Terence Newman with Mike Doocy - 5/26/08

[kmd24]

I'd can't wait for some of them to put a spin on this.

[To WoodysGirl] And you've been like most; stating the facts or opinions without passion and being fair minded. No problems. It's the ones who decide my opinion is incorrect then take the debate into the personal realm.

Ok, here is comes. If I said you had a poor season in coverage and needed to work on some things then what else does it serve to say "oh, hell yeah, RW is the biggest liability on the team. And he didn't say RW was a problem against the run. He only said he had a poor season in coverage last year. So how about we don't blow it up further than it is and how about we don't spin it off as it doesn't really mean anything because he said Roy wasn't a liability in the secondary.

For the record, all I stated were facts.

From my point of view, Newman said two interesting things in the interview. Paraphrasing:

• Roy has the potential to be good in coverage
• The reason he had a bad year was lack of confidence/preparation in combination with his physical conditioning.

These interesting points get lost in the din of the CZ villagers lighting the torches, grabbing the pitchforks, and storming FrankenWillie's castle because a teammate said something we all knew: RW had a bad year in coverage.

I think RW was pedestrian in 2007. It's a shame, because the front seven is finally starting to play at a level we haven't seen in over a decade. That said, his subpar play is hardly the entirety or the nadir of problems in the 2007 secondary.

 

[tomson75]

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?

That's an excellent idea. I'd love to see the results.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I've said all along that I do agree, completely, that he has to play better but I have always liked Roy Williams and I always will. I don't care how many people absolutely hate him.

 

[SMCowboy]

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



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...

So the best we can get that Roy Williams was good in coverage last year is: "Name me one top-five safety that can cover Jeremy Shockey one on one"? I have to say I find it really odd, given that I could quickly find 2 pages worth of statements that flat out state Roy Williams is a terrible SS.

I don't know what smoke you are talking about. I have never seen anyone insinuate much less say that Roy Williams doesn't need to play better next year. Yes, he absolutely DOES need to play better next year. And if he doesn't then yes he certainly COULD be a cap casualty strictly because he is not living up to his salary, but not because he is not a NFL quality SS like many "haters" on here seem to want us to believe.

 

[jobberone]

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.



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.

Not everyone has expressed their disapproval of RW BTW. As far as the liability issue goes all I can say is if you were 'rational instead of emotional' you would see that Roy playing badly and being pulled is a liability. Do you actually think TNew was going to say Roy is a liability. I was shocked to see him saying anything. I'm shocked he said this much. And yeah I think the entire conversation says it all. Roy was bad in coverage "last year", is working on it and knows what he has to do about it. Now if there wasn't a serious problem then we and others wouldn't be having a conversation about this. Right now I see a picture of justice with a blindfold on weighing all the evidence. However I knew there would be those who would never admit to RW actually have a serious problem back there. At least you admit he played badly last year. I guess you don't see this as a problem or him as a liability.

And guess what. Hamlin isn't a great deal better. Teague was a better safety overall than either of them are RIGHT NOW. Marginally over Hamlin and significantly over RW.

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.

So everyone knows it now. You are speaking for everyone now? Do you even have any idea how much you are spinning and waffling on this? And you were only kidding? And then have the gall to say your side sees the gray area and others don't. That's about as hypocritical a statement as you can get. On both counts. Go back and look at my posts on RW. You will never see I say he sucks. You won't find a lot about his run play. But you will see me consistently over the last two years and this one in particular, being all over him for his inconsistent and at times poor play in the secondary. And he has cost us games.

I'm outta this. It has degraded into spin, personal insults, and outright lies....the kidding thing pal. I have said all I want to say and I'll let everyone else say what they're thinking. I don't speak for anyone but myself. Adios.

 

[kmd24]

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...

There are a number of ways that one could remain politically correct while still stating that Roy was a liability. For example, Newman could have said that most strong safeties are going to struggle in one-on-one situations.

