GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[theogt]

I'm not saying anything other than we have one camp saying "myth" and GMs endorsing that.

I'm not arguing the point either way -- just highlighting some opinions.

Like Adam said, there aren't any myths here other than the can't cover.

One guy essentially says he'd give up a 2nd rounder for him. That actually seems to be a pretty good endorsement to me. There's not a safety in the league that I'd give a 1st round pick for in a trade.

 

[superpunk]

Lito Sheppard, cornerback, Philadelphia

When the Eagles signed free agent Asante Samuels to a gazillion-dollar deal, Sheppard became expendable. The club tried to package him in trades before the draft but without luck, so now Sheppard returns to the Eagles as their third cornerback. But for how long? Philadelphia insists he plays there this year, but tell me the Eagles wouldn't jump if someone made them a decent offer. So what's your definition of decent?

GM No. 1: "I wouldn't give you anything for him. I mean that. He's a zone corner who can't play in Cover Two because he won't tackle. He doesn't like to hit. Plus, he gets hurt too much, and he's limited in his coverage skills. He reacts to things, he's instinctive and he has ball skills. But he hasn't played a complete season in the last three years, and he's someone who doesn't want to tackle."

GM No. 2: "Now this is a guy I like. I think he's a terrific player, and I'd be willing to give a third or a future second for him. I don't know that I would look at him as a starter, but he would be no worse than my third cornerback -- and in today's game I think you need three good ones. Anyway, I like him. The downside is that he wants a new contract, and that's a concern. So are the injuries.

One thing I always admired about teams like the Eagles and the Patriots is they do what they want to do, not what the player wants them to do. If the Eagles want to trade him, and they get the right price, he's gone. If they believe they can win with him, they'll keep him. And if they believe he's a distraction they'll cut him. But if you're going to make the deal you better have the contract settled first. No way would I make the trade, then try to work something out."

GM No. 3: "I wouldn't want him, and one reason is that he missed an average of five games over the last three years. So he's always getting hurt. But he's not physical, and he wants a new contract. So you're looking at $6 million to $7 million a year for a guy who plays 10 or 11 games a year and doesn't hit anybody? No thanks."

GM No. 4: "I look at Sheppard as a solid cornerback, maybe the 10th or 11th best guy out there, but he's not someone you build a defense around. Which means I wouldn't be able to pay what I think he's asking. But I would be willing to deal a third-rounder for him because he's young, and he can step in and start for you tomorrow. He's not a physical player, so that will limit his options. He's not going to play for a Tampa-2 defense where your cornerbacks must support the run. But he can play."

I wonder if these are "former" GMs. I think probably so.

These seem like analyst comments - not comments from current football minds.

 

[Idgit]

I'm not saying anything other than we have one camp saying "myth" and GMs endorsing that.

I'm not arguing the point either way -- just highlighting some opinions.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the myths.

 

[theebs]

Have at 'em folks. I do think it is interesting that GMs endorse "myths" about Roy. I guess GMs don't know what they are talking about.

from ...http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10855212

Roy Williams, safety, Dallas


GM No. 1: "Probably a third-rounder. He's a box safety who's limited in coverage. In my estimation he's overrated because there are certain things he can't do -- though tackling isn't one of them. He's a good, physical player, but, like I said, he's limited. Now when you're looking at what you could get in the third round at safety, there's no comparison. He's better. Much better. Still, I wouldn't give up much more than that."

GM No. 2: "He's always been a talented player, but he's more of a linebacker than a safety who can cover. Someone like John Lynch. It's been documented how much trouble he has covering receivers, but he's very active and very physical. The guy has problems now, so how do you deal with it? The Cowboys do it by taking him off the field. From what I know of him he has no character issues, but now you have some of his teammates popping off and you wonder where it goes from here. But, I'll be honest with you, I don't know enough about the guy to know what I would give for him. All I know is he's limited, and that would make me wary."

