The Roy Myth Thread

[big dog cowboy]

And darn, at the old age of 27, he's "just" a perennial Pro Bowler.

Being a pro bowler lost a lot of its credibility along time ago.

Absolutely correct. Additionally, the only reason he went this year was of what happened to Sean Taylor.

 

[Angus]

JMO, but I think it's hard for any player, not just Roy, to sustain that level of play for an extended period without adjustments.

I equate that to the high school phenom or the unknown CBA player coming into the NBA. They're setting the league on fire. On Sportscenter every night with the analysts and reports oohing and aahing at their every move. Then the scouts get tape of them. Break down their every move. Learn which move they like best. Which direction their most effective driving to the lane. And then they report that to the players who then do everything they can to take away what they're best at.

Right now, it's all about Roy making adjustments. The league is hip to everything in his gamebook and now it's up to him to make adjustments. That said, I doubt we'll ever see the Roy that excited everyone so much. The fresh and newness of him has worn off, so while he could do all the things that made him so great in people's eyes, the excitement won't be there and will be greeted by cyncism of the fans. Cuz it's no longer about Roy playing up to his potential. It's about him no longer living up to fan expectations.

Agreed.

The folks bad mouthing Roy Williams evidently can't see what the coaches see. Who wants to dispute Adam's claim that the team could realize a cap saving by getting rid of him?

Just as I thought. Nobody.

And if he was as bad as many assert, the team would get rid of him quickly. He evidently has value.

As far as the latest pro bowl vote, there were sixteen strong safeties starting in the NFC, and though his appearance may have been occasioned by another's death, there were fourteen others who were not in second place.

I don't hold a brief for Roy Williams, but Adam's point about the salary cap, unless it can be refuted, should end the discussion.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I very much agree with you here. Roy definitely has his strengths as well as his weaknesses. And during his years in the league, opposing coaches have expolited the things he's not as good at.



I agree again that it's about him making some adjustments to his game.

But I don't know that I agree with him being unable to meet expectations. I think his number of impact plays has diminished over the past two seasons. I think he could turn that around while being more aware and sure of himself and his responsibilities in coverage.

That would certainly live up to my own expectations.

Call me a cynic, stash. It's just something I've observed, when a player goes from fan favorite to persona non grata to fans, it doesn't matter what he does on the field from that point forward. Guy could have the best season ever and he'll still be dogged out.

I'm just waiting to see who's next after Roy. I'm thinking T-New.

 

[khiladi]

I guess you can't differentiate between tackles and missed tackles? Or are you just trying to be argumentative?

Oh, I didn't miss anything. If tackles are conditional on perspective, than what to say of missed tackles? It doesn't take a genius to understand the subjectivity being employed...

 

[Goldenrichards83]

JMO, but I think it's hard for any player, not just Roy, to sustain that level of play for an extended period without adjustments.

I equate that to the high school phenom or the unknown CBA player coming into the NBA. They're setting the league on fire. On Sportscenter every night with the analysts and reports oohing and aahing at their every move. Then the scouts get tape of them. Break down their every move. Learn which move they like best. Which direction their most effective driving to the lane. And then they report that to the players who then do everything they can to take away what they're best at.

Right now, it's all about Roy making adjustments. The league is hip to everything in his gamebook and now it's up to him to make adjustments. That said, I doubt we'll ever see the Roy that excited everyone so much. The fresh and newness of him has worn off, so while he could do all the things that made him so great in people's eyes, the excitement won't be there and will be greeted by cyncism of the fans. Cuz it's no longer about Roy playing up to his potential. It's about him no longer living up to fan expectations.

Great post. I agree with just about all of it and the bolded part is really the bottom line.

 

[khiladi]

The quote you referenced from Adam was pertaining to comparing tackles from season to another season of only ONE player.

The point of the stats you quoted was comparing multiple players on missed tackles over the course of several seasons to gather an AVERAGE.

