Is Roy Williams a liability in coverage?

[smarta5150]

One Sean Taylor and for a FS his coverage skills are as good as Greg Ellis.

Its so true. Thats what makes it so funny.

 

[Rack]

Dude.. chill out...

I said Zimmer used to blitz all the time... I did not say Zimmer was successful at the blitz... My point is that Zimmer was trying to be aggressive.. Our secondary was horrid, and one of the staples of Zimmer was to try and create pressure to not expose our CBs... This was well acknowledged during those years...

Now are defense is purposely not aggressive, but is 'read-and-react'... I don't think Zimmer is that responsible for it.

Yes, when you want to NOT expose your CBs, you blitz a lot.


OMG man... you've got a lot to learn. You've got it completely backwards.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Five years ago when Zim was sent out into the wilderness to find and come back with "a better defense", he found the Holy Grail in Tony Dungy's Cover-2.

He proved then he had a flexible mind and could adapt to a new scheme. He proved it once again when he adjusted to the 3-4.

I just can't see him as a DC slavishly devoted to scheme, or to ineffective coverages in the name of 'system'.

Yes there are coaches who LOVE man coverage (and owners too, like Al Davis, who greases the wheels to man coverage on his team).

I'm not suggesting Jerry pipe in with his opinion, but I do think BILL might give Tnew the benefit of the doubt he once gave the much less experienced Ty Law.

 

[khiladi]

Every great coach in history has made mistakes. BP's mistake here was keeping Zimmer.

Dude... Do you even understand the argument? I never said Zimmer was a great defensive coordinator... What I stated was that we were more a more aggressive defense when Zimmer was here pre-Parcells. He used to BLITZ A LOT. Whether he was successful or not was not relevant to the point I'm making.

On a side note, I also think we should can Zimmer.

As far as the improvements of Zimmer when Parcell's came, part of that can be attributed to the increase in talent level at particular positions, including CB. ANother reason for the increase in sacks is precisely because we got Glover. His presence directly correlated with the increase in productionby Greg Ellis. Glover was a tackle that consistently met double-teams. When you bring up year 2000, and players like Ekuban and Spellman, you really defeat your point. The most you have shown is that Zimmer's production was better when Parcell's came, but you also have to look at the fact that we got better players such as Glover, and Terreance Newman within the last two plus years became a beast. His first 2 years, he was consistently struggling.

BTW, I never disputed that Bill cannot build a team.

Why do we keep blaming Zimmer? Zimmer use to blitz all the time before Parcell's came... He was damn aggressive... From what I remember to, is we use to play a lot of man-to-man... If Zimmer was coaching the defense now in the 4-3 with this talent, I bet he would be a lot more successful than the 3-4 we are running now...

And what do you do?

You give me a quote from the number of sacks between 2005 and 2006, and what do we get? A difference of 14 sacks with 3 games to play... ANd guess what? Zimmer NEVER coached a 3-4, but he sure as hell coached a 4-3... So whose defense is the 3-4? With the 3 years that Zimmer was running a 4-3 under Parcells, he was averaging 30 plus sacks. The year he goes to Bill's scheme we drop 14 sacks. Unless we start sacking the QB 5 times a game, I don't see us getting anywhere near last years production.

Remember.. I am not defending Zimmer... I think he is not that good either... But this year, our worst year statistically is because of Bill... not Zimmer...

 

[khiladi]

Yes, when you want to NOT expose your CBs, you blitz a lot.
OMG man... you've got a lot to learn. You've got it completely backwards.

You may, if you have NO pass rush....

Dude.. think for a moment... one of our biggest problems was our pass rush... we had to pick our poison...

do we try and be aggressive and try disrupt the QB to protect our CBs, or do we let our D-line get man-handled giving the QB all day to throw against CBs who arent that good in the first place...

 

[PBJTime]

This is just getting silly. We are blessed to have Roy on our team. If our whole defense was comprised of guys of his caliber, relative to their positions, we would be unstoppable.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Every great coach in history has made mistakes. BP's mistake here was keeping Zimmer.

