Terence Newman with Mike Doocy - 5/26/08

[jobberone]

Did you knuckleheads even listen to this? If anything, Newman only reiterated the exact same things the "apologists" have been screaming into your deaf ears for months.

Seriously. Come on, you guys are quality posters here, but using this as some sort of battle cry for the Roy haters club is a bit much.

I guess some people have to have a piano fall on them to get it. I don't hate RW. I've met him. I like him a great deal as a person. But he is a liability in coverage. What in the heck does it take to drag your head out of the sand? I feel I can say something that personal since you're calling me a hater and a knucklehead.

He is being taken out of some coverages in passing situations. Did Woodson or anyother quality safety get taken out like that? The FO has acknowledged there needs to be some changes back there. No, they didn't mention Roy's name. They have said that Roy needs to work on his coverage though. You connect the dots assuming you're able to. RW has said he needs to work on his coverage. Publically. More than once. His teammates have publically stated he played 'bad' in coverage last year. What do you need to hear and see to recognize that even if you don't acknowledge it, lots of people here, in the media, in the FO, and his teammates see him playing badly in coverage? Tell me what it will take. I don't think anything will change your mind.

Is that his exact words and do you have to read between the lines?

If someone could do a recap, it would be well appreciated.

Those are pretty much his exact words. Adam did a word for word quote.

 

[khiladi]

Newman: I don't .. you know, the funny thing is Roy had, coming into his rookie year, I think he had five picks and he showed that he could cover. I mean, he's the same guy, I think he just sometimes gets kind of a deer-in-the-headlights type of reaction to some plays, just gets caught. You know, not everybody's going to have a perfect season. He had a bad season last year as far as coverage, but I think he's doing the things he needs to do to get back on track.

And that is my opinion of Roy Williams. I think Roy did show an ability to cover in his first two seasons, which makes his performance now, all the more irritating. Some of his interceptions in his first few years were downright sickening...

 

[khiladi]

BTW, if anybody is using the argument that Newman didn't call out Roy specifically as a liability in coverage as proof that his game doesn't need serious work, they are grasping at straws.

It is called being politically correct...

 

[Maikeru-sama]

BTW, if anybody is using the argument that Newman didn't call out Roy specifically as a liability in coverage as proof that his game doesn't need serious work, they are grasping at straws.

It is called being politically correct...

I'm pretty sure Terence Newman stated that the guy needed to improve.

What is interesting is that the individuals on both sides of Roy-Gate seem to think they are going to get some type of prize if they are indeed proven right.

I don't think I want to be around when they find out there isn't any gold at the end of the debate.

 

[tomson75]

I guess some people have to have a piano fall on them to get it. I don't hate RW. I've met him. I like him a great deal as a person. But he is a liability in coverage. What in the heck does it take to drag your head out of the sand? I feel I can say something that personal since you're calling me a hater and a knucklehead.

Lmao...so you're using a interview with Newman where he states he isn't a liability in coverage to prove that he is a liability in coverage? Ok.

As far as calling you a knucklehead, read my other post. It's not intended as an insult.

He is being taken out of some coverages in passing situations. Did Woodson or anyother quality safety get taken out like that? The FO has acknowledged there needs to be some changes back there. No, they didn't mention Roy's name. They have said that Roy needs to work on his coverage though. You connect the dots assuming you're able to. RW has said he needs to work on his coverage. Publically. More than once. His teammates have publically stated he played 'bad' in coverage last year. What do you need to hear and see to recognize that even if you don't acknowledge it, lots of people here, in the media, in the FO, and his teammates see him playing badly in coverage? Tell me what it will take. I think it's nothing will change your mind.



Those are pretty much his exact words. Adam did a word for word quote.

Those are pretty much every Roy "apologists" words as well. Everyone on this board as expressed their disapproval of Williams performance last year. Only some of us choose to use rationality over emotion when discussing it. My mind doesn't need to be changed. It's right where it should be.

 

[Nav22]

God has nothing to do with it. Some of the most brutal players ever were devout. If finding religion made him soft, that's a personal issue not something related to faith.

1) I'm not "blaming" God. Roy stupidly said he's stopped the big hits since finding God, so I'm obviously blaming Roy. If you want to call Roy a liar, whatever. Those were his words.

Religion has softened the guy... let's call a spade a spade.

