The Roy Myth Thread

[Clove]

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.

The good news is, if he turns it around, I'll throw all that out the window and love him again.

 

[BuckyG]

The good news is, if he turns it around, I'll throw all that out the window and love him again.

I think all of us can agree on a few things, and then maybe let's put this all to rest:

• No question, Roy Williams has had some excellent seasons for the Cowboys, excellent when compared against his peers.

• No question, all things considered, especially adjusted for experience in the league, 2007 was Williams' worst season in the NFL.

• Some of the things Williams has said of late are disturbing; doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but he doesn't seem to be owning up and taking responsibility for playing below what should be at the very least his own expectations of excellence.

• This is a make or break year for Williams. If he has a great year, we can cut him some slack for having a slump last year in a new system. Slumps can happen to even the best players.

• If he has another poor season, then and only then can we see Williams as a player in decline as opposed to a guy who just had a bad year.

And pretty much everything else is conjecture. Maybe it's time to let this go and stand back and let Williams play it out. Much as I have issues with his play of late, I think he's contributed enough to the team over time that maybe we should get off his back and give him a shot to step up in 2008.

 

[cowboyed]

And the list grows longer.

Myth No. 46 -- Roy had zero tackles at or near the line of scrimmage over the past couple of years.

Myth No. Whatever - the myth busting resident statistician who heavily relies on statistics as the end all to Roy Williams performance evaluation and or shattering critical opinions of him - is always right. Please go to the player stat section at yahoosports.com and confirm for yourself that Roy had no sacks in 2006 and 2007.

Before trumpeting the onset of the next pro- Roy Williams statistical crusade please re-read what I wrote about his performance at or near the LOS. I clearly stated ZERO SACKS not ZERO TACKLES.

 

[cowboyed]

Here's his entire paragraph -- "Do you really want to hang your hat on Roy's head over the number of tackles especially when you consider the diversion tackles he nets playing closer to the line of scrimmage. For me it isn't the number of tackles you make that you measure a safety with, but the number of open field tackles against the inertia and combativeness of the receiver, tight end or running back. And exactly how many sacks has Roy Willams had at or near the LOS over the last couple of years? The answer is ZERO."

Surely he meant to say tackles. If not, he can correct his post and reply again to tell us what he really meant to say when he was talking about sacking receivers, tight ends and running backs near the line of scrimmage.

In the absolute I could have been clearer on whom Roy would be sacking and that would be the quarterback and that usually is behind the line of scrimmage. I don't know of any other player position you would sack. Any other offensive player position you reference tackle. But that isn't myth busting that is splitting hairs, no?

 

[Maikeru-sama]

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.

Because he's smarter than you, his opinion is worth more than yours. It just is.

Geebus, when did "supposed" superior knowledge about American Football translate into a higher Intelligence Quotient.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

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.

I agree with this.

Especially the notion that those that hold extreme views about a player, both positive and negative, should not have the efficacy of dimissing all of the more moderate and sane views of said player.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I hereby attest that I believe that Roy has declined due to the following reasons:

- Roy voted for Ralph Nader
- Roy uses Preperation H even though he has no hemmorhoids
- Roy wanted Mumrah to beat the Thundercats
- Roy bought stock in Texas Toast, so he thought it would be good advertising to play like that on the field.

Since I attest these to be true, they should be added to the list of Myths

 

[iceberg]

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.

my line of thinking falls here. alexander and rampage however both made good points that i had to stop and think about in that the frustration was driving the "hate", not real hate per se. i can see where that would "inflate" what they say and how it's said. but in my mind, if you're willing to exaggurate to that degree, and you keep doing it, before long you'll believe it yourself regardless of whether or not it's true.

suddenly the exaggurations become truth to people who don't see into the frustrations and wa-la...myths are born.

i can understand where it comes from. i just think people need to chill out and bring it back to what's real in that roy has yes, slipped in the last year or two. he was also never the overwhelming superstar we hoped for after the 1st year.

he's made good plays. he's done a good job on the field overall. he's a very good player but yes, *today* not as good as he used to be. overrated?

maybe.

but isn't also the "exaggurations out of frustrations" *overrate* his poor play just the same? you can't attack someone with exaggurations and not expect the same in defense.

those of us in the middle are just tired of the extremes bantering about extremes on either side.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I guess we'll just wait and see, for at least this one more year, rather Roy turns it around or not.