 

[khiladi]

BTW, in 1997, 1998, 1999 our CBs were Deion Sanders and Kevin SMith.... We had great corners, with no pass rush.... this is another reason why our numbers defensive sacks were in the mid 30s. before Zimmer got here... a lot of our sacks were coverage sacks... in the year 2000, when Zimmer took over we had CBs like Dwayne Goodrich and Mario Edwards... Smith was pretty much done.... Zimmer was working with garbage until he got Newman... As LaTunaNostra points out, this was when Zimmer started to play a lot more zone to not expose the CBs... But he alos tried to get aggressive with a lot of blitzing, even when his CBs were weak... in the 1997-1999 years we still had players like Leon Lett.. In the year 2000, Zimmer was working with players like Dmitrius Underwood and Peppi Zellner...

The difference between then and now is we don't need to play that much zone... While Zimmer played more cover-2 because of his CBs, Bill Parcells is playing cover-2 despite 2 of the best CBs in the game...

 

[Rack]

You may, if you have NO pass rush....

No, you don't. Not unless you want to give up a ton of big plays.


Dude, do you even understand the basics of football?


Duuuude.

BTW, in 1997, 1998, 1999 our CBs were Deion Sanders and Kevin SMith.... We had great corners, with no pass rush

Kevin Smith wasn't "Great" ever in his career. He was pretty good until 1995 when he tore his achilles tendon. He wasn't "pretty good" after that.

So you argument is completely false in that regard.


And Deion? While still very very good he didn't complete a full season during those three seasons. And often times when he played, he played hurt.

SO again, there goes that argument.

And if it were all about the CBs, then we'd be getting to the QB now cuz we have pretty good CBs at the moment.

Again, your argument shot completely to hell.


Fact:

We had an average pass rush before Zimmer took over.

In 2000, 2001, and 2002. (Zimmer's first three seasons as DCoord) our pass rush was HORRIBLE.


From 2003 - Present, our pass rush has been improved, but still not good. BP obviously has had some positive influence in that regard, but not enough to overcome Zimmer's inadaquacies (sp?).

 

[smarta5150]

No, you don't. Not unless you want to give up a ton of big plays.


Dude, do you even understand the basics of football?


Duuuude.






Kevin Smith wasn't "Great" ever in his career. He was pretty good until 1995 when he tore his achilles tendon. He wasn't "pretty good" after that.

So you argument is completely false in that regard.


And Deion? While still very very good he didn't complete a full season during those three seasons. And often times when he played, he played hurt.

SO again, there goes that argument.

And if it were all about the CBs, then we'd be getting to the QB now cuz we have pretty good CBs at the moment.

Again, your argument shot completely to hell.


Fact:

We had an average pass rush before Zimmer took over.

In 2000, 2001, and 2002. (Zimmer's first three seasons as DCoord) our pass rush was HORRIBLE.


From 2003 - Present, our pass rush has been improved, but still not good. BP obviously has had some positive influence in that regard, but not enough to overcome Zimmer's inadaquacies (sp?).

Kevin Smith was always good for a PI.

 

[SuspectCorner]

roy williams stunk it up last sunday. bad angles, poor tackling (glad i don't have to say THAT about him very often), lousy coverage... just name it. but he doesn't have many stinkeroos like this one.

he's STILL one of the most "catalytic" DBs playing.

 

[GLIDINGJJ]

"Is Roy Williams a liability in pass coverage?"


Is a 50 pound rabbit fat???


Bottom line is he is too big to easily turn his hips and redirect himself. He also has a problem in being able to pick up a ball in the air when he has to turn and run with a receiver. Some is perhaps coaching. Most is physical inability to play the pass with a great degree of consistency.

I don't think given the cover 2 scheme that he will ever be beyond just adequate in coverage. However, given his overall game I think he is still probably in the top 3 or 4 SS's in the league.

Just my 2 Cents.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

You are kidding-right?

 

[BAZ]

Wow, ratio is 2-1. Very surprising. I can't help but feel is this poll was made two weeks ago it would be very different.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I didn't vote yes or no. Like I said, it's a ridiculous question.

Don't you mean, "IMO, it's a rediculous question"?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I do, and he is superior to most SS's in coverage

David

All well and good but that's not the question possed. As I said earlier, if you would like ask that question in a poll, do so. If you would like me to do it, I'd be happy to. Unfortunatly, the question was one of coverage. Has nothing to do with position.

