GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[AbeBeta]

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.

My interest here is to get a reasonable conversation going about his strengths and weaknesses. I'm asking b/c I DON'T have the resources to answer that question - others do and have spent a lot of time analyzing his performance but so far all we are getting is the extremes (e.g., "can't cover" vs. "yes, technically he can") -- I'm certainly not asking anyone to do a ton of work here but it seems to me that people have talked around this issue when, to me, it seems to really be the core issue we should be addressing.

 

[InmanRoshi]

On a side note...

On Jason Taylor...

GM No. 2: "You're talking to the wrong guy. I wouldn't be interested in him because I don't think he's a player I want in my locker room. Second, he's talking about playing one or two more years. So that's an issue. Yeah, he can still play, but I've never really trusted him. He can rush the passer, but I'm not sure he's not a disruptive force on your team -- someone who works quietly behind the scenes in the locker room. And those guys are dangerous to me.

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?

 

[peplaw06]

My interest here is to get a reasonable conversation going about his strengths and weaknesses.

You may say you're interested in "reasonable conversation," but you know as well as I do that you're not going to get a whole lot of "reasonable conversation" when Roy is the topic around here these days.

I'm asking b/c I DON'T have the resources to answer that question - others do and have spent a lot of time analyzing his performance but so far all we are getting is the extremes (e.g., "can't cover" vs. "yes, technically he can") -- I'm certainly not asking anyone to do a ton of work here but it seems to me that people have talked around this issue when, to me, it seems to really be the core issue we should be addressing.

As long as you admit that it's not exactly easy to do, and that the abersonc dubbed "Roy PR Team" isn't avoiding the topic simply because it hasn't been done yet.

 

[kmd24]

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.

I think Adam has provided some of this information in the past, but it remains largely ignored. I'm certain I've seen it referenced in regards to Troy Polamalu and Bob Sanders, probably during their 2006 season.

I guess most people are interested in 2007, though.

 

[bbgun]

Pretty sure Roy's "PR team" has won every round to date.

But what have you won? Even if you manage to prove that Roy's "not as bad" as his critics suggest, that's still a pretty hollow victory. I mean, why brag about having a merely "adequate" or "above average" strong safety? That seems to be the highest compliment you can pay him.

 

[kmd24]

But what have you won? Even if you manage to prove that Roy's "not as bad" as his critics suggest, that's still a pretty hollow victory. I mean, why brag about having a merely "adequate" or "above average" strong safety? That seems to be the highest compliment you can pay him.

I don't consider myself a member of the PR team, but I'd consider it a big win for all if the general tone about Roy were more moderate and less invasive to off-topic threads.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but a lot of the Roy stuff borders on being inflammatory.

 

[bbgun]

I don't consider myself a member of the PR team, but I'd consider it a big win for all if the general tone about Roy were more moderate and less invasive to off-topic threads.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but a lot of the Roy stuff borders on being inflammatory.

That's why I suggested a special "Roy Zone," but then the mods would have to keep moving threads. Too much of a headache.

 

[tomson75]

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.

Sorry if I jumped the gun there...I've just been reading it part by part, and not paying particular attention to whom said what, but rather the thoughts as a whole.

I'm with you for the most part, but I can recall several threads that have refuted the oft repeated "Roy sucks in coverage" theories that are so popular. I by no means think it is a strength, but he's probably near the median when it comes to SS's. At this point, however, I've lost nearly any will to continue these debates...I just like to chime in when I read something particularly silly.

But what have you won? Even if you manage to prove that Roy's "not as bad" as his critics suggest, that's still a pretty hollow victory. I mean, why brag about having a merely "adequate" or "above average" strong safety? That seems to be the highest compliment you can pay him.

Lmao...true. I'm not high fiving myself over here...just enjoying the triviality of the whole thing.

 

[jobberone]

Guy 1: The house is burning.

Guy 2: Whoa. What do you mean the house is burning. Most of the time it's not really the house burning but just a lot of smoke. 75% of all fires are just smoke damage. So tell me again what you mean. Are you sure it's not the neighbors BBQ.

Guy 1: I mean the frackin house is burning you idiot.

 

[peplaw06]

Guy 1: The house is burning.

Guy 2: Whoa. What do you mean the house is burning. Most of the time it's not really the house burning but just a lot of smoke. 75% of all fires are just smoke damage. So tell me again what you mean. Are you sure it's not the neighbors BBQ.

Guy 1: I mean the frackin house is burning you idiot.

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

Congratulations.

 

[jobberone]

My interest here is to get a reasonable conversation going about his strengths and weaknesses. I'm asking b/c I DON'T have the resources to answer that question - others do and have spent a lot of time analyzing his performance but so far all we are getting is the extremes (e.g., "can't cover" vs. "yes, technically he can") -- I'm certainly not asking anyone to do a ton of work here but it seems to me that people have talked around this issue when, to me, it seems to really be the core issue we should be addressing.

