Roy covering Shockey-->>Whose Idea?

[khiladi]

Its funny because if Roy actually got in FRONT of Shockey and Shockey's pattern was a corner route to the back of the endzone you would be here complainiong how Roy should have been in better position to defend the back of the endzone.

No, I wouldn't. The point is Roy hesitated, and made no decision, but back-peddled himself allowing Shockey to not do any work for the TD. He didn't take the inside route, and he didn't force Shockey to the end-corner of the end-zone. This is clear from the two pictures, and everybody seems to avoid the basic question taht reveals it:

How far and where was Roy in relation to Shockey in picture 2, compared with where he was in picture 1?

And notice in picture 2, the ball is right about to enter the hands of Shockey, and Roy is still handful of feet behind Shockey. Where is the inside angle that Roy could have had on the ball if Manning put it right on the numbers or the right shoulder?

Roy simply back-peddled himself out of the play.

Here's the thing, the offensive player KNOWS the route and the defender must react and even sometimes guess.

Roy was in good position for EITHER pattern making it good coverage.

Roy was in good position when Shockey made the break in picture 1. By then, Shockey already was breaking inside. In picture 2, Roy was behind Shockey, meaning he kept going back, and didn't play the inside route, nor did he play the outside route. If Roy was playing the inside route, why so far back in picture 2, considering Shockey broke before he reached the goal-line and Roy was at the goal-line?

End of strory. Wait till this Sunday so you have some more time to better gameplan your agenda.

Until, do us all a favor and give it a rest.

Why does everybody have to have an agenda?

 

[TVMan]

Why does everybody have to have an agenda.

:laugh2:

 

[aikemirv]

Why does everybody have to have an agenda?

Mr. Pot meet MR Kettle.

Your agenda is to say it was bad coverage even though Adam has shown you a few times that it is the Cowboys scheme.

You have a problem with the scheme because if there is a LB with inside help we don't have a TD, but alas the scheme ended up with Roy playing ten yards off and no help in the middle of the field and you want him to do something almost impossible with that scheme to make the play.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

WOW!


I made the mistake of clicking on this thread without being logged in so my "ignore" list wasn't active......

Whenever fans of other teams say that Dallas fans are among the most uninformed no-nothings in the league, the baseless opinions in this thread are the basis.

Some people are giving an entire fanbase a bad name. As a wise man once said, it's better to remain quiet and have the world think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[khiladi]

Mr. Pot meet MR Kettle.

Your agenda is to say it was bad coverage even though Adam has shown you a few times that it is the Cowboys scheme.

You have a problem with the scheme because if there is a LB with inside help we don't have a TD, but alas the scheme ended up with Roy playing ten yards off and no help in the middle of the field and you want him to do something almost impossible with that scheme to make the play.

So it was impossible to make a play? But you were originally telling me that the reason that Shockey scored was because Eli threw an incredible pass, one that made it impossible for Roy to prevent from Shockey catching it. You also quoted Aikman to support your point. Now Roy was in an impossible position to stop the play because of scheming? That's quite a change in opinion.

Also, Adams said he played good coverage, and his issue had nothing with the scheme.

And let us look at what Breer said about Roy Williams coverage:

Give Roy Williams some credit in this vein too. Shockey ate his lunch a little bit, and the Giants were certainly picking on him, but he didn’t allow the tight end to block him.

And Breer was referring to Roy in passing situations. There were two points noting that Beer made in his analysis:

1. The Giants were clearly targetting Roy
2. Roy played a good game in shedding tackles, and at the line, but Shockey did 'eat his lunch' a couple times.

'Eat his lunch' is remarkably different than Roy performed well on every play, and played everything perfectly, as everybody that thinks criticism means an agenda, is trying to project.

I guess Breer has a Roy agenda also..

 

[Rack]

WOW!


I made the mistake of clicking on this thread without being logged in so my "ignore" list wasn't active......

Whenever fans of other teams say that Dallas fans are among the most uninformed no-nothings in the league, the baseless opinions in this thread are the basis.

Some people are giving an entire fanbase a bad name. As a wise man once said, it's better to remain quiet and have the world think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You should of remained quiet.


Sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that.

 

[dcowboysfan76]

You should of remained quiet.


Sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that.

:laugh2:

 

[joseephuss]

No, I wouldn't. The point is Roy hesitated, and made no decision, but back-peddled himself allowing Shockey to not do any work for the TD. He didn't take the inside route, and he didn't force Shockey to the end-corner of the end-zone. This is clear from the two pictures, and everybody seems to avoid the basic question taht reveals it:

How far and where was Roy in relation to Shockey in picture 2, compared with where he was in picture 1?

And notice in picture 2, the ball is right about to enter the hands of Shockey, and Roy is still handful of feet behind Shockey. Where is the inside angle that Roy could have had on the ball if Manning put it right on the numbers or the right shoulder?

Roy simply back-peddled himself out of the play.



Roy was in good position when Shockey made the break in picture 1. By then, Shockey already was breaking inside. In picture 2, Roy was behind Shockey, meaning he kept going back, and didn't play the inside route, nor did he play the outside route. If Roy was playing the inside route, why so far back in picture 2, considering Shockey broke before he reached the goal-line and Roy was at the goal-line?



Why does everybody have to have an agenda?

Does it matter to you that Roy is supposed to have underneath help on that play? I know I mentioned it before, but you never responded. You seem to ignore that it has been mentioned that the LB was supposed to be underneath to take away that pass while Roy played behind Shockey to guard against the fade route and the back of the endzone. Or that the LB(James) was blocked illegally on that play. Does that not matter at all? You are right it doesn't have to be about an agenda, but those seem to be some parts of the play that contribute to why the Giants scored a TD.

 

[aikemirv]

So it was impossible to make a play? But you were originally telling me that the reason that Shockey scored was because Eli threw an incredible pass, one that made it impossible for Roy to prevent from Shockey catching it. You also quoted Aikman to support your point. Now Roy was in an impossible position to stop the play because of scheming? That's quite a change in opinion.

Also, Adams said he played good coverage, and his issue had nothing with the scheme.

And let us look at what Breer said about Roy Williams coverage:



And Breer was referring to Roy in passing situations. There were two points noting that Beer made in his analysis:

1. The Giants were clearly targetting Roy
2. Roy played a good game in shedding tackles, and at the line, but Shockey did 'eat his lunch' a couple times.

'Eat his lunch' is remarkably different than Roy performed well on every play, and played everything perfectly, as everybody that thinks criticism means an agenda, is trying to project.

I guess Breer has a Roy agenda also..

I think you have me confused with someone else. My memory is not that good but if you find that quote from me I will be shocked!

 

[khiladi]

I read the following post in another thread, and I forget who said it so, he has to forgive me for not giving his props (modified, it was Everlastingxxx who said it):

I rewatched the first half last night and notice this nugget. On the Shockey vs Roy TD, #88 of the Giants goes and pushed Bradie James out of his zone some 10 yards down the field. That offensive pass interference gave Shockey the inside in. You can see James livid after the play.

I remember James being livid, but I thought it was in regards to Roy's coverage. This actually to me, if it is correct, absolves Roy of blame on the TD and may explain why Roy was that far off. Bradie was going to take the inside route, and Roy was set on playing the over-the-top pass by Manning to Shockey.

The Cowboys ran a similar play against Shockey, and I believe it was the first pass to Shockey, in the second half, that went for a first down. I believe the LB responsible was Ayodele or Burnett.

Somebody also mentioned in this thread that Wade said some of the coverages were at the 'expense' of the linebackers, and not Roy. Maybe, this is what he was referring to.

Does it matter to you that Roy is supposed to have underneath help on that play? I know I mentioned it before, but you never responded. You seem to ignore that it has been mentioned that the LB was supposed to be underneath to take away that pass while Roy played behind Shockey to guard against the fade route and the back of the endzone. Or that the LB(James) was blocked illegally on that play. Does that not matter at all? You are right it doesn't have to be about an agenda, but those seem to be some parts of the play that contribute to why the Giants scored a TD.