 

[Cowboyz88]

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.

Hhhhmmmmmm...borderline idolization? Idgit, given this rant, I wouldn't ever worry about Adam voting you off of the island.

That said, it's a good thing we have Adam here to set us all straight.

I guess there's no need to watch the Cowboys even play anymore.

Idgit, after the season, can you forward Adam's newsletter, so I'll be able to find out if I should be pleased with the Cowboy's season? More specifically, I'll need to practice preaching the mantra for Roy's inevitable stellar play.

 

[khiladi]

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.

Any mathematician will tell you numbers can be used to support any proposition. Why do you think scientists have different theories regarding the same subject, despite having access to the same statistical data?

And BTW, this Roy myth thread is ********. Trying to make a case by referencing exaggerated hyperbole used by fans in common, everyday language is just plain absurd. Maybe that is why the poster often misses the big picture as it concerns Roy.

 

[cowboyed]

Hhhhmmmmmm...borderline idolization? Idgit, given this rant, I wouldn't ever worry about Adam voting you off of the island.

That said, it's a good thing we have Adam here to set us all straight.

I guess there's no need to watch the Cowboys even play anymore.

Idgit, after the season, can you forward Adam's newsletter, so I'll be able to find out if I should be pleased with the Cowboy's season? More specifically, I'll need to practice preaching the mantra for Roy's inevitable stellar play.

Good grief adamjt13 smarter than many in the forum I take? He definitely is statistically smarter than most when it comes to detailing Cowboy player or team end results. He obviously spends a lot of time on it. So his statistical data can be relied on and in context of descriptive general criteria.

As with the rest of us adamjt13 does not study NFL grade film and as far as I know he is not a defensive coach or knows what is going from a true professional perspective. The reality is that a noticeable number of people covering the NFL and or working in the NFL have increasingly and negatively commented on Roy Williams' ability to play his position at a high and effective level.

One of the key reasons the Dallas Cowboys organization has brought in Campo is to directly work with Roy Williams. That is a bit unprecedented for that position don't you think unless there are serious issues with a player we are contractually bound or cap prohibitive to discharge.

 

[khiladi]

Good grief adamjt13 smarter than many in the forum I take? He definitely is statistically smarter than most when it comes to detailing Cowboy player or team end results. He obviously spends a lot of time on it. So his statistical data can be relied on and in context of descriptive general criteria.

As with the rest of us adamjt13 does not study NFL grade film and as far as I know he is not a defensive coach or knows what is going from a true professional perspective. The reality is that a noticeable number of people covering the NFL and or working in the NFL have increasingly and negatively commented on Roy Williams' ability to play his position at a high and effective level.

One of the key reasons the Dallas Cowboys organization has brought in Campo is to directly work with Roy Williams. That is a bit unprecedented for that position don't you think unless there are serious issues with a player we are contractually bound or cap prohibitive to discharge.

Exactly... Statistical data is evidence divorced from context...

 

[BigDFan5]

Thunder


Thunder


Thunder


Thundercats Hooooooooooo

 

[BigDFan5]

One of the key reasons the Dallas Cowboys organization has brought in Campo is to directly work with Roy Williams.

[quote a player we are contractually bound or cap prohibitive to discharge.[/quote]


Already on the myth list and disproven

 

[AdamJT13]

For the most part, zero. Mainly because they are worded in an extreme fashion which makes them very easy to dismiss.

