Maybe Roy William IS the problem

[theogt]

I disagree.

Not much more I can say to you on that end. He's at best a league average safety who had the talent to potentially be a HOFer. He doesn't seem interested in such things. He's making the Pro Bowl because there happens to be very few game changing SS's in the NFC right now, and one of them just got killed.

Again, my opinion, you're welcome to yours.

That's great. But you haven't outlined a single valid reason in this thread. Your argument reduced to "there are threads that say he sucks on Cowboyszone!!!!"

 

[wileedog]

That's great. But you haven't outlined a single valid reason in this thread. Your argument reduced to "there are threads that say he sucks on Cowboyszone!!!!"

And yours is what, that he continues to be backed into Pro Bowls over no competition?

I have this as an argument - multiple players have said the game plan going into games with us was to find mismatches against Roy Williams. Is that what you want to hear about your #1 pick, hugely compensated safety?

I'll say it again, watching the games in my opinion the highest paid player on our defense is a liability, that is being compensated against by our coaching, but certainly is not a guy that we create a defense around.

In your opinion Roy is great. Bully for you. Every piece of evidence we have indicates against that this year. Opposing OC's disagree with you. On top of that he keeps doing this horse collar thing which gets him suspended.

I personally see very little defensible about his play this year, but again I would love to hear a "valid reason" why Roy is a good safety this year other than the fact he was defaulted into the Pro Bowl this year.

 

[theogt]

And yours is what, that he continues to be backed into Pro Bowls over no competition?

I have this as an argument - multiple players have said the game plan going into games with us was to find mismatches against Roy Williams. Is that what you want to hear about your #1 pick, hugely compensated safety?

This is such a naive claim. Every single team game plans to get matchups on safeties. It's the entire reason that athletic TEs are so valuable.

I'll say it again, watching the games in my opinion the highest paid player on our defense is a liability, that is being compensated against by our coaching, but certainly is not a guy that we create a defense around.

In your opinion Roy is great. Bully for you. Every piece of evidence we have indicates against that this year. Opposing OC's disagree with you. On top of that he keeps doing this horse collar thing which gets him suspended.

I personally see very little defensible about his play this year, but again I would love to hear a "valid reason" why Roy is a good safety this year other than the fact he was defaulted into the Pro Bowl this year.

Oh, there you go using discredited evidence again.

 

[wileedog]

This is such a naive claim. Every single team game plans to get matchups on safeties. It's the entire reason that athletic TEs are so valuable

And almost after every NFL game every played you hear players talking about how they are targeting the other team's "Pro Bowl" players, regardless of their position.

I mean every week there is some guy on TV saying "We wanted to get matchups on Polamalu"

Oh wait, no you don't.

Oh, there you go using discredited evidence again.

I give up.

You are in your own little reality that clearly has nothing to do with mine.

Again, IMO Roy has not played very well this year. I am absolutely positive you will find more people, especially non Cowboy fans, who think Roy is generally average at best.

If you want to keep fighting that common perception, more power to you. Meanwhile he is sitting out a game for being a moron.

Keep running with that.

 

[AdamJT13]

Yea, AdamJT and Hostile, I have gone back on some of the stuff I've said. I do think the success rate is indicative of his coverage skills to an extent, but I realize it's far from absolute.

Was it indicative of his "coverage skills" last year, when his success rate was 59 percent?

Success rate by itself isn't necessarily indicative of anything. You have to look at the totality of all of the stats. Let's say a cornerback played every snap of a game and got thrown at three times. All three passes were 4-yard completions on first-and-10. Was that a good game, or not? Well, according to his success rate -- ZERO -- it was a terrible game. So obviously, success rate by itself isn't always a good indicator of a player's coverage.

And since you haven't posted the rest of Roy's stats, I'm guessing you don't have them.

 

[Jimz31]

Perhaps Smith doesn't get so wide open on 3rd and long IF RW is in there tonight?

 

[Howley54]

I have this as an argument - multiple players have said the game plan going into games with us was to find mismatches against Roy Williams. Is that what you want to hear about your #1 pick, hugely compensated safety?

Honestly, why would you care what others say so long as they do as they're supposed to do and lose?

 

[Howley54]

And almost after every NFL game every played you hear players talking about how they are targeting the other team's "Pro Bowl" players, regardless of their position.

I mean every week there is some guy on TV saying "We wanted to get matchups on Polamalu"

Oh wait, no you don't.

Can you provide a direct quote from a player or coach saying that about Williams?

 

[StanleySpadowski]

I mean every week there is some guy on TV saying "We wanted to get matchups on Polamalu"

Oh wait, no you don't.

Yes I do, but perhaps that's because I pay attention to more things that just the Dallas Cowboys. Just because you don't hear things doesn't mean they don't happen.