2) People use God/religion in different ways. Some use it to better themselves, others turn into murderous maniacs because of it, etc. For whatever reason, Roy is selfishly letting it negatively affect his job performance.

3) This is the last I'll speak on the "liability" issue. Besides Akin Ayodele, was there a worse defensive starter than Roy, not counting Reeves who was forced to start due to injury?

Being that Roy is/was not an "asset" and being that he is/was one of our very worst defensive starters, how could he logically NOT have been a liability?

It's a matter of opinion, I suppose. Do you believe that he helped us as much or more than his presence hurt us last year? I don't, and if you don't either, then you believe he was a liability.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Lmao...so you're using a interview with Newman where he states he isn't a liability in coverage to prove that he is a liability in coverage? Ok.

To be honest, Terence Newman also stated that he had a bad year coverage-wise.

Like usual, information can be tailored to support one belief or another.

Newman stated that Roy had a bad year in coverate, that is 1 point for the Anti-Roy folks and then he later states that Roy is not a liability in coverage, so that is 1 point for the Pro-Roy crowd.

Throughout the entire history of the Roy Debate, I wonder what the total score is ?

 

[Idgit]

1) I'm not "blaming" God. Roy stupidly said he's stopped the big hits since finding God, so I'm obviously blaming Roy. If you want to call Roy a liar, whatever. Those were his words...

Would your opinion on this topic change if it magically turned out that Roy never said what you think he said? Just speaking hypothetically, of course.

 

[tomson75]

To be honest, Terence Newman also stated that he had a bad year coverage-wise.

Like usual, information can be tailored to support one belief or another.

Newman stated that Roy had a bad year in coverate, that is 1 point for the Anti-Roy folks and then he later states that Roy is not a liability in coverage, so that is 1 point for the Pro-Roy crowd.

Throughout the entire history of the Roy Debate, I wonder what the total score is ?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Roy had a bad year. Everyone knows it. He wasn't the player he's capable of being. This could be read several different ways. One could even read into so far as to take Alexander's approach. It's understandable.

The fact is, one side sees the gray area, and the other doesn't. IMO. It's pretty obvious.

 

[SMCowboy]

He is being taken out of some coverages in passing situations. Did Woodson or anyother quality safety get taken out like that? The FO has acknowledged there needs to be some changes back there. No, they didn't mention Roy's name. They have said that Roy needs to work on his coverage though. You connect the dots assuming you're able to. RW has said he needs to work on his coverage. Publically. More than once. His teammates have publically stated he played 'bad' in coverage last year. What do you need to hear and see to recognize that even if you don't acknowledge it, lots of people here, in the media, in the FO, and his teammates see him playing badly in coverage?.

Where did any of the Roy "apologist" ever say that Roy Williams was good in coverage much less that he had a good year as a whole? Here is a hint, you will not find it. What everyone I have seen say is. Did Roy have a good year, absolutely not. But, lets not pretend that Roy Williams is the worst safety in football. We could do a whole lot WORSE than Roy Williams as our SS as well. But the haters seem to take the approach that Roy Williams is one of the worst safety's in the league and that getting rid of him would be addition by subtraction and we would be hard pressed to find anyone who is worse than Roy Williams, that they would rather have Keith Davis as our SS instead of Roy Williams because at least Keith Davis is a great special teams player.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Roy had a bad year. Everyone knows it. He wasn't the player he's capable of being. This could be read several different ways. One could even read into so far as to take Alexander's approach. It's understandable.

The fact is, one side sees the gray area, and the other doesn't. IMO. It's pretty obvious.

I disagree.

The Extreme Pro-Roy folks can be pretty obnoxious and contentious in their own right.

To the point that any criticism of their Prophet is met with an armed mob ready to hang you .

To be honest, I don't think the Roy Debates are anywhere near the Quincy/Hutch Debates in nastiness.

 

[Idgit]

I disagree.

The Extreme Pro-Roy folks can be pretty obnoxious and contentious in their own right.

To the point that any criticism of their Prophet is met with an armed mob ready to hang you .

To be honest, I don't think the Roy Debates are anywhere near the Quincy/Hutch Debates in nastiness.

Here's an idea: it's a challenge. Go through this thread and the Roy Myth thread and find the most extreme things posted by any Roy supporter of any stripe. I'll do the same for the people who aren't so fond of Roy. You post yours and I'll reply to your post with mine, and we can compare to get a really good sense of how extreme the two sides are on this issue. Care to have a go?

