The Roy Myth Thread

[DallasCowpoke]

What does a kinky paddle have to do with the conversation? :

I will get the belt... Juuuust you try me mister!

 

[AsthmaField]

As with most everything... the truth lies somewhere in between.

Roy isn't as terrible as some make him out to be and he isn't as mistake free as some make him out to be.

Numbers, as we all know, don't tell the whole story. Physics and it's calculations tell us that it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly... however, we all know that bumblebee's do indeed fly.

Numbers do matter but so does what our eyes and common sense tell us.

One thing I do know. Roy isn't as effective as he used to be.

Why? I wish I knew. Can he regain that form? I don't know, but I hope so.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Perfect

 

[Alexander]

Shouldn't the media be more concerned about truth and accuracy?

What world do you live in?

 

[masomenos]

4. Roy has never made a big play in the playoffs

I don't think it's an issue of whether or not he's ever made a big play in the playoffs, but rather if he's made them with any consistency. In the three playoff games Roy has played in he's has 8 tackles, 1 INT, 1 pass deflection and 1 Forced Fumble. Those are just pretty mediocre stats that are below his career per game averages in some respects. He's a pro bowler who's played in three playoff games and hasn't made very many big plays. If I remember correctly his INT wasn't even directly a result of his coverage but came off of a phenomenal play by Terrence Newman who tipped the ball to Roy.

5. Turnovers have been missing from Roy's game the past two years

They haven't been missing altogether, no, but these past two years have been his worst two combined seasons when compared to any other two year span in his career. Or I should say these past two years are tied for the worst two year span.

Total Turnovers (TT) per 2 seasons:

2002-2003 = 12 TT
2003-2004 = 7 TT
2004-2005 = 9 TT
2005-2006 = 11 TT
2006-2007 = 7 TT


6. Roy can't tackle

Clearly he can tackle, but he did have his lowest rate of solo tackles in 2007. Now this doesn't mean a whole lot, but I thought it was interesting that it was his worst year in terms of the percentage of solo tackles he had. Also, the past two years are again his worst two year span. I'll throw the numbers out there just for fun, but like I said I know they don't mean a whole lot, just kind of interesting:

Percentage of Tackles Recorded As 'Solo'

2002 - 90%
2003 - 83%
2004 - 82%
2005 - 86%
2006 - 84%
2007 - 79%

10. Roy injured Jamal Lewis with a horse-collar tackle in 2004

I don't recall the tackle personally, but three sources (Calvin Watkins, Todd Archer, and Len Pasquarelli) all say it was a Roy Williams horse collar that sprained Lewis' ankle.

http://http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/cowboys/stories/121807dnspocowlede.11e4bec.html

"On Nov. 21, 2004, Williams took out Baltimore running backs Jamal Lewis and Musa Smith with the horse-collar tackles. Lewis suffered a sprained ankle..."

http://http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2005/horse_collar_tackle/horsetest.swf

"...Williams' horse collar tackles injured...Baltimore running back Jamal Lewis, who sprained his ankle."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles/msg/a85de625be1a0502

"Williams knocked out a pair of Baltimore tailbacks, starter Jamal Lewis
and backup Musa Smith, within minutes of each other in a Nov. 21 game. On a play early in the first quarter, he horse-collared Lewis after a three-yard reception, sending the Ravens star to the sideline. Lewis returned for one play on the ensuing series, but then limped off with a badly sprained left ankle, which sidelined him for the balance of that game and for the following two contests."

15. Roy doesn't have the heart to play

Well it's kind of hard to prove or disprove that one. He may or may not, no one knows but him.

17. Roy said he doesn't hit hard anymore because he found God

Well he did say pretty much that exact thing in the Michael Irvin interview, here chronicled by Tim MacMahon

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***/archives/2008/05/sometimes-roy-hopes-ball-isnt-thrown-his.html

"People will say Roy is really not making any big hits. Ever since I rededicated my life to God, OK, I haven't been making the big hits, but we got further than we ever did when I was living of the world."

He went on to say that the hits "would come" as he became more comfortable with the defense. However he did acknowledge there being a relationship between his religion and the "big hits" issue.
31. Jeremy Shockey always has big games against Roy

I don't know how many of them were specifically against Roy but in the 10 games Shockey has played against us he's scored 6 TDs. That's more than double the rate that he's caught TDs against other teams throughout his career. Typically he doesn't torch us for a lot of yards, however this past season he did gain 28% of his yards for the entire season in the two games against us.