I can think of at least two examples of post game pressers or beat interviews where opponents have specifically stated that they were targetting Polamalu's aggressiveness when they ran a particular play action for a TD.

Have you watched post game pressers from any team other than the Cowboys or their opponent?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Was it indicative of his "coverage skills" last year, when his success rate was 59 percent?

Success rate by itself isn't necessarily indicative of anything. You have to look at the totality of all of the stats. Let's say a cornerback played every snap of a game and got thrown at three times. All three passes were 4-yard completions on first-and-10. Was that a good game, or not? Well, according to his success rate -- ZERO -- it was a terrible game. So obviously, success rate by itself isn't always a good indicator of a player's coverage.

And since you haven't posted the rest of Roy's stats, I'm guessing you don't have them.

Which all of this seems to be the M.O. for those who think Roy is a bad player or whatever. They'll show one stat and judge Roy completely on that stat instead of showing numerous stats which would obviously give a clearer picture of Roy's coverage this year. People also like to do this with Newman when it comes to them thinking he's not a top 5 CB.

It's pretty much as ridiculous as judging a basketball player by their field goal percentage or a baseball player solely by their batting average.





YAKUZA

 

[Nors]

I feel vindicated in that Wade Phillips has benched Roy of secondary coverage in most passing packages. It's almost silly to try and defend Roy's coverage ills, they are real.

I'm all for Roy in the Box and LB role - see Thomas Davis....

 

[theogt]

I feel vindicated in that Wade Phillips has benched Roy of secondary coverage in most passing packages. It's almost silly to try and defend Roy's coverage ills, they are real.

I'm all for Roy in the Box and LB role - see Thomas Davis....

Roy plays on the overwhelming majority of passing downs. Interestingly enough, he typically plays in the box in the linebacker role on passing downs.

If you paid attention, you'd know this. But you don't, so you didn't.

 

[Rack]

Roy plays on the overwhelming majority of passing downs. Interestingly enough, he typically plays in the box in the linebacker role on passing downs.

If you paid attention, you'd know this. But you don't, so you didn't.

C'mon Theogt, you know Nors has never let a minor detail like THE TRUTH get in the way of his agenda.

 

[Nors]

Roy plays on the overwhelming majority of passing downs. Interestingly enough, he typically plays in the box in the linebacker role on passing downs.

If you paid attention, you'd know this. But you don't, so you didn't.

Yes I noticed that he was relieved of safety duties in passing downs and also was getting beat by TE's in the LB role....

Burnett stellar in that role - Noted

 

[theogt]

Yes I noticed that he was relieved of safety duties in passing downs and also was getting beat by TE's in the LB role....

Burnett stellar in that role - Noted

But you just said that you wanted him to play in the LB role like Thomas Davis.

Now you're saying he can't even play that position? Do you want him to play a position that you also think he can't play?

 

[Hostile]

But you just said that you wanted him to play in the LB role like Thomas Davis.

Now you're saying he can't even play that position? Do you want him to play a position that you also think he can't play?

He constantly talks out of both sides of his mouth as you have astutely pointed out. Back to form.

 

[Joe a Cowboys fan]

Temo, let me start by saying of all the Roy Williams is a liability threads, this one was by far the best represented. It really is. I give you nothing but credit for how well this was done. I do however think it has some flaws. Don't be insulted. All arguments do, to some degree. Yes, his supporter's arguments too. The problem I see with success rate is that very few players can qualify for the matrix or criteria. This is why your analysis is so heavily weighted towards CBs.

Look, I have never said Roy is great in coverage. He's not. However what is it going to take for some fans to realize that a Hall of Fame Coach in Bill Parcells, and a coach who has a team 12-2 both want this guy on the field? It's time for Roy's detractors (and I am not calling you one by any means) to try and figure that out. Because quite frankly I don't think most of them have any idea why.

They also seem to be denying that Roy's planned assignments have changed due to the lingering injuries to our starting CBs. The plan was to blitz Roy and play him closer to the LOS. Be honest, other than against the Eagles last week, have you seen much of it? How did the Defense do in that game? I think they finally showed up.

Why? The answer lies in the Zone coverages that we play. What is the purpose of a Zone? Simply put to keep coverage schemes in front of the defenders as much as possible and bring the defenders closer together so that the chance of one being close enough to make a play goes up.

Us old timers constantly talk about Zones being created to slow down Bob Hayes. Maybe, just maybe it's time to explain how. In Man Coverage the CB opposite Hayes had to give him a huge cushion. The reason was simple. If they didn't he would blow right past them. Double cover him with a 2nd defender deep? It didn't help because you still had to give him a cushion and respect his speed. Roy also returned kicks and punts in his career and had some success. That means that 11 potential tacklers were in between him and the endzone, not just 1 or 2 for double coverage.

How did the Zone help this? Because it didn't require any defender to play Hayes which was bound to have built in insecurities attached to it. All they had to do was defend a Zone and pay attention to Hayes when he came into that Zone. Otherwise he ran them all over the field and they couldn't keep up. No one could. Walt Garrison tells a story about Hayes being asked about a Giants CB covering him and was he worried. This CB was also a track star. Hayes said something like, "no, he only runs a 10 flat."

Now, let me ask this. When the PASS RUSH gets to the QB in 2 to 3 seconds how deep is the coverage in a Zone concentrated? What happens when it takes 4 to 5 seconds or longer? The answer is simple to anyone paying attention. As the WRs have more time to get open, they also do it deeper and deeper and spread the Zone coverage further and further apart opening bigger seams.

Ideally, the goal of a defense is to be tight enough to break up passes and deny completions. This is easier accomplished when the QB has to get rid of the ball quicker. Think about it. At the snap of the ball the Offense and Defense are in a very small, confined area. It is easier to play tighter coverage. As the Offense gets deeper, the coverage Zone gets bigger.

We rarely play man coverage. The detractors on this site seem to not be able to grasp that. One guy on this site was asked "do you account coverage assignments by the guy lined up across from the Receiver at the snap of the ball?" The fool said "yes." That's ridiculous. They think on every play the Defender should be locked in on one man and sticking to him like glue. That isn't what Zone coverage does. Each has their advantages. Each has disadvantages.

If playing Safety in the NFL was ONLY about coverage abilities I might think that the "Roy is a liability" crowd had a solid point. It isn't, and no amount of whining about him being the "Golden Child" of his supporters is going to change that. Make no mistake about it, those smart enough to know, realize that's just hyperbole tossed out by those who can't stand to be disagreed with and see it as persecution.

Perfection is expected. It isn't possible. Not against NFL caliber players. Fans here would have said Reggie White was no good as a pass rusher if they had only taken into account how he played against Erik Williams.

So again, I come back to one irrefutable fact. Two Head Coaches with solid credentials have kept Roy Williams on the field. He continues to go to the Pro Bowl, and while I could care less about that, the honest thing to do is ask why? Honesty hurts though, so few give it a try. The answer is really simple. As a FOOTBALL Player Roy Williams is very good. Meaning when looking at the entire spectrum of what a football player does.

Why do you think the supporters keep asking for someone to name a better alternative, and why no answer is ever given?

Once again, in coverage Roy has weaknesses. No doubt about it. But the idea that he is the weakest link on the Defense, or that it is all on him is ludicrous, and you saw evidence last week in how well the Defense actually played. He plays the run as good or better than any other Safety in the NFL. Some fool will now mention a single run here or there as evidence this isn't true. Name me one player who has never missed a tackle. I won't hold my breath while you frantically search for one if it's okay with you. Simply look at his tackle stats versus others who play the same position. They speak louder than anything I can say in his defense.

In other words the guy also has strengths to add to a Defense. Denying this is foolish, yet it continues to happen on a weekly basis.

So, back to your analysis. You do say "maybe" and I give you credit for that. You aren't definitively calling him THE problem. You do however bring up the possibility. That's fair. it's also fair to ask you why the 2 Head Coaches have wanted him on the field isn't it? Please tell me why football savvy men making millions of dollars want this. When a player IS "the problem" he gets 86ed. There's plenty of History to prove this.

So, why not Roy? Because he has supporters on this forum? I mean we're to the point of ridiculous that this has to be asked. Is it because guys like me and Adam defend him? I know it has nothing to do with me. As much faith and respect as I have in Adam I doubt he has that kind of Jedi powers over 2 football coaches.

So, what's the answer? Couldn't it just possibly be that he has skills that cannot be replicated by most others playing his position and this makes him VALUABLE to this Defense? Why was Akin Ayodele so outspoken this week about the Horse Collar? If Roy is such a liability, why does Akin want him on the field?

It's time for some honest answers. Why do I doubt we'll get them?

Again, the best argued thread on him as "the problem" on Defense that I have seen. As I said, "by far." As good as it is I still think it requires too much factual evidence to be ignored to reach that conclusion.

Nice zone lecture Professor. My only point is how many here have ever heard of Bullet Bob much less seen him. Still a very well structured argument.

 

[Hostile]

Nice zone lecture Professor. My only point is how many here have ever heard of Bullet Bob much less seen him. Still a very well structured argument.

Those who haven't heard of him should do their homework. There may be a test later in the form of another thread down the road where impact is debated.

 

[wileedog]

I can think of at least two examples of post game pressers or beat interviews where opponents have specifically stated that they were targetting Polamalu's aggressiveness when they ran a particular play action for a TD.

That's a big difference from stating they were targeting Roy's lack of coverage ability.

 

[Hostile]

That's a big difference from stating they were targeting Roy's lack of coverage ability.

Why? Attacking is attacking. It's called game planning and all teams do it, not just those facing the Cowboys.