GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[DaBoys4Life]

4 unnamed GM i don't buy it.

 

[dcfanatic]

I think the fact that so many people even have to defend Roy with such vigor says just about all that needs be said.

Some of the stuff in this thread should be listed in every online dictionary under the definition for 'semantics'.

'Roy can't cover' vs 'Roy is poor in his coverage ability' vs 'Roy is ok in some situations when he is asked to cover, yet he is very poor when asked to cover in other situations' vs 'Roy would still be drafted by the GM's, but he wouldn't be drafted as highly by the GM's as his pay scale dictates'.

Just stop it already.

Wake up and understand it's all just futile attempts at either defending his 'great' play or bashing his 'poor' play when EVERYONE in this freaking thread knows that neither is true.

The truth on June 7, 2008 is this..

Roy Williams is an average football player. He's not great nor is he horrible.

If you took his first few seasons worth of work and then his last few seasons worth of work and combined them you would wind up with an average career.

Over the next few seasons, whether it's in Dallas or not, Roy is going to determine with his play what the final word will be on his career.

 

[AbeBeta]

Answer to what?? His call for a detailed statistical analysis of the coverage abilities of all SS in the league?

No, that's NOT what I asked for -- I asked for an impression of how Roy compared to other SS in the league because as I noted I thought that it was BS to focus on the semantic "can't cover" argument. And I made very clear -- twice my question -- repeated once again for those folks who didn't see it the first two times.

(re: Coverage is not Roy's strong suit)

Can you clarify strength?

You mentioned Ware's strength wasn't the run -- but he's still a pretty good run defender for an OLB. So compared to other OLBs you'd say he's still a good run defender.

How does Roy stack up, to you, against other safeties?

 

[AdamJT13]

How does Roy stack up, to you, against other safeties?

Just talking about coverage, he's probably average for a strong safety -- better than average at making plays (interceptions, passes defended, breaking up catches, etc.), below-average at not making mistakes or getting beaten. (Two years ago, he led all starting safeties in interceptions and was near the top in PD percentage and lowest completion percentage allowed, but he gave up some long plays. Last year, his interceptions dropped off and his completion percentage allowed went up, but he didn't give up the long passes.)

In every other area, he's near the top or should be near the top.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

"Rarely" and "almost never" have different connotations. "Rarely" simply implies that it didn't happen often, and that could mean different things to different people. "Almost never" implies that the number is close to zero, and it takes away most of the chance for misinterpretation. And most people would consider "almost never" to be less than "rarely."

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.

Pot ... kettle ...

And my arguments aren't reduced to that, by any stretch. Like I said, that particular myth is one thing on a list of 48 (or more) inaccurate statements made about Roy. Many of them have nothing to do with semantics and are simply inaccurate statements presented as facts, not opinions.

 

[Oldschool7]

I've been away from the boards from a long time but I see that one thing hasn't changed. Adam is STILL diminishing his rep by riding his horse Roy, unwilling to admit that this horse blew has blown a leg and is done.

 

[cowboyed]

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.

First of all Roy is 27 just entering into his prime. He was also a first round top ten draft pick. Most certainly he was more effective, even in coverage in the beginning of his Cowboys career several years ago.

Roy Williams is still a good safety, but not the great safety he once was. I think what irks most fans is that he is still young and at times exhibits a questionable attitude and a reputation for not preparing for opponents as diligently as some other key players.

A few years ago he received a hefty and extended contract and even back then I recall him reinforcing that he was getting back to old form. Those GM's if for real are more football knowledgeable than any fan no matter how critically impassioned or statistically oriented they are. That stated how much time have these GM's really spent in depth evaluating and researching Roy as none have gone on record stating Roy was offered to them in a trade.

I personally believe Roy can become the feared defensive weapon he once was if he rights himself and embraces the coaching and scheme. Also with an improved defensive supporting cast around him and one especially devoid of Jacques Reeves, he may have his coming out party again.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Geez. All of a sudden this is the Literalist Society of School Marms (LSSM).

Am I allowed to say D. Ware is a 'monster' still or will that result in tsk-tsking from LSSMers and pictures of Mothra and the Hulk? "Now those are monsters. Ware is a human!", lecture the LSSMers.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

I've got a pro-Roy cheer. It doesn't quite rhyme yet but is probably a good start for his supporters in making their case from here on:

Roy, Roy, he's our man.
He doesn't yet suck.
He's at least mediocre!
M-E-D-I-O-C-R-E!
Yeah, Roy!

 

[JonJon]

Geez. All of a sudden this is the Literalist Society of School Marms (LSSM).

Am I allowed to say D. Ware is a 'monster' still or will that result in tsk-tsking from LSSMers and pictures of Mothra and the Hulk? "Now those are monsters. Ware is a human!", lecture the LSSMers.

No, you can not. Also, Marion "The Barbarian" Barber is not a barbarian. A barbarian is a person in a savage, uncivilized, and primitive state. Marion Barber is not savage, uncivilized, or in a primitive state. therefor, to say that he is a barbarian is false. He is, however, a football player for the Dallas Cowboys. People should say what they mean more often to avoid confusion.

 

[Vtwin]

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

A post or two before the one I quoted.

Check it out.

 

[peplaw06]

No, that's NOT what I asked for -- I asked for an impression of how Roy compared to other SS in the league because as I noted I thought that it was BS to focus on the semantic "can't cover" argument. And I made very clear -- twice my question -- repeated once again for those folks who didn't see it the first two times.

(re: Coverage is not Roy's strong suit)

And what would that really mean to you coming from someone in the "Roy PR Team," if it weren't accompanied with stats?? You just want a general, "yeah Roy is average in coverage, but above average to top of the league in run support and tackling?" Is that good enough? I think that's how most of the "Roy PR Team" views him.