People want to stick to the facts until it doesn't fit their agenda. The facts about Newman's interview are:

• Stated RW has the potential to be good in coverage ("he showed that he could cover. I mean, he's the same guy")
• Stated that RW sometimes blows coverages when he doesn't know what to do ("he just sometimes gets kind of a deer-in-the-headlights type of reaction to some plays, just gets caught")
• Stated he had a bad season in coverage ("He had a bad season last year as far as coverage")
• Stated unequivocally that RW is not a liability ("I definitely don't think he's a liability")
• Stated that RW is doing what he needs to so he can return to form ("He just realizes what he has to work on. He's been trying to ... stay ... keep his weight down and work with the weight room ... in the weight room, getting stronger. He knows what he has to do.")

When you look at it in absence of emotion, it doesn't give much new information, and it certainly doesn't indict RW any more than most have already said. Regardless of your position on Williams, I don't see a lot to hang an argument on without a great deal of spinning.

 

[khiladi]

So the best we can get that Roy Williams was good in coverage last year is: "Name me one top-five safety that can cover Jeremy Shockey one on one"? I have to say I find it really odd, given that I could quickly find 2 pages worth of statements that flat out state Roy Williams is a terrible SS.

The best we can get? It wasn't my intention to give you a long draw-out thesis of how people defend Roy Williams. I just gave you one typical example of people defending Roy's coverage abilities through implicit statements such as the following:

Name me on SS who can cover Shockey one-on-one?

It has been repeated ad nauseum in defense of Roy, in fact, most likely way mroe than 2 pages worth of bashing of Roy. It is called excuse-making for Roy Williams.

You people act like you won a victory because Nemwan said Roy has coverage issues last year and wasn't called out a liability. The fact is, he called out his game in a nice way. WHoppity-doo for the Roy WIlliams defenders...

I don't know what smoke you are talking about. I have never seen anyone insinuate much less say that Roy Williams doesn't need to play better next year. Yes, he absolutely DOES need to play better next year. And if he doesn't then yes he certainly COULD be a cap casualty strictly because he is not living up to his salary, but not because he is not a NFL quality SS like many "haters" on here seem to want us to believe.

Sorry, but Darren Woodson was saying to blame it on him, because they kept it too easy for Roy. They were clearl worried about the mental aspect of the game, and Woodson stated that this didn't allow him to adjust overall to his new role. That means that while Roy may have the physical talents, he surely isn't living upto the mental part of the game... This comments can bet taken to extend to the time Wade wasn't even came on board..

 

[tomson75]

So everyone knows it know. You are speaking for everyone now? Do you even have any idea how much you are spinning and waffling on this? And you were only kidding? And then have the gall to say your side sees the gray area and others don't. That's about as hypocritical a statement as you can get. On both counts. Go back and look at my posts on RW. You will never see I say he sucks. You won't find a lot about his run play. But you will see me consistently over the last two years and this one in particular, being all over him for him inconsistent and at times poor play in the secondary. And he has cost us games.

I'm outta this. It has degraded into spin, personal insults, and outright lies....the kidding thing pal. I have said all I want to say and I'll let everyone else say what they're thinking. I don't speak for anyone but myself. Adios.

Holy overreaction batman. I went so far as to apologize for my knucklehead comment....even after I tried to explain it was meant to be playful. Just put me on ignore if you're that damn sensitive. Hypocritical? Try ironic.

I'm not speaking for everyone. I'm not speaking in absolutes, although it often seems that way form all sides of every conversation on forums like this.

Why dont' you take Idgit's challenge if you think I'm so wrong. I dare you.

Maybe you should just hop on your bagger and blow of some steam.

 

[BigDFan5]

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.

Go listen again that is not what he said

 

[kmd24]

You people act like you won a victory because Nemwan said Roy has coverage issues last year and wasn't called out a liability. The fact is, he called out his lack of preparation in a nice way. WHoppity-doo for the Roy WIlliams defenders...

Since I was the one who brought up the liability issue, I would like to point out that it is in no way a defense of RW. In actuality, I brought it up merely to expose the hypocrisy of anyone who would take this innocuous interview that offers little new information and use Newman's statement that RW had a bad year in coverage as proof, vindication, or new evidence in any argument about RW's play.

Pardon me for being amused at the drama unfolding before me.

 

[Idgit]

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?

That's an excellent idea. I'd love to see the results.

Thanks for quoting it. I was concerned nobody had accepted the challenge becuase they all had me on 'ingore.'

