The "elite" safeties and their stats through 3 games..

[bbgun]

I don't get you sometimes.

Predictability is a bore.

You're always ready and willing to offer your unique perspective on Dallas Cowboys issues, and then to in turn get offended when people piss on your perspective, or suggest that your perspective is motivated by anything other than your desire for the Cowboys to do well.

Well, it's the same people doing the pissing (surprise! they've pooped in this thread too) and they do more than question my "perspective": they stalk and they impugn my loyalty.

But here, in E&R's thread, you've pissed all over his unique perspective and comparative analysis of Roy in line with other safeties in the league, and degraded it as nothing more than homer-swill, while I GUARANTEE you have not watched the safeties he compared Roy with using the same critical eye we've reserved for Roy.

It's not unique; it's his calling card. Hell, "Roy" is part of his screen-name. That's objectivity? If I have an anti-Jerry agenda, then he has an idolatry problem. The difference is that he's not wildly outnumbered or reliably attacked by the same piranha day after day after day. In the meantime, you're free to submit a secret ballot to those team GMs and prove me wrong.

You would think your experiences on the forum, which I currently respect, would keep you from acting in such a manner towards another Cowboys fan who just wants to offer his viewpoint in a cold, clear, stat-based format. I guess empathy has never been your thing.

He posted something and I disagreed. Welcome to democracy. Are his posts not subject to scrutiny, debate, or dissent? He thinks that one so-so game from Roy should exculpate Roy's flaws or silence the critics. He prefaces his posts with lines like "I hope this shuts up the Roy haters," or words to that effect. Nice. We were enjoying a nice victory over Chicago, and he went too far with the praise. It happens. All of my post-game posts have been positive, and right on cue you throw a fit over this one. Just .. can't .. win. In the future, I'll look for your help the next time I'm lambasted in a similar manner.

 

[daboys79]

Dang 24 and 27 tackles for those guys, I guess that means their front 7 isn't stopping anyone

Wilson plays close to the line of scrimmage & blitzes alot.

 

[Idgit]

Predictability is a bore.



Well, it's the same people doing the pissing (surprise! they've pooped in this thread too) and they do more than question my "perspective": they stalk and they impugn my loyalty.



It's not unique; it's his calling card. Hell, "Roy" is part of his screen-name. That's objectivity? If I have an anti-Jerry agenda, then he has an idolatry problem. The difference is that he's not wildly outnumbered or reliably attacked by the same piranha day after day after day. In the meantime, you're free to submit a secret ballot to those team GMs and prove me wrong.



He posted something and I disagreed. Welcome to democracy. Are his posts not subject to scrutiny, debate, or dissent? He thinks that one so-so game from Roy should exculpate Roy's flaws or silence the critics. He prefaces his posts with lines like "I hope this shuts up the Roy haters," or words to that effect. Nice. We were enjoying a nice victory over Chicago, and he went too far with the praise. It happens. All of my post-game posts have been positive, and right on cue you throw a fit over this one. Just .. can't .. win. In the future, I'll look for your help the next time I'm lambasted in a similar manner.

Contrarianism is more boring than predictability.

Seriously. If you're going to dress up like Underdog, take the contrary position in countless debates re: team performance and some of the team's most popular players, poop on stat sheets and then retreat into your own sollipsistic notions of objectivity, then you forfeit the right to scream Democracy, Debate, and Dissent while people lambaste you.

There's such a thing as 'inviting it,' and if you're going to invite it, you can't play the Convincing Martyr when it comes calling because nobody is going to feel sorry for you.

 

[RomoIsBack]

no matter how bad he play he always had great season

 

[The Grim Reaper]

I'm a bore.

fixed

Well, it's the same people doing the pissing (surprise! they've pooped in this thread too) and they do more than question my "perspective": they stalk and they impugn my loyalty.

Not in this thread big guy. You decided to insert an unsolicited insult of his opinion without offering any stats or facts to back up your assertions and labeled it objectivity.

It's not unique; it's his calling card. Hell, "Roy" is part of his screen-name. That's objectivity? If I have an anti-Jerry agenda, then he has an idolatry problem. The difference is that he's not wildly outnumbered or reliably attacked by the same piranha day after day after day. In the meantime, you're free to submit a secret ballot to those team GMs and prove me wrong.

