NFLN: Mike Holmgren thinks L. Landry stinks?

[RW31]

He didn't say Landry was bad, but overly aggressive.

Dude thats like saying "no im not drunk. its just that im not sober."

It doesnt matter how you want to call it. Him being too aggressive makes him a weakness. Period.

 

[Rockytop6]

I watched it and he said Landry was a good young player. He did say they took advantage of his over aggressiveness on the TD play but it was also said Landry had 2 picks in the game. I did not feel Holmgren was tearing him apart or saying Landry was a bad player or stinks.

I've learned it is always best to go to the source and get the exact quote rather than accept the interpretation of what was said.

 

[Burgundy&Gold]

Landry is becoming a thug like the guy who wore 21 on that team.

That is great, thanks for your thoughts on this subject.

 

[junk]

I am not going to quote that entire reply above, 70 percent of the roy retractors simply state that he sucks and should be traded or outright released.

I assume you're speaking to my post. You obviously didn't read it. I never made either statement.

There are those who say he is horrible and that it would cost too much money to get rid of him.

It is cost prohibitive to get rid of him. The other issue to discuss is if his performance warrants his current salary.

Then there are the "pro-roy" guys that mention what he does well and point out that as SS goes he isn't really all that bad in coverage.

There are some that do that. Then there are extremists that seem to take personal offense at any criticism of the guy. Some is warranted.

critisizm is one thing, taking every single chance one has to point out how horrible roy is, that's completely different.

Again, anyone who blindly defends Roy refuses to discuss the most interesting issue. The guy seemed poised to be one of the most dynamic playmakers in the game early in his career. Now he's a guy who is being pulled in passing downs and having a defense designed around limiting the exposure of his weaknesses. It still boggles my mind how a player could decline so quickly in his prime.

No single pro-roy guy has said anything about his play not deminishing, the entire point is he isn't nearly as bad and some posters here believe and would have others believe.

Read any Roy thread. There are many that refuse to admit Roy has any shortcomings whatsoever. He isn't as bad as some state.....however, he isn't as good as some make him out to be.

So I actually read the entire above post and now know you don't get it at all. Carry on.

Glad you took the time to read it. Based on the rest of your post, it appeared you hadn't. Actually, it appears you still haven't. What, in my post, isn't a legitimate discussion point?

 

[junk]

You missed the point - I'm not surprised, because it was a very specific point dealing with a very specific issue.

Hey, another subtle dig attempting to question the intelligence of anyone who dares to detract the great Roy Williams. At least you're consistent.

The Seahawks drew up plays to target a safety. Teams draw up plays to target Roy Williams. Therefore, this somehow absolves Roy Williams of any criticism because other teams target other safeties? A stretch in logic in the first place and fairly obvious you didn't read my reply to Mick.

Not too surprising from you. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point.

I still chuckle over the "If secondary coverage is diagnosed incorrectly, it is still a valid analysis if diagnosed incorrectly throughout the league"

As for the second part, whenever you're ready to snap back to reality, let us know.

So you're perfectly content with his play and you don't think his play has dropped off? I think his play has fallen off considerably and isn't at the level that is has been or could be. It's perplexing. That's been my stance forever, yet you're still debating me about that today.

At one point, the guy looked to be one of the most dynamic playmakers in the league. Now, surrounded by better talent and playing in his prime, he is taken off the field in certain situations, being exploited and targeted by other teams and failing to produce the game changing plays that defined him early in his career.

Comparative analysis....Oh no!

lmao at this nonsense.

Nonsense? So, someone pulls selective stats on Roy's play versus safety play around the league and this somehow has something to do with what he has done personally in the past compared to now?

You might be able to attribute some of his decline to an overall decline in safety play around the league (primarily due to the emergence of athletic TEs like Gates, Witten, Shockey, etc in the league), but I don't think you can attribute all of it to that.

Unfortunately, any criticism of the guy is labeled as "hate" and you can't get a decent discussion about the topic because of the homerism of the fanboys sitting at home in their Roy sweatpants watching the "Boom" clip.

 

[iceberg]

Hey, another subtle dig attempting to question the intelligence of anyone who dares to detract the great Roy Williams. At least you're consistent.

The Seahawks drew up plays to target a safety. Teams draw up plays to target Roy Williams. Therefore, this somehow absolves Roy Williams of any criticism because other teams target other safeties? A stretch in logic in the first place and fairly obvious you didn't read my reply to Mick.

Not too surprising from you. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point.

I still chuckle over the "If secondary coverage is diagnosed incorrectly, it is still a valid analysis if diagnosed incorrectly throughout the league"


So you're perfectly content with his play and you don't think his play has dropped off? I think his play has fallen off considerably and isn't at the level that is has been or could be. It's perplexing. That's been my stance forever, yet you're still debating me about that today.

At one point, the guy looked to be one of the most dynamic playmakers in the league. Now, surrounded by better talent and playing in his prime, he is taken off the field in certain situations, being exploited and targeted by other teams and failing to produce the game changing plays that defined him early in his career.



Nonsense? So, someone pulls selective stats on Roy's play versus safety play around the league and this somehow has something to do with what he has done personally in the past compared to now?

You might be able to attribute some of his decline to an overall decline in safety play around the league (primarily due to the emergence of athletic TEs like Gates, Witten, Shockey, etc in the league), but I don't think you can attribute all of it to that.

Unfortunately, any criticism of the guy is labeled as "hate" and you can't get a decent discussion about the topic because of the homerism of the fanboys sitting at home in their Roy sweatpants watching the "Boom" clip.

he's a beautiful poster, isn't he? i swear he's got an alligator on his keyboard!