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Here's an idea: it's a challenge. Go through this thread and the Roy Myth thread and find the most extreme things posted by any Roy supporter of any stripe. I'll do the same for the people who aren't so fond of Roy. You post yours and I'll reply to your post with mine, and we can compare to get a really good sense of how extreme the two sides are on this issue. Care to have a go?

I think I will past . Primarily because the extreme Roy claims are not limited to those threads.

Also, "extreme" is very subjective and could be interpreted in different ways.

What is far more interesting is to find out what is the most extreme claim ever made about Roy Williams and more importantly who made it .

 

[Rampage]

Lmao...so you're using a interview with Newman where he states he isn't a liability in coverage to prove that he is a liability in coverage? Ok.

even if Newman thought Roy was a liability in coverage, what would be the point of saying it to the media? what good would possible come from Newman saying he was a liability in coverage?

 

[SMCowboy]

I disagree.

The Extreme Pro-Roy folks can be pretty obnoxious and contentious in their own right.

To the point that any criticism of their Prophet is met with an armed mob ready to hang you .

To be honest, I don't think the Roy Debates are anywhere near the Quincy/Hutch Debates in nastiness.

I would love for someone to show me a post from anyone that says that Roy Williams had even a good year last year.

The only people to mention good year and Roy Williams in the same sentence are the Roy Williams "haters" who say that that is the stance or Roy Williams "lovers" is that Roy Williams had a great year and that he is a great cover safety."

 

[Maikeru-sama]

even if Newman thought Roy was a liability in coverage, what would be the point of saying it to the media? what good would possible come from Newman saying he was a liability in coverage?

And yet in the same interview he stated that Roy had a terrible year in coverage.

I agree, similar to Gregg Ellis airing out the dirty laundry, it would so no positive purpose to state it.

 

[Idgit]

I think I will past . Primarily because the extreme Roy claims are not limited to those threads.

Also, "extreme" is very subjective and could be interpreted in different ways.

What is far more interesting is to find out what is the most extreme claim ever made about Roy Williams and more importantly who made it .

Ok. I'm not surprised. The offer is open to any Roy Williams hater who wants to take up the mantle. It doesn't have to be limited to those threads. I was just trying to keep it easy. Any definition of 'extreme' will suffice since the quotes will be right there in digital ink so we can all see how extreme each side is.

I'd ask the pro/neutral Roy crowd to PM me with examples they come across. The other side can do the same.

And I understand if nobody wants to do it. That's fine, too. But the point that both sides in this argument are extreme in their own right won't hold water if you don't.

 

[khiladi]

Where did any of the Roy "apologist" ever say that Roy Williams was good in coverage much less that he had a good year as a whole? Here is a hint, you will not find it..

People phrase things in different ways. Have you heard of the oft-repeated:

"Name one top-five safety that could cover a tight-end like Jeremy SHockey one on one?"

These types of quotes have been consistently used in discussions to defend Roy's 'coverage' abilities. Now that Woodson and Newman have pretty much come out and said Roy has coverage issues, people are acting as if those that are bashing Roy need some quote phrased in a specific way that they want. It's actually quite hilarious, really... You can spin it any way you want it, but Roy is now under a serious microscope.

It isn't just a media perpetuated phenomenon or people that have a grudge against Roy...

Like I said, where there is smoke, there is fire...

 

[khiladi]

I'm pretty sure Terence Newman stated that the guy needed to improve.

Exactly... There are ways to say things without trying to offend. If Newman said Roy was a liability, he ends up alienating his team-mate and most likely his friend. The whole quote is admitting Roy's problems, at the same time, saying Roy can improve.

It's called being politically correct.... It's like a teacher telling his student his performance isn't upto par, but he has show potential and can improve.

That doesn't mean that the Roy defenders won some points because they didn't get Newman calling out Roy as a liability...

 

[tomson75]

even if Newman thought Roy was a liability in coverage, what would be the point of saying it to the media? what good would possible come from Newman saying he was a liability in coverage?

So by your logic its safe to assume that Newman actually meant that Roy IS a liability in coverage, and that he just didn't say it because it would be controversial? That it wouldn't do any good?

Gotcha.