Maybe Roy William IS the problem

[iceberg]

i just wanted to be post 100. being post 100 is about as useful as any other posts on this topic so far. : )

 

[wileedog]

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

Because charting a players tendencies is a completely different animal than exploiting a players blatant weakness.

 

[Hostile]

Because charting a players tendencies is a completely different animal than exploiting a players blatant weakness.

LOL

Not in a game planning session it isn't. Believe what you want though. I can't stop you.

 

[theogt]

Because charting a players tendencies is a completely different animal than exploiting a players blatant weakness.

Obviously, because one involves using a player's attributes to your advantage and the other involves ... using a player's attributes to your advantage.

One man's "aggressiveness" is another man's "lack of coverage ability."

By the way, head a to a Steelers forum sometime. You'll see lots of threads wanting to cut or trade Polamalu.

 

[wileedog]

LOL

Not in a game planning session it isn't. Believe what you want though. I can't stop you.

So you really don't see a difference between "Player A tends to over-pursue" vs. "Player B can't cover my grandmother?"

Believe what you want, too, the cover for Roy propaganda has hit epic proportions here, and most of it revolves around attacking the posters who dare to be critical.

Been very disappointing to watch, honestly

 

[wileedog]

One man's "aggressiveness" is another man's "lack of coverage ability.".

Noooo... actually they have very little to do with one another....

 

[iceberg]

LOL

Not in a game planning session it isn't. Believe what you want though. I can't stop you.

come on hos - give it a shot! try slanted logic since common sense is failing!

 

[Hostile]

So you really don't see a difference between "Player A tends to over-pursue" vs. "Player B can't cover my grandmother?"

Believe what you want, too, the cover for Roy propaganda has hit epic proportions here, and most of it revolves around attacking the posters who dare to be critical.

Been very disappointing to watch, honestly

A weakness or tendency is still a point of attack in a game plan.

No, there is no difference.

Bull on the "attacking of posters who dare to be critical" mumbo jumbo. Talk about overly sensitive. Wow. They can spew all kinds of propaganda mixed with their opinions but can't stand being disagreed with, especially if you use facts to refute them.

Been very disappointing to watch honestly.

 

[iceberg]

A weakness or tendency is still a point of attack in a game plan.

No, there is no difference.

Bull on the "attacking of posters who dare to be critical" mumbo jumbo. Talk about overly sensitive. Wow. They can spew all kinds of propaganda mixed with their opinions but can't stand being disagreed with, especially if you use facts to refute them.

Been very disappointing to watch honestly.

it's all a part of the PC generation growing up, hos. they were taught you never lost, *they* just misunderstood. they don't go out to the world they wait for it to come to them.

it's like we broke the egg for them vs. letting them hurt to grow, ya know?

it's the "you shut up i have my right to talk" mindset.

sometimes a contradiction can be so hard to explain.

 

[Hostile]

it's all a part of the PC generation growing up, hos. they were taught you never lost, *they* just misunderstood. they don't go out to the world they wait for it to come to them.

it's like we broke the egg for them vs. letting them hurt to grow, ya know?

it's the "you shut up i have my right to talk" mindset.

sometimes a contradiction can be so hard to explain.

Maybe so. I think debating is a lost art and some can't stand being disagreed with on any topic. Their opinions are off limits to disagreement. I was never raised to think that way, so I flat out don't get it. I think it's kind of cool when someone disagrees with me. Especially if they show some humor about it.

 

[iceberg]

Maybe so. I think debating is a lost art and some can't stand being disagreed with on any topic. Their opinions are off limits to disagreement. I was never raised to think that way, so I flat out don't get it. I think it's kind of cool when someone disagrees with me. Especially if they show some humor about it.

yea, but you and i were raised when disagreeing was right and wrong for given reasons that logic governed. today so many grew up lot allowed "to lose". you didn't come in last, here's an excuse i just pulled out....

"our" mindset is trying to find a compromise or a sense of reason, even if we're wrong.

"other" mindsets - you're wrong til you see their way.

 

[wileedog]

A weakness or tendency is still a point of attack in a game plan.

No, there is no difference.

Buloney. There is a huge difference between a top players tendencies versus the outright weaknesses of an inferior player.

Romo has things he is not always great at. Quincy had things he outright sucked at. Do you put them in the same discussion?

And no, that is not saying Roy=Quincy. Just that there are large and varying degrees between tendencies and weaknesses.

Bull on the "attacking of posters who dare to be critical" mumbo jumbo. Talk about overly sensitive. Wow. They can spew all kinds of propaganda mixed with their opinions but can't stand being disagreed with, especially if you use facts to refute them.

Been very disappointing to watch honestly.

So it wasn't you accusing people of understanding nothing about football in this thread?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107628

It's not Stanley above talking about kiddie tables or Rack, well, being Rack?

There are some good posters here, including Inman, who have stated they think Roy is an overall detriment. That is not "Roy sucksss!!!", but in the grand scheme considering money, position, etc that he is not a positive being on the roster.

Its a legitimate discussion, even if some want it shoved into Quincy/Hutch territory.

 

[Hostile]

Buloney. There is a huge difference between a top players tendencies versus the outright weaknesses of an inferior player.

Romo has things he is not always great at. Quincy had things he outright sucked at. Do you put them in the same discussion?

If it's part of a how to game plan them, yes.

So it wasn't you accusing people of understanding nothing about football in this thread?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107628

It's not Stanley above talking about kiddie tables or Rack, well, being Rack?

There are some good posters here, including Inman, who have stated they think Roy is a an overall detriment. That is is not "Roy sucksss!!!", but in the grand scheme considering money, position, etc that he is not a positive being on the roster.

You mean where I compliment WoodysGirl for realizing that cap hit and roster spot are part of the equation as opposed to "just get rid of him?" Yeah, that was me. I stand by that.

Come up with a better solution and I will listen and give it credence. Trade him just so he's gone, and bench him and roll the dice just don't cut it.

You'll notice that I rarely if ever join the Julius vs. Barber threads. At least they are offering a viable alternative. 9 out of 10 of the Roy is a liability threads can't, don't, or won't.

Its a legitimate discussion, even if some want it shoved into Quincy/Hutch territory.

No one wants that. Toughen up.

 

[Rampage]

did you know..........we got home field advantage through out the playoffs?

 

[wileedog]

If it's part of a how to game plan them, yes.

*shrug*, then I would rather deal with an overly aggressive SS than one who can't cover and repeatedly breaks his own rule.

You mean where I compliment WoodysGirl for realizing that cap hit and roster spot are part of the equation as opposed to "just get rid of him?" Yeah, that was me. I stand by that.

Come up with a better solution and I will listen and give it credence. Trade him just so he's gone, and bench him and roll the dice just don't cut it.

Didn't come off that way chief, and you know better than I it encourages those who agree with a moderator to make bolder attacks.

Point is it was unnecessary, one can easily say what you just said above and keep the conversation logical, not emotional. When a moderator goes there, a large part of the board follows.

Fact is most people who are "anti-Roy" understand he is not going anywhere. But that doesn't change the argument one bit about him, its a strawman for those to hold up against those who think he is not that good.

You'll notice that I rarely if ever join the Julius vs. Barber threads. At least they are offering a viable alternative. 9 out of 10 of the Roy is a liability threads can't, don't, or won't.

Sometime's its not about alternatives, its about reality.

There are people here who think Roy is a top safety in the NFL. THere are others who don't. Its still a viable discussion even if his salary means he is going to suck or be awesome in our uniform for at least a few more years.

I don't see the point really in staying out of the RB threads, unless you don't have an opinion (which you may not, I dunno). Do you think it will somehow affect JJ getting signed at the end of the year?

No one wants that. Toughen up.

Hysterical. Because a thread on a message board actually effects me somehow.

Mostly my comment is on the quality of the board. I've been here a long, long time. I have 4K+ posts. I will be the first to tell you I am sick and tired of the word "agenda."

Newsflash all you numbnuts, we all have an "agenda." It is also known as an opinion.

A couple of posts above you mention the lost art of debate. Then you throw out the hyper-logical bombshell "toughen up."

Brilliant.

Other than a dubious Pro Bowl election, I have seen very little fact backing up anything the 'pro-Roy' crowd is saying either, largely because for the most part it is almost completely subjective. And yet somehow the negative opinions are 'propaganda', while the positive opinions are rock solid fact.

The only thing we do know for sure is that it is far too expensive to get rid of him. But the fact that that is a discussion itself speaks volumes.

Whatever, going to enjoy the HFA and hope no one we face has decent TE's. Too good a night after so many years to get bogged down in this.

 

[Hostile]

*shrug*, then I would rather deal with an overly aggressive SS than one who can't cover and repeatedly breaks his own rule.

That's you. Mind if I don't agree?

Didn't come off that way chief, and you know better than I it encourages those who agree with a moderator to make bolder attacks.

Point is it was unnecessary, one can easily say what you just said above and keep the conversation logical, not emotional. When a moderator goes there, a large part of the board follows.

It isn't my fault that people view my contributions in a discussion as the acts of a Mod. They aren't. On the forum we are not Mods unless we absolutely have to be. We are allowed our opinions just like you are. If my opinion makes other people bolder that is something I cannot control. You would have me just shut up? Not going to happen. I'm the biggest blabbermouth on the forum.

AdamJT13 agreeing with posters makes them bolder too. He's not a Mod here. Why doesn't your argument hold water where it pertains to him?

What about when two Mods disagree with each other? Doesn't hold water either. That has happened in these threads. For example Juke and I disagree on the Horse Collar rule. I find it ironic that the player most attribute to his injury creating the rule was injured exactly as I said someone could be and he wasn't horse collared. The rule doesn't protect anyone and never has. No, I am not celebrating the fact that TO got hurt and I was "right" about how that can happen.

Fact is most people who are "anti-Roy" understand he is not going anywhere. But that doesn't change the argument one bit about him, its a strawman for those to hold up against those who think he is not that good.

