The Roy Myth Thread

[JohnnyHopkins]

This thread needs to stay on the front page, so we can reference it easily when retardation strikes.

This thread embodies retardation. That would be like Helen Keller calling out Timmy from South Park.

 

[Seven]

Post # 441.................

 

[Clove]

To a guy I completely respect "Adam" I'm going to use the words of the great Randy Galloway (Well he's not that great but I like this quote he uses)

"Just watch the Dang Games"

 

[AdamJT13]

To a guy I completely respect "Adam" I'm going to use the words of the great Randy Galloway (Well he's not that great but I like this quote he uses)

"Just watch the Dang Games"

I do watch the games, many times. But unlike some people, I know the difference between truth and fiction. Not that some people care about the truth.

 

[Clove]

I do watch the games, many times. But unlike some people, I know the difference between truth and fiction. Not that some people care about the truth.

Fair enough, although I disagree.

 

[Clove]

I do watch the games, many times. But unlike some people, I know the difference between truth and fiction. Not that some people care about the truth.

One question Adam, okay 2 questions.

How would you attack Roy if you were an offensive coordinator and would you be licking your chops to match him up 1 on 1?

 

[Alexander]

I do watch the games, many times. But unlike some people, I know the difference between truth and fiction. Not that some people care about the truth.

So what of others who watch the games, many times and still draw the same conclusions albeit different from yours?

Are they just not in touch with the "truth" as you? Or is it just that your version of "truth" is a matter of opinion?

 

[Cowboyz88]

I do watch the games, many times. But unlike some people, I know the difference between truth and fiction. Not that some people care about the truth.

Remember the pompous and dismissive tone I referenced earlier?

Your honor, may I admit thread #444 into evidence?

 

[AdamJT13]

So what of others who watch the games, many times and still draw the same conclusions albeit different from yours?

Are they just not in touch with the "truth" as you? Or is it just that your version of "truth" is a matter of opinion?

If their conclusions from watching the games are any of the 46 myths I've listed so far, then they're obviously not in touch with the truth.

Exactly which of the myths do you happen to agree with, based on your conclusions from watching the games?

 

[AdamJT13]

Remember the pompous and dismissive tone I referenced earlier?

Your honor, may I admit thread #444 into evidence?

Do you think people care about the truth when they say things such as "the only way Roy can tackle is to horse-collar," "Roy can't cover," "Roy is terrible," "we can't cut Roy because of the cap," "Roy hasn't made big plays since he got his new contract," etc., etc., etc.?

 

[Rampage]

If their conclusions from watching the games are any of the 46 myths I've listed so far, then they're obviously not in touch with the truth.

Exactly which of the myths do you happen to agree with, based on your conclusions from watching the games?[/quote]

15. Roy doesn't have the heart to play

16. Roy didn't have any big hits last season

#15 you don't know if that's a myth or a fact.

#16 name some big hits when a linebacker didn't already have his hands on the rb.

 

[Rampage]

Do you think people care about the truth when they say things such as "the only way Roy can tackle is to horse-collar," "Roy can't cover," "Roy is terrible," "we can't cut Roy because of the cap," "Roy hasn't made big plays since he got his new contract," etc., etc., etc.?

those are exaggerations out of frustration from people who are dissapointed in his play compared to what it used to be.

 

[Alexander]

If their conclusions from watching the games are any of the 46 myths I've listed so far, then they're obviously not in touch with the truth.

Exactly which of the myths do you happen to agree with, based on your conclusions from watching the games?

For the most part, zero. Mainly because they are worded in an extreme fashion which makes them very easy to dismiss. Some are utterly idiotic, like the 300 pound commentary, which frankly isn't even worth "proving" wrong because everyone with a functional brain realizes it is not the case.

It is like taking the rants of an angry person and expecting them to be logical. It is not going to happen. A lot of fans are angry because they are disappointed. They don't "hate", but yes, their disappointment is evident and comes out in the form of frustration. Specifically at the player because they have seen better and expect more.

Just because they are not "factual" and articulate in their verbiage doesn't dismiss any sliver of truth in what they might have to say. You can spend a lot of time sifting through that commentary and come up with myths and inaccuracies, which is obviously something you have devoted quite of bit of time doing. But that doesn't disprove a single solitary thing.

