Roy covering Shockey-->>Whose Idea?

[dcowboysfan76]

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

LOl, just trying to prevent someone from committing suicide, breaking their computer, getting a hernia, headache, etc......

 

[dbair1967]

I cant believe this thread is still alive

David

 

[jobberone]

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.

Not defensive over being asked to show them. I wasn't even asked. I said up front I wasn't going to provide exact plays. I'm defensive about being ridiculed esp when it's obvious you either haven't read my initial post or you're being ridiculously offensive about someone's opinion. Either way makes you look foolish. In my opinion.

When people like Aikman have remarks to say about Roy's play I find it ridiculous for anyone to take offense at my saying he's an above average safety who looked to have played at least a couple of plays in the last game poorly. You appear overzealous to me about defending Roy. Or is it you like to gang up on posters to tell them they don't know what they're talking about. I'll concede I might not know what I'm talking about but I won't concede I'm making things up.

Now do you really think I'm making things up in an effort to bash Roy or do you think I'm just giving my opinion that it appeared Roy missed some coverages? And please read my initial comment if you're going to retort.

 

[dbair1967]

Dude, let me bottom line something for you. That was tight coverage by Roy and a good throw and catch beat the tight coverage. It happens all the time in the NFL.

and even with 25 picture of it, the morons just wont shut up and drop it

this has got to be one of the dumbest threads ever

David

 

[BigDFan5]

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"......

I agree and opinion is an opinion, problem is he said he saw 2 plays. When asked about the plays he dodged.

IMO if you are going to get specific and include the number of plays you should at least be able to recite the plays you mention

 

[jobberone]

LOl, just trying to prevent someone from committing suicide, breaking their computer, getting a hernia, headache, etc......

Well at least you have managed to keep your perspective and sense of humor.

I just remember no one can hurt me as much as my ex-wife.

 

[bbgun]

I cant believe this thread is still alive

David

It's the Abe Vigoda of threads.

 

[BigDFan5]

Not defensive over being asked to show them. I wasn't even asked. I said up front I wasn't going to provide exact plays. I'm defensive about being ridiculed esp when it's obvious you either haven't read my initial post or you're being ridiculously offensive about someone's opinion. Either way makes you look foolish. In my opinion.

When people like Aikman have remarks to say about Roy's play I find it ridiculous for anyone to take offense at my saying he's an above average safety who looked to have played at least a couple of plays in the last game poorly. You appear overzealous to me about defending Roy. Or is it you like to gang up on posters to tell them they don't know what they're talking about. I'll concede I might not know what I'm talking about but I won't concede I'm making things up.

Now do you really think I'm making things up in an effort to bash Roy or do you think I'm just giving my opinion that it appeared Roy missed some coverages? And please read my initial comment if you're going to retort.

You used alot of references to me in your post, and I have made exactly one post to you, and it was in no way offensive.

I have read your original comment and I stand by my post if you are going to come into a thread and mention two plays he had bad coverage on then be able to name the 2 plays. Thats just whats expected in a debate.

If you weren't looking to debate it then why even post it when everyone is debating?

Lastly, Roy threads get heated. if your feelings get hurt this easily by how you are treated I would suggest skipping them in the future

 

[dcowboysfan76]

Well at least you have managed to keep your perspective and sense of humor.

I just remember no one can hurt me as much as my ex-wife.

Dude it's pointless trying to argue an opinion because they will have theirs and you will have yours. Many people on this board and other boards think that every opinion is a political debate that must be won in order to gain some type of respect. It's not all that serious, and like someone said earlier your "opinion" will not matter or will not be taken seriously if it is not supported by some type of stat or vid. clip......

 

[superpunk]

Not defensive over being asked to show them. I wasn't even asked. I said up front I wasn't going to provide exact plays. I'm defensive about being ridiculed esp when it's obvious you either haven't read my initial post or you're being ridiculously offensive about someone's opinion. Either way makes you look foolish. In my opinion.

When people like Aikman have remarks to say about Roy's play I find it ridiculous for anyone to take offense at my saying he's an above average safety who looked to have played at least a couple of plays in the last game poorly. You appear overzealous to me about defending Roy. Or is it you like to gang up on posters to tell them they don't know what they're talking about. I'll concede I might not know what I'm talking about but I won't concede I'm making things up.

Now do you really think I'm making things up in an effort to bash Roy or do you think I'm just giving my opinion that it appeared Roy missed some coverages? And please read my initial comment if you're going to retort.

I read your initial post, and understand where you're coming from. It was just an expression of opinion, and difficult to refute.

That said, this thread is so far gone, for so long, you shoulld just bail with your sanity in tact. It's bar none one of the stupidest, pointless, petty threads I've ever seen - and I've been in my share of stupid, pointless, and petty threads.

 

[BigDFan5]

I read your initial post, and understand where you're coming from. It was just an expression of opinion, and difficult to refute.

That said, this thread is so far gone, for so long, you shoulld just bail with your sanity in tact. It's bar none one of the stupidest, pointless, petty threads I've ever seen - and I've been in my share of stupid, pointless, and petty threads.

Shut up Pete Hunter is great!

 

[dbair1967]

I. It's bar none one of the stupidest, pointless, petty threads I've ever seen - .

so true...so true

David

 

[gollum]

I haven't posted(or even read a single post) in this thread, but I was feeling left out and wanted to be part of the team :laugh2:

Thought I'd waste my time on more informative topics for discussions than this :horse:

 

[PBJTime]

I haven't posted(or even read a single post) in this thread, but I was feeling left out and wanted to be part of the team :laugh2:

Thought I'd waste my time on more informative topics for discussions than this :horse:

And sadly, you unknowingly provided more substance in this post than some have in this thread.:laugh2:

 

[Idgit]

It's the Abe Vigoda of threads.

You're saying this thread is addicted to stool-softeners?

 

[AdamJT13]

Interesting.

Last time you told me that Shockey was at the goal-line, and Roy met him there. Here, IN PICTURE 2, it is quite clear that Shockey is at least two feet behind the end-zone, and Roy is at least 4 feet behind the end-zone. So what this basically means is that Roy was back-peddling, allowed Shockey to simply turn around, and make an easy catch.

Did you even watch the game? Shockey didn't turn around, he cut inside.

This photo is much closer to the sideline --

... than this photo is --

Shockey didn't run perpendicular to the goal line, he ran on an angle. Roy can't just run through the receiver -- that's pass interference. So as Shockey went deeper, so did Roy. He was on Shockey's hip the whole time.

Was it that difficult a throw?

It's certainly not one that quarterbacks always make. Manning had 11 incompletions, so he obviously can't hit his target every time.

Look at where Roy is, when the ball is released. It is quite clear he was still back-peddling when Shockey made his break, and was completely behind Shockey. He had absolutely NO ANGLE on the ball, and he kept moving backwards, instead of taking any angle. It is quite clear Roy did not 'play him' at the goal-line, because he was moving backwards. What is further clear is that whether Manning threw it at the 80 on SHockey's chest, his pelvis, or his right shoulder, Shockey would have made an easy catch.

That entire paragraph is incorrect. Roy wasn't back-pedalling when Shockey made his break, he didn't keep moving backward (other than to stay with Shockey, who was running at an angle), he did meet Shockey at the goal line, and he could have made a play on the ball if Manning hadn't thrown it at Shockey's back shoulder.

Is it that hard to comprehend that what I stated was that Roy gave him too much of a cushion. In each of the other pictures you provided, they tell us nothing about whether the CB was playing similar to Roy.

It doesn't matter what the pictures tell you. That's what happened on the play, and those are pictures from the play.

In the case of Henry, he gave him a cushion, but the receiver had to make his break way before he was near the end-zone. And Henry was clearly not back-peddling, but going to the receiver, and he had a clear angle to the ball, unlike Roy.

That's absolutely incorrect. Henry was going deeper into the end zone even as his receiver (Curtis) was running a curl at the 2. Henry's hips are turned, and his right foot is stepping into the end zone --

If the ball had been thrown to Curtis on time, Henry had no chance to break on the ball in time to defend the pass.

Had Shockey run a curl at the 2, Roy would have been able to break on the ball because he never turned his hips.

What is further terrible about the coverage is that the 1st down marker was at the 4 in that play, and Roy gave Shockey enough space to run unimpeded into the end-zone. He didn't even play the first down marker.

Look at that photo of Henry and Davis again. That's the first-down line at the 7, and they're still playing off their men.

Here's a photo of the Patriots against us --

The first-down line is at the 7, but the defensive backs are at the 5.

I can provide more examples, if you need them.

And Roy had no chance to make any break on any ball, because of his poor positioning and movement on that play. As I said, awkward movement....

Again, that's completely incorrect. Roy could have made a break at any time because he stayed balanced and never turned his hips.

 

[AdamJT13]

While watching the game last nite, I noticed on Shockey's TD catch that Bradie James seemed to have underneath coverage...until another TE ,#88, ran a short crossing route and opened it up for Shockey. That leads me to believe that Dallas had zone coverage called underneath with man over the top but the other TE wasn't accounted for, therefore 56 had break off his assignment...it seemed like it was more of the play being well designed and called at the right time rather than just terrible coverage by Williams.

The other tight end actually ran into James and knocked him out of the throwing lane for Manning. I'm sure the Giants would claim that James hit the tight end, but James was livid after the play because of it.

 

[JDSmith]

The other tight end actually ran into James and knocked him out of the throwing lane for Manning. I'm sure the Giants would claim that James hit the tight end, but James was livid after the play because of it.

Just rewatched it, James had established position and didn't move, the TE ran directly into him and basically blocked him to push him out of the way. Should have been an easy offensive pass interference call, but I guess the refs didn't see it.

 

[playmakers]

Ive been critical of Roy in the past but this year imo hes playing better. Try this, if that was any other player on Sunday than Roy Williams would people complain? His pediogree in the past is hurting him this year and it seems as if he gets thrown right under the bus regardless due to his past history.

Point 1

In the past 3 seasons how many times has he been beaten deep? Many of times......

This season, he has not been beaten deep once this year. The first game against Burress i still say that wasnt his fault because he was covering on the other side of the field and Burress was coming from the opposite side. Regardless, thats a major improvement.

Point 2

Roy is what he is. If you expect him to come in and cover like Ronnie Lott then you set goals too high. Where you can critcize him is he is a turnover machine in the past but this year it seems that dropped off a bit. Not many fumbles created by him or INT's.


Shockey did beat him on Sunday but if you take away the 22 yarder in the first quarter in which he wasnt covering him he had 11 catches for about 100 yards. In addition, the one right before half time in which we were in a zone, that was another 20 yards, so take that away and you have 10 catches for 80 yards on Roy. 8 yards per catch is not bad in the NFL. In addition, many of the catches Roy gave up was dictated by the coverage called. Many times Roy was 10 yards off and Shockey just ran a short slant or a turnaround proven by his yards per catch numbers. These catches are given to the offense if they want them due to the coverage scheme that was called.



In closing, were 8-1, no need to argue over him. I think from now on it will be best to not say anything about him. In this chat it seems like we have a 50-50 split(even though Ill admit I didnt read all 357 posts). Roy will continue to be like this his whole career because quite frankly hes a tweener between LB and a SS.