Terence Newman with Mike Doocy - 5/26/08

[WoodysGirl]

Hey dcfanatic, you're getting popular...

NEWMAN CALLS WILLIAMS “A DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS”
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 27, 2008, 1:48 p.m.
After signing a long-term contract extension that will likely keep him in Dallas for the rest of his career, Cowboys cornerback Terence Newman gave an interview to Mike Doocy of Fox 4 in Dallas. And in that interview, he had some critical things to say about a teammate who may not be in Dallas much longer.

When asked about safety Roy Williams, Newman started off by saying that Williams had shown talent in coverage earlier in his career, but then he veered off course and added, “He’s the same guy, I think, he just sometimes gets kind of a deer in the headlights reaction, some plays. … He had a bad season last year, as far as coverage.”

Later in the interview, Newman again started off defending his teammate, only to criticize him again. When asked directly whether Williams hurt the team, Newman answered, “I definitely don’t think he’s a liability.” But then he added of Williams, “He’s got to keep his weight down and work in the weight room, getting stronger.”

Although Newman didn’t sound like he was trying to rip Williams, he did sound as though he wasn’t particularly impressed with Williams. That could be a sign that if Williams doesn’t last much longer with the Cowboys, his teammates won’t be terribly disappointed.

One person Newman is impressed with is fellow cornerback Pacman Jones. Said Newman of Jones, “The guy just seems cool as heck.”

The full interview is at DC Fanatic.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Hey dcfanatic, you're getting popular...

Hey DCfanatic, can you change that url to a vid that says "ProFootballTalk and Mike Florio are big fat turds?"

Thanks.

 

[kmd24]

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.

What does that even mean? Am I supposed to be a "Roy Apologist" in this scenario? The quotes were simply pointing out your hypocrisy with respect to spin.

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.

"Deer in the headlights" implies that he doesn't know which way to go, which is typically a product of lack of confidence or lack of preparation. He didn't say it verbatim, which is why I said I was paraphrasing.

And when you start the 'grabbing the pitchfork' thing; I can't even understand that.

There were positive as well as negative comments in the interview. I thought it interesting that a couple of posters chose to run with the negative, and you stated "I'd [sic] can't wait for some of them to put a spin on this."

The idea that RW's coverage was bad in 2007 is no epiphany, yet your tone is that we found the smoking gun because Newman said so. He also stated that RW wasn't a liability, which you and others spun by saying that Newman had to say that. Why take one statement (especially one that is easy to spin if one so chose) at face value and discount the other? It's hypocritical behavior when you claim to value facts and hate spin.

 

[PosterChild]

Hey dcfanatic, you're getting popular...

Yup, DCfanatic, he called you the "whiz". Speaking of which...

 

[BigDFan5]

The Wiz??

 

[Nav22]

http://umtailgate.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/seinfeld-wiz.jpg

The Wiz.

 

[PosterChild]

http://umtailgate.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/seinfeld-wiz.jpg

The Wiz.

Oh. I was thinking something else.

 

[dcfanatic]

Hey dcfanatic, you're getting popular...

They like me, they really like me!!!


Mosley also pimped the video at Hashmarks..

"And please notice the entertaining editorial comments provided by DCFanatic.com in the video" - This was my favorite part of the article.

Oh that Matt Mosley.

But now MICHAEL Irvin is going to be mad at me because I done did a typo in the video, lol.

Why has no one pointed out that I spelled Michael incorrectly. I am apologizing to the grammar police up front.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

They like me, they really like me!!!


Mosley also pimped the video at Hashmarks..

"And please notice the entertaining editorial comments provided by DCFanatic.com in the video" - This was my favorite part of the article.

Oh that Matt Mosley.

But now MICHAEL Irvin is going to be mad at me because I done did a typo in the video, lol.

Why has no one pointed out that I spelled Michael incorrectly. I am apologizing to the grammar police up front.

you better

we might not throw away the key once we lock you up

might

 

[Da Hammer]

Well alrighty then. TNew says RW had a bad year in coverage. I guess he doesn't know how to read stats and watch film.

:laugh1:

 

[AdamJT13]

NEWMAN CALLS WILLIAMS “A DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS”
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 27, 2008, 1:48 p.m.
After signing a long-term contract extension that will likely keep him in Dallas for the rest of his career, Cowboys cornerback Terence Newman gave an interview to Mike Doocy of Fox 4 in Dallas. And in that interview, he had some critical things to say about a teammate who may not be in Dallas much longer.

When asked about safety Roy Williams, Newman started off by saying that Williams had shown talent in coverage earlier in his career, but then he veered off course and added, “He’s the same guy, I think, he just sometimes gets kind of a deer in the headlights reaction, some plays. … He had a bad season last year, as far as coverage.”

Later in the interview, Newman again started off defending his teammate, only to criticize him again. When asked directly whether Williams hurt the team, Newman answered, “I definitely don’t think he’s a liability.” But then he added of Williams, “He’s got to keep his weight down and work in the weight room, getting stronger.”