His username is evidence? Then is yours evidence that you've never grown up to big guns? Is mine evidence that I am some kind of CIA assassin? I'd answer that last question, but then...

He posted something and I disagreed. Welcome to democracy. Are his posts not subject to scrutiny, debate, or dissent? He thinks that one so-so game from Roy should exculpate Roy's flaws or silence the critics. He prefaces his posts with lines like "I hope this shuts up the Roy haters," or words to that effect. Nice. We were enjoying a nice victory over Chicago, and he went too far with the praise. It happens. All of my post-game posts have been positive, and right on cue you throw a fit over this one. Just .. can't .. win. In the future, I'll look for your help the next time I'm lambasted in a similar manner.

Apparently his are, but yours aren't. That's the message sent here.

 

[Clove]

NO true fan would continually dog a player, even if that player starts to do great things.

He made ONE bad play, and kicked butt the rest of the game. I'm fine with dogging the guy, but if he's on our team and he's looking good, I have nothing bad to say. We are 3 AND 0, let's just enjoy this.

 

[thekavorka]

Those stats don't really say much.

Give us stats on how many times they have been beaten deep. Give us stats on how many missed tackles they have. Give us stats on how many times they were out of position and let the WR catch the ball for a big gain.

 

[tomson75]

Those stats don't really say much.

Give us stats on how many times they have been beaten deep. Give us stats on how many missed tackles they have. Give us stats on how many times they were out of position and let the WR catch the ball for a big gain.

Not that your post hasn't already been posted (nearly verbatim) earlier in this thread, but what exactly do you think those stats would prove that the other stats don't? Roy sucks? Your agenda?

If you think that those other safeties don't miss tackles, miss assignments, and allow completions...then you're...

 

[Hostile]

Is it against the law for the rest of these stats to be posted? Or if they are would it show that those other "elite" safeties have similar numbers?

I mean quit harping and refute what he posted. I'd love to see it. Until someone does the OP stands as unrefuted by any facts.

IMO.

 

[Mavs Man]

Not to dig up an old article, but here's some interesting analysis from Roy's 2006 season.

Link

Roy Williams’ coverage deficiences are exaggerated
dated Aug. 17, 2007

Pro Football Prospectus is a very good book. You might know them by another name. The aim of these folks is to advance the statistical analysis of football, similar to what Bill James started doing for baseball 25 years ago. This is the 3rd edition of Prospectus, and while I believe football analysis is in the beginning stages, the book has improved each year.

Football Outsiders take the information that we already have and then look at it in different ways. They also track statistics in ways that no one else does. Like pass coverage responsibilities. A statistician watches every game and assigns a coverage responsibility to a defender for every pass play. In the case of zone, which every team in the NFL uses, they mark a completion as HOLE IN THE ZONE and assign two defenders to the play. Same with double coverage. They also track the distance of passes versus each defender and determine whether a pass was a success for the offense or not by using a formula that compensates for downs and distances. I’m not going to get into everything they do right now. Buy the book its only $20. But lets just say they track more things and they take more factors into consideration than anyone else does. And they try to point all of this information towards a simple, easy to understand result.

On Roy Williams, this is what Pro Football Prospectus has to say. “Strong safety Roy Williams’s pass-coverage deficiences have been somewhat exaggerated, and he continues to be excellent versus the run. The problem in Dallas was not Williams, but the Cowboys teamed Williams with two players who duplicate his skill set, veteran Keith Davis and rookie Pat Watkins. Watkins’s failures were very noticeable in week 5, as he gave up two touchdowns when left in one-on-one coverage versus Eagles receivers.”

By Prospectus’s measures, Williams ranked 21st out of 80 ranked safeties in the NFL in pass coverage in 2006. It doesn’t take a genius to realize there are 64 starting safeties in the NFL, which puts Williams in the top third of all safeties in pass coverage. And this includes free safeties. Williams was only thrown at 11% of the time. You think he gave up a lot of yardage? Not really. The average pass attempt against him was 8.8 yards. Ed Reed, by comparison, allowed a total of 11.7 yards per pass attempt. When offenses targeted Roy Williams with a pass, they only had a successful play 41% of the time. Think about those numbers for a minute.