That's just my take on a couple of the points. Feel free to destroy me now, lol.

 

[DallasEast]

What world do you live in?

Nevertheless, the media should report facts to its readership, viewership, etc. It's daily goal should be to inform the public of information we are unaware of and not gloss over relevance for the sake of profit-making irrelevance. Just because you are correct in saving that journalistic integrity has essentially become an afterthought in the Age of Generation Y doesn't make what he said any less true.

 

[ljs44]

I've got a news flash for some of you: Adam is smarter than you are. And not just a little bit. He's a lot smarter than you are. So much so that you should be embarrassed and go hide your keyboards. All of you who resort to personal attacks or repeating completely unsupported opinions in the face of repeated factual evidence to the contrary are in this category. That's most of you.

Because he's smarter than you, his opinion is worth more than yours. It just is. He watches the games, charts them, subscribes or has access to God-knows what source data, and he offers supported statistical arguments for his positions based off of his conclusions. He does the board a valuable service by sharing this evidence.

Adam's point is that the evidence doesn't support the fact that Roy Williams is a bad player. This much isn't even his opinion. If you want to disagree with him and be convincing, then your job is to find contradictory evidence. Failing that, what you've got is opinion, and we've already covered what those are worth.

If you do find evidence that supports your opinion, the rest of us will almost certainly agree with you. If you chose to persist in an opinion about Roy Williams that's not supported by current evidence based off of whatever imeasurables you chose to value, even this is ok. It's not entirely rational, but who's counting? What you shouldn't do is act like evidence supports your irrational opinions when it does not. This is aggravating to people who value evidence. For the good of the board, they won't let it drop.

If this puts me in a treefort with Adam as my leader, I'm now ok with that. There are good posters in here with me. There are some good posters outside the fort for reasons of their own. The rest of you can attack the treefort with everything you've got. Available evidence suggests it'll be some time before one of you figures out how to properly operate the doorknob to get inside.

Amen brother, amen.

 

[Sarge]

What does a kinky paddle have to do with the conversation? :

:laugh2:

 

[Bach]

What world do you live in?

Apparently one filled with ******** myffs.

 

[starfrombirth]

These analysts are the same people that say that Roy was taken out of the game on passing downs last year when it simply wasn't true and instead was taken out of the game when Dallas was in the 3-4 base scheme, and it wasn't all that often he was taken out anyway. The stats are right there for them to use, but they would rather just go with what they assume. Not to forget all of the big pass plays given up where the "experts" and "analysts" blame Roy Williams when it's nowhere near his responsibility or fault on the play. Kind of like the first Toomer touchdown in the playoff game where Roy was getting blamed on a play where Toomer was being covered Anthony Henry and Toomer broke free of Henry's and Greg Ellis' tackles. But guess whom the camera was panning to and the "experts" were blaming?

And I haven't really heard the coaching staff criticize Roy anything more than they had some high expectations in 2007 for Roy. That hardly means they think he sucks, which is the general consensus from the majority of Cowboys fans, or so it seems.




YAKUZA

Um.. I watched that play and the criticism wasn't that he blew coverage, it was that he had a chance to tackle him and slid off him like a done noodle. :bang2:

 

[iceberg]

Apparently one filled with ******** myffs.

then they should be easy to debunk. let's see it.

it's like being told "here are all the things you're angry about that don't make sense, please explain why all these things not real make you so mad"? and the reply is "SHUT UP! ROY SUCKS!!!"

 

[iceberg]

Um.. I watched that play and the criticism wasn't that he blew coverage, it was that he had a chance to tackle him and slid off him like a done noodle. :bang2:

last time i checked you found out of the noodle was done when it STUCK to the wall.

 

[AsthmaField]

it's like being told "here are all the things you're angry about that don't make sense, please explain why all these things not real make you so mad"? and the reply is "SHUT UP! ROY SUCKS!!!"

And what's wrong with that?

 

[iceberg]

And what's wrong with that?

what's wrong with that? i need to know...cause here i go... AGAAAAAAAAAIN!!!!

you say you've had enough of silly roy threads....

 

[jterrell]

That's just my take on a couple of the points. Feel free to destroy me now, lol.

I'll take these 3.

4. Roy has never made a big play in the playoffs

Roy has clearly made big plays. In fact that's not a real weakness of his game. A 3 game subset is really hard to judge anyone by. But lets look at Darren Woodson for comparison's sake. Woody had 16 career playoff games. I was not able to find his specific playoff stats but his overall totals were 23 INTS and 12 forced fumbles in a 12 year career. This for a guy who was first team all-pro at least 3 times and 5 times a Pro Bowler.

5. Turnovers have been missing from Roy's game the past two years



Total Turnovers (TT) per 2 seasons:

2002-2003 = 12 TT
2003-2004 = 7 TT
2004-2005 = 9 TT
2005-2006 = 11 TT
2006-2007 = 7 TT

Not sure I got your point here but it looks from the numbers as if 2006 was his second most productive turnover year as a pro. Not sure how that correlates to any real drop off there. The 18 he had combined for his past two seasons is an average of 9 per year which is right at his career average of 9.2.



6. Roy can't tackle

Clearly he can tackle, but he did have his lowest rate of solo tackles in 2007. Now this doesn't mean a whole lot, but I thought it was interesting that it was his worst year in terms of the percentage of solo tackles he had. Also, the past two years are again his worst two year span. I'll throw the numbers out there just for fun, but like I said I know they don't mean a whole lot, just kind of interesting:

Percentage of Tackles Recorded As 'Solo'

2002 - 90%
2003 - 83%
2004 - 82%
2005 - 86%
2006 - 84%
2007 - 79%

Not sure why this number really matters at all. It is still an incredibly high number of solo tackle and an incredibly high percentage of solo tackles. This is the kind of stuff that drives Adam crazy because few safeties can amass 90 total tackles period. Especially ones who get taken off the field at times for coverage concerns. Furthermore the 73 solo tackles Roy made last year ties for the second highest of his career.

 

[Bach]

then they should be easy to debunk. let's see it.

it's like being told "here are all the things you're angry about that don't make sense, please explain why all these things not real make you so mad"? and the reply is "SHUT UP! ROY SUCKS!!!"

All of those comments he listed could be false, and it still proves nothing.

Roy still isn't as good as he was earlier in his career. He still isn't very good in coverage. He still has a tendency to break a rule that was instituted as a result of him.

Now if Adam and his entourage want to hang their hats on the fact that some definitive, ****** statements aren't true, then that's their prerogative, but it doesn't change anything in regards to Roy and his play.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

here i go... AGAAAAAAAAAIN!!!!

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Hahaha :laugh2:

 

[jterrell]

All of those comments he listed could be false, and it still proves nothing.

Roy still isn't as good as he was earlier in his career. He still isn't very good in coverage. He still has a tendency to break a rule that was instituted as a result of him.

Now if Adam and his entourage want to hang their hats on the fact that some definitive, ****** statements aren't true, then that's their prerogative, but it doesn't change anything in regards to Roy and his play.

This works both ways.

Roy was horrid in coverage as a rookie. I know because I saw him working with the CBs in one on one coverage drills and he was repeatedly abused by guys who didnt make the team at WR. It was sad but he needed the practice obviously.

If the scheme allows that RW is in man versus a top receiving TE or a fast HB or a WR he is toast. But he ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Other teams have just focused more and more on making that happen, especially now that he can't horsecollar guys.

Few players are as effective after rule-changes have been implemented that are directed towards them specifically.

How good would those old school NBA centers be in the new 5 second rule NBA??

RW is still producing 90+ tackles per year, a turnover about every other game and playing well overall except he still sucks in man to man coverage.

But you know what? A lot of actual corners suck in man to man and they play for teams that utilize zone coverages so they do not have to.

When RW talks about being a poor fit for this defense he means because the SS is asked to cover a man a lot. This has happened in part because the 3-4 asks OLB to be rush guys givign them 5 rushers and because teams love to go 3 wide + versus Dallas which causes the SS to man cover someone if we want to send any real rush threats after the QB.

I love RW but I am not pulling Ware/Ellis off of QBs for him to play zone.

 

[Idgit]

All of those comments he listed could be false, and it still proves nothing.

Roy still isn't as good as he was earlier in his career. He still isn't very good in coverage. He still has a tendency to break a rule that was instituted as a result of him.

Now if Adam and his entourage want to hang their hats on the fact that some definitive, ****** statements aren't true, then that's their prerogative, but it doesn't change anything in regards to Roy and his play.

What's the point of continuing to intentionally misunderstand the point of the thread. This isn't whack-a-mole.

And please tell me what you're doing is intentional.