Here's what Newman actually said --

"I mean, everybody's got something to work on. You can never be at a point where you can feel comfortable with what you're going on the football field. 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."

 

[jobberone]

Now is probably a good time to say that jobberone sent me a PM just to let me know that he thinks Roy Williams sucks.

Hey. That is not even funny. I've not sent you any PMs. I realize you're either joking or trying to get a rise out of me. But some people may take this as a serious post. How about retracting that.

 

[jobberone]

What does that even mean? Am I supposed to be a "Roy Apologist" in this scenario? The quotes were simply pointing out your hypocrisy with respect to spin.

He said Roy had a bad year in coverage. I don't remember any teammate coming out and saying it that bluntly. You may have thought Roy had a poor year in coverage or overall, but not everyone on this forum thinks and feels the same as you do. How am I being a hypocrite for pointing out that someone whose opinion really means something said publically that Roy had a poor year covering people last year. And as far as the positive things, you will not find anywhere my saying Roy sucks. And you will find me saying things to defend him. But not where it isn't deserved. IMO.


"Deer in the headlights" implies that he doesn't know which way to go, which is typically a product of lack of confidence or lack of preparation. He didn't say it verbatim, which is why I said I was paraphrasing.

I understand what it means. And I don't mind your paraphrasing. But just because TNew said 'Roy is not a liability back there' does not mean Roy doesn't cover well. In fact it means nothing compared to the initial statement. Of course he's a liability when he blows a coverage. So is everyone who does. It matters how often and what occurs when you blow your assignment. And Roy is out of position way too often.

There were positive as well as negative comments in the interview. I thought it interesting that a couple of posters chose to run with the negative, and you stated "I'd [sic] can't wait for some of them to put a spin on this."

Yep. And I've been thoroughly entertained with the spin some are putting on this. I saw nothing of major interest in your comments though so you don't think I'm throwing you into that crowd. However, having said that, I stand by my comment that equating TNew responding the way he did to the point blank question of "Do you think Roy is a liability back there?", means only TNew was not going to throw Roy completely under the bus. I don't blame him for backing off on that question. That's an opinion he shouldn't share in public esp nationally.

The idea that RW's coverage was bad in 2007 is no epiphany, yet your tone is that we found the smoking gun because Newman said so. He also stated that RW wasn't a liability, which you and others spun by saying that Newman had to say that. Why take one statement (especially one that is easy to spin if one so chose) at face value and discount the other? It's hypocritical behavior when you claim to value facts and hate spin.

Well it certainly blows a big hole in some people's opinion that there is absolutely nothing major league wrong with Roy's play. So yeah it is big news in that sense. And I wasn't wrong about people trying to spin that into oblivion. And as far as saying I hate anything I don't see where you see me using that word. It's not hypocritical to prophesy that some on here would take that comment by TNew and make it out to be nothing new, nothing of substance, and pretty much validation of some people's opinion of Roy playing poorly at times. It certainly came was true. Sure there is hyperbole on both sides. If I'm truly guilty of that I apologize. But I don't honestly think I've been overly critical of his play.

My problem with your post is the hyperbole surrounding the "pitchfork" comment. People who have a problem with Roy's play aren't happy with being put into that category of hate. At least I'm not.

 

[Idgit]

Hey. That is not even funny. I've not sent you any PMs. I realize you're either joking or trying to get a rise out of me. But some people may take this as a serious post. How about retracting that.

I tried to quote it for context, but the post has been removed. So, for the congenitally obtuse: jobberone has not sent me any PMs about Roy Williams.

 

[superpunk]

Doocy: Do you think he is a liability back there, or do you think he can be back into a position where he is a strength for that secondary?

Newman: Nah, I definitely don't think he's a liability

Much of Cowboyszone would disagree.

ts too the point now where he's a liability on the field, which is why the Cowboys have all but admitted they are going to minimize his exposure as much possible this year (and then hopefully release him next offseason).

I'm not a capologist but I'd love to see Roy gone from the team...Liability back there and frankly I'm tired of what we've come to expect from him.

If he were to catch on in NEngland, even, and flourish, I could care less...He's done here.

Roy Williams has been a consistent liability in coverage over the years and his playmaking or opponent drive stopping ability has appreciably waned. He has become less physical a performer and it has been acknowledged that he doesn't make the effort to film study the opposing players to decrease the possibility of negative defensive plays.

What most rational people see though is a player that has become a liability and isn't as good as he was his first couple of seasons.

Bottom line, Roy Williams is not the impact player he was 3 years ago. He is a liability in coverage, Williams himself said he hopes that qb's don't throw his way.

Hope he doesn't fall apart and become a liability like the last one has become.

I have had enough of RW.......he's a SERIOUS liability and that's all there is to it.

The summer of Roy continues...

