GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[AbeBeta]

And what would that really mean to you coming from someone in the "Roy PR Team," if it weren't accompanied with stats?? You just want a general, "yeah Roy is average in coverage, but above average to top of the league in run support and tackling?" Is that good enough? I think that's how most of the "Roy PR Team" views him.

That's fine -- show where I asked for statistics. All I wanted to see was a reasonable analysis instead of this BS where all that was being addressed was the completely literal statement that Roy "can't cover" -- I labeled folks the PR Team b/c there seemed to be a real reluctance to speak to any issue other than that literal interpretation.

 

[Alexander]

What is truly amusing about these little squabbles these days is the insistence of the Roy Williams enablers to feign objectivity. It is sad and pathetic. There are even numerical lists that exist as shrines to the fanhood and its rendered even more hilarious by the fact that the actual number is repeated like it has any validity.

The "haters" at least able to use the mean (and apparently according to this thread, confusing) words to make their point. Of course, saying someone sucks is primitive. But it at least isn't mincing words which can then be used to dismiss the lack of objectivity when it is exposed. It also might come in very valuable when he continues to regress ("I never said he was great at coverage.").

If anyone is quibbling with semantics and double-speak to cover their own "agenda", I think it is fairly obvious who it is.

 

[Kilyin]

On a side note...

On Jason Taylor...



I thought mean, bully Parcells purposely picked on the harmless, squeeky clean Taylor just to make an example out of him. You mean Mr. Hollywood hasn't spent the offseason saving kittens from trees?

I bet you could tell us what Parcells had for breakfast this morning, since you've got your head so far up his a..

BTW, this isn't a Jason Taylor or Bill Parcells thread.

 

[starfrombirth]

It dawns on me that those of us who tend to believe that roy is less than stellar in coverage are being ridiculed for not having Adam's research abilities or resources. This somehow doesn't seem fair to me since nobody on the other side of the fence has this ability either but instead refer back to Adams information in order to validate their own claims. Again this harkens back to the euphamistic phrase "I'm not wrong! The world is!" If everyone (oops too literal) "many" people from all aspects of fandom and media can see that Roy is the weak link in our secondary, why aren't we allowed to express the eyeball test as a valid judge of ability or success? That's right, we are all idiots because we don't have the same abilities or resources... carry on.

 

[Idgit]

What is truly amusing about these little squabbles these days is the insistence of the Roy Williams enablers to feign objectivity. It is sad and pathetic. There are even numerical lists that exist as shrines to the fanhood and its rendered even more hilarious by the fact that the actual number is repeated like it has any validity.

The "haters" at least able to use the mean (and apparently according to this thread, confusing) words to make their point. Of course, saying someone sucks is primitive. But it at least isn't mincing words which can then be used to dismiss the lack of objectivity when it is exposed. It also might come in very valuable when he continues to regress ("I never said he was great at coverage.").

If anyone is quibbling with semantics and double-speak to cover their own "agenda", I think it is fairly obvious who it is.

Hooray! It's the 'inaccurate, but at least not mincing argument.'

I don't quite get how encouraging saying what you mean is cover for an agenda, but I'm convinced anyway because of all the not-mincing you did in this post.

 

[tomson75]

Hooray! It's the 'inaccurate, but at least not mincing argument.'

I don't quite get how encouraging saying what you mean is cover for an agenda, but I'm convinced anyway because of all the not-mincing you did in this post.

 

[Alexander]

I don't quite get how encouraging saying what you mean is cover for an agenda.

Encouraging "saying what you mean" is very hypocritical when 9/10 posts you see from enablers refuse to acknowledge anything negative he does.

If you are firmly in that camp, stop pretending to acknowledge any shortcomings. Continue living in the blissful world where Roy Williams actually justifies his salary and really is an All Pro.

But continue please. Feign objectivity some more. It really makes you more convincing.

 

[JonJon]

It dawns on me that those of us who tend to believe that roy is less than stellar in coverage are being ridiculed for not having Adam's research abilities or resources. This somehow doesn't seem fair to me since nobody on the other side of the fence has this ability either but instead refer back to Adams information in order to validate their own claims. Again this harkens back to the euphamistic phrase "I'm not wrong! The world is!" If everyone (oops too literal) "many" people from all aspects of fandom and media can see that Roy is the weak link in our secondary, why aren't we allowed to express the eyeball test as a valid judge of ability or success? That's right, we are all idiots because we don't have the same abilities or resources... carry on.

And that's the bottom line, 'cause AdamJT13 said so.

 

[bbgun]

And that's the bottom line, 'cause AdamJT13 said so.