 

[iceberg]

Wow, ratio is 2-1. Very surprising. I can't help but feel is this poll was made two weeks ago it would be very different.

you mean a vast majority of people only react to the last thing seen??? : )

agreed. people in general are fickle and the last thing they saw was your best regardless of whether or not it was.

i think they also buy into the "drama" around what writers say about players. connor01 posted the stats for roy and they're very comparable to good CB's in the league - yet, that gets passed over like a clinton "saddam must go" quote at a democratic convention.

 

[khiladi]

No, you don't. Not unless you want to give up a ton of big plays.


Dude, do you even understand the basics of football?


Duuuude.

Yes, you may... You may blitz to try and force the QB to disrupt rhythm, because your CBs can't cover. It is a pick your poison-type of deal. It depends on the philosophy of the coach.

Kevin Smith wasn't "Great" ever in his career. He was pretty good until 1995 when he tore his achilles tendon. He wasn't "pretty good" after that.

Kevin Smith by far was the BEST cornerback in the NFL before he tore his achilles heel. K-dub was the sole reason Jerry Rice averaged one or two passes a game playing against him. And this was when Jerry Rice was still in his prime. It is obvious you know nothing about football.

There is a reason Jerry Rice caught only 2 passes in the 1992 championship game. Jerry Rice racked up a wopping couple of yeards.. K-dub was lined up on Jerry MAN-TO-MAN all day long, when Rice was having a career year and Steve Young was all-world MVP. Ask Jimmy Johnson how good he was..

And even after he tore his achilles heel, he was targetted for PI calls, which many times were tit-tat fouls. He was still a "pretty good" contrary to your baseless claims. Coupled by the fact that even after he tore his achilles heel, he had Deion Sanders on the opposite side, so he was targetted more often than not.

The year Kevin Smith was lost to the achilles heel, there was a significant drop-off in pass coverage by the Cowboys.

So you argument is completely false in that regard.

Only in your imagination..

And Deion? While still very very good he didn't complete a full season during those three seasons. And often times when he played, he played hurt.

SO again, there goes that argument.

This is so lame, it's not even disputable He didn't complete a FULL season, but he played the MAJORITY of his games. Your making it seem like our CBs during those years were playing shoddy ball.. Your argument is patently ridiculous...

And if it were all about the CBs, then we'd be getting to the QB now cuz we have pretty good CBs at the moment.

Again, your argument shot completely to hell.

We are playing a 3-4 now.. We have one less man on the line, coupled by the fact in our 3-4 our linebackers drop farther back into coverage, meaning less pressure than before. During those years, we were at least running a 4-3... We went even more conservative as Parcell's hands got more involved in the defense....

Fact:

We had an average pass rush before Zimmer took over.

In 2000, 2001, and 2002. (Zimmer's first three seasons as DCoord) our pass rush was HORRIBLE.

We also had Dmitrius Underwood in the middle, and Ebenezer Ekuban and Peppi Zellner rushing the QB during those 3 years... What's your point? Our pass rush got better as soon as we got Leroy Glover in the middle, which also contributed to an increase in Greg Elli's production. If you want to attribute that solely to Bill Parcells, that is your business... But I guess when the defense of Bill PArcell's gets run over, it's because the 'players don't execute'... But when it's Mike Zwimmer, let's forget all about the players, it's Zimmer's fault...

As far as I can tell, Bill Parcell's hasn't done much better than Zimmer..

From 2003 - Present, our pass rush has been improved, but still not good. BP obviously has had some positive influence in that regard, but not enough to overcome Zimmer's inadaquacies (sp?).

Uhhh... it is this year, where Parcell's HAND IS ALL OVER THE DEFENSE, where our sack total is way below average, equivalent to our worst years with Zimmer.. And Zimmer had a defensive line that was comprised of Ekuban and Underwood... now we have Ferguson and Spears, coupled by Demarcus Ware, who would be playing a defensive end in a 4-3... do you honestly think our talent level on line is anywhere equivalent to the years Zimmer has his worst years?

You can't be serious....

The real problem is Bill Parcell's great defenses were a product of Bellichek's COACHING... not Parcells... When Parcells lost Bellichek, his brilliant coaching mind of defense seems to be more and more evident everyday... teams put up more points at home against a Dallas defense ever... even more than all the years with Zimmer before...