He's not even comparing one to season to another season... he's comparing AVERAGES which is an entirely valid comparison.

Maybe you missed it... tackle statistics are essentially meaningless per Adam... is this suppose to be forgotten as it concerns missed tackles as if it is un-related to overall tackle statistics? Also, according to the quote of Adam, each year, the variances are so wide regarding tackles that a statistical average would essentially be meaningless....

so the argument suddenly becomes valid for missed tackles when it means defending Roy?

 

[CATCH17]

Call me a cynic, stash. It's just something I've observed, when a player goes from fan favorite to persona non grata to fans, it doesn't matter what he does on the field from that point forward. Guy could have the best season ever and he'll still be dogged out.

I'm just waiting to see who's next after Roy. I'm thinking T-New.

If Roy starts playing like he used to you will see that theory, about him, quickly debunked.

 

[WoodysGirl]

If Roy starts playing like he used to you will see that theory, about him, quickly debunked.

If it does, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

 

[khiladi]

If Roy starts playing like he used to you will see that theory, about him, quickly debunked.

I'll be ready to jump on the band-wagon... hell, I'm anxiously waiting to...

 

[Stash]

Call me a cynic, stash. It's just something I've observed, when a player goes from fan favorite to persona non grata to fans, it doesn't matter what he does on the field from that point forward. Guy could have the best season ever and he'll still be dogged out.

I'm just waiting to see who's next after Roy. I'm thinking T-New.

That implies that Roy is a victim, and that's something I don't agree with.

I'm not dealing in absolutes as some in this debate are.

I don't think Roy Williams is terrible or a useless player but he's not above reproach or criticism either.

If he has his 'best season ever' I'll be the first to acknowledge it and congratulate him. I think most fans would, as it would mean that by association, our team has improved as well. And that's what we all want after all.

But I don't see him getting picked on without reasons.

A bit excessively maybe.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

when a player goes from fan favorite to persona non grata to fans, it doesn't matter what he does on the field from that point forward. Guy could have the best season ever and he'll still be dogged out.

I disagree with this.

I believe poor play on the field has the efficacy of a player falling out of favor among the fans.

In general, I think if a player is extremely productive and plays well on the field, he is generally given a break by the fans. For example, guys like Terrell Owens and Greg Ellis had their fair share of enemies but you toss in double digit TDs and sacks, and the vitriol thrown their way is predictably less.

Now the phrases "productive" and "plays well" is extremely subjective and probably represents the true and seemingly endless interstice between the two Roy Factions in this debate.

 

[Idgit]

See, here's my problem with the "in-between" thing (if I am 'comprehending' your stance correctly, that is).

There was a time Roy Williams was undeniably one of the premier defenders in the league. He wasn't the best safety in the league only because Ed Reed happened to play the same position.

For a long while, I continued to defend him. Even entering last season I felt the anti-Roy crowd harped too much. But I just don't believe there's that much to defend anymore.

Roy's not terrible. But he's also not great anymore -- which is a shame considering he's young, should be entering the prime of his career and would complete an absolutely insane secondary if he were as good as he was in the very early parts of his career.

I used to see fire and a desire to punish the opponent. Do you see that anymore?

Forget whether it's always his fault he's trailing in coverage. I agree it's not. And it's not like he gets beat every play in coverage. If it were the case, opponents would simply throw his way every time, which they obviously do not.

But no one is above crticism. We have people wondering if Barber is worth big bucks, whether Jenkins/Pacman can replace Newman, whether Romo's celebrity ways are going to ruin him, etc. So Roy's diminishing returns are obviously going to be a point of debate.

Now, if you're saying he's not as bad as some make it out to be, then I absolutely agree. The extremists take everything too far, and this is no different. But if there's an "in-between" to the pro/anti-Roy debate, that tells me there's an "in-between" to his ability, too. Meaning: if he were the player he once was, everyone would be rushing to his defense in times like these. Just look at the responses of an anti-Newman, Romo or Barber thread. The thread creator will get his head ripped off.

With Roy, it's really not worth defending that ardently anymore. He's an OK player, but not a guy worth losing hours of sleep over. And that's a shame, because it's not too long ago he was our best player by a landslide.

There's not a single excuse in the entire list. It's merely an example of the myths -- all of them either hyperbole, exaggerations or flat-out falsehoods -- that get repeated over and over and over, even in the media. And lots of people continue to repeat them as if they're actually true.

The salary cap thing, for instance, is an absolute fact -- it contains ZERO opinion, subjectivity or possibility of debate or interpretation. But mediots who don't understand a lick of the salary cap or don't bother to figure out the truth keep saying it, so many fans believe it and say it themselves. I'm the one saying THE COWBOYS COULD SAVE LOTS OF CAP ROOM BY CUTTING ROY TODAY, which is exactly the opposite of what the media is saying and what a supposed "apologist" would want to bring up. But this thread has nothing to do with making excuses or apologizing for Roy, it's ONLY about setting the record straight.

I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinions about Roy or any other player, or criticizing Roy or any other player, as long as it's based on actual truths and not hyperbole, exaggerations, falsehoods and other myths.

Rainman. I jumped on the wrong guy. What you say is perfectly reasonable, and not all that far from what I think about Roy.

I chimed in b/c the point of Adam's thread was to debunk certain myths about Roy's play so that the board could have a serious discussion about the player in a useful context. Every now and then a mouthbreather wanders in, spouts off on one of the myths, defends it with hearsay and opinion, and disappears. Sometimes they attack Adam for actually contributing to the board. It drives me nuts.

Assume for a minute that Roy goes out and has his worst statistical season, by a mile, next year. Who in here really thinks Adam would shy away from that thread? Or any of us not on the anti-Roy bandwagon? When the evidence supports that Roy's a bad player, he'll be considered a bad player. Period. When it says he's good, but not great, well. He's good but not great. Pretty simple. Blowing an o-ring b/c he's no longer great seems a bit of an overreaction to me. I'm happy with my o-ring intact; it's a good o-ring.

 

[AdamJT13]

so u try and call everything that u think is wrong a myth? and try to justify everything by stats?

They're not myths because I disagree with them, they're myths because they're not true. And there are more myths that involve people using stats to claim them than there are that can be proven false only by statistics.

 

[WoodysGirl]

That implies that Roy is a victim, and that's something I don't agree with.

I'm not dealing in absolutes as some in this debate are.

I don't think Roy Williams is terrible or a useless player but he's not above reproach or criticism either.

If he has his 'best season ever' I'll be the first to acknowledge it and congratulate him. I think most fans would, as it would mean that by association, our team has improved as well. And that's what we all want after all.

But I don't see him getting picked on without reasons.

A bit excessively maybe.

Oh I'm not suggesting Roy is a victim at all. I'm just providing a general opinion on what I see when a player, any player, falls out of favor with fans...

I disagree with this.

I believe poor play on the field has the efficacy of a player falling out of favor among the fans.

This is true...and my position is that said player will never achieve the favor that he originally assumed even if his level of play rises according to fans.

In general, I think if a player is extremely productive and plays well on the field, he is generally given a break by the fans. For example, guys like Terrell Owens and Greg Ellis had their fair share of enemies but you toss in double digit TDs and sacks, and the vitriol thrown their way is predictably less.

Less, but not gone...and greeted with a heavy amount of cynicism.

Now the phrases "productive" and "plays well" is extremely subjective and probably represents the true and seemingly endless interstice between the two Roy Factions in this debate.

