GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[theogt]

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.

They didn't get split. Roy was where he was supposed to be and Hamlin wasn't.

The TJ Duckett play was certainly on Roy.

 

[AdamJT13]

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

It's obvious that you're not big on what words actually mean, given a lot of your posts. You say something to try to prove your argument, then you back off what you said and claim you really meant something else. Or you just use loaded words that don't really mean what you want people to think they mean. Exaggeration, hyperbole and loaded words -- nice M.O. And one that you can back off at your convenience.

Hmm, now where has that been pointed out before?

 

[AbeBeta]

It's obvious that you're not big on what words actually mean, given a lot of your posts. You say something to try to prove your argument, then you back off what you said and claim you really meant something else. Or you just use loaded words that don't really mean what you want people to think they mean. Exaggeration, hyperbole and loaded words -- nice M.O. And one that you can back off at your convenience.

Hmm, now where has that been pointed out before?

The simple act of labeling a claim as exaggeration or hyperbole makes it clear that you understand EXACTLY what people are mean when they say "Roy can't cover." Yet you target the most extreme claim in its literal interpretation. We both know that is shooting fish in a barrel.

Seriously, I respect your posts over 99% of the folks on this board and I make sure to try to read everything you post. So I say this respectfully -- this semantic crap is above you.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

Please show me where I repeated that Roy can't cover? Really. Please do.

Again, if you want to defend Roy that is fine but don't pick the lamest and most extreme version of the theme to jump on. There are 100s of ways to say the Roy's coverage skills are not his strong suit. Pretending you don't know what "Roy can't cover" means remains simple childish deflection.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

The real problem on Grant's touchdown run -- just like on the Duckett run -- was the line and linebackers. It was third-and-1 and you're in a 4-4 defense, but you let a running back run right up the middle without anyone even touching him? If your safety has to make a tackle after a 10-yard gain on third-and-1, your defense has already FAILED before the safety even gets involved.

Both safeties took "bad angles" because they were crashing toward the line of scrimmage, probably expecting to support the front eight in stuffing the run -- maybe preventing the first down. I doubt they were expecting Grant to run untouched like a bolt of lightning right through the traffic, but that's what happened.

Let's be honest. The real problem on that play was that Ratliff, Spears, James and Ayodele got eaten alive by their blockers. Four defenders against four blockers, and not one can even lay a finger on a running back going right up the gut on third-and-1?

 

[AdamJT13]

The simple act of labeling a claim as exaggeration or hyperbole makes it clear that you understand EXACTLY what people are mean when they say "Roy can't cover." Yet you target the claim most extreme claim in its literal interpretation. We both know that is shooting fish in a barrel.

Seriously, I respect your posts over 99% of the folks on this board and I make sure to try to read everything you post. So I say this respectfully -- this semantic crap is above you.

You're missing the entire point -- that many of Roy's critics willingly and admittedly exaggerate and overstate their views. I don't have to "disprove" those things, because everyone knows they're not true.

Again, it's odd how the one myth that Roy's critics get all bent out of shape about is one that they readily admit is not true. Maybe it's because they can claim they didn't really mean it, but they can't do that with all of the myths that they present as "facts."

 

[Idgit]

Please show me where I repeated that Roy can't cover? Really. Please do.

Again, if you want to defend Roy that is fine but don't pick the lamest and most extreme version of the theme to jump on. There are 100s of ways to say the Roy's coverage skills are not his strong suit. Pretending you don't know what "Roy can't cover" means remains simple childish deflection.

I'm not going to apologize to you for suggesting that extremists not be extreme, if that's what you're looking for. Expecting people to say what they mean is not childish deflection.

For my opinions of Roy in coverage, much of his problem lies in the fact that he's not physically quick enough to make up for missteps and slow reads. When he's got over/under coverage over the middle he's typically in position to make a stop. Less often is he also in position to make a play on the ball in the air.

Last year our ILBs often weren't able to get deep enough into the pattern to make the throw over the ILB and in front of the safety difficult and it looked like a game of pitch and catch. Roy typically made the stop after the easy completion, and I think people blamed him because he was a. part of the coverage and b. the one making the tackle.

Less often an athletic TE is able to use his aggressiveness against him and get him to bite on a route. Even when this happens, he's usually near the ball, at least. It's not like he gets burned on double moves like Watkins did his rookier year and is hardly in the picture.

If things improve for him this year, it will be a combination of Zach Thomas improving our underneath coverage and Roy improving recognition and getting comfortable enough in the scheme to make more big plays in the running game. If this happens, there will be lots of stories written about how good it is to have the old Roy back and Rampage will ask to have his user name changed again, but the reality will be that he's largely the same player he's been the first 6 years in the league, and our coaches were finally able to put the right combination of players on the field at the same time.

