Parcells couldn't figure this out?

[Rack]

What seems kind of stupid is allowing your team to have RW as your best cover safety. So by your brilliant logic, our BEST cover safety is not supporting the run or blitzing, he is getting turned around on a weekly basis on deep routes. Yeah, that makes sense.

By your "Brilliant logic" we should just pluck a Ronnie Lott off a freakin' tree and everything will be ok in Happyland.



Even if we had a coverage safety better then Roy, we'd need TWO safeties that can cover better then Roy in order to be able to move him to LB in our Nickle Defense. What does your "Brilliant Logic" say about that?

Probably something far from Brilliant.

What's stupid is thinking Roy is as bad as the media portrays.

It's the ones that don't know a thing about the game and only listen to the media that come to conclusions like that.

If Roy is anywhere near the WR when a long pass is complete then it's automatically his fault.

 

[Sarge]

He never figured out Seattle's secondary was decimated in the playoffs.

That game was all you needed to know that Parcells was a mere shell of his former self. Their entire secondary was hurt and we run the ball for 60 minutes.

That game STILL makes me ill.

 

[junk]

Oh noes!!! I said "more than just about"!!! I must have been referring to all!!!! Jesus christ, this is about the dumbest junk I've read in a while. Pun intended.

The players I named constitute the majority of 2nd round picks over the past 10 years. I didn't take the time to look at every single 2nd rounder over the past 10 years and compare his starts. I just went from memory and, for the most part, I was right. You misread what I said. I've pointed that out. Now shut up about it.

The bottom line is that he's playing. He's on the field. He's contributing and should continue to. It's not a complete waste like some would like to believe. You can disagree with the pick, but it's just plain ignorant to pretend like it was a waste.

:laugh2:

Where did I say I disagreed with the pick? I didn't.

I just don't agree that he is playing more than "just about any 2nd round pick in the last 10 years". Simply not true. There are several that have played more. There several that are playing (and did play) a similar number of snaps.

Watching you flounder around and try to blame me for not understanding what you said is even more hilarious.

 

[Vintage]

Yeah we wouldn't want our PRO BOWL SAFETY in coverage anymore. That would be dumb.

Now, if only we had a Pro Bowl CB....

Our secondary would shape up nicely.

 

[superpunk]

Now, if only we had a Pro Bowl CB....

Our secondary would shape up nicely.

I see what you did there.

 

[theogt]

:laugh2:

Where did I say I disagreed with the pick? I didn't.

I just don't agree that he is playing more than "just about any 2nd round pick in the last 10 years". Simply not true. There are several that have played more. There several that are playing (and did play) a similar number of snaps.

Watching you flounder around and try to blame me for not understanding what you said is even more hilarious.

Where did I say you disagreed with the pick? Are you having more trouble reading again?

He's playing as much or more than a majority of the 2nd round picks in the past 10 years. In my world, "just about any" is the colloquial equivalent of "the majority of." You tried to interpret my language as many "all of". You were wrong. You look foolish trying to prove some irrelevant point. Give it up.

 

[junk]

The bottom line is that he's playing. He's on the field. He's contributing and should continue to. It's not a complete waste like some would like to believe. You can disagree with the pick, but it's just plain ignorant to pretend like it was a waste.[/QUOTE]

Where did I say you disagreed with the pick? Are you having more trouble reading again?

Apparently not.

He's playing as much or more than a majority of the 2nd round picks in the past 10 years. In my world, "just about any" is the colloquial equivalent of "the majority of." You tried to interpret my language as many "all of". You were wrong. You look foolish trying to prove some irrelevant point. Give it up.

I simply disagreed with your assessment that he will probably play more than "just about any" 2nd round pick of the last 10 years. That isn't a real large pool and there are several in that pool that have played more (in their rookie year) and will probably play more in subsequent years (full time offensive line starters specifically).

Since that comment, you've continually tried to twist your words around to what you "really mean" and attempt to say I'm wrong for busting you on your original statement.

Whatever. Can you provide a translation dictionary for us? We typically speak English around here and I'd hate to be in another situation where you said something outlandish only to find out it was a case of not knowing what you really meant to say.

 

[theogt]

The bottom line is that he's playing. He's on the field. He's contributing and should continue to. It's not a complete waste like some would like to believe. You can disagree with the pick, but it's just plain ignorant to pretend like it was a waste.

Apparently not.

Apparently you are having trouble. I said "you can disagree." I didn't say that you do.

I simply disagreed with your assessment that he will probably play more than "just about any" 2nd round pick of the last 10 years. That isn't a real large pool and there are several in that pool that have played more (in their rookie year) and will probably play more in subsequent years (full time offensive line starters specifically).

Since that comment, you've continually tried to twist your words around to what you "really mean" and attempt to say I'm wrong for busting you on your original statement.

Whatever. Can you provide a translation dictionary for us? We typically speak English around here and I'd hate to be in another situation where you said something outlandish only to find out it was a case of not knowing what you really meant to say.

It's a pool of about 10 or so players. He's played as much or more than a majority of those players. That was my point. It was obvious. Your trouble reading caused you to miss the point. Hopefully you can fix your problem for the future.