 

[Vtwin]

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.

So then,

What you are saying is that it is completely unreasonable for a poster to expect the phrase, "Roy can't cover" to be understood as actually meaning: "Roy can't cover as defined by the expectations set by his high draft pick, the contract given him and the standard set by his peers whom have similiar contracts and draft status?"

Is that what you are saying?

Now I am not the most cunning linguist on the planet but even I get what is trying to be communicated by the phrase "Roy can't cover".

Kind of a crappy day here.

It's raining cats and dogs.

 

[Chuck 54]

Roy Williams is a Strong Safety...period.

Now, ask the gms to name the SS's that cover very well and for whom they'd give a first round pick.

Roy's limitations, or maybe Roy's problems in the past couple of years, have been well-documented adnausium....now, give me a list of strong safeties that you'd rather have.

In my opinion, there are not many.

 

[peplaw06]

So then,

What you are saying is that it is completely unreasonable for a poster to expect the phrase, "Roy can't cover" to be understood as actually meaning: "Roy can't cover as defined by the expectations set by his high draft pick, the contract given him and the standard set by his peers whom have similiar contracts and draft status?"

Is that what you are saying?

How does a high draft pick and contract status define whether a guy can or can't cover? There are more things that go into evaluating a safety than coverage ability. And are these expectations well-known objective expectations? Are they written down somewhere? I'm not aware what these expectations are. Does he have to intercept 8 passes every season because of his draft pick and contract status?

Besides, just about everyone who has come in here claiming that we're talking semantics, and saying that "Roy can't cover" actually means something else, has said that it means something different than the person before him.

So if every one of you has a different meaning for the phrase "Roy can't cover," then how in the hell are we supposed to argue that? It's impossible to know what each one of you means without you actually saying it. Instead, each of you is simply being intellectually lazy, saying "Roy can't cover." I would have never guessed that by those three words, you actually meant

"Roy can't cover as defined by the expectations set by his high draft pick, the contract given him and the standard set by his peers whom have similiar contracts and draft status?"

... so yeah, in my mind it's unreasonable to expect us to infer that.

You just can't stand the fact that your words have been shown to be wrong, and you're in spin control.

Now I am not the most cunning linguist on the planet but even I get what is trying to be communicated by the phrase "Roy can't cover".

Yeah I get it... according to this thread, "Roy can't cover" means...

another way of saying he's poor in coverage.

he's not very good at it.

it's not his greatest attribute.

Roy has trouble covering ANYONE in the league one on one.

Roy is definitely limited in coverage

and now it means

"Roy can't cover as defined by the expectations set by his high draft pick, the contract given him and the standard set by his peers whom have similiar contracts and draft status?"

How did we all not know that is what you meant by saying "Roy can't cover?" I mean we're all mind readers here, right?

Kind of a crappy day here.

It's raining cats and dogs.

I wish it were raining here. It's been 95 with 50 mph wind gusts for 5 days.

 

[Derinyar]

Remember right now back end of the 1st round picks have some pretty decent value. Your usually getting a high talent player for 3-5 years with a decent contract. 1st day picks in general aren't getting traded for a lot of players right now.

The interesting thing I found of this was how the GM's, likely former, as current should have better things to do than spend probably 10 minutes doing an anonymous survey of players that they aren't allowed to talk about for real anyway.

 

[Vtwin]

How does a high draft pick and contract status define whether a guy can or can't cover? There are more things that go into evaluating a safety than coverage ability. And are these expectations well-known objective expectations? Are they written down somewhere? I'm not aware what these expectations are. Does he have to intercept 8 passes every season because of his draft pick and contract status?

Besides, just about everyone who has come in here claiming that we're talking semantics, and saying that "Roy can't cover" actually means something else, has said that it means something different than the person before him.

So if every one of you has a different meaning for the phrase "Roy can't cover," then how in the hell are we supposed to argue that? It's impossible to know what each one of you means without you actually saying it. Instead, each of you is simply being intellectually lazy, saying "Roy can't cover." I would have never guessed that by those three words, you actually meant ... so yeah, in my mind it's unreasonable to expect us to infer that.

You just can't stand the fact that your words have been shown to be wrong, and you're in spin control.

Yeah I get it... according to this thread, "Roy can't cover" means...






and now it means

How did we all not know that is what you meant by saying "Roy can't cover?" I mean we're all mind readers here, right?


I wish it were raining here. It's been 95 with 50 mph wind gusts for 5 days.

LOL

So you were able to understand that it isn't really raining "cat's and dogs" in the literal sense. That's a good start. I didn't want someone to start a thread explaining the myth of the raining of cat's and dogs.

The rest of that rant is pretty funny as most of it has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Raining cat's and dogs.

Hotter then hell.

Lightning speed

Head in the clouds

Roy can't cover.

See the pattern?

Dude, I can't believe YOU are accusing me of trying to spin this around.

 

[peplaw06]

LOL

So you were able to understand that it isn't really raining "cat's and dogs" in the literal sense. That's a good start. I didn't want someone to start a thread explaining the myth of the raining of cat's and dogs.

The rest of that rant is pretty funny as most of it has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Dude, I can't believe YOU are accusing me of trying to spin this around.

Wow reach much? I could have just responded to "crappy day. it's raining" and my comment would have made sense.

And instead of actually responding to the points in my post, since you can't refute them, you claim it "had nothing to do with my point." Yeah ok.

No spin on your part at all.

 

[WDN]

Just think. Next year some other teams' fans are going to go through this.

 

[Rampage]

Just think. Next year some other teams' fans are going to go through this.

I hope so.