Not sure you are going to get an answer to that. And you're certainly not going to get a st8 answer to whether Roy can cover or not. First you will have to explain to someone who doesn't want to hear the answer what you mean by that. And second you're not going to get any good answer from the 'there is nothing wrong with Roy's coverage problems except that "he's never been really good at it" or obviously he can cover because he's out there covering people.

But you are asking the right question. The questions are is Roy's coverage abilities on a par with at least the average SS in this league and is Roy's 'alleged' problems in coverage causing problems for the Cowboys on and off the field. Another question is if there are any players on the Cowboy's squad capable of playing better than Roy.

 

[Rampage]

http://img295.*************/img295/7598/lebanner9oj1kr.gif

 

[Bob Sacamano]

http://img295.*************/img295/7598/lebanner9oj1kr.gif

did you see the one where the white boxer walked up to the black one, tried to give him a fist-pound and the black dude straight knocked him out? lol

 

[Rampage]

did you see the one where the white boxer walked up to the black one, tried to give him a fist-pound and the black dude straight knocked him out? lol

:laugh2: na man. sounds funny though

 

[Bob Sacamano]

:laugh2: na man. sounds funny though

it was shown on PTI a couple of years ago, it's probably floating around there somewhere

 

[peplaw06]

Not sure you are going to get an answer to that. And you're certainly not going to get a st8 answer to whether Roy can cover or not. First you will have to explain to someone who doesn't want to hear the answer what you mean by that. And second you're not going to get any good answer from the 'there is nothing wrong with Roy's coverage problems except that "he's never been really good at it" or obviously he can cover because he's out there covering people.

But you are asking the right question. The questions are is Roy's coverage abilities on a par with at least the average SS in this league and is Roy's 'alleged' problems in coverage causing problems for the Cowboys on and off the field. Another question is if there are any players on the Cowboy's squad capable of playing better than Roy.

You really shouldn't post when you're drunk.

 

[jobberone]

You really shouldn't post when you're drunk.

That's about the kind of comment I've grown used to seeing from you. If you can't bring back some civil debate you resort to personal attacks. You didn't fail to help make my point.

 

[Rampage]

 

[peplaw06]

That's about the kind of comment I've grown used to seeing from you. If you can't bring back some civil debate you resort to personal attacks.

Your post didn't make sense. My pointing that out doesn't make it a personal attack. A lil' sensitive aren't we?

You didn't fail to help make my point.

I didn't "fail to help make your point???" How does me telling you your post doesn't make sense help make your point?

Want to know exactly what didn't make sense?? here ya go...

Not sure you are going to get an answer to that.

Answer to what?? His call for a detailed statistical analysis of the coverage abilities of all SS in the league? About the only two people I could see even getting close to doing something like this are Adam and theo... and they'd have to analyze hours and hours of game tape. Good luck getting that in 24 hours.

And you're certainly not going to get a st8 answer to whether Roy can cover or not.

There have been plenty of straight answers all through this thread as to whether he can or cannot cover. He can cover. "Str8" enough for ya? Maybe you should go reread the thread.

First you will have to explain to someone who doesn't want to hear the answer what you mean by that.

What is so damn hard about just saying what you mean? Why do you have to say "he can't cover" then explain what you mean by that? Why not just skip the middle man and avoid the confusion? Oh I know... because telling the truth doesn't get enough attention for you.

And second you're not going to get any good answer from the 'there is nothing wrong with Roy's coverage problems except that "he's never been really good at it" or obviously he can cover because he's out there covering people.

Is that really your name for this group of people? At least abbreviate it... Why not call it the "TINWWRCPETHNBRGAIOOHCCBHOTC" people? There, sounds better doesn't it??

But you are asking the right question.

Is he really, and what question is that?

The questions are is...

Huh?

Roy's coverage abilities on a par with at least the average SS in this league and is Roy's 'alleged' problems in coverage causing problems for the Cowboys on and off the field.

Well there, we finally get what the questions are is... whew.

Another question is if there are any players on the Cowboy's squad capable of playing better than Roy.

About the only guy you could even remotely argue would be better at SS than Roy is Hamlin, and if you moved Roy out and Hamlin over to SS, then you got Watkins/Brown at FS. Me? I'll take our current safety combo, thanks.

 

[jterrell]

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."

Not sure how this is proving anyone's points.

2 of the GMs here say he is worth a 3rd rounder or late 2nd. That's quite a lot for a high paid 30ish safety. And that's 4 out of 31.

How many players do we have that are worth more than second rounders?
And are those player discussed as problems?

Roy is definitely limited in coverage but MOST GMs would love to have him.