Actually, you are right. I have changed my opinion on this play, and I don't think it had to do with Roy. It seems that the coverage being run was similar to the one I mentioned in the beginning of the second-half, where Shockey got the first down. Roy was in coverage, and I think it was Ayodelle who dropped off into the zone, but Shockey found the hole in it and got a first.

Also, I remember you making a similar comment, so you get props too... The portion of Bradie getting angry was the nail-in-the-coffin of what made me modify my opinion. I remembered him getting angry on that very play, and him getting blocked by the other TE is the only justification for it.

 

[joseephuss]

I read the following post in another thread, and I forget who said it so, he has to forgive me for not giving his props:



I remember James being livid, but I thought it was in regards to Roy's coverage. This actually to me, if it is correct, absolves Roy of blame on the TD and may explain why Roy was that far off. Bradie was going to take the inside route, and Roy was set on playing the over-the-top pass by Manning to Shockey.

The Cowboys ran a similar play against Shockey, and I believe it was the first pass to Shockey, in the second half, that went for a first down. I believe the LB responsible was Ayodele or Burnett.

Somebody also mentioned in this thread that Wade said some of the coverages were at the 'expense' of the linebackers, and not Roy. Maybe, this is what he was referring to.

That sounds about right based on everything I have read or heard. Thanks.

 

[khiladi]

I think you have me confused with someone else. My memory is not that good but if you find that quote from me I will be shocked!

Apologies if I attributed something to you incorrectly. I don't believe it is relevant now considering I have changed my opinion. I believe Bradie was suppose to drop back in the zone, which explains why Roy dropped back, after Shockey made his break. It seems Roy was preventing the pass over-the-top.

If Bradie wasn't pushed back, it would have been a more difficult play for Shockey and Eli to make.

This scenario explains to me why Roy seemed so out-of-position.

 

[JPM]

I remember James being livid, but I thought it was in regards to Roy's coverage. This actually to me, if it is correct, absolves Roy of blame on the TD and may explain why Roy was that far off. Bradie was going to take the inside route, and Roy was set on playing the over-the-top pass by Manning to Shockey.

+ James isn't the type of player to "show-up" or bash a teammate on the field.

 

[jobberone]

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.

Where in the hell does it say in forums you must provide evidence to back opinions up. And no one asked him to look anything up. It's obvious that some of you never read my first post except to try and make points against it. It'd make more sense to just give the facts instead of an opinion. But since you can't give facts about coverage responsibilities you state your opinions.

I took the time to say I made assumptions about who was responsible in coverage and stated I didn't really know. I stated it appeared to me Roy played at least two plays unsatisfactorily. I didn't state it was fact. As if someone else like STATs LLC who has a person doing stats play by play actually knows who has coverage and who did or did not play properly. You're kidding yourself quoting facts like that as if they were bibically factual.

I wouldn't go back now to point out the plays I was referring to for all the tea in China. Who really cares that much. If it bothers you and you differ then good for you. Go back and look at it again and again if you like. Not that anyone on this board is going to get it "right" no matter who they are or how many times they look at a TV screen without knowing the coverages called and the responsibilities assigned.

It's childish and foolish to think you're going to be anything but opinionated whether you have "stats" or not. Unless you can talk to the players and coaches you aren't doing anything but guessing including looking at 'play by play' stats.

And anyone who states they looked at the game more than once and never saw Roy make one single poor play is full of crap.

 

[PBJTime]

Where in the hell does it say in forums you must provide evidence to back opinions up. And no one asked him to look anything up. It's obvious that some of you never read my first post except to try and make points against it. It'd make more sense to just give the facts instead of an opinion. But since you can't give facts about coverage responsibilities you state your opinions.

I took the time to say I made assumptions about who was responsible in coverage and stated I didn't really know. I stated it appeared to me Roy played at least two plays unsatisfactorily. I didn't state it was fact. As if someone else like STATs LLC who has a person doing stats play by play actually knows who has coverage and who did or did not play properly. You're kidding yourself quoting facts like that as if they were bibically factual.

I wouldn't go back now to point out the plays I was referring to for all the tea in China. Who really cares that much. If it bothers you and you differ then good for you. Go back and look at it again and again if you like. Not that anyone on this board is going to get it "right" no matter who they are or how many times they look at a TV screen without knowing the coverages called and the responsibilities assigned.

It's childish and foolish to think you're going to be anything but opinionated whether you have "stats" or not. Unless you can talk to the players and coaches you aren't doing anything but guessing including looking at 'play by play' stats.

And anyone who states they looked at the game more than once and never saw Roy make one single poor play is full of crap.

It doesn't say anywhere that you need to provide facts to support your opinions. You are well within your right to not provide them and just spew crap from your mouth. However, people won't take you seriously. But, that's your prerogative. I assume that you come here to state your opinions and have meaningful discussion. Well, in this land of the internet, all you have is your opinion and what you can show to back up your claim. Of course nobody could be absolutely right in this debate, but some people make alot more sense than others simply because they show the reasoning they took to come to their conclusion. You're free to be the second coming of edunce if you wish though.:starspin

Edit: Actually, that isn't fair to Edunce. At least he provides some sort of "evidence" to back his twisted ideas.

 

[BigDFan5]

If you are not prepared to back up claims you make then it is best to not make the claims. Getting defensive when asked to show the plays you are talking about just gives off the impression you have no idea and were just making up things to bash Roy about.

 

[dcowboysfan76]

If you are not prepared to back up claims you make then it is best to not make the claims. Getting defensive when asked to show the plays you are talking about just gives off the impression you have no idea and were just making up things to bash Roy about.

You guys need to lighten up a bit when someone posts their OPINION....I agree with the feller....there is no rule that states one has to provide evidence to make an opinion.....If he feels that Roy sucks in coverage, then that's his opinion. It does not make him wrong or right. You guys can't degrade the guy just because he doesn't want to analyze each Roy Williams play, and dig out film, or rewatch his TiVo....It's an opinion, and first and foremost, no one is getting paid to be an analyst or commentator. It's always amazing to see internet coaches and owners call a guy a moron because he can't back up his opinion by providing some type of factual data. "let it go"......

 

[dcowboysfan76]

It doesn't say anywhere that you need to provide facts to support your opinions. You are well within your right to not provide them and just spew crap from your mouth. However, people won't take you seriously. But, that's your prerogative. I assume that you come here to state your opinions and have meaningful discussion. Well, in this land of the internet, all you have is your opinion and what you can show to back up your claim. Of course nobody could be absolutely right in this debate, but some people make alot more sense than others simply because they show the reasoning they took to come to their conclusion. You're free to be the second coming of edunce if you wish though.

Edit: Actually, that isn't fair to Edunce. At least he provides some sort of "evidence" to back his twisted ideas.

LOl, I have got to see who this Edunce person is...he seems to be a genius

 

[jobberone]

It doesn't say anywhere that you need to provide facts to support your opinions. You are well within your right to not provide them and just spew crap from your mouth. However, people won't take you seriously. But, that's your prerogative. I assume that you come here to state your opinions and have meaningful discussion. Well, in this land of the internet, all you have is your opinion and what you can show to back up your claim. Of course nobody could be absolutely right in this debate, but some people make alot more sense than others simply because they show the reasoning they took to come to their conclusion. You're free to be the second coming of edunce if you wish though.:starspin

Edit: Actually, that isn't fair to Edunce. At least he provides some sort of "evidence" to back his twisted ideas.

Have you even read my initial post or are you just trying to be argumentative and offensive including name calling. Again I don't really care what you think but I care how I'm treated.

Did you even read my initial post or not? Feel free not to answer as you certainly aren't obligated.

 

[jobberone]

You guys need to lighten up a bit when someone posts their OPINION....I agree with the feller....there is no rule that states one has to provide evidence to make an opinion.....If he feels that Roy sucks in coverage, then that's his opinion. It does not make him wrong or right. You guys can't degrade the guy just because he doesn't want to analyze each Roy Williams play, and dig out film, or rewatch his TiVo....It's an opinion, and first and foremost, no one is getting paid to be an analyst or commentator. It's always amazing to see internet coaches and owners call a guy a moron because he can't back up his opinion by providing some type of factual data. "let it go"......

Thanks but I suspect you're wasting your time. The ability to hate surpasses my ability to understand.