Agreed. Which is why I think when a player polarizes the fans so much, it's not really worth it anymore to really discuss, because people have drawn a line in the sand and everyone thinks their position is "objective" and "realistic"

 

[iceberg]

Agreed. Which is why I think when a player polarizes the fans so much, it's not really worth it anymore to really discuss, because are people have drawn a line in the sand and everyone thinks their position is "objective" and "realisti.c"

 

[Stash]

Agreed. Which is why I think when a player polarizes the fans so much, it's not really worth it anymore to really discuss, because are people have drawn a line in the sand and everyone thinks their position is "objective" and "realistic"

Man, that was well said!

I couldn't agree more and I wish I had said it that well.

 

[AdamJT13]

Maybe you missed it... tackle statistics are essentially meaningless per Adam...

That's not what I said at all. I said comparing tackle totals from one year to another is pointless, for several reasons.

is this suppose to be forgotten as it concerns missed tackles as if it is un-related to overall tackle statistics?

I already addressed this --

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2079089&postcount=294

"Thirdly, another way to look at the missed tackle stats (and how STATS LLC ranks them) is as a percentage of tackle opportunities. Then the number of opportunities possible (based on that widely varying number of and types of plays -- and therefore opportunities) becomes irrelevant. It no longer matters whether your team faced 850 offensive plays or 1,100 offensive plays, or whether you played 14 games or 16 games, because it's based only on what percentage of times you missed the tackle when they determined that you had an opportunity. And just as in the average number of misses per season compared to players such as Sean Taylor, Troy Polamalu and Bob Sanders, Roy grades out the highest percentage-wise, as well -- 93.5 percent for his career through 2006 (I don't have 2007 stats yet), compared to 89.2 percent for Taylor, 91.7 percent for Sanders and 91.3 percent for Polamalu. And Roy graded higher percentage-wise than Taylor or Sanders in EVERY season since they came into the league."

No matter how you measure it, Roy misses tackles at a lower rate than any of those guys.

 

[CATCH17]

Imagine if Demarcus Ware turned into a 5-7 sack a season guy and the sacks he did get were from garbage time.

That is the equivalent to what Roy has done because he was a Demarcus Ware type player/presence for us in the secondary.

 

[Doomsday101]

That's not what I said at all. I said comparing tackle totals from one year to another is pointless, for several reasons.

is this suppose to be forgotten as it concerns missed tackles as if it is un-related to overall tackle statistics?

I already addressed this --

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2079089&postcount=294

"Thirdly, another way to look at the missed tackle stats (and how STATS LLC ranks them) is as a percentage of tackle opportunities. Then the number of opportunities possible (based on that widely varying number of and types of plays -- and therefore opportunities) becomes irrelevant. It no longer matters whether your team faced 850 offensive plays or 1,100 offensive plays, or whether you played 14 games or 16 games, because it's based only on what percentage of times you missed the tackle when they determined that you had an opportunity. And just as in the average number of misses per season compared to players such as Sean Taylor, Troy Polamalu and Bob Sanders, Roy grades out the highest percentage-wise, as well -- 93.5 percent for his career through 2006 (I don't have 2007 stats yet), compared to 89.2 percent for Taylor, 91.7 percent for Sanders and 91.3 percent for Polamalu. And Roy graded higher percentage-wise than Taylor or Sanders in EVERY season since they came into the league."

No matter how you measure it, Roy misses tackles at a lower rate than any of those guys.

I'm a big fan of Roy but I have to admit Roy has not been the intimidating factor as he was. I'm not seeing the big hits right now. I don't know if the fines he has gotten has been a reason for this but the massive hits have not been happening for a couple of seasons now.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Imagine if Demarcus Ware turned into a 5-7 sack a season guy and the sacks he did get were from garbage time.

That is the equivalent to what Roy has done because he was a Demarcus Ware type player/presence for us in the secondary.

That would mean Ware turned into a Greg Ellis. Solid, not spectacular, but a productive player, in general, for about 10 years. Which I would think is a good career.

Imagine if Ware signs a ginormous extension, beating out Dwight Freeney's contract, and gets 1 sack. Talk about all hell breaking loose on the board.