 

[JonJon]

The real problem on Grant's touchdown run -- just like on the Duckett run -- was the line and linebackers. It was third-and-1 and you're in a 4-4 defense, but you let a running back run right up the middle without anyone even touching him? If your safety has to make a tackle after a 10-yard gain on third-and-1, your defense has already FAILED before the safety even gets involved.

Both safeties took "bad angles" because they were crashing toward the line of scrimmage, probably expecting to support the front eight in stuffing the run -- maybe preventing the first down. I doubt they were expecting Grant to run untouched like a bolt of lightning right through the traffic, but that's what happened.

Let's be honest. The real problem on that play was that Ratliff, Spears, James and Ayodele got eaten alive by their blockers. Four defenders against four blockers, and not one can even lay a finger on a running back going right up the gut on third-and-1?

Here is an abbreviated version of the game for reference. The play in discussion occurs at 1:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIToxYoQgRI

 

[AbeBeta]

I'm not going to apologize to you for suggesting that extremists not be extreme, if that's what you're looking for. Expecting people to say what they mean is not childish deflection.

Expecting "people say what they mean" is not childish deflection unless you know exactly what they mean. When you know the meaning but focus on how things are said rather than the issue at hand, it is deflection. Plain and simple.

But I do appreciate that you've provided a reasonable analysis in your last post. Too bad it took 250 posts into the thread to get to that.

 

[AbeBeta]

You're missing the entire point -- that many of Roy's critics willingly and admittedly exaggerate and overstate their views. I don't have to "disprove" those things, because everyone knows they're not true.

Again, it's odd how the one myth that Roy's critics get all bent out of shape about is one that they readily admit is not true. Maybe it's because they can claim they didn't really mean it, but they can't do that with all of the myths that they present as "facts."

No, I totally understand the "point" -- I just think the "point" deflects from a legitimate discussion.

 

[Idgit]

Expecting "people say what they mean" is not childish deflection unless you know exactly what they mean. When you know the meaning but focus on how things are said rather than the issue at hand, it is deflection. Plain and simple.

But I do appreciate that you've provided a reasonable analysis in your last post. Too bad it took 250 posts into the thread to get to that.

I don't accept an obligation to read your mind, even if I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying. Because on the off chance that I'm wrong, then I'm guilty of inferring something that was not meant and will most-certainly be called on that.

If it didn't take 250 posts to make that clear, the rest of us would be happy to stick to answering questions rather than pushing back against vague knee-jerk reactions. It's ***-backwards to expect us to be accommodating when you're unwilling to just say what you mean, and the onus is not on me to pretend you said what you meant before I make my reply.

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't accept an obligation to read your mind, even if I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying. Because on the off chance that I'm wrong, then I'm guilty of inferring something that was not meant and will most-certainly be called on that.

If it didn't take 250 posts to make that clear, the rest of us would be happy to stick to answering questions rather than pushing back against vague knee-jerk reactions. It's ***-backwards to expect us to be accommodating when you're unwilling to just say what you mean, and the onus is not on me to pretend you said what you meant before I make my reply.

Again, you can play dumb and earn your username by pretending you don't know what people are talking about or you can accept that when a fan shouts "damn Roy can't cover anyone" that it isn't a literal statement.

As I've noted over and over, this board would shut down if every statement made were subjected to that literal interpretation and you know that throughout the day you will encounter literally 100s of statements that when taken completely literally have a different meaning than clearly intended and understood by everyone except those who want to push some ridiculous semantic agenda.

And again, I'd suggest you not attribute the extreme "can't cover" statement to me because it never came from me.

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't accept an obligation to read your mind, even if I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying. Because on the off chance that I'm wrong, then I'm guilty of inferring something that was not meant and will most-certainly be called on that.

If it didn't take 250 posts to make that clear, the rest of us would be happy to stick to answering questions rather than pushing back against vague knee-jerk reactions. It's ***-backwards to expect us to be accommodating when you're unwilling to just say what you mean, and the onus is not on me to pretend you said what you meant before I make my reply.

As a clear example.. you said this earlier ...

Let's hope the billionth time is the charm.

I ask you this. Did you literally mean that this had been stated a "billion" times -- or did you expect that everyone understood that you meant that it had been said a lot? You didn't say what you meant and put the onus on others to understand that you did not literally mean a "billion" -- everyone understood that and didn't press the semantic issue.

 

[Idgit]

Again, you can play dumb and earn your username by pretending you don't know what people are talking about or you can accept that when a fan shouts "damn Roy can't cover anyone" that it isn't a literal statement.