In other words, when people are bashing Roy, it's usually very easy to dismiss them because they're not rational.

Some are utterly idiotic

Agreed.

It is like taking the rants of an angry person and expecting them to be logical. It is not going to happen.

Agreed.

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.

I spent no time doing that before posting the list -- only when I was asked to prove that people actually said some of these "extreme," "idiotic," "angry," illogical "rants," as you called them.

The sad thing is, many of the myths came from the media, not "angry fans." Shouldn't the media be more concerned about truth and accuracy? And many of them are stated as facts, not opinions.

 

[AdamJT13]

Any mathematician will tell you numbers can be used to support any proposition.

And any mathematician will tell you that any proposition based on incorrect numbers will be incorrect, as well.

Many of the myths aren't about interpreting numbers, they're about the numbers themselves.

 

[dallasfaniac]

I can understand those that prefer to go by their eyes rather than looking at stats; I do it myself all the time. However, I also understand that your eyes can be deceived whereas stats are more concrete.

We are all Cowboy fans, at least those of us that count, and spend most of our time watching Cowboy's games. Shocking, yes I know. The problem is twofold in that neither we nor the media know what we are seeing (Wade said as much to JFE) and we don't spend all that much time watching every other team in the NFL for comparison's sake.

Last year there were Cowboy fans screaming at the passes that Roy gave up, wanting to have Polamalu, Wilson, Sanders, etc. instead. The problem is, they don't watch these guys on a consistent basis like they do Roy Williams.

I went onto NFL.com to watch highlights of the games and in just that limited amount of game footage, you see each of those guys listed getting burned for TDs and whiffing on tackles too.

I went onto other forums and amazingly many fans there were fed up with their own players. I saw fans say they would rather have Roy Williams over Polamalu because at least Roy could tackle even if it was a horsecollar and he wasn't becoming an injury concern. Similar concerns about Sanders who has yet to play an entire season. People were crying about Wilson until he was lost for the year, then they were just crying.

The grass is always greener for fans. Case in point, the Seahawk fan that came on here a few weeks ago that was happy to be rid of Alexander and pick up a workhorse like Julius Jones, who doesn't go down on first contact like Shaun did.

This is why I tend to look at the stats from STATS, Joyner etc. because they are based upon watching all games, not just one team and not out of context tackles. This helps you remove hateitude or homerism from the equation.

 

[AdamJT13]

Myth No. Whatever - the myth busting resident statistician who heavily relies on statistics as the end all to Roy Williams performance evaluation and or shattering critical opinions of him - is always right. Please go to the player stat section at yahoosports.com and confirm for yourself that Roy had no sacks in 2006 and 2007.

Before trumpeting the onset of the next pro- Roy Williams statistical crusade please re-read what I wrote about his performance at or near the LOS. I clearly stated ZERO SACKS not ZERO TACKLES.

So, what did you mean to say in the rest of the paragraph?

"Do you really want to hang your hat on Roy's head over the number of tackles especially when you consider the diversion tackles he nets playing closer to the line of scrimmage. For me it isn't the number of tackles you make that you measure a safety with, but the number of open field tackles against the inertia and combativeness of the receiver, tight end or running back. And exactly how many sacks has Roy Willams had at or near the LOS over the last couple of years? The answer is ZERO."

Anyhow, the myth wasn't based only on your post, so it still stands.

 

[dallasfaniac]

The reality is that a noticeable number of people covering the NFL and or working in the NFL have increasingly and negatively commented on Roy Williams' ability to play his position at a high and effective level.

The funny thing is, from a fans perspective, these media members don't know what they are talking about until they support that fan's opinion.

This goes back to the fact that an individual media person cannot watch every second of every game and even if they did, they don't know the responsibilities on the field.

They call it a news STORY for a reason. The media is so quick to run with the hot topic story that they often miss or gloss over the facts much like fans do, mainly because they are fans too, otherwise why get into covering football at all?