You didn't enjoy Adam's PowerPoint presentation, demonstrating how Roy was powerless to stop Alexander's run? It was positively riveting. Then again, Adam could watch the Zapruder film and swear that Kennedy's head didn't explode.

 

[Idgit]

Encouraging "saying what you mean" is very hypocritical when 9/10 posts you see from enablers refuse to acknowledge anything negative he does.

If you are firmly in that camp, stop pretending to acknowledge any shortcomings. Continue living in the blissful world where Roy Williams actually justifies his salary and really is an All Pro.

But continue please. Feign objectivity some more. It really makes you more convincing.

*Is* there a world where RW doesn't quite justify a large salary, isn't an all pro, but is still a Cowboy, a valuable player, and a good SS?

If so, when we see our fellow fans making statements routinely that are not only untrue, but in some cases disrespectful and plain stupid, what are we supposed to do? Ignore it b/c we don't want to be accused of engaging in an argument of semantics?

Because he can demonstrate that he's usually right, Adam takes a lot of heat in these posts by the most ignorant of the bashers. But a few posts above your own, he details his estimation of Roy in coverage. Putting you on the spot, Alexander. Does he or doesn't he 'acknowledge anything negative [Roy] does.' in this very thread? Or were you just exaggerating again and being intentionally inaccurate so's not to mince?

 

[Kilyin]

im sory... wen i am talken to u, i alwase 'dum down' my post. if im not speaken to u, ur gonna haf to warn me if u wanna reed my stuff, so i can translait my wurds to moron fer ya.

Pra tell means, 'can ya tell me sumpin?

Owned.

(I really don't like that guy either, so maybe I'm biased...nah)

 

[AbeBeta]

*Is* there a world where RW doesn't quite justify a large salary, isn't an all pro, but is still a Cowboy, a valuable player, and a good SS?

If so, when we see our fellow fans making statements routinely that are not only untrue, but in some cases disrespectful and plain stupid, what are we supposed to do? Ignore it b/c we don't want to be accused of engaging in an argument of semantics?

The issue I have is that EVERYONE knows what people are talking about when they say "Roy can't cover" -- Hell, one of the GMs quoted in the article said exactly that. To fight for days about that literal translation comes off as diversion. It that gets away from exactly the type of point made in your first paragraph. Is he still a valuable player? is he a good SS? Do his liabilities in coverage completely negate his other skills? That's what the reasonable people on this board want to read and discuss, not some crap about what exactly is meant by "can't cover."

 

[AbeBeta]

Encouraging "saying what you mean" is very hypocritical ...

Especially when there are posts about every player that could be criticized on the same ground. I noted a post about Crayton yesterday where someone say "he always fair catches" or something like that.

Do we ALL know what that means? Yes, clearly PC fair catches more than we'd like but taken LITERALLY that statement means he ONLY fair catches and that clearly is not true.

It isn't hard to find example after example of statements like this. That some of Roy's supporters have taken this issue to heart does seem, as you note, hypocritical in that they leave the same sort of comments alone regarding other players. Frankly, if every post were taken in the literal manner that we've seen regarding Roy, this board would rapidly lose members as most would seek out a less pedantic environment for discussion.

 

[peplaw06]

Especially when there are posts about every player that could be criticized on the same ground. I noted a post about Crayton yesterday where someone say "he always fair catches" or something like that.

Do we ALL know what that means? Yes, clearly PC fair catches more than we'd like but taken LITERALLY that statement means he ONLY fair catches and that clearly is not true.

It isn't hard to find example after example of statements like this. That some of Roy's supporters have taken this issue to heart does seem, as you note, hypocritical in that they leave the same sort of comments alone regarding other players. Frankly, if every post were taken in the literal manner that we've seen regarding Roy, this board would rapidly lose members as most would seek out a less pedantic environment for discussion.

The only difference being that the "PC always fair catches" cliche doesn't have enough momentum behind it to cause there to be large factions of fans who actually believe it, and believe it enough to have 5 different threads about Pat at any one time on the main board.

Other than that, I agree. But this is probably THE biggest critique of Roy, and IMO it is believed by many of the less discerning. One reason is because you have GMs and sports writers who repeat it.