GM No. 3: "I wouldn't want him because he can't cover. He has to find a defense that suits him because the closer he is to the defensive line the better he is, and the farther away he is the more he becomes a liability."

GM No. 4: "You'd have to fit him to the right scheme because he's more of a box safety than he is someone who can help you in the passing game. He's still young and healthy, so that's good. And if you find the right club -- say, like a New England, where Rodney Harrison was a good fit -- he can be productive and make big plays. If I'm that team I might be interested in dealing a low second- or a third-round pick."

what in the world. If you are man enough to criticize someone, put your name on it. If you are a GM in this league and have opinions to give to reporters, put your name on it.

What a bunch of crap.

oh and Rodney harrison and Roy williams are the same player. Rodney has a little more fire and I dare say roy is a better safety in my eyes when it comes to agility and moving around.

Imagine this. Your in the super bowl, its third and long. If your defense gets the stop you are most likely going to win the superbowl. Late in the 4th qtr. The ball is snapped the pressure gets to the qb, they have him he is going down and then all of a sudden he gets free and throws a prayer right down the middle of the field. Amazingly the wr catches it. You end up losing.

Hello? now open your eyes. Its rodney harrison. Beat like a drum by a scrub wr on what some call the most incredible play in super bowl history.

so here is my note to the media, go right articles on how harrison cant cover. Cause I know that if Roy Williams got beat in the super bowl by a scrub wr right down the middle of the field where he was supposed to be they would talk about it all day.

sorry for ranting.

 

[Idgit]

Like Adam said, there aren't any myths here other than the can't cover.

One guy essentially says he'd give up a 2nd rounder for him. That actually seems to be a pretty good endorsement to me. There's not a safety in the league that I'd give a 1st round pick for in a trade.

Roy Williams is worth more than Jason Taylor, despite the fact that he can't cover?

 

[bbgun]

There's not a safety in the league that I'd give a 1st round pick for in a trade.

I'd venture there's quite a few teams that would fork over a first for a promising talent like Leron Landry.

 

[AbeBeta]

Like Adam said, there aren't any myths here other than the can't cover.

One guy essentially says he'd give up a 2nd rounder for him. That actually seems to be a pretty good endorsement to me. There's not a safety in the league that I'd give a 1st round pick for in a trade.

And as I said that "myth" is to me, the one that has generated the most talk on the board.

Again, I'm not arguing either way -- I do want to hear a response from people who support the "myth" perspective though. Are these GMs just stupid? Or does this suggest that may not be such a "myth"

 

[AbeBeta]

Roy Williams is worth more than Jason Taylor, despite the fact that he can't cover?

He's a bit younger....

 

[superpunk]

epic rant

Damnnnnnnnnn....

Church!

 

[AbeBeta]

oh and Rodney harrison and Roy williams are the same player. Rodney has a little more fire

and more jewelry...

 

[theogt]

I'd venture there's quite a few teams that would fork over a first for a promising talent like Leron Landry.

And I'd venture that there's quite a few teams that would not fork over a first for a safety like Laron Landry, who is also limited in coverage.

 

[AdamJT13]

Be fair -- they all mentioned coverage as a limitation.

and really, that's the most important of the "myths"

Except the only "myth" is that he can't cover at all. Obviously, he can. Saying he's limited in coverage was never on the list, because that's been known since he was in college.

If you read the full article, it's obvious that even GMs exaggerate. One said Lito Sheppard "won't tackle" -- but he obviously WILL, given that he has 200 or so career tackles. He might not like to or be very good at it, but he will tackle.

The biggest thing in the article, to me, is the difference between some of the GMs. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 said they wouldn't want Chad Johnson at all (not for two cents or even for free). But No. 3 said he'd give up a first-round pick for him!

Nos. 1 and 4 said they'd give up a second- or third-round pick for Roy, but No. 3 wouldn't want him.

Nos. 2 and 4 would give up a third-rounder for Lito Sheppard, but Nos. 1 and 3 wouldn't give anything for him.

 

[theogt]

and more jewelry...

Brad Johnson has more jewelry than Romo.

*checks the depth chart*

Yup, Romo's still the starter.

 

[AbeBeta]

Except the only "myth" is that he can't cover at all. Obviously, he can. Saying he's limited in coverage was never on the list, because that's been known since he was in college.

If you read the full article, it's obvious that even GMs exaggerate. One said Lito Sheppard "won't tackle" -- but he obviously WILL, given that he has 200 or so career tackles. He might not like to or be very good at it, but he will tackle.

The biggest thing in the article, to me, is the difference between some of the GMs. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 said they wouldn't want Chad Johnson at all (not for two cents or even for free). But No. 3 said he'd give up a first-round pick for him!

Nos. 1 and 4 said they'd give up a second- or third-round pick for Roy, but No. 3 wouldn't want him.

Nos. 2 and 4 would give up a third-rounder for Lito Sheppard, but Nos. 1 and 3 wouldn't give anything for him.

Hmmm. I'd venture a guess that there isn't a DB in the league who you would be able to say "can't cover at all" -- and at least 1 GM said "can't cover"

Any speculation as to who #3 was?

 

[AbeBeta]

Brad Johnson has more jewelry than Romo.

*checks the depth chart*

Yup, Romo's still the starter.

Again, not saying better or worse, just highlighting differences between the players. I wasn't arguing that Harrison was better at anything except being meaner and a better leader - and I don't think anyone can dispute that.

 

[Idgit]

And as I said that "myth" is to me, the one that has generated the most talk on the board.

Again, I'm not arguing either way -- I do want to hear a response from people who support the "myth" perspective though. Are these GMs just stupid? Or does this suggest that may not be such a "myth"

The GMs, with one noted exception, are all agreeing with the people who say there are myths about RW. Nobody in the pro/neutral camp is going to argue that point.

He's a bit younger....

But he's not 'young,' he can't cover, he plays a less valuable position, and was never a DPOY caliber athlete.

If he's a good person off the field, more valuable than Jason Taylor on it, and there's not a better option available, what are the haters complaining about? That he's not more-valuable-than-Jason-Tayler-enough for what we're paying him?

 

[Rampage]

Except the only "myth" is that he can't cover at all. Obviously, he can. Saying he's limited in coverage was never on the list, because that's been known since he was in college.

If you read the full article, it's obvious that even GMs exaggerate. One said Lito Sheppard "won't tackle" -- but he obviously WILL, given that he has 200 or so career tackles. He might not like to or be very good at it, but he will tackle.

The biggest thing in the article, to me, is the difference between some of the GMs. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 said they wouldn't want Chad Johnson at all (not for two cents or even for free). But No. 3 said he'd give up a first-round pick for him!

Nos. 1 and 4 said they'd give up a second- or third-round pick for Roy, but No. 3 wouldn't want him.

Nos. 2 and 4 would give up a third-rounder for Lito Sheppard, but Nos. 1 and 3 wouldn't give anything for him.

the GM who said "he can't cover" is just an expression or another way of saying he's poor in coverage. stop hanging on to every single word.

 

[Chief]

the GM who said "he can't cover" is just an expression or another way of saying he's poor in coverage. stop hanging on to every single word.

Exactly. "Can't cover" means he's not very good at it.

These Roy Williams threads are entertaining in a morbid, circus-freak kind of way.

 

[Idgit]

the GM who said "he can't cover" is just an expression or another way of saying he's poor in coverage. stop hanging on to every single word.

The difference between 'can't cover' and 'limited in coverage' is relevant when you're asking about myth v. reality.

 

[AbeBeta]

The difference between 'can't cover' and 'limited in coverage' is relevant when you're asking about myth v. reality.

Hmm, I'd again say that if you want to be semantic about this you likely would have a hard time saying that any DB in the league "can't cover"