage ones, because he is decent. But that is because he's the best option. Take away that need and let him use his attack instincts around the ball more would be my preference.

When Roy is called apon to be the 2nd guy to cover the deep ball against other teams fastest/best handed receivers I don't think this is his biggest strength.

Those were my points.

Roy has been about big hits and so sometimes isn't a make contact and wrap up kind of guy. He has also been called "one biscuit short of being a linebacker". Why use this guy to cover deep. What I'm saying is if you get a faster, ball hawk true free safety in there whose strength is FS and let Roy do his thing a little closer to QB/RB/TE then we improve not only at FS but at SS as well.

I like the player alot, just in case that isn't clear. I think Reed and Palamulo (sp?) are better farther down field in coverage though. I think noone hits as hard or intimidates like Roy.

Larry

yea, Roy Williams forces WR's to go to the sideline, and he takes away the center of the field just because of the fact that recievers are scared to get hit by him. his coverage skills downfield arent that of a FS (Reed, btw is a FS skillwise) but for a SS he definately is one of the better coverage safeties. like you said, if we just give him a FS that can do his job right and make Williams know that he doesnt hafta cover the other guys ***, Williams will be much better. yea with a true FS behind him, he will be able to do what he does best and stop the run, blitz and Force Fumbles over getting INTs. but, he did come up clutch, making big picks (21-20 Philly) this guy is a playmaker and causes turnovers, what more do you want from a SS? add a FS like you say and he will be even more RAW. (sorry for stating the obvious)

Polomalu (SP?) is way over-rated in my book, they said he was the centerpiece to that defense. come on now he had the best LB corpse in the NFL - he didnt hafta do jack against the run and the stealers woulda been fine, his coverage skills are over-rated (yes they are above average and he is also better than most SS at coverage) but come on now, just compare the surrounding talent to that of Roy's. with the stealers Linebacker Corpse roy williams could have been even better in coverage. and look at reed, 2 years ago, yea we was great and was a ballhawk, but look who was on his team, come on now - the best Defense in football that year.

My point: after this draft - if it goes how i hope, Lawson/Carpenter and a solid FS in the 2nd or 3rd, Roy will have an upgrade to support him in coverage and the opposing QB will be under much more pressure from ALL SIDES. i say Roy will have his best season yet, next year.

 

[AdamJT13]

I know you are, but what am I?

That's just how lame your argument is. You have provided nothing but your own obstinate opinion. I've provided several analyses and rankings from scouting services and NFL personnel men that rank Roy at or near the top of all safeties.

I am amazed at your thin skin as far as Williams is concerned.

It's better to be thin-skinned than thick-headed.

Fact is this. You dismissed all of the five safeties that were mentioned.

That's not a fact, considering that it's wrong.

And the two that conceiveably could be better, you wrote off that they were free safeties.

Now you appear to be asserting he is better than most safeties, free or strong. Which is it?

Try to follow along in the thread. The question posed (not by me) was to name five "strong safeties" better in coverage. Three of the five mentioned are not better, and the other two (one of which probably isn't better than Roy anymore) are more typical of free safeties. Out of the safeties better in coverage -- strong or free -- those are one or two of just a handful.

It appearently isn't enough to call him the best strong safety in the NFL. But you are ***-bent on asserting he is the best in the league, free or strong.

I didn't say that (although that's been stated by numerous scouting services and polls of NFL personnel men).

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a time in history that has a collection of truly good safeties, particularly in coverage. In fact, the talent is so thin, that there are older corners being converted left and right just to field competent units.

That's debatable -- and corners have been converting to safety for years and years -- but what does that have to do with anything? What do you want to do, rank Roy against the all-time greatest safeties? Whatever makes you feel better.

It is the tallest dwarf syndrome. But unfortunately, there are midgets named Ed Reed, Brian Dawkins, Rodney Harrison and Troy Polamalu that are taller.

So you're claiming all four of them are better in coverage, or better overall?

 

[bobbie brewskie]

Troy Polamalu, Adrian Wilson, Ed Reed, Rodney Harrison, and Cory Chavous.

forgot to get back to quoting this in my last post but here goes:

1. polamalu - hes in my last post actually and like i said he was surrounded by the best D in the league last year as it had the best LB corpse, solid DBs and a good Dline.

2. reed - ive been saying this since 2 seasons ago:
1. hes a FS prototype
2. that year he was surrounded with the best D in the league by far. solid LB's once again and Mcallister before the new bump rule was monsterous. but yea he is better than Roy in coverage
3. Wilson - id say hes just a little better than Roy, but didnt some1 post something about him being rated lower than Roy in every category? as he took 15th, 27th and 30th while roy took 1st, 2nd, 4th.
4. Harrison - id put him on the same level as roy if not worse.
5. Chaveous - i wish we woulda picked him up when he was a FA last year, woulda been a great compliment for ROY! this is the best coverage safety out of the five next to ed reed. but again he is also a FS prototype.

 

[joseephuss]

Polamalu is not better in coverage than Williams. They seem pretty equal. They actually seem pretty equal in all aspects of the position when watching them play. Then you look at the stats and Williams has a slight edge in several categories.