 

[chinch]

It dawns on me that those of us who tend to believe that roy is less than stellar in coverage are being ridiculed for not having Adam's research abilities or resources. This somehow doesn't seem fair to me since nobody on the other side of the fence has this ability either but instead refer back to Adams information in order to validate their own claims. Again this harkens back to the euphamistic phrase "I'm not wrong! The world is!" If everyone (oops too literal) "many" people from all aspects of fandom and media can see that Roy is the weak link in our secondary, why aren't we allowed to express the eyeball test as a valid judge of ability or success? That's right, we are all idiots because we don't have the same abilities or resources... carry on.

or the desire to be such a tool for a mediocre player.

anyone watching the games - and being objective about what they see - knows Roy can't cover and makes major, major mistakes over and over and over. Mentioning stats in this context is really for people who don't know what they even see OR are defending a point which makes no sense.

again this year ROY IS OR WORST STARTER ON DEFENSE. no stats and homerism can change the fact. nothing we've seen from roy - not his attitude or admittal of not wanting to be thrown at or his vacations or non leadership - would make anyone think his downward spiral will magically reverse it's course

 

[Idgit]

The issue I have is that EVERYONE knows what people are talking about when they say "Roy can't cover" -- Hell, one of the GMs quoted in the article said exactly that. To fight for days about that literal translation comes off as diversion. It that gets away from exactly the type of point made in your first paragraph. Is he still a valuable player? is he a good SS? Do his liabilities in coverage completely negate his other skills? That's what the reasonable people on this board want to read and discuss, not some crap about what exactly is meant by "can't cover."

You can't have a meaningful discussion about what kind of player he is if you can't abandon exaggeration when discussing his responsibilities and his abilities on the field. There's no point in trying.

The discussion in this thread wasn't about the semantics of what 'can't cover' means. It's about rhetorical accuracy. The inaccuracy is what polarizes people. An accurate discussion of his abilities would be boring, because everyone really believes he's at least average an nobody believes he's met our early expectations for him.

 

[Idgit]

It dawns on me that those of us who tend to believe that roy is less than stellar in coverage are being ridiculed for not having Adam's research abilities or resources. This somehow doesn't seem fair to me since nobody on the other side of the fence has this ability either but instead refer back to Adams information in order to validate their own claims. Again this harkens back to the euphamistic phrase "I'm not wrong! The world is!" If everyone (oops too literal) "many" people from all aspects of fandom and media can see that Roy is the weak link in our secondary, why aren't we allowed to express the eyeball test as a valid judge of ability or success? That's right, we are all idiots because we don't have the same abilities or resources... carry on.

This post implies you've read at least some of this thread and have come away thinking there are those who think Roy Williams is at least 'stellar' and is possibly more than stellar in coverage. Care to find a single poster who fits in that category? Literally, just find one and I'll back off. It doesn't even have to be in this thread. Find a single 'apologist' in the last year who's said or even hinted that Roy Williams is strong in coverage. I wonder if you'll be able to?

While you look for such a post and can't find it with both hands, though, bear in mind that it's this type of emotional exaggeration that brings ridicule. It has nothing to do with your ability or resources for research.

 

[jobberone]

Your post didn't make sense. My pointing that out doesn't make it a personal attack. A lil' sensitive aren't we? I didn't "fail to help make your point???" How does me telling you your post doesn't make sense help make your point?

.

I didn't read anything after this as I assume its more of the same. Your post doesn't make any sense, continues to be abrasive and offensive, and is so full of cognitive distortions as to make any civil and logical response problematic.

 

[superpunk]

An accurate discussion of his abilities would be boring, because everyone really believes he's at least average an nobody believes he's met our early expectations for him.

Good statement.

I think both parties agree.

Roy's PR team is just capable of expressing themselves clearly. They say what they mean. The other side would rather just express their frustration in exaggerations and half truths. They believe that being accurate about Roy's abilities is somehow "covering" for him or softening the blow.

Whatever.

I think both sides agree.

I wish both sides would agree to express themselves above a third-grade level.

 

[JonJon]

The only difference being that the "PC always fair catches" cliche doesn't have enough momentum behind it to cause there to be large factions of fans who actually believe it, and believe it enough to have 5 different threads about Pat at any one time on the main board.

Other than that, I agree. But this is probably THE biggest critique of Roy, and IMO it is believed by many of the less discerning. One reason is because you have GMs and sports writers who repeat it.

I don't think anyone really believes that Roy can't cover in the sense that he doesn't have the physical or mental capacity to cover and would fail at it 100% of the time. However, the majority believe that Roy's coverage skills are so poor that he is a detriment to the team.

You can argue that the phrase, "Roy can't cover" can mean a variety of specific things, as there are many different ways to say basically the same thing, but it all revolves around the general theme that coverage is not one of Roy's strong suits. There is no sense in making a big deal out of someone saying that "Roy can't cover" simply because they did not go into specifics.

The normal thinking mind would automatically recognize this as an exaggeration and get the point of what is really being said. Taking things too literally can cause you to miss the point.

The truth, however, is that no one can prove for a fact that Roy is good or bad in coverage. The best we can do is take perspective from watching him play and form our own conclusions. You can provide stats and visual evidence to support your claim, but it will never be a fact for either way.