 

[jobberone]

I tried to quote it for context, but the post has been removed. So, for the congenitally obtuse: jobberone has not sent me any PMs about Roy Williams.

You know this is exactly why I didn't PM you about this. And why throw salt into the wound. Can you not see why I wouldn't want that out there despite the fact I thought it was funny? Or that I was uneasy saying anything about it for fear of offending someone? People don't have to be 'congenitally obtuse' to jump to conclusions and some will believe almost anything.

However, I didn't ask for an apology. I got you to retract it although just erasing it would have been fine. And do us all a favor and lay off the labels will ya.

 

[Idgit]

You know this is exactly why I didn't PM you about this. And why throw salt into the wound. Can you not see why I wouldn't want that out there despite the fact I thought it was funny? Or that I was uneasy saying anything about it for fear of offending someone? People don't have to be 'congenitally obtuse' to jump to conclusions and some will believe almost anything.

However, I didn't ask for an apology. I got you to retract it although just erasing it would have been fine. And do us all a favor and lay off the labels will ya.

Honestly, I smirk/smile at posts like that and move on. Usually smile. I would not have taken the time to object to it, but that's me. I understand that lots of people are different. Certainly, it wasn't my intention to wound anybody. I was actually trying to keep the tone of the thread light.

But people *do* have to be obtuse to jump to some conclusions. It depends on the conclusion. There may be some grounds for debate on whether or not that's congenital. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out, though. Otherwise, this place could become a playground for people bending over backwards to see who can get their feelings hurt the fastest. That's not any better than a place where everyone resorts to name calling and insults.

And, for the record, I didn't label anybody anything.

 

[jobberone]

Honestly, I smirk/smile at posts like that and move on. Usually smile. I would not have taken the time to object to it, but that's me. I understand that lots of people are different. Certainly, it wasn't my intention to wound anybody. I was actually trying to keep the tone of the thread light.

But people *do* have to be obtuse to jump to some conclusions. It depends on the conclusion. There may be some grounds for debate on whether or not that's congenital. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out, though. Otherwise, this place could become a playground for people bending over backwards to see who can get their feelings hurt the fastest. That's not any better than a place where everyone resorts to name calling and insults.

And, for the record, I didn't label anybody anything.

What is your motivation for posting this? It didn't involve you. Just a chance for you to insult someone again. Or is smirking not an insult? And I don't think for a second you don't know that insinuating someone is congenitally obtuse is an insult. My feelings weren't hurt. I just didn't want anyone to think that was true. The post was funny other than that.

BTW, since the post wasn't directed towards anyone but one poster, why do you jump to the conclusion I thought you were using labels?

 

[Idgit]

What is your motivation for posting this? It didn't involve you. Just a chance for you to insult someone again. Or is smirking not an insult? And I don't think for a second you don't know that insinuating someone is congenitally obtuse is an insult. My feelings weren't hurt. I just didn't want anyone to think that was true. The post was funny other than that.

BTW, since the post wasn't directed towards anyone but one poster, why do you jump to the conclusion I thought you were using labels?

I gather that you're offended by the congenitally obtuse comment, but I'm not clear as to the why. Did you think it was directed at you? It wasn't.

I did imply that anyone who didn't realize my initial post was completely a joke was obtuse, but you clearly knew it was a joke and said so, so that group doesn't include you. Frankly, I can't imagine there was anyone on the board that took that comment seriously. If they did, and then read the rest of the thread, they'd probably say, 'oh, I was being obtuse earlier' and it probably ended there.

As for my motivation, it was to amuse, not to insult. You seem to be hung up on the insult part. I jumped to the conclusion that you thought I was using labels when you said "And do us all a favor and lay off the labels will ya."

In any event, I'm not going to continue this topic in this thread, b/c I think it's more likely to cause inadvertent harm than good, but I hope you take everything I've said up to this point at face-value and are not offended unnecessarily.

 

[jobberone]

I gather that you're offended by the congenitally obtuse comment, but I'm not clear as to the why. Did you think it was directed at you? It wasn't.

I did imply that anyone who didn't realize my initial post was completely a joke was obtuse, but you clearly knew it was a joke and said so, so that group doesn't include you. Frankly, I can't imagine there was anyone on the board that took that comment seriously. If they did, and then read the rest of the thread, they'd probably say, 'oh, I was being obtuse earlier' and it probably ended there.

As for my motivation, it was to amuse, not to insult. You seem to be hung up on the insult part. I jumped to the conclusion that you thought I was using labels when you said "And do us all a favor and lay off the labels will ya."

In any event, I'm not going to continue this topic in this thread, b/c I think it's more likely to cause inadvertent harm than good, but I hope you take everything I've said up to this point at face-value and are not offended unnecessarily.

I wasn't offended. 5% of all births have one or more congenital anomalies. I wouldn't be casual about using that word but you can do what you want. Because I respond to something doesn't mean I'm offended. I just may not want to be a punching bag without letting people know I don't want to be one. You may have the last word.