LOL

Reality of a situation is a strawman? That's a unique perspective.

Sometime's its not about alternatives, its about reality.

See my previous comment.

There are people here who think Roy is a top safety in the NFL. THere are others who don't. Its still a viable discussion even if his salary means he is going to suck or be awesome in our uniform for at least a few more years.

I am among those who think he is. If you look at my long drawn out post earlier in the thread you will see evidence of this and why I think so. Did you happen to notice that very few had any comments? I did.

Did you also by any chance notice that even the OP of this thread has recanted the premise with which he started? Yet several posters who jumped right in and said "yep, there you go" haven't seen fit to back off their claims? Let me post again one point that totally blows the success % argument out of the window.

"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."

Whoosh. That was the sound of the air being let out of that balloon. But don't let facts get in the way of a good "strawman."

I don't see the point really in staying out of the RB threads, unless you don't have an opinion (which you may not, I dunno). Do you think it will somehow affect JJ getting signed at the end of the year?

I always have an opinion. I just think some things are pointless. Like politics. I have very strong political opinions but I do not post in that forum except on rare occasions. I find political discussions with those who strongly support one party or the other to be a complete waste of breath, time, and energy. I ventured in there recently and heard one poster whom I really respect say that he is NOT a moralist, but that he does sit in judgment of the other party. That's a cute trick, to be able to judge the morals of others but not be a moralist yourself. Delusions are everywhere.

Hysterical. Because a thread on a message board actually effects me somehow.

Mostly my comment is on the quality of the board. I've been here a long, long time. I have 4K+ posts. I will be the first to tell you I am sick and tired of the word "agenda."

Why? We ALL have them. It's a harmless word. For some reason some people feel guilty when others say they have one. There's nothing about it that should make someone feel that way.

Newsflash all you numbnuts, we all have an "agenda." It is also known as an opinion.

Not quite the same, but in the neighborhood. I partially agree.

A couple of posts above you mention the lost art of debate. Then you throw out the hyper-logical bombshell "toughen up."

Brilliant.

Thank you. I also said I especially like debate if it can be had with a little humor. "Toughen up" is pretty much a tongue firmly planted in cheek reference to how sensitive some people are when disagreed with. Sort of like this. You can make a huge deal out of it, or you can smile and give me back a saccharine comment when I deserve one. I promise as long as it is a jab, not an insult, I will respect it.

Other than a dubious Pro Bowl election, I have seen very little fact backing up anything the 'pro-Roy' crowd is saying either, largely because for the most part it is almost completely subjective. And yet somehow the negative opinions are 'propaganda', while the positive opinions are rock solid fact.

Actually you said both sides throw out propaganda. Now it's just the "pro-Roy" crowd? How did I know we were going to get to that point?

As for fact backing, how about the fact that early in the year several times AdamJT13 has shown that Roy was in tight coverage or that it wasn't even his assignment? Those got completely ignored by the "anti-Roy" crowd? I wonder why? Oh yeah, it was his "propaganda." Convenient.

The only thing we do know for sure is that it is far too expensive to get rid of him. But the fact that that is a discussion itself speaks volumes.

No, we also know that 2 Head Coaches defend him quite often when the media tries to pinpoint him and they want him on the field. That speaks volumes too. We also know that he is one of the leading tacklers on the team and that his teammates defend him. Or were Akin Ayodele's comments just propaganda?

Whatever, going to enjoy the HFA and hope no one we face has decent TE's. Too good a night after so many years to get bogged down in this.

I couldn't agree more with that even if I disagree with the "what my eyes clearly see" approach you took earlier in the thread.

Cheers.

 

[Rack]

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

Wiledog, dude... you're wrong on this one. Time to just admit it and move on.


Or not, I enjoy watching a good thrashing from time to time.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

So you really don't see a difference between "Player A tends to over-pursue" vs. "Player B can't cover my grandmother?"

Believe what you want, too, the cover for Roy propaganda has hit epic proportions here, and most of it revolves around attacking the posters who dare to be critical.

Been very disappointing to watch, honestly

What's disappointing is watching someone spin being wrong. I thought you were better than that. <----See that's me admitting that I was wrong.




And it's closer to "Player A bites on every play fake like a starving man given a crust of bread" but if you'd like to soften things with semantics like "tends to over-pursue" so be it.

 

[TheCount]

yea, but you and i were raised when disagreeing was right and wrong for given reasons that logic governed. today so many grew up lot allowed "to lose". you didn't come in last, here's an excuse i just pulled out....

"our" mindset is trying to find a compromise or a sense of reason, even if we're wrong.

"other" mindsets - you're wrong til you see their way.

Alright, you two need to stop patting each other on the back about how you were raised. It's making me sick. We get it, you had to walk uphill to school, and uphill back home every day!

 

[Nors]

Alright, you two need to stop patting each other on the back about how you were raised. It's making me sick. We get it, you had to walk uphill to school, and uphill back home every day!

:laugh2: