The Roy Myth Thread

[Stash]

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.

I'm interested.

What was the point of the thread?

To be able to make excuses for Roy Williams without rebuttal or differing opinion?

If we put a myth in that can't be debunked do you get a prize or do you get kicked out of the thread?

 

[bbgun]

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

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

http://img176.*************/img176/1193/iditotswithsignssb2.jpg

 

[Bach]

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.

I don't disagree with this. I've never really seen him be good in coverage since coming to Dallas. When he first got here our main problem with him teaming up with Woodson was that neither were coverage safeties.
That hasn't changed regardless of who else we put back there beside him.

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.

The rule change has hurt him and he hasn't been able to adequately adjust his game to compensate. Also, he seems to want to make the Sports Center highlight hit too often instead of just wrapping up and that has allowed too many players to just bounce off him for additional gains.

I don't think he sucks but at the same time I don't see where his play warrants the type of hype that he receives nor justify his top 10 selection. That is generally why, imo, many have a problem with him. If he were some mid round draftee most people would see him as adequate. But as a former top 10 pick and a higher salaried player, he isn't living up to his billing.

 

[Bach]

I'm interested.

What was the point of the thread?

There was a point to this thread.

Fact or myth?


I'll take myth for $100 Wink

 

[AdamJT13]

Why should anybody try and prove your list wrong when it is just a bunch of hyperbole?

Some of the myths are hyperbole. Many of them are not. Many of them are claimed to be facts.

 

[Rampage]

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.

it was one on one drills. the wr has every advantage in those scenarios

 

[iceberg]

http://img176.*************/img176/1193/iditotswithsignssb2.jpg

not sure what you're getting at but i was making a reference to paul mccartney and wings.

you wanna imply something, feel free. i'll just say what's on my mind when i feel like it.

 

[bbgun]

not sure what you're getting at but i was making a reference to paul mccartney and wings.

you wanna imply something, feel free. i'll just say what's on my mind when i feel like it.

No, just a nod to the idiotic banter that has consumed this thread.

 

[Idgit]

I'm interested.

What was the point of the thread?

To be able to make excuses for Roy Williams without rebuttal or differing opinion?

If we put a myth in that can't be debunked do you get a prize or do you get kicked out of the thread?

A myth that can't be debunked is not a myth. You might be nearing a realization on accident here. Tread carefully.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I'm interested.

What was the point of the thread?

To be able to make excuses for Roy Williams without rebuttal or differing opinion?

If we put a myth in that can't be debunked do you get a prize or do you get kicked out of the thread?

It depends on who you ask, but I see folks stacked into mostly two camps:

It seems that that the creator is quite passionate about rebuking several blurbs that he viewed as injustices and his supporters are patting him on the back for it because they have shut up all of the Roy critics. When argued against, they point out that no one has debunked the "Roy Williams has ballooned up to 300 pounds myth". Sweet Victory, BABY!

It seems that the other group of people that are arguing view this list as mostly fodder, because it does not provide true evidence that refutes their stance that Roy has lost something in his game. They are pointing this out to the "Myth Police" and are even trying to debunk some of the myths just to shut them up because they simply cannot understand why they are claiming victory over said list. In return, they are told that no one has yet to refute any of the claims on the now legendary Myth List ("Sweet Victory, BABY!").

Since group number one feels that group number two is arguing against the myth list, they are retorting then claiming victory. However, Group 2 views this "victory" in the same light as watching a five year old sticking a lawndart in a cowturd and doing the hokie pokie because you did not have the foresite to do it first. Hence, they get more annoyed and keep arguing.

Then you have folks like me that see the true genius of the thread and the repetitive cycle that could play out for weeks, thereby providing me with additional entertainment. This is a great thread indeed!

 

[superpunk]

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/argumentfagqh6.gif

 

[Idgit]

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/argumentfagqh6.gif

Awesome.

Some opinions are more equal than others. Every now and then the mouthbreathers and knuckledraggers need to be taken for a walk around the yard to see how nice things are out here. This sounds good in principal, and then one of them wets himself and the others all start yelling about it, and you ask yourself 'why was I doing this, again?'

'Because you're an idiot,' you answer.

 

[Idgit]

It depends on who you ask, but I see folks stacked into mostly two camps:

It seems that that the creator is quite passionate about rebuking several blurbs that he viewed as injustices and his supporters are patting him on the back for it because they have shut up all of the Roy critics. When argued against, they point out that no one has debunked the "Roy Williams has ballooned up to 300 pounds myth". Sweet Victory, BABY!

It seems that the other group of people that are arguing view this list as mostly fodder, because it does not provide true evidence that refutes their stance that Roy has lost something in his game. They are pointing this out to the "Myth Police" and are even trying to debunk some of the myths just to shut them up because they simply cannot understand why they are claiming victory over said list. In return, they are told that no one has yet to refute any of the claims on the now legendary Myth List ("Sweet Victory, BABY!").

Since group number one feels that group number two is arguing against the myth list, they are retorting then claiming victory. However, Group 2 views this "victory" in the same light as watching a five year old sticking a lawndart in a cowturd and doing the hokie pokie because you did not have the foresite to do it first. Hence, they get more annoyed and keep arguing.

Then you have folks like me that see the true genius of the thread and the repetitive cycle that could play out for weeks, thereby providing me with additional entertainment. This is a great thread indeed!

It's the 'if you're going to criticize players, criticize them fairly' v. the 'no thank you' crowd. It's a discussion about principle and the relative value of opinion. The lawn dart is just the gravy.

 

[khiladi]

It depends on who you ask, but I see folks stacked into mostly two camps:

It seems that that the creator is quite passionate about rebuking several blurbs that he viewed as injustices and his supporters are patting him on the back for it because they have shut up all of the Roy critics. When argued against, they point out that no one has debunked the "Roy Williams has ballooned up to 300 pounds myth". Sweet Victory, BABY!

It seems that the other group of people that are arguing view this list as mostly fodder, because it does not provide true evidence that refutes their stance that Roy has lost something in his game. They are pointing this out to the "Myth Police" and are even trying to debunk some of the myths just to shut them up because they simply cannot understand why they are claiming victory over said list. In return, they are told that no one has yet to refute any of the claims on the now legendary Myth List ("Sweet Victory, BABY!").

Since group number one feels that group number two is arguing against the myth list, they are retorting then claiming victory. However, Group 2 views this "victory" in the same light as watching a five year old sticking a lawndart in a cowturd and doing the hokie pokie because you did not have the foresite to do it first. Hence, they get more annoyed and keep arguing.

Then you have folks like me that see the true genius of the thread and the repetitive cycle that could play out for weeks, thereby providing me with additional entertainment. This is a great thread indeed!

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[Stash]

A myth that can't be debunked is not a myth. You might be nearing a realization on accident here. Tread carefully.

Thanks, I'll be careful.

 

[superpunk]

Awesome.

Some opinions are more equal than others. Every now and then the mouthbreathers and knuckledraggers need to be taken for a walk around the yard to see how nice things are out here. This sounds good in principal, and then one of them wets himself and the others all start yelling about it, and you ask yourself 'why was I doing this, again?'

'Because you're an idiot,' you answer.

I can't take it anymore. I accept that Roy isn't as good as he used to be, and he probably never will be. I accept that because people wanted and saw Ronnie Lott and then got less than what they expected, they are going to be prone to hyperbole. I accept that such a stance will inspire a 500 post thread started by one of Cowboyszone favorite sons in which two sides are arguing about something - they seem to be arguing with each other, only they both half agree with each other - only this is a Roy thread, and so noone can let anything go.

He's an average player now. He used to be great, especially in comparison with the rest of the safeties in the NFL. But for the last 23 or so games of his career, he's just been OK. That makes some people a little crazier than usual because they already didn't like him, and now that he's not Ronnie Lott, they feel that they have a free pass to say whatever stupid exaggeration pops into their heads.

I guess it would be like if you were at a bar, and you took home this chick who you thought was Megan Fox, but then you wake up and it turns out that it's Megan Mullaly. It's not like she's absolutely awful, and she's got a nice personality, but you feel you were misled. And in your post-coitus shock-regret-phase, you rag on her to all your friends, telling her what a dog she is. In this case, all your buddies take a look at your dunlop belly and poorly trimmed nose hair, and come to the conclusion that you overachieved with the Megan you got, and she's probably dogging you to her friends as well. At this point, I think I've gone too far in my analogy, and so I'll just end it. The battering Rams gif probably said it better than I could anyhow.

 

[dallasfaniac]

The point of the thread was to show to what lengths many will go to downgrade Roy, even if they have to make up facts to do so. Adam and the rest of the 'apologists' have all agreed that Roy had a down year, that is not the argument; the argument is to what extent people will go to besmirch his name.

He wasn't pulled from the field in passing situations, he was moved to LB. This basically equates to replacing a LB with a CB and having Roy play alot closer to the line of scrimmage.

His salary played no part in him remaining on the roster, we would see savings by getting rid of him despite what many media outlets would have us believe.

On and on these myths go and while I agree that some Adam listed are obviously jokes, it doesn't change their intent.

IMO, Adam is merely listing these myths that get perpetuated through the fans and the media that make it appear that Roy is the worst starting safety in the NFL, when in fact the opposite is closer to the truth.

If as a fan, your like/dislike of Roy was even partially based upon innaccurate facts, I would think you would want to know about them.

As I said, I don't think anyone has said Roy did not have a down year, what we have been saying is that some have made it seem even worse than it really is. Jerry and Co. seem to want him on the team, if you don't, you're going to have to ask yourself why.

 

[khiladi]

I can't take it anymore. I accept that Roy isn't as good as he used to be, and he probably never will be. I accept that because people wanted and saw Ronnie Lott and then got less than what they expected, they are going to be prone to hyperbole. I accept that such a stance will inspire a 500 post thread started by one of Cowboyszone favorite sons in which two sides are arguing about something - they seem to be arguing with each other, only they both half agree with each other - only this is a Roy thread, and so noone can let anything go.

He's an average player now. He used to be great, especially in comparison with the rest of the safeties in the NFL. But for the last 23 or so games of his career, he's just been OK. That makes some people a little crazier than usual because they already didn't like him, and now that he's not Ronnie Lott, they feel that they have a free pass to say whatever stupid exaggeration pops into their heads.

I guess it would be like if you were at a bar, and you took home this chick who you thought was Megan Fox, but then you wake up and it turns out that it's Megan Mullaly. It's not like she's absolutely awful, and she's got a nice personality, but you feel you were misled. And in your post-coitus shock-regret-phase, you rag on her to all your friends, telling her what a dog she is. In this case, all your buddies take a look at your dunlop belly and poorly trimmed nose hair, and come to the conclusion that you overachieved with the Megan you got, and she's probably dogging you to her friends as well. At this point, I think I've gone too far in my analogy, and so I'll just end it. The battering Rams gif probably said it better than I could anyhow.

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[dallasfaniac]

I guess it would be like if you were at a bar, and you took home this chick who you thought was Megan Fox, but then you wake up and it turns out that it's Megan Mullaly. It's not like she's absolutely awful, and she's got a nice personality, but you feel you were misled. And in your post-coitus shock-regret-phase, you rag on her to all your friends, telling her what a dog she is. In this case, all your buddies take a look at your dunlop belly and poorly trimmed nose hair, and come to the conclusion that you overachieved with the Megan you got, and she's probably dogging you to her friends as well. At this point, I think I've gone too far in my analogy, and so I'll just end it. The battering Rams gif probably said it better than I could anyhow.

Wow, I can totally relate. Friggin beer goggles and poor lighting conditions.

 

[Bach]

Some of the myths are hyperbole. Many of them are not. Many of them are claimed to be facts.

Can we a detailed breakdown on this? Specifically which of these are claimed to be facts and the % of fans who made these claims.

kthxbye