As I've noted over and over, this board would shut down if every statement made were subjected to that literal interpretation.

In this case, I *don't* know precisely what was meant, and the difference is small but significant. You obviously don't think it is, but as far as it relates to getting a response from me, I'm the one who gets to decide that, not you. If you're not clear and won't clarify because you think you were already clear enough, then where does that leave us?

And quit with the slippery slope arguments. Statements are made on the board all the time. If someone thinks you're overstating or wants clarification from you, they'll say so. That's how it works. Blanket statements about Roy Williams that are obviously false on they surface are going to be questioned. That's because many of us are sick of the overreaction and mis-attribution. If you can't or won't back yourself up when called on, I'm not the one earning my user name.

 

[Idgit]

As a clear example.. you said this earlier ...




I ask you this. Did you literally mean that this had been stated a "billion" times -- or did you expect that everyone understood that you meant that it had been said a lot? You didn't say what you meant and put the onus on others to understand that you did not literally mean a "billion" -- everyone understood that and didn't press the semantic issue.

Had they, I would have explained that it was an exaggeration and that I meant that it been explained often enough that I didn't feel like counting. I was being lazy and not accurate b/c I didn't think accuracy mattered in that regard.

But, if accuracy were rhetorically significant, I'd either defend or concede the point. What I wouldn't do is go on for 300 posts giving you various explanations for why I thought you knew what I meant in the first place.

 

[AbeBeta]

In this case, I *don't* know precisely what was meant, and the difference is small but significant. You obviously don't think it is, but as far as it relates to getting a response from me, I'm the one who gets to decide that, not you. If you're not clear and won't clarify because you think you were already clear enough, then where does that leave us?

And quit with the slippery slope arguments. Statements are made on the board all the time. If someone thinks you're overstating or wants clarification from you, they'll say so. That's how it works. Blanket statements about Roy Williams that are obviously false on they surface are going to be questioned. That's because many of us are sick of the overreaction and mis-attribution. If you can't or won't back yourself up when called on, I'm not the one earning my user name.

The only thing that makes this a "small but significant" difference is the obstinate refusal of posters to acknowledge that everyone understands what people who say "can't cover" mean.

That statement IS obviously false on the surface -- and that is EXACTLY how we understand that the literal meaning is not what was intended. You can be sick of over-reaction all you want but lining up lame-*** straw man arguments to knock over the fence does not prove anything. All it does is make those focusing on those arguments look like they are refusing to address legitimate issues.

 

[AbeBeta]

Had they, I would have explained that it was an exaggeration and that I meant that it been explained often enough that I didn't feel like counting. I was being lazy and not accurate b/c I didn't think accuracy mattered in that regard.

But, if accuracy were rhetorically significant, I'd either defend or concede the point. What I wouldn't do is go on for 300 posts giving you various explanations for why I thought you knew what I meant in the first place.

and no one asked because we all know what you mean.

just like you know what "can't cover" means.

 

[Idgit]

and no one asked because we all know what you mean.

just like you know what "can't cover" means.

Does it mean that he can't recognize coverages?
Is he slow in support on cover two because he gets caught looking into the backfield?
Does he recognize coverages well, but he can't get where he needs to be because he can't turn his hips fast enough?
Can he never cover, or is it just some routes? If so, which?
*Can* he cover but you just don't recognize his responsibility for a play in question?
Are teams designing coverage beaters because our defense has tendencies that exploit the limitations of our strong safety?

I *don't* know what 'can't cover' means without context. When I say that he can cover given circumstances, so can you please be specific so that we can debate the finer points, I get 300 posts of 'you obviously knew what I meant.' I didn't. Frankly, I suspect you don't either at this point because this tail-chasing is getting boring. And I'm someone who really, really, likes to chase tail. (Now, what did that mean, exactly?).

 

[superpunk]

Oh lawd.

Quit trying to be some sports talk personality douchebag, by making false blanket statements that are INTENDED to aggravate people and generate a strong reaction. Say what you mean, exercise your right to type and express yourself to the best of your abilities. If you don't, you're going to continue to get embarrassed when people who are capable of expressing themselves with clarity take issue with your written word.

The choice is clear. And it's not that difficult.

 

[AbeBeta]

Oh lawd.

Quit trying to be some sports talk personality douchebag, by making false blanket statements that are INTENDED to aggravate people and generate a strong reaction. Say what you mean, exercise your right to type and express yourself to the best of your abilities. If you don't, you're going to continue to get embarrassed when people who are capable of expressing themselves with clarity take issue with your written word.

The choice is clear. And it's not that difficult.

I'd add that there also exists a choice to not be a douchebag and take everything so literally.