GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[bbgun]

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.

Conceding that he's merely "average" would be interpreted by some to be heresy or a putdown. As recently as last year, he was referred to as an "elite, top 5" safety and "far above average." That's what ignited the backlash. Somewhere along the way, the Roy Mafioso seduced themselves into thinking that mindless zealotry on behalf of a Cowboy player would be excused, welcomed, or never labeled "obnoxious." Wrong.

 

[peplaw06]

I didn't read anything after this as I assume its more of the same.

Translation: "Your post was too long for me to read."

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.

That's quite a, shall we say, "interesting" description of my post there, considering you didn't read it.

 

[peplaw06]

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.

If that's all it revolved around, there would be no debate. I don't believe that coverage is Roy's strong suit, and as everyone else in "Roy's PR team" has stated, none of us do.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Conceding that he's merely "average" would be interpreted by some to be heresy or a putdown. As recently as last year, he was referred to as an "elite, top 5" safety and "far above average." That's what ignited the backlash. Somewhere along the way, the Roy Mafioso seduced themselves into thinking that mindless zealotry on behalf of a Cowboy player would be excused, welcomed, or never labeled "obnoxious." Wrong.

Yes this thread is a play on semantics, but it does give rise to why there's a fence between fans re: Roy. Talking specific discussion points vs debating exaggerations gets old. I think that's the overall point of those who are involved.

I think the best debates re: Roy's coverage are when they focus on specific plays, because if nothing else, it's focusing on something tangible vs blanket statements.

When comparing Roy to other SS, I've never felt he was as awful as others in the league. Watching the Texans weekly will do that to you, tho.

 

[bbgun]

When comparing Roy to other SS, I've never felt he was as awful as others in the league. Watching the Texans weekly will do that to you, tho.

Well that's just it. Is he legitimately good, or does he only look good in comparison to his underwhelming peers at strong safety? After all, they have to send someone to the Pro Bowl every February. Maybe he's simply the best of a bad lot, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. Sort of like winning a beauty contest in Chernobyl.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Well that's just it. Is he legitimately good, or does he only look good in comparison to his underwhelming peers at strong safety? After all, they have to send someone to the Pro Bowl every February. Maybe he's simply the best of a bad lot, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. Sort of like winning a beauty contest in Chernobyl.

Would I be a fence sitter if I said it's a bit of both? He's a good player, that even with declined play, he's still better than most safeties at his position. Bring back some woo hits and blind side some receivers, and fans will be happy.

2007 is the only season where I thought certain criticisms of Roy were legitimate. Others may feel differently, but that JMO. If not for the sucky loss in 2005 against the Skins, I think the venom he gets now would be alot less. It doesn't mean he wouldn't get criticized, but some of the outright, 'he needs to be kicked off the team venom,' would be alot less.

In 2007, who would you have voted into the probowl position at the SS spot? Roy's got name recognition for sure, but the rest of the NFC lot, really weren't that good in comparison.

Because that's what the arguments re: the strong safety position matters. As a strong safety, how does he match up against his peers? I know folks hate statistics, but when using them to compare his numbers to others, he still ranks at the top. If not the combo of stats and video, what else can you use to go by?

 

[jobberone]

Translation: "Your post was too long for me to read."That's quite a, shall we say, "interesting" description of my post there, considering you didn't read it.

Your post was too long and likely to be just as boring and obnoxious for me to want to read more than a sentence would be accurate.

If you truly want your opinion noted then I would not begin a retort with you must be drunk to write that because to me its obvious it makes no sense.

 

[JonJon]

I think another problem is that Roy is not consistent. He is not consistently good nor is he consistently bad. I think everyone can agree to that.
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2110902
I went back and re-watched the Cowboys/Packers game. Roy made some good plays and there were plays were you just shake your head and say, "what is Roy doing?"

For example: Roy exploded through a running lane and knocked Ryan Grant off his feet at the line of scrimmage for a no gain. Later on in the quarter, Roy was tentative at the point of attack as Ryan Grant shot past our linebackers. Roy took a bad angle and collided with Hamlin as Ryan Grant slid through nearly untouched and galloped for a TD.

This is what frustrates people, seeing an obviously talented player making mistakes that a player of his talent level should not be making. But it happens. After all, there are professionals on the other side of the ball as well and Roy is not going to win every battle.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I think another problem is that Roy is not consistent. He is not consistently good nor is he consistently bad. I think everyone can agree to that.

I went back and re-watched the Cowboys/Packers game. Roy made some good plays and there were plays were you just shake your head and say, "what is Roy doing?"

For example: Roy exploded through a running lane and knocked Ryan Grant off his feet at the line of scrimmage for a no gain. Later on in the quarter, Roy was tentative at the point of attack as Ryan Grant shot past our linebackers. Roy took a bad angle and collided with Hamlin as Ryan Grant slid through nearly untouched and galloped for a TD.

This is what frustrates people, seeing an obviously talented player making mistakes that a player of his talent level should not be making. But it happens. After all, there are professionals on the other side of the ball as well and Roy is not going to win every battle.

Interesting you blame a bad angle on Roy, but I remember when I first saw the play, I thought Hamlin blew Roy out of the play. I thought Roy had Grant and Hamlin came out of nowhere and blew him up. I could be wrong now, but I remember when I first saw it, I thought "damn Hamlin"

 

[Rampage]

Interesting you blame a bad angle on Roy, but I remember when I first saw the play, I thought Hamlin blew Roy out of the play. I thought Roy had Grant and Hamlin came out of nowhere and blew him up. I could be wrong now, but I remember when I first saw it, I thought "damn Hamlin"

he wasn't gonna touch grant(he had another bad angle) on that play whether Hamlin bumped him or not. both our safeties were out of position on that play.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

why are we arguing about Roy Williams again...

I forget

 

[theogt]

he wasn't gonna touch grant(he had another bad angle) on that play whether Hamlin bumped him or not. both our safeties were out of position on that play.

Roy was exactly where he was supposed to be on that play. Hamlin took a terrible angle and missed the tackle.

Yet Roy gets the blame. This is what frustrates the "Roy PR team."

 

[jobberone]

I think another problem is that Roy is not consistent. He is not consistently good nor is he consistently bad. I think everyone can agree to that.

I went back and re-watched the Cowboys/Packers game. Roy made some good plays and there were plays were you just shake your head and say, "what is Roy doing?"

For example: Roy exploded through a running lane and knocked Ryan Grant off his feet at the line of scrimmage for a no gain. Later on in the quarter, Roy was tentative at the point of attack as Ryan Grant shot past our linebackers. Roy took a bad angle and collided with Hamlin as Ryan Grant slid through nearly untouched and galloped for a TD.

This is what frustrates people, seeing an obviously talented player making mistakes that a player of his talent level should not be making. But it happens. After all, there are professionals on the other side of the ball as well and Roy is not going to win every battle.

This is the kind of debate I like to see. The Gant TD is a good example of exasperating play. But Hamlin was at fault, too. And I find it difficult to discuss play by play problems when everyone acknowledges every pro makes mistakes.

That means some people believe Roy either makes too many mistakes or at least some of his mistakes are too glaring to dismiss.

And the defense that Roy is at least as good as the average safety is not without merit. Obviously, to me at least, he's better than the average safety. The question is then "Is Roy's better than average play good enough?". Then good enough for what? I'm fairly certain that there is no one on this club good enough to take his job. At least in its entirety. He may be moved to another position on 3rd and long or even to the bench. Will Hamlin be moved off the field by a CB on a 3-3-5 defense? Will Roy?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Roy was exactly where he was supposed to be on that play. Hamlin took a terrible angle and missed the tackle.

Yet Roy gets the blame. This is what frustrates the "Roy PR team."

I love this one

"if Hamlin doesn't miss the tackle, Roy would still miss it"

idk if you remember that discussion

 

[theogt]

I love this one

"if Hamlin doesn't miss the tackle, Roy would still miss it"

idk if you remember that discussion

There's a great view of the play from Hamlin's backside. It's great because you can almost see the play exactly from Hamlin's view. He had perfect vision of Grant the entire play and could see the cut back. He just took an absolutely terrible angle. Roy was on his half of the field and likely couldn't see the ball carrier among the mass of players (Roy was behind the mass whereas Hamlin was to its side). Roy played it nicely in that he didn't break toward the outside or inside, because Grant could realistically go either way.

Grant cuts back and heads right to Hamlin, who whiffs because of his bad angle.

 

[bbgun]

Would I be a fence sitter if I said it's a bit of both? He's a good player, that even with declined play, he's still better than most safeties at his position. Bring back some woo hits and blind side some receivers, and fans will be happy.

2007 is the only season where I thought certain criticisms of Roy were legitimate. Others may feel differently, but that JMO. If not for the sucky loss in 2005 against the Skins, I think the venom he gets now would be alot less. It doesn't mean he wouldn't get criticized, but some of the outright, 'he needs to be kicked off the team venom,' would be alot less.

I don't need the big hits; in fact, some of his best games are when his name is hardly ever called. Some of the scrutiny he brings on himself, mainly because he's not a sunny personality and the fact that he's a little too cavalier after a bad game. That is, if he even sticks around to be interviewed. He's also a "victim" of the high level of play exhibited early in his career, as well as his draft slot and generous salary. If Patrick Watkins (or someone similar) put up the exact same numbers, we'd be ecstatic because he'd represent great value. Conversely, it's hard to conceive of "elite" safeties who have to come out on certain passing downs or be "hidden" in some way.

In 2007, who would you have voted into the probowl position at the SS spot? Roy's got name recognition for sure, but the rest of the NFC lot, really weren't that good in comparison.

Well, it helped that two classic strong safeties (Taylor and Hamlin) were masquerading as free safeties last year--though Hamlin is excellent at both. And if we're being honest, coaches and players are just as susceptible to name recognition/reputation as the fans. Call it professional courtesy (Larry Allen, anyone?) Roy benefiting from anemic competition is not his fault, obviously, but let's dispense with the notion that his Hawaii sojourn had anything to do with "merit" or "excellence." Taking first prize in an "ugly contest" is hardly a feather in his cap.

Because that's what the arguments re: the strong safety position matters. As a strong safety, how does he match up against his peers? I know folks hate statistics, but when using them to compare his numbers to others, he still ranks at the top. If not the combo of stats and video, what else can you use to go by?

Sorry, not a stat or rotisserie guy. Then again, I'm guessing that Roy's fans aren't spending much time at STATS LLC before casting their votes. If they like you, you're in. That's how a broken down Willie Mays kept starting All Star Games late in his career.

 

[Alexander]

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?

Only when pressed. And asked specifically. Otherwise it is a collection of pie charts, histograms, screenshots and statistical nonsense that paints Williams' exploits in a better light than they deserve.

For example, dare someone say he has become a sloppy tackler? You get the "90 plus" tackle argument, which is completely basic and hardly accurate to the tone of the discussion. Sloppiness can't be "proven" any more than a bad angle can. So therefore, it isn't a case of "right" or "wrong", it is opinion. Which is what the majority of these debates are about anyways and should be.

I don't have an issue with someone being an enabler, really. Just do not start "myth" threads disproving hyperbole then acting innocent while trying to protray your opinion as anything less than slanted.

 

[28 Joker]

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/NFC/NFC+East/Dallas/WWHI/default.htm?channel=2007

If you just watch the play, both safeties, including Roy, took bad angles to the ball carrier (Ryan Grant). This is just one source on the play. You will have to scroll down to November 10 or so to see it. They talk about the poor run defense by the safeties in the Lions game as well.

 

[starfrombirth]

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.

Adam has said numerous times that Roy is actually not bad in coverage and is falsely accused. I will grant that there are coverage lapses inaccurately attributed to Roy. But those few moments aside, there are a lot of times that the blown coverage is his fault. "HE CAN'T COVER!". Adam is not the only one who has stated this and you know as well as I do that there are many on this board defending that very premise. I'm not going to go back and spend hours pulling numerous statements to "prove" what you know as well as I do. I'm not going to play that game of idiocy. You've seen the posts. I've seen the posts and so have many others.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I don't need the big hits; in fact, some of his best games are when his name is hardly ever called.

I've thought that too. And then I get on here, and thought maybe I watched the wrong game.

Some of the scrutiny he brings on himself, mainly because he's not a sunny personality and the fact that he's a little too cavalier after a bad game. That is, if he even sticks around to be interviewed.

There's alot of players that don't wait around to be interviewed. Matter of fact some go out their way to avoid them just like Roy. They're not as criticized as much. If they're a fan favorite, then it's not an issue. Do I think Roy should speak to the media more, absolutely. The problem is he's so bad at public speaking, I'd rather he keep quiet.

He's also a "victim" of the high level of play exhibited early in his career, as well as his draft slot and generous salary. If Patrick Watkins (or someone similar) put up the exact same numbers, we'd be ecstatic because he'd represent great value. Conversely, it's hard to conceive of "elite" safeties who have to come out on certain passing downs or be "hidden" in some way.

I agree to an extent...as far as him being a victim of his own early success. On the flip side, I look at it like it's the coaches job to put the players in the best position to succeed. If that means moving them around or taking them off the field on a certain call, then all the better.

Well, it helped that two classic strong safeties (Taylor and Hamlin) were masquerading as free safeties last year--though Hamlin is excellent at both. And if we're being honest, coaches and players are just as susceptible to name recognition/reputation as the fans. Call it professional courtesy (Larry Allen, anyone?) Roy benefiting from anemic competition is not his fault, obviously, but let's dispense with the notion that his Hawaii sojourn had anything to do with "merit" or "excellence." Taking first prize in an "ugly contest" is hardly a feather in his cap.

Maybe not. But it's not Roy's fault, no one's able to beautify themselves enough to take his crown either. It's all relative.

Sorry, not a stat or rotisserie guy. Then again, I'm guessing that Roy's fans aren't spending much time at STATS LLC before casting their votes. If they like you, you're in. That's how a broken down Willie Mays kept starting All Star Games late in his career.

I agree...after awhile, there are definitely some reputation votes cast for a player. But my point you're responding to wasn't well written by me. I was just referring to fan discussion on this forum. Can't speak for the millions of other fans. When discussing the merits of a player after the game is over, all you have left are stats and video. So when debating a specific point, at least on this board, stats and vids help to define an opinion more...than just going with opinion alone.