Roy covering Shockey-->>Whose Idea?

[zrinkill]

So are we going to see offenses try to take advantage of Roy every week now?

I hope so ..... we are 8-1 with people using that game plan.

 

[GhettoxCowboy]

I hope so ..... we are 8-1 with people using that game plan.

 

[mmillman]

"From A Giant fan-Romo wants to be like and play like his idol Brett Favre. Tom Brady wants to be like and play like his idol Joe Montana. Who does Eli want to be like and play like Archie Manning"

Archie Manning was a stud on a very crappy team that got him nothing but abused.

 

[jobberone]

So ... you think there might have been two plays when Roy did something wrong, but you're not going to bother naming which plays they were or watch them again to even make sure he was any part of the coverage? How typical of the Roy-bashers.




But of course, you're not going to bother watching the plays yourself and seeing who might have been in coverage. All the better to blame Roy, even if he was on the other side of the field, right?

Are you saying I am wrong or a liar? No I'm not going to watch the game again to give the time of the game I'm referring to so some smart aleck can go look them up. Go look at the game again and determine which ones I'm talking about. I'm not your freakin slave. There are more than two so I'm sure you'll find some. Your response is why you get some negative responses on this forum. I found it particularly offensive esp when I made the point of saying I wasn't arguing with you.

Your second response is even more offensive. I can't even say on this forum what I'm thinking right now.

 

[Rack]

well not that is matters now but roy lining up 15 yards off shockey was kind of funny not to mention He looked like He was asking for help.


But what ever it might be part of the scheme..Dont cover a guy and give Him 15 yard cushion..i'll take it I suppose.

1. He wasn't lining up 15 yards from Shockey.

2. Did you even freakin' listen to Wade's press conference yesterday? Roy had over the top coverage on Shockey (reason he was lining up about 10 yards off the ball) and the LBs were suppose to help out underneath. Wade specifically pointed out that the LBs didn't do their job very well, but said Roy played good. Stick that in your agenda.

 

[AdamJT13]

Are you saying I am wrong or a liar?

Not necessarily. Most likely, you don't remember the plays correctly, or you weren't watching closely.

Go look at the game again and determine which ones I'm talking about.

I looked at every play, and I have no idea which plays you're talking about.

I'm not your freakin slave.

You're not very good at backing up your own argument, either. Insisting that you think you saw something but refusing to say specifically what or when won't get you very far.

There are more than two so I'm sure you'll find some.

Nope, I sure didn't.

I found it particularly offensive esp when I made the point of saying I wasn't arguing with you.

Your second response is even more offensive. I can't even say on this forum what I'm thinking right now.

I'm not arguing with you, either. I'm just disagreeing with what you said and presenting an opposite viewpoint. Sort of like you did when you "weren't arguing with me."

 

[jterrell]

OK, one more time:

1. Wade clearly said after the first half, that they would double Shockey. This means that the game-plan was adjusted to limit an EFFECTIVE Shockey.

2. 7 of Shockey's catches were for a first down. 1 of the 12 catches he made was for a TD. And none of those were after the catch. I am quite sure that, while the game-plan was to give Shockey the underneath plays, these underneath plays did not include those that essentially mean giving away first downs to sustain Giant drives.

It was essentially in the second-half, when the game plan was adjusted that the Giants offense simply became unproductive.

3. 7 or 8 yard receptions? That is quite a chunk of yardage...

4. 17 of those 20 points you mentioned were in the first-half, before Shockey was doubled.

I do not care how effective Shockey is. My point wasn't at all about how good or bad Shockey was but about how effective the overall defense was.

7 and 8 yard gimme catches outside are something most teams give up. Qb throws a few too many of those then one gets picked.

We gave that up to Shockey while the Giants genius game plan was to let Terrell Owens run free while they doubled and tripled Witten. Which game plan was smarter?

RW is a good football player but he has never been a great cover guy. I think he did a good job of keeping Shockey in front of him.

The TD you keep crying about required one of Eli's better throws. He threw it to Shockey's back and Shockey and got in the end zone and was able to get the catch as RW was right behind him. Troy noted it was actually good coverage.

The guy being asked to play the most man coverage was RW. The fact he did that and survived giving up nothing more than a few completions under 20 yards is a good sign not a bad one. Most teams in this league would never put their SS one on one with Shockey most of the night.

And yes we adjusted at half-time because that was all they could so we wanted to stop it as well. They actually seemed to run the ball better when we adjusted our scheme.

 

[jobberone]

Not necessarily. Most likely, you don't remember the plays correctly, or you weren't watching closely.



I looked at every play, and I have no idea which plays you're talking about.



You're not very good at backing up your own argument, either. Insisting that you think you saw something but refusing to say specifically what or when won't get you very far.



Nope, I sure didn't.



I'm not arguing with you, either. I'm just disagreeing with what you said and presenting an opposite viewpoint. Sort of like you did when you "weren't arguing with me."