 

[khiladi]

Since I was the one who brought up the liability issue, I would like to point out that it is in no way a defense of RW. In actuality, I brought it up merely to expose the hypocrisy of anyone who would take this innocuous interview that offers little new information and use Newman's statement that RW had a bad year in coverage as proof, vindication, or new evidence in any argument about RW's play.

Pardon me for being amused at the drama unfolding before me.

Point taken...

 

[jobberone]

Holy overreaction batman. I went so far as to apologize for my knucklehead comment....even after I tried to explain it was meant to be playful. Just put me on ignore if you're that damn sensitive. Hypocritical? Try ironic.

I'm not speaking for everyone. I'm not speaking in absolutes, although it often seems that way form all sides of every conversation on forums like this.

Why dont' you take Idgit's challenge if you think I'm so wrong. I dare you.

Maybe you should just hop on your bagger and blow of some steam.

Ok one LAST time. When you call someone names don't stick it back on them when they react to it. Calling someone names is an insult and is considered insensitive. When they call you on it because you not only don't really apologize but then insinuate the one you insulted has the problem, it goes beyond insensitive. When you post something and then don't expect an answer it goes to show you believe you not only must have the last word but you are the last word. When you then pile on more insults when you clearly pissed someone off, again insensitive to the point one begins to think narcissism. You should point out what your boundaries are. If you don't care about my boundaries then I will just ignore you.

I don't really care what you or others think about RW. I do care when I post something and you ridicule it. I will try to explain myself. When it gets to this point then I want to give up trying to have a meaningful debate.

If I still had my bagger I would get on it because it's there and not because you think I should. Again...narcissism??? Perhaps you would like to follow your own advice.

 

[theogt]

I was one till this past season. Just can't do it anymore.

Well, that makes sense, considering last year was his only year where he could be described as "bad in coverage."

Fair weather fan?

 

[Idgit]

Go listen again that is not what he said

This is not going to help.

 

[tomson75]

I tried to extend the olive branch, and apologize for what was essentially a joke...

Look, I can't possibly think of a way to make you understand that I was being lighthearted that I haven't already tried. I was. You don't believe me. Fair enough.

Just put me on ignore. If you're going to be this delicate about this, then my pissing you off again is inevitable.

It's a shame, because Iv'e had nothing but respect for you as a poster here...and then there's the whole biker camaraderie.

Oh well.

Is this how you apologize to your wife or family? You try to say enough then pour it on again before I can even accept your overture or not. Wow. Maybe you would say this word for word on the forum??? Or would you be ashamed to??

I'm not ashamed, nor should I be.

 

[jobberone]

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.

And where did I say 'Roy apologists' said that. I haven't put any words in anyone's mouth much less yours.

 

[jobberone]

For the record, all I stated were facts.

From my point of view, Newman said two interesting things in the interview. Paraphrasing:

• Roy has the potential to be good in coverage
• The reason he had a bad year was lack of confidence/preparation in combination with his physical conditioning.

These interesting points get lost in the din of the CZ villagers lighting the torches, grabbing the pitchforks, and storming FrankenWillie's castle because a teammate said something we all knew: RW had a bad year in coverage.

I think RW was pedestrian in 2007. It's a shame, because the front seven is finally starting to play at a level we haven't seen in over a decade. That said, his subpar play is hardly the entirety or the nadir of problems in the 2007 secondary.

What makes you think that I have a list of "Roy Apologists" at my right hand so I can insult them all. I don't even know you exist; until now.

And he did not say Roy had a bad year because he's not preparing. You could come to that conclusion. And rightfully that is a part; most likely. But that may not even be the biggest reason.

And when you start the 'grabbing the pitchfork' thing; I can't even understand that. The most I've said about Roy is his coverage is bad at times, he has cost us at least one game, his run coverage isn't what it used to be, and at this point I'd rather have Teague back there than him. Can Roy get back to where he once was. Yeah and I've defended him on that too. But it is what it is. And no matter how much squirming is done on that end the worm is going on the hook.

 

[jobberone]

I tried to extend the olive branch, and apologize for what was essentially a joke...



I'm not ashamed, nor should I be.

Well perhaps that's the problem. At least you have a brass pair.

 

[BigDFan5]

Someone is a little sensitive today