Overall, the average person speaks in general terms. If they don't like what a player does on a consistent basis, they "suck". In Williams' case, he "can't cover" when he blows assignments. No, not a single person on this message board looks at every single snap and focuses on Roy Williams and dissects his play unless you are a coach and have access to the coaching tapes.

 

[RainMan]

Do you think people care about the truth when they say things such as "the only way Roy can tackle is to horse-collar," "Roy can't cover," "Roy is terrible," "we can't cut Roy because of the cap," "Roy hasn't made big plays since he got his new contract," etc., etc., etc.?

Fans speak in hyberbole.

When Tony Romo loses a playoff game, fans say he can't win any. When Terrell Owens drops a pass, fans say he drops them all. When Roy Williams blows a coverage, fans say he can't cover. When Julius Jones gets stopped behind the line of scrimmage, fans say he never gets positive yardage.

Which is why I think the intent of this thread does little to prove or disprove anything.

Of course Roy "can" cover and doesn't weigh "near" 300 pounds. It doesn't mean he's not a liability in coverage on many occasions or that he isn't heavier than he was when he played his best football.

 

[RainMan]

For the most part, zero. Mainly because they are worded in an extreme fashion which makes them very easy to dismiss. Some are utterly idiotic, like the 300 pound commentary, which frankly isn't even worth "proving" wrong because everyone with a functional brain realizes it is not the case.

It is like taking the rants of an angry person and expecting them to be logical. It is not going to happen. A lot of fans are angry because they are disappointed. They don't "hate", but yes, their disappointment is evident and comes out in the form of frustration. Specifically at the player because they have seen better and expect more.

Just because they are not "factual" and articulate in their verbiage doesn't dismiss any sliver of truth in what they might have to say. You can spend a lot of time sifting through that commentary and come up with myths and inaccuracies, which is obviously something you have devoted quite of bit of time doing. But that doesn't disprove a single solitary thing.

Overall, the average person speaks in general terms. If they don't like what a player does on a consistent basis, they "suck". In Williams' case, he "can't cover" when he blows assignments. No, not a single person on this message board looks at every single snap and focuses on Roy Williams and dissects his play unless you are a coach and have access to the coaching tapes.

Spot on, Big Al. Spot on.

Adam's "myths" regarding specific plays generates thoughts. I think the thread is merited on those points. Many of those plays fans tend to blame just Roy, and many of them appear not to be his fault.

But many of the other myths deal with absolutes -- with words like "can't" littered everywhere. Well, there are no absolutes when dealing with players' abilities, so of course such myths can't be disproven.

But that's not going to stop fans from speaking in such terms. Like you say, it's what fans do. A fan saying Roy "can't" cover means he's a liability in coverage more times than you'd like in fan-speak. I think disproving that (the idea that Roy is a liability in coverage) would be much harder.

 

[Idgit]

So what of others who watch the games, many times and still draw the same conclusions albeit different from yours?

Are they just not in touch with the "truth" as you? Or is it just that your version of "truth" is a matter of opinion?

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.

 

[theogt]

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.

:laugh2:

 

[Clove]

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.

My evidence are my eyes. I don't really care about stats, I care about what I see with my own eyes, and I see an average player.

No problem with being average, just give back some of that $$$$.

 

[Idgit]

...Just because they are not "factual" and articulate in their verbiage doesn't dismiss any sliver of truth in what they might have to say....

Actually, it does. Being factual and articulate is essential in forming relevant opinions. This should be obvious to everybody. Isn't it?

Otherwise, you're left with trying to determine the divergence between what was said and what was meant. What possible point is there in having a conversation with someone who's inaccurate and inarticulate? On purpose? Shouldn't we encourage them to try harder?

And, Rain Man, the fact that this describes the rhetorical style of many fans has no bearing on the merits of their arguments.

 

[Idgit]

...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?...

My evidence are my eyes. I don't really care about stats, I care about what I see with my own eyes, and I see an average player.

No problem with being average, just give back some of that $$$$.

I have no issues with that position at all, Clove. I feel that way myself, honestly. I'm just unwilling to take the position based off of my feelings alone.

We'll see soon enough this year if last year was an anomaly or the start of a trend for Roy.