GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[starfrombirth]

Why do the bashers (since we're naming sides) need to exaggerate? If they mean "Roy's strength is not coverage" why can't they say that instead of "Roy can't cover"?

Those two statements have vastly different meanings, and it's not a strawman to refute a statement that is actually made over and over again. If you want to say Jason Taylor is a poor run defender, then you don't say "Jason Taylor can't defend the run". If you do, obviously you're opening yourself up to criticism and a refute for saying something so stupid.

That's the point of the myths. They are in reality stupid exagerations that people have used in the past because they are mentally lazy - and want everyone to interpret "Roy couldn't cover my grandmother" as "Roy struggles covering the best tight ends in the league in 1 on 1 situations."

Clarity is a beautiful thing. Say what you mean. Or don't, and be shown a fool for saying something stupid that you think everyone should interpret your true meaning from.

Ok. How is this for literal. Roy has trouble covering ANYONE in the league one on one. All this blind support is nuts. Anyone in there right mind can see that Roys problems go beyond "Roy's strength isn't coverage.". He is actually POOR in coverage against ANYONE and that is qualitatively the same as saying he can't cover. You rail against blanket statements as opposed the exact litterality(sp?) of the statement but the fact is that the blanket statements are far closer to the actual reality than the debunked myth statement. Is that literal enough Mr. Semantics?

 

[Vtwin]

I know what they mean to say, but that's not what they say. Maybe they should say what they mean, instead of something that's obviously false.

WOW!

LOL

What does "almost never" mean?

I think what you meant to say was "rarely".

Your choice of "almost never" does have the dramatic flare of the use of the word "never" which is always a good word to include in an argument to support your case. Except of course when you have to include the word "almost" in front of it.

If your arguments are reduced to picking apart the actual words used by the other side then maybe it's time to rethink your position.

This is the best Roy thread ever.

 

[TNCowboy]

sports fans get angry or frustrated with players all the time and say things like that. a redsox fan may say "Jason Varitek can't hit" if he's struggling and in a slump. but they know he can hit or he wouldn't be in MLB. a mavs fan could say "Jason Kidd can't shoot" if he goes 2-13 in a game. but they know he can or he wouldn't be in the NBA. many cowboys fans say "Roy Williams can't cover" including an unknown GM if he gets beat and gives up a td. but they know he can or he wouldn't be in the NFL. some people like Adam and i guess yourself take things to literal. If you never heard a fan say stuff like that before and not know what they mean you must be living in a box.

Except in Kidd's case he can't shoot...

 

[DallasEast]

WOW!

LOL

What does "almost never" mean?

I think what you meant to say was "rarely".

Your choice of "almost never" does have the dramatic flare of the use of the word "never" which is always a good word to include in an argument to support your case. Except of course when you have to include the word "almost" in front of it.

If your arguments are reduced to picking apart the actual words used by the other side then maybe it's time to rethink your position.

This is the best Roy thread ever.

Where does he state the phrase, "almost never"?

 

[peplaw06]

If your arguments are reduced to picking apart the actual words used by the other side then maybe it's time to rethink your position.

Pray tell, what are you supposed to pick apart in an argument if it's not the "actual words?"

If you were criticized for what you meant by the words, rather than the words, you'd only decry, "WELL, I NEVER SAID THAT DID I??"

I love how all the "Roy-haters" jump on the "myth-busters" about how unreasonable it is for the myth-busters to use your actual words against you. If you don't want your words being used against you in an argument, you have two options:
1) shut up or 2) say what you mean.

 

[jimmy40]

Pray tell, what are you supposed to pick apart in an argument if it's not the "actual words?"

If you were criticized for what you meant by the words, rather than the words, you'd only decry, "WELL, I NEVER SAID THAT DID I??"

I love how all the "Roy-haters" jump on the "myth-busters" about how unreasonable it is for the myth-busters to use your actual words against you. If you don't want your words being used against you in an argument, you have two options:
1) shut up or 2) say what you mean.

Do you actually say pray tell in a normal conversation? Has anybody, ever?

 

[tomson75]

Do you actually say pray tell in a normal conversation? Has anybody, ever?

...and what, pray tell, would be wrong with that?


The lopsided nature of these threads is amusing to no end.

 

[peplaw06]

Do you actually say pray tell in a normal conversation? Has anybody, ever?

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?

 

[5Stars]

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?

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[kmd24]

I think that making a blanket statement such as "Roy can't cover" and then insisting that anyone on the other side of the argument must guess the meaning is merely a way to deflect objective argument.

It's pretty simple - it's a worthless statement when you force the reader to guess the meaning. Clearly, if there were something that unequivocally indicted RW, that's what would be written rather than the nebulous "can't cover."

 

[Rampage]

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?

 

[superpunk]

If you don't want your words being used against you in an argument, you have two options:
1) shut up or 2) say what you mean.

I think that making a blanket statement such as "Roy can't cover" and then insisting that anyone on the other side of the argument must guess the meaning is merely a way to deflect objective argument.

It's pretty simple - it's a worthless statement when you force the reader to guess the meaning. Clearly, if there were something that unequivocally indicted RW, that's what would be written rather than the nebulous "can't cover."

True story.

"Roy can't cover. He sucks"

"Actually, he can cover, and he doesn't suck."

"Well, obviously when I say Roy can't cover and he sucks, I mean something completely different."

 

[theogt]

I think that making a blanket statement such as "Roy can't cover" and then insisting that anyone on the other side of the argument must guess the meaning is merely a way to deflect objective argument.

It's pretty simple - it's a worthless statement when you force the reader to guess the meaning. Clearly, if there were something that unequivocally indicted RW, that's what would be written rather than the nebulous "can't cover."

What do "objective argument" mean?

 

[Primetime0201]

Hold on what do you mean Myth? I didn't see any Myth in there. Maybe you guys should start a homer thread because everything they said was true.

 

[AbeBeta]

Wow, I come back to this thread and all I find is semantic BS about what "can't cover means"

Congrats Roy PR team -- you have won this round. You should be as proud as an 18 year old who hits a homerun playing tee ball.

What REALLY gets me about this thread is how no one wanted to address the more important questions like how Roy's coverage stacks up to other safeties.

 

[tomson75]

Wow, I come back to this thread and all I find is semantic BS about what "can't cover means"

Congrats Roy PR team -- you have won this round. You should be as proud as an 18 year old who hits a homerun playing tee ball.

What REALLY gets me about this thread is how no one wanted to address the more important questions like how Roy's coverage stacks up to other safeties.

Pretty sure Roy's "PR team" has won every round to date. I'd like to see an unbiased outsiders opinion on this threads to see which group tends to make a stronger argument.

...and please, enlighten us on how his coverage stacks up to other strong safeties. Maybe you could actually use facts instead of the banal garbage your brethren have used to discredit him. Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

[theogt]

Wow, I come back to this thread and all I find is semantic BS about what "can't cover means"

Congrats Roy PR team -- you have won this round. You should be as proud as an 18 year old who hits a homerun playing tee ball.

What REALLY gets me about this thread is how no one wanted to address the more important questions like how Roy's coverage stacks up to other safeties.

*high fives all around*

 

[AbeBeta]

Pretty sure Roy's "PR team" has won every round to date. I'd like to see an unbiased outsiders opinion on this threads to see which group tends to make a stronger argument.

...and please, enlighten us on how his coverage stacks up to other strong safeties. Maybe you could actually use facts instead of the banal garbage your brethren have used to discredit him. Seriously, I'd like to know.

Hold on now -- I've NEVER been one of the Roy haters -- check my posts -- I've come down on him for a) being a crap leader and b) missing OTAs. But I certainly am not in the anti-Roy camp.

What I saw in this thread was battle lines drawn around semantic crap about the statement "can't cover at all" - but when I asked SEVERAL times was for an evaluation of how Roy's coverage stacked up against other SS there were just crickets -- I legitimately wanted to know that and if you read my posts in this thread you'll see that request made several times.

 

[AbeBeta]

*high fives all around*

I hope your coach buys you hot dogs.

 

[peplaw06]

Hold on now -- I've NEVER been one of the Roy haters -- check my posts -- I've come down on him for a) being a crap leader and b) missing OTAs. But I certainly am not in the anti-Roy camp.

What I saw in this thread was battle lines drawn around semantic crap about the statement "can't cover at all" - but when I asked SEVERAL times was for an evaluation of how Roy's coverage stacked up against other SS there were just crickets -- I legitimately wanted to know that and if you read my posts in this thread you'll see that request made several times.

Here are my thoughts on that.

The coverage stats for SS would have to the hardest position in the secondary to chart. If someone wanted to undertake that task, it certainly wouldn't be something that could be done overnight. And I'm definitely not doing it, as I don't have the games to reference.

It's basically going to have to be done by a professional. But I have a feeling you know this, or you would have done it yourself, since you're so concerned about it.

It's not an indictment on the Roy "PR Team" that this hasn't been done yet.