Its easy for everyone to jump to conclusions about Roy Williams in pass coverage. But the numbers prove otherwise. So when some columnist writes that Roy should have made that tackle against the Saints, just remember he was one of the best in the NFL at stopping the run last season, so there were a ton of other plays that Williams made that an average NFL safety would not. And when they write about a couple of TD’s scored by Eagles tight ends, when Roy should have helped out in coverage, they are probably right. But by the same token, he must have stopped a whole lot of other pass plays because he’s the 21st best safety in the league at it. And this comes from people that track these things.

 

[BigDFan5]

Is it against the law for the rest of these stats to be posted? Or if they are would it show that those other "elite" safeties have similar numbers?

I mean quit harping and refute what he posted. I'd love to see it. Until someone does the OP stands as unrefuted by any facts.

IMO.

Seriously most people when trying to refute something bring some evidence to the table, not just talk about why they dont like the evidence already posted.

 

[Hostile]

~crickets~

Thought so.

 

[stilltheguru]

I have said all along that Roys coverage "issues" were exxagerated. I didnt need this article to prove it. Its just that alot of Cowboy fans dont know defense and certain formations and player responsibilities. They just see somebody running down the field and Roy chasing them and think "ROY SUCKS". Its very sad. People act like if we had Ed Reed we would have some number 1 defense at the moment.

 

[superpunk]

If anyone wants to see some great safety play, just log on to NFL.com and watch the Ravens-Cards Highlights.

You'll be able to see Ed Reed get get beat for a huge gain by Fitzgerald to set up a go-ahead score to Anquan Boldin, who trucks either Reed or Landry (number is unclear) into the end zone off a weak shoulder tackle, followed by Adrian Wilson committing a 15 yard penalty to set the Ravens up for the game-winning FG.

Oh, it's a show.

Keep watching Roy in a vacuum.

 

[joseephuss]

If anyone wants to see some great safety play, just log on to NFL.com and watch the Ravens-Cards Highlights.

You'll be able to see Ed Reed get get beat for a huge gain by Fitzgerald to set up a go-ahead score to Anquan Boldin, who trucks either Reed or Landry (number is unclear) into the end zone off a weak shoulder tackle, followed by Adrian Wilson committing a 15 yard penalty to set the Ravens up for the game-winning FG.

Oh, it's a show.

Keep watching Roy in a vacuum.

I was just going to mention Wilson's penalty.

Bob Sanders is good, but he is nothing special. Someone asked about sacks. He is doing well this year with 2.5 sacks. He had 0 sacks coming into this season and he has been playing since 2004. Sanders also is credited with 2 INTs for his entire career. Roy has that many in the last two games, but some will have you believe that that does not matter. Two in two games versus two in 3+ seasons. I am not too good at math to figure that one out. The great Sanders has also forced 2 fumbles in his career. That is quite the playmaker.

I am not really trying to bash Sanders or any other safety on that list. There are some good safeties in the NFL and Roy is one of them. He is no worse than any of those safeties. They all have their blemishes and can beat in this era where offenses have all the advantages.

 

[superpunk]

I was just going to mention Wilson's penalty.

Bob Sanders is good, but he is nothing special. Someone asked about sacks. He is doing well this year with 2.5 sacks. He had 0 sacks coming into this season and he has been playing since 2004. Sanders also is credited with 2 INTs for his entire career. Roy has that many in the last two games, but some will have you believe that that does not matter. Two in two games versus two in 3+ seasons. I am not too good at math to figure that one out. The great Sanders has also forced 2 fumbles in his career. That is quite the playmaker.

I am not really trying to bash Sanders or any other safety on that list. There are some good safeties in the NFL and Roy is one of them. He is no worse than any of those safeties. They all have their blemishes and can beat in this era where offenses have all the advantages.

He's got a bullseye on him, and I'm not trying to degrade any of these other safeties, either. But noone seems to care about the bad plays those safeties make. If it's brought up, suddenly people "couldn't care less about what Reed or Polamalu do, we want Roy to play like the #8 pick in the draft". All the while ignoring the fact that he is playing like the #8 pick in the draft, and has more of an impact on the game than almost any safety in the league.

All safeties have rough spots. All safeties get beat. All safeties get beat freaquently, that's today's NFL. If Ronnie Lott was out there, he'd get his *** kicked all voer the field.

So what's the difference? Smarts. Being a playmaker. Guys like Reed and Williams and Dawkins put themselves in positions to make big plays, and that helps offset the times that they do actually get beat. And there are very few safeties in the league who make as many plays as those guys, year in and year out. Roy's one of the best, and should be recognized as such, but somehow he still polarizes people who think he should be "Superman" in the flesh. Unrealistic expectations, combined with a critical eye reserved only for Roy Williams, makes for a bad time. I'm thrilled to have the guy on our team, and I guaranteed if you asked every GM in the league to trade their SS for ours straight up, 30 out of 32 GMs would take that in a heartbeat. And yet Randy Galloway espressed shock when his survey of NFL personnel resulted in noone being down on Roy Williams play in the offseason, even though he had arguably his worst finish ever. The guy can't win.



Re: Sanders. I would challenge anyone to watch a few Colts games, and come away more impressed with Sanders than Antoine Bethea. So far, I've seen two, and in every one, Bethea's the guy who keeps getting his name called. Meanwhile, Nick Keiaho makes a great open field tackle on a WR, Sanders flies in late, and the announcers can't stop gushing on the great Bob Sanders. I admit, I've wondered just what it is that he does that is so great.

 

[YosemiteSam]

nuff said.

About PDs and INT I guess. Large sums of tackles by a safety is usually a sign of bad defensive play. Not necessarily bad play by the safety, but by the defense unless an offense is trying to expose a poor cover safety. (ala Roy Williams) On running plays, (unless you're playing an 8 man front) the tackles should be made by linebackers unless the defensive line makes the tackle. (which is why middle linebackers generall are the guys with 100+ tackles) When a safety is stopping the run (outside the 8 man front) that means bad things for the defense. (5+ yards up field)

 

[YosemiteSam]

I was just going to mention Wilson's penalty.

Bob Sanders is good, but he is nothing special. Someone asked about sacks. He is doing well this year with 2.5 sacks. He had 0 sacks coming into this season and he has been playing since 2004. Sanders also is credited with 2 INTs for his entire career. Roy has that many in the last two games, but some will have you believe that that does not matter. Two in two games versus two in 3+ seasons. I am not too good at math to figure that one out. The great Sanders has also forced 2 fumbles in his career. That is quite the playmaker.

I am not really trying to bash Sanders or any other safety on that list. There are some good safeties in the NFL and Roy is one of them. He is no worse than any of those safeties. They all have their blemishes and can beat in this era where offenses have all the advantages.

(Edit: removed something I shouldn't have said) Did you not pay any attention to the Colts last year? Didn't you hear about terrible their run defense was and how you can't do that and expect to win a SuperBowl? Notice during the period where their defense was horrendous (173 rushing yards per game) Bob Sanders was injured, yet when he returned right as the playoffs started, all the sudden the Colts defense was dominating and only giving up 82 yards per game (which was second best in the playoffs next to the Chargers) Whoops, the Colts won the Superbowl and Bob Sanders was the catalyst. He shaved almost 100 rushing yard per game off their defensive totals. Without the return of Sanders, the Colts would have crashed and burned.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Re: Sanders. I would challenge anyone to watch a few Colts games, and come away more impressed with Sanders than Antoine Bethea. So far, I've seen two, and in every one, Bethea's the guy who keeps getting his name called. Meanwhile, Nick Keiaho makes a great open field tackle on a WR, Sanders flies in late, and the announcers can't stop gushing on the great Bob Sanders. I admit, I've wondered just what it is that he does that is so great.

Watch the Colts defense during the regular season and then during the post season last year. Bob Sanders is a big-time playmaker and a field general.

 

[WoodysGirl]

This is either a completely psychotic response, or complete uninformed response of someone talking out of their ***. Did you not pay any attention to the Colts last year? Didn't you hear about terrible their run defense was and how you can't do that and expect to win a SuperBowl? Notice during the period where their defense was horrendous (173 rushing yards per game) Bob Sanders was injured, yet when he returned right as the playoffs started, all the sudden the Colts defense was dominating and only giving up 82 yards per game (which was second best in the playoffs next to the Chargers) Whoops, the Colts won the Superbowl and Bob Sanders was the catalyst. He shaved almost 100 rushing yard per game off their defensive totals. Without the return of Sanders, the Colts would have crashed and burned.

That also coincided with the trade for Booger McFarland.

That said, I do think he's their lightning rod on defense. His fire is what makes him so important to the Colts. He's a solid player, but I don't know if he should be considered elite, unless you're basing it on his ability to motivate the players around him.