 

[stealth]

I assume you're speaking to my post. You obviously didn't read it. I never made either statement.


It is cost prohibitive to get rid of him. The other issue to discuss is if his performance warrants his current salary.


There are some that do that. Then there are extremists that seem to take personal offense at any criticism of the guy. Some is warranted.


Again, anyone who blindly defends Roy refuses to discuss the most interesting issue. The guy seemed poised to be one of the most dynamic playmakers in the game early in his career. Now he's a guy who is being pulled in passing downs and having a defense designed around limiting the exposure of his weaknesses. It still boggles my mind how a player could decline so quickly in his prime.


Read any Roy thread. There are many that refuse to admit Roy has any shortcomings whatsoever. He isn't as bad as some state.....however, he isn't as good as some make him out to be.


Glad you took the time to read it. Based on the rest of your post, it appeared you hadn't. Actually, it appears you still haven't. What, in my post, isn't a legitimate discussion point?

Meh, bias is bias, I can't argue with prejudice, it goes nowhere.

 

[Idgit]

Read any Roy Williams thread and note the replies questioning the intelligence of anyone who dares criticize Williams.

Instead of attempting to discuss his perplexing decline, they'd prefer to take shots at his critics and attempt to justify his performance with comparisons to other safeties.

There's no getting around the fact that there are a lot of really, really dumb posters who are down on Roy Williams. There are also plenty of good posters who agree with them. I've yet to see someone claim he's a superstar. I think everyone on this board would agree that he has not met the lofty expectations set by his college performance.

Comparisons to other safeties are fair game since that's a discussion that goes to the changes in offense and in the passing game itself in recent years. How else are you going to judge a player other than relative to his competition playing under the same circumstances? It's not like we're not seeing passing TD records set each year and receiving TD records set and new highs for scoring in a season right now. You can also compare a player to his own prior performance, and that's useful too, but it's so obviously an incomplete picture that it's hardly worth fixating on.

As to the over and under on those who consider Roy Williams a superstar, I gather the under wins since you didn't have a single name worth mentioning for your list.

 

[superpunk]

Hey, another subtle dig attempting to question the intelligence of anyone who dares to detract the great Roy Williams. At least you're consistent.

I'm anything but subtle. If I need to tell you you're an idiot, I'll go ahead and do it.

The Seahawks drew up plays to target a safety. Teams draw up plays to target Roy Williams. Therefore, this somehow absolves Roy Williams of any criticism because other teams target other safeties? A stretch in logic in the first place and fairly obvious you didn't read my reply to Mick.

Not too surprising from you. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point.

And you've still missed the point of the thread. At this point, there's no helping you. If you want some help, go read theogt's post a while ago. He put it as succinct as possible.

I still chuckle over the "If secondary coverage is diagnosed incorrectly, it is still a valid analysis if diagnosed incorrectly throughout the league"

You chuckle because you don't understand the value of comparative analysis. Again, there's nothing I can do to help you with that. In this case, ignorance is a choice with regards to your stance on Roy and the discussions we've had in the past. I've tried to help you with it, but as you doggedly stick to your preconcieved notions rather than acknowledging that there may be extra valuable information out there, there's nothing I can do.

So you're perfectly content with his play and you don't think his play has dropped off? I think his play has fallen off considerably and isn't at the level that is has been or could be. It's perplexing. That's been my stance forever, yet you're still debating me about that today.

(a) You should read up on how I've felt about Roy's play to close out last season and this ENTIRE season. THAT is not what this thread is about. Again you miss the point, and again, I'm not surprised.

(b) I never said any of those things in this thread, and I never attempted to debate with you recently that Roy's play has fallen off. Whenever you're ready to deal with reality, I'll be waiting. Maybe there's some parallel universe where you've debated with some mecha-superpunk about Roy Williams play not falling off today - but not in this one. This is similar to your martyr-esque posts in many threads about Roy Williams describing how badly anyone criticizing his play is mistreated. Really, you don't wear that "woe is me" badge well - so you can continue living delusional or again, come back to reality.

 

[iceberg]

and he calls me the insulting one who makes fun of other opinions...

irony. it's so ironic.

 

[jman]

Now, recently I've been under the impression that the only reason an offense would scheme to take advantage of a safety is because said safety is a terrible player who couldn't cover my grandmother. So needless to say, I was pretty floored this morning when I heard Holmgren just tear Landry apart by admitting that they actually installed new plays in their offense specifically to take advantage of him.

I mean wow. Bombshell. Srsly.

Now you are ready to take your place with the media in Dallas.

Good luck in your new indever.

 

[superpunk]

Now you are ready to take your place with the media in Dallas.

Good luck in your new indever.

Do I get a special hat or something?

 

[iceberg]

Do I get a special hat or something?

you mean to add to your collection?

 

[JPM]

Do I get a special hat or something?

No, but you can put some cute stickers on your "hockey helmet".

 

[jem88]

It's incredible how many posters failed to grasp the point of the initial post. Sure there was some subtlety involved, but a few seconds reflection was all that was required.

 

[superpunk]

No, but you can put some cute stickers on your "hockey helmet".

If they're scratch-n-sniff....I'm in. I've been trying to find a way to get people to sniff my head at random for years - you may have just cracked the code.

 

[JPM]

If they're scratch-n-sniff....I'm in. I've been trying to find a way to get people to sniff my head at random for years - you may have just cracked the code.

Go crazy baby !