The Roy Myth Thread

[cowboyfreak]

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.

Put me in the fort with you. I love facts - conjecture, not so much.

Adam is one of my favorite posters. He is even -keel and simply produces fact after fact.

 

[khiladi]

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.

And what does that have to do with the context of the statement? Yet again...

 

[AdamJT13]

And what does that have to do with the context of the statement? Yet again...

The "context" of your statement neither proves nor disproves any of the myths.

 

[Goldenrichards83]

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.

 

[khiladi]

The "context" of your statement neither proves nor disproves any of the myths.

Maybe you didn't read the following statement I made:

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.

Why am I going to try and dis-prove what is called in common language hyperbole? Only a fool would waste such a time doing the impossible, because a hyperbole, by it's very nature, is a statement that is used rhetorically to make a point but is not literally true. It is the very opposite of a statistical fact. Your demand is akin to a scientist trying to disprove the statement of a poet that says he is going to steal the moon for his beloved by saying it is impossible to carry the moon. What I find even more amusing is an educated person demanding that people try and prove or disprove hyperbole. It seems to me to be a demand predicated more on an ego-trip than anything else.

Further, the context of my statement was in regards to another poster confusing your ability to quote correct numbers as proof that your conclusions from these correct numbers are accurate. My comment was way more relevant than your totally useless one, because not even your fiercest critic normally disputes the numbers you use.

Yep, my conclusion still stands...

 

[AdamJT13]

Maybe you didn't read the following statement I made:

Why am I going to try and dis-prove what is called in common language hyperbole? Only a fool would waste such a time doing the impossible, because a hyperbole, by it's very nature, is a statement that is used rhetorically to make a point but is not literally true. It is the very opposite of a statistical fact. Your demand is akin to a scientist trying to disprove the statement of a poet that says he is going to steal the moon in the sky and hand it to his love by saying it is impossible. What I find even more amusing is an educated person demanding that people try and prove or disprove hyperbole. It seems to me to be a demand predicated more on an ego-trip than anything else.

Yes, I think we've all finally agreed that many angry Roy-bashers intentionally exaggerate and make illogical, idiotic statements that nobody can possibly believe.

But there also are plenty of myths on the list that have nothing to do with hyperbole or exaggeration. They have been cited many times as "facts," even in the media, and they deserve to be exposed.

 

[khiladi]

Yes, I think we've all finally agreed that many angry Roy-bashers intentionally exaggerate and make illogical, idiotic statements that nobody can possibly believe.

You mean like, as one person quoted on this forum in the context of the myths of Roy, 2/3rds of the earth is covered by water, the rest is covered by Roy Williams.

BTW, that wasn't my conclusion. My conclusion was that people, in everyday common speech, make statements which are clearly hyperbole. Anybody that has an opposite position that isn't simply bent on winning an argument predicated solely on ego, understands that what is meant isn't 'literally' true.

The fact that you would devoteso much time asking for people to refute such statements, and then when they don't, you act as if your victorious, is more a reflection on your narrow vision than anything else.... DOn't even get me started on you searching for ridiculous statements on other message boards to prove your 'point'. Really, it's laughable...

But there also are plenty of myths on the list that have nothing to do with hyperbole or exaggeration. They have been cited many times as "facts," even in the media, and they deserve to be exposed.

Then quote just the one's that aren't. The fact that your demanding proofs for hyperbole is making YOU look bad.

 

[Idgit]

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.

Lies. Damn lies. Statistics. Did you hear the one about the statistician who drowned in a river with an average depth of 6 inches?

I get the point about numbers. If you're not measuring the right thing, or not measuring it properly, you get into trouble. This is not a strong argument for an arbitrary belief system. You're supposed to at least try to have evidence to support your opinion.

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.

Let me know how you define the difference between respect and idolization and we can have that conversation. After ~7k+ posts, I'm pretty comfortable saying that Adam's ahead of the board's intelligence curve. I'd also wager those who believe he's not can all be found on the low end of that curve. It's that available-evidence thing again.

One of two things is going to happen this year: 1. RW is going to play lights-out and will be universally adored by this board. Again. 2. RW will not play lights-out and/or his play will (continue) to decline. The evidence will then support the conclusion that he's not a great/good/adequate player. Those of us who value evidence will modify our estimation of RW accordingly. Those who do not will revel in the statistical eventuality that their irrational opinions were right one time and will pat themselves on the back with their six-fingered hands and call out those who did not jump the gun. Maybe they will throw themselves a party. Like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Mv0KsuyiSU

Rock on.

 

[khiladi]

Lies. Damn lies. Statistics. Did you hear the one about the statistician who drowned in a river with an average depth of 6 inches?

I get the point about numbers. If you're not measuring the right thing, or not measuring it properly, you get into trouble. This is not a strong argument for an arbitrary belief system. You're supposed to at least try to have evidence to support your opinion.

You missed the point yet again. The fact is, very rarely do any of the posters question the numbers that Adam provides, so they aren't arbitrarily believing anything. The question is how Adam uses the numbers, i.e. an issue of context.

It isn't like the Adam cheerleaders aren't glossing over 'facts' as well.

I mean, even a guy like Darren Woodson will tell you in the context of a dicussion on coverage that Roy has problems turnng his hips. Jerry says Roy has problems with his angles and positioning. You have heard of the phrase, "Where there is smoke, there is fire..."?

 

[iceberg]

You missed the point yet again. The fact is, very rarely do any of the posters question the numbers that Adam provides, so they aren't arbitrarily believing anything. The question is how Adam uses the numbers, i.e. an issue of context.

It isn't like the Adam cheerleaders aren't glossing over 'facts' as well.

I mean, even a guy like Darren Woodson will tell you in the context of a dicussion on coverage that Roy has problems turnng his hips. Jerry says Roy has problems with his angles and positioning. You have heard of the phrase, "Where there is smoke, there is fire..."?

great. now find me someone who's saying roy does NOT have problems? you can't do it. the problem is some extreme posters translate that to HE SUCKS and want him out of here regardless of whether their own reasons are true or not.

if you're going to talk in exaggurated extremes to me you simply can't get too upset if someone calls you on it.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

One of two things is going to happen this year: 1. RW is going to play lights-out and will be universally adored by this board. Again. 2. RW will not play lights-out and/or his play will (continue) to decline. The evidence will then support the conclusion that he's not a great/good/adequate player.

You forgot #3, which is Roy plays just good enough to give the supporters more reason to maintain the Roy Williams Myth Thread, but not good enough to keep the Roy Williams haters from verbally attacking his 300 pound butt!

 

[Deep_Freeze]

You missed the point yet again. The fact is, very rarely do any of the posters question the numbers that Adam provides, so they aren't arbitrarily believing anything. The question is how Adam uses the numbers, i.e. an issue of context.

It isn't like the Adam cheerleaders aren't glossing over 'facts' as well.

I mean, even a guy like Darren Woodson will tell you in the context of a dicussion on coverage that Roy has problems turnng his hips. Jerry says Roy has problems with his angles and positioning. You have heard of the phrase, "Where there is smoke, there is fire..."?

Well I'm really on the fence with this issue.

But I, for one, would like to see Adam post numbers that aren't all in favor of Roy. It is rather obviuos that Roy has been decent, but not great, and there as to be numbers that show this also........shows both sides of the equation as I dont have the resources to find the numbers like Adam does.

Extremists are one thing (both sides), but I would like to hear some middle ground as really Adam and some other most vocal in this thread in favor of Roy are extremists just as much as the guys who say wild and crazy things against Roy.

 

[iceberg]

Well I'm really on the fence with this issue.

But I, for one, would like to see Adam post numbers that aren't all in favor of Roy. It is rather obviuos that Roy has been decent, but not great, and there as to be numbers that show this also........shows both sides of the equation as I dont have the resources to find the numbers like Adam does.

Extremists are one thing (both sides), but I would like to hear some middle ground as really Adam and some other most vocal in this thread are extremists just as much as the guys who say wild and crazy things about Roy.

well, we do see a top 10 safety list from time to time. it would be interesting to compare the same #'s across the board for salary and results and see where he really falls.

man, that's a lot of work. : )

 

[Rampage]

holla to my peeps up in the Roy myth thread!

 

[cowboyed]

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.

I already corrected that adamjt13, in another post. I stated that in the absolute I could have clarified that sacