GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[theogt]

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.

I wish I could post the overhead view of the play. I can say without equivocation that Roy did not take a bad angle on that play.

The play begins on the (offensive) left hash mark. Roy is lined up about 12 yards back on the right hash marks. The play develops to the offensive right, looking like every other sweep that the Packers had been using with Grant recently (if you followed Grant closely they used him almost exclusively in sweeps and draw plays), so Roy comes down the field about a yard outside the right has mark, ready for the sweep. But it's not a sweep this time, it's a simple handoff and as Grant crosses the LOS, he immediately cuts back to the left hash mark, the opposite side of the field to Roy. There's virtually no physical way that Roy could have made the tackle.

 

[28 Joker]

"The things we saw in Roy years ago, I saw some good things. I think I can get with him and we can see if we can progress. I think Roy has skills and I think he can play better than he's playing".

Dave Campo (second hand source; Pro Football Weekly)

 

[starfrombirth]

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?

WG, this is one of the more reasonable posts regarding the subject. Many fans have always know that Roys strength was not coverage but teams still feared to pass in his direction for fear of game changing even multiple game affecting hits. Now, however, his coverage has somehow gotten worse but there aren't any "ooooh!" plays to compensate and make teams fear him so now he is the point of attack. There are safeties in the nfl who make a difference for the teams they are on and qb's don't make it a habit of passing in their area and THAT is the point of emphasis. Roy is paid and expected to play at an elite level. He may not be the worst of the SS's in the leage or even in the bottom half but he is certainly NOT elite and in my judgement, without the game changing hits, even in the top 15. Bring back those hits though and my opinion most likely changes. I don't believe that you can be great in everything but if you play for my cowboys, you better be great at something. Thanks for listening

 

[jobberone]

I'm not certain all of us will be swayed by big hits. While I am of the opinion that big hits put the fear into some players, not all are affected by this aspect. And I could care less of the big hits from just the spectacle of it. Sure I like to see them but I don't need them. I do need very solid play.

 

[AbeBeta]

The discussion in this thread wasn't about the semantics of what 'can't cover' means. It's about rhetorical accuracy.

I see. "Rhetorical accuracy" rather than "semantics" -- what a load of crap.

Clearly when people say he can't cover everyone know that is a critique of his coverage skills rather than a literal statement that he is totally incapable of coverage. If you want to defend the player's coverage ability then defend it. Don't rely on tearing down stupid straw man arguments.

 

[AdamJT13]

It's amazing that some people so adamantly defend saying something they admittedly know is false, then obsess when someone says it's false.

 

[AbeBeta]

I'm not certain all of us will be swayed by big hits. While I am of the opinion that big hits put the fear into some players, not all are affected by this aspect. And I could care less of the big hits from just the spectacle of it. Sure I like to see them but I don't need them. I do need very solid play.

Hits are part of a bigger "image" package -- that certainly falls outside of statistical measurement but when you have WRs legitimately afraid that they may get clobbered then it plays into alligator arms and poorly run routes. Although I think there is something important about how the team and fans react after a big hit it is far more important to have an occasional hit on film to get into the head of, say, the WR who is going over the middle. If you change even 1 play a week because of that fear then you've made a huge contribution that will never show up on the stat sheet.

But as to the rest of your post, a guy like Roy, when he's playing at his best, will have those hits come. The perceived lack of big hits may be one of several indications that his game just isn't where it was earlier in his career.

 

[AbeBeta]

It's amazing that some people so adamantly defend saying something they admittedly know is false, then obsess when someone says it's false.

Some would say it is amazing that you continue to attribute purely literal meaning to those claims.

 

[Rampage]

 

[JonJon]

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"

.
Both Hamlin and Roy took bad angles. However, we are talking about Roy here, which is why I didn't mention Hamlin.

I wish I could post the overhead view of the play. I can say without equivocation that Roy did not take a bad angle on that play.

The play begins on the (offensive) left hash mark. Roy is lined up about 12 yards back on the right hash marks. The play develops to the offensive right, looking like every other sweep that the Packers had been using with Grant recently (if you followed Grant closely they used him almost exclusively in sweeps and draw plays), so Roy comes down the field about a yard outside the right has mark, ready for the sweep. But it's not a sweep this time, it's a simple handoff and as Grant crosses the LOS, he immediately cuts back to the left hash mark, the opposite side of the field to Roy. There's virtually no physical way that Roy could have made the tackle.

I went back and looked again. At first appears to be a sweep to the right, like you said but Grant counters left into Hamlin's lane, so most of the blame is on him. However, I wouldn't say that it was impossible for Roy to make that tackle. It appeared that Roy was already committed to the run to the right, and when he recognized the cut, he took a step inwards which put him out of place. Had he took a a lateral step to his right instead of taking a step forward, he should have been able to make the tackle. I wish I had time to post pics but I've gotta run so maybe we can pick this up later.

 

[theogt]

I went back and looked again. At first appears to be a sweep to the right, like you said but counters left into Hamlin's lane, so most of the blame is on him. However, I wouldn't say that it was impossible for Roy to make that tackle. It appeared that Roy was already committed to the run to the right, and when he recognized the cut, he took a step inwards which put him out of place. Had he took a a lateral step to his right instead of taking a step forward, he should have been able to make the tackle. I wish I had time to post pics but I've gotta run so maybe we can pick this up later.

If Roy was psychic and could tell before the play that it was not a sweep and that he was countering to the offensive left, yes he could have taken a sidestep to his right and made the tackle. But based on his responsibility and how the play initially developed, he could not have, in my opinion. He started on the opposite hashmark and his key on the play is the O-line flow, which was to the offensive right, so he drifted to the offensive right.

Either way, clearly the vast majority of the blame for that play falls on both Ayodele and Hamlin. There's possibly a minimal chance that Roy could have made the play, but that would have required him being out of position on the play. Certainly not an example of an "inconsistent" play by Roy.

Just think if it'd been Roy that got "blowed up" by the fullback instead of Ayodele. He'd been ragged on for days. Yet no one notices that Ayodele was leveled by the fullback. The coaches notice, though, and Ayodele's not on the team anymore, whereas Roy is.

 

[WoodysGirl]

.
Both Hamlin and Roy took bad angles. However, we are talking about Roy here, which is why I didn't mention Hamlin.

I realize we're talking about Roy; but this particular play included both Roy and Hamlin and that was my original opinion of the play. I don't think you can discuss this play without speaking on both of them.

 

[jobberone]

Hits are part of a bigger "image" package -- that certainly falls outside of statistical measurement but when you have WRs legitimately afraid that they may get clobbered then it plays into alligator arms and poorly run routes. Although I think there is something important about how the team and fans react after a big hit it is far more important to have an occasional hit on film to get into the head of, say, the WR who is going over the middle. If you change even 1 play a week because of that fear then you've made a huge contribution that will never show up on the stat sheet.

But as to the rest of your post, a guy like Roy, when he's playing at his best, will have those hits come. The perceived lack of big hits may be one of several indications that his game just isn't where it was earlier in his career.

Well as I said some are affected by fear of a big hit but a lot aren't. They're going to go over the middle or wherever and take the hit for the catch. And I suspect you're right about his level of play speaking to much less big hits.

If Roy was psychic and could tell before the play that it was not a sweep and that he was countering to the offensive left, yes he could have taken a sidestep to his right and made the tackle. But based on his responsibility and how the play initially developed, he could not have, in my opinion.

Either way, clearly the vast majority of the blame for that play falls on both Ayodele and Hamlin. There's possibly a minimal chance that Roy could have made the play, but that would have required him being out of position on the play. Certainly not an example of an "inconsistent" play by Roy.

Just think if it'd been Roy that got "blowed up" by the fullback instead of Ayodele. He'd been ragged on for days. Yet no one notices that Ayodele was leveled by the fullback. The coaches notice, though, and Ayodele's not on the team anymore, whereas Roy is.

Well you are right on one thing. Akin was definitely number one in guilt. But you're in the minority as to not finding fault with Roy.

I realize we're talking about Roy; but this particular play included both Roy and Hamlin and that was my original opinion of the play. I don't think you can discuss this play without speaking on both of them.

No you can't WG. They both looked bad on that play.

 

[theogt]

Well you are right on one thing. Akin was definitely number one in guilt. But you're in the minority as to not finding fault with Roy.

The vast majority of people can't actually look at a play a tell who's to blame.

 

[jobberone]

The vast majority of people can't actually look at a play a tell who's to blame.

What. A blanket statement. Not fair under the terms of the treaty. Just messing with you.

I can tell on that one which is the only one I was commenting on. Akin, then Hamlin and Roy. It's not a big thing though.

 

[theogt]

What. A blanket statement. Not fair under the terms of the treaty. Just messing with you.

I can tell on that one which is the only one I was commenting on. Akin, then Hamlin and Roy. It's not a big thing though.

You think Hamlin and Roy are equally to blame?

 

[Idgit]

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.

I actually haven't seen the posts. And I didn't ask you to spend hours finding numerous statements, I asked you to find a single statement, from anybody, that said RW was stellar in coverage. Unless of course you were just offering more meaningless hyperbole.

 

[Idgit]

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.

So, we can put to rest the myth that RW-enablers won't offer criticism of RW? Really, what you were saying it is they don't offer it enough for your liking, or they don't offer it without being asked to do so, which isn't really saying very much at all. They fact is, they offer it when it's relevant or when it comes up in the course of a thread. That should be sufficient.

And, generally speaking, opinions are 'less than slanted' when supported by evidence. This is territory we've gone over and over. I'd love nothing more to see these RW threads contain more posts where people debate their positions using evidence. The only problem is, all of the people who use evidence and knowledge to support their opinions are on the same side of the debate.

 

[Idgit]

I see. "Rhetorical accuracy" rather than "semantics" -- what a load of crap.

Clearly when people say he can't cover everyone know that is a critique of his coverage skills rather than a literal statement that he is totally incapable of coverage. If you want to defend the player's coverage ability then defend it. Don't rely on tearing down stupid straw man arguments.

There's no straw man to tear down. It's just an inaccurate statement that you keep repeating. If you'd stop repeating it, we'd stop pointing out that it's a stupid way to make a point.

I'd rather read and respond to your point than have to interpret how far out on the limb you actually are before replying to you. But you shouldn't expect me to make a guess as to what you actually meant and respond to an assumption when you're perfectly capable of forming accurate thoughts.

And it's not a semantical argument. We're not debating the meaning of words. Everybody on both sides can agree that the issue is that you're just not using the words that represent your actual opinions. The problem is rhetorical, not semantical.

 

[28 Joker]

I wish I could post the overhead view of the play. I can say without equivocation that Roy did not take a bad angle on that play.

The play begins on the (offensive) left hash mark. Roy is lined up about 12 yards back on the right hash marks. The play develops to the offensive right, looking like every other sweep that the Packers had been using with Grant recently (if you followed Grant closely they used him almost exclusively in sweeps and draw plays), so Roy comes down the field about a yard outside the right has mark, ready for the sweep. But it's not a sweep this time, it's a simple handoff and as Grant crosses the LOS, he immediately cuts back to the left hash mark, the opposite side of the field to Roy. There's virtually no physical way that Roy could have made the tackle.

theotg,

Your safeties can't get split like that and give up fast points. The Packers ran right at Dallas on that play. Hamlin bit too hard forward and missed him, and Roy just looked slow getting over there. Therefore, his angle wasn't great. By the time he arrived, Grant was by him as he broke through Hamlin. As a rusult, Roy just tripped on Hamlin. Grant split right through both of them. Two Pro Bowl safeties shouldn't get spit on that play. Freeze that play at the 0:45 second mark and look at the play. Both safeties have enough space to make a play, but neither one does.

I will say, Roy put two real good licks on Grant in that game.

The next week at Detroit, the run defense suffered. The Grant play was just one play. The next week is when Dallas' run D gave up about 150 to the Lions. It was uncharacteristic for sure.

Look at the TJ Duckett long TD.

Do you think Roy misplayed that run? He might not be the only one, but he is the last line of defense as the 8th guy in the box.