I wasn't arguing with you then. I am now.

Just exactly how am I supposed to describe the plays I'm specifically referring to. Of which two seemed to be fairly unequivocal to me in showing Roy wasn't performing satisfactorily. Without giving someone the time of the game you aren't going to know. I'm not interested in going back and finding those plays just to win a stupid argument on a forum.

Your responses are much more appropriate now so I do thank you for that. However, I don't count pebbles like you do and I really don't give a crap if you agree or don't. I do care how people treat me. I don't care if they agree with me about much of anything though.

It doesn't surprise me that you didn't find one single play where Roy wasn't out of position, getting to the play late, not following the play properly or whatever. That would make you wrong wouldn't it.

So let's just say I'm wrong and you're right and get to the end of the argument.

 

[DallasDomination]

1. He wasn't lining up 15 yards from Shockey.

2. Did you even freakin' listen to Wade's press conference yesterday? Roy had over the top coverage on Shockey (reason he was lining up about 10 yards off the ball) and the LBs were suppose to help out underneath. Wade specifically pointed out that the LBs didn't do their job very well, but said Roy played good. Stick that in your agenda.

He had over the top coverage yet He let Shockey pass right by HIm and gave His duties over to Reeves that had to stop His persue on His Man and chase down Shockey.


yea makes alot of sense...but sure WADE said Roy had a Good Game...I'll make sure to make note of that when I listen to wades PC...ASAP, My fan hood is in question

 

[AdamJT13]

He had over the top coverage yet He let Shockey pass right by HIm and gave His duties over to Reeves that had to stop His persue on His Man and chase down Shockey.

Are you talking about the play right before halftime?

Roy didn't have "over the top coverage" on that play. We were in a prevent zone, and Roy had the short zone. He had a receiver coming into his zone. He let Shockey run past him because he wasn't covering Shockey or the deep zone. Reeves made the tackle because Shockey caught it in his zone.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm not interested in going back and finding those plays just to win a stupid argument on a forum.

Then don't. And you won't.

Thanks for contributing to the thread.

 

[TVMan]

Manning put the ball where only his guy could make the play. Kudos to him.

If Roy gets to the ball, he has to go through the receiver to get it.

That would be pass interference.

Good stuff Adam.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

I wasn't arguing with you then. I am now.

Just exactly how am I supposed to describe the plays I'm specifically referring to. Of which two seemed to be fairly unequivocal to me in showing Roy wasn't performing satisfactorily. Without giving someone the time of the game you aren't going to know. I'm not interested in going back and finding those plays just to win a stupid argument on a forum.

Your responses are much more appropriate now so I do thank you for that. However, I don't count pebbles like you do and I really don't give a crap if you agree or don't. I do care how people treat me. I don't care if they agree with me about much of anything though.

It doesn't surprise me that you didn't find one single play where Roy wasn't out of position, getting to the play late, not following the play properly or whatever. That would make you wrong wouldn't it.

So let's just say I'm wrong and you're right and get to the end of the argument.

Your wasting your time Jobberbone.

- Mike G.

 

[dcowboysfan76]

Your wasting your time Jobberbone.

- Mike G.

Exactly!! It will always be:
Roy is average versus Roy is the best SS
Roy sucks in coverage versus All SS's struggle in coverage
Roy needs to go versus Roy needs to stay
If Roy sucks provide some examples versus no examples provided

I'm personally tired of it, because it doesn't matter since no one on this board is Jerry Jones or Wade Phillips........

 

[PBJTime]

Your wasting your time Jobberbone.

- Mike G.

It's funny, as all I see is Adam asking for him to back his opinions up. It's not that difficult or something that someone should feel offended by, as he does. Imagine you're a lawyer trying to prove something in a court case. You present your opinion, but don't want to go through the trouble of providing the evidence. Then, you get angry at the judge for expecting that out of you. It just seems silly to me.

If you're going to present an opinion in a forum, at least be able to back up your theory with some kind of evidence. It's silly to think that the other person should have to look up the evidence for you.

Edit: But I can see that this is going nowhere anyways, as always happens with these threads.

 

[zrinkill]

Your wasting your time Jobberbone.

- Mike G.

Against the facts ..... yes he is.

 

[dcowboysfan76]

Against the facts ..... yes he is.

Hmmm I knew you were coming, but I thought you would make your normal speech that says something like, "once again Adam destroys someone who can't provide facts"..........:laugh2:

 

[zrinkill]

once again Adam destroys someone who can't provide facts

You should know that better than anyone .....

 

[YosemiteSam]

Roy never lined up 15 yards off Shockey when he was supposed to be covering him.

This is true, but he did lineup close to 10 yards off Shockey several times when Shockey was split wide and Shockey made several short yardage plays some for first downs. Everytime Shockey split wide and Roy went wide with him, Shockey got the ball.

 

[dcowboysfan76]

You should know that better than anyone .....

Not.......