 

[Holloway805]

By your "Brilliant logic" we should just pluck a Ronnie Lott off a freakin' tree and everything will be ok in Happyland.



Even if we had a coverage safety better then Roy, we'd need TWO safeties that can cover better then Roy in order to be able to move him to LB in our Nickle Defense. What does your "Brilliant Logic" say about that?

Probably something far from Brilliant.





It's the ones that don't know a thing about the game and only listen to the media that come to conclusions like that.

If Roy is anywhere near the WR when a long pass is complete then it's automatically his fault.

"The media" wasn't sitting on my couch watching the Lions torch our secondary. "The media" didn't fold down the stretch last year, our defense did. As far as needing 2 coverage safeties better than Roy for him to move to LB in long yardage situations, you are far from brilliant. Pittsburgh doesn't have 2 better than Poluomaulo. Baltimore doesn't have 2 better than Reed. Yet these guys are great run stuffers because they are put in the right schemes. Roy brings pressure. I like Roy and have his jersey. Quit blaming the "media" for everything and start thinking on your own. And turn off Rush.

 

[Rack]

"The media" wasn't sitting on my couch watching the Lions torch our secondary. "The media" didn't fold down the stretch last year, our defense did. As far as needing 2 coverage safeties better than Roy for him to move to LB in long yardage situations, you are far from brilliant. Pittsburgh doesn't have 2 better than Poluomaulo. Baltimore doesn't have 2 better than Reed. Yet these guys are great run stuffers because they are put in the right schemes. Roy brings pressure. I like Roy and have his jersey. Quit blaming the "media" for everything and start thinking on your own. And turn off Rush.

I'm disagreeing with the media, yet you tell me to "think on your own"?

How freakin' dumb can a person be?


Point still stands, when you have trouble stopping the long pass, you don't take your BEST COVER SAFETY OUT OF THE SECONDARY. THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY STUPID.

 

[Holloway805]

I'm disagreeing with the media, yet you tell me to "think on your own"?

How freakin' dumb can a person be?


Point still stands, when you have trouble stopping the long pass, you don't take your BEST COVER SAFETY OUT OF THE SECONDARY. THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY STUPID.

OK Rack, I see your point. I dont agree with it. Last year Roy was our best cover safety. I am talking about now. Hamlin is better in coverage in my opinion. You have to admit, Roy got burnt last year more than ever before and the tape doesn't lie. Other teams game planned to get him in man to man coverage. I just want to see RW do what he does best, support the run and create pressure. He is adequate at best in coverage and I am a big fan of his.

 

[Rack]

OK Rack, I see your point. I dont agree with it. Last year Roy was our best cover safety. I am talking about now. Hamlin is better in coverage in my opinion. You have to admit, Roy got burnt last year more than ever before and the tape doesn't lie. Other teams game planned to get him in man to man coverage. I just want to see RW do what he does best, support the run and create pressure. He is adequate at best in coverage and I am a big fan of his.

I don't disagree with that. If Hamlin and Watkins get the job done, I'm all for putting Roy closer to the LOS. I'd prefer it.


I don't think Roy got burnt nearly as often as most people think. A lot of people would see Roy near the end of the play and assume it was his fault. Then if you looked at the entire play you'd see it wasn't his fault at all. I think a lot of times last year James was the one to blame, but since Roy came into the picture late, he got the blame.


And I doubt teams game planned to get our best cover safety in one on one situations. They most likely tried to get our lesser cover safety (and a rookie) in one on one situations. I'm not saying Roy is great in coverage, but he is better then average.

 

[Holloway805]

I don't disagree with that. If Hamlin and Watkins get the job done, I'm all for putting Roy closer to the LOS. I'd prefer it.


I don't think Roy got burnt nearly as often as most people think. A lot of people would see Roy near the end of the play and assume it was his fault. Then if you looked at the entire play you'd see it wasn't his fault at all. I think a lot of times last year James was the one to blame, but since Roy came into the picture late, he got the blame.


And I doubt teams game planned to get our best cover safety in one on one situations. They most likely tried to get our lesser cover safety (and a rookie) in one on one situations. I'm not saying Roy is great in coverage, but he is better then average.

Good point about getting Watkins in single coverage. My point is, I don't think Parcells and Zimmer handled the secondary very well at the end of last year. Whether it was RW or any of the corners getting beat, other teams found something on film and really stuck it to us. If adjustments were made by Parcells, they didn't work.

 

[Rack]

Good point about getting Watkins in single coverage. My point is, I don't think Parcells and Zimmer handled the secondary very well at the end of last year. Whether it was RW or any of the corners getting beat, other teams found something on film and really stuck it to us. If adjustments were made by Parcells, they didn't work.

I think the reason our secondary started getting beat more is cuz we had to start helping out underneath cuz James can't cover for crap. That opened things up downfield.

 

[TEK2000]

I think the reason our secondary started getting beat more is cuz we had to start helping out underneath cuz James can't cover for crap. That opened things up downfield.

Add in the fact that we had to help Anthony Henry over the top because he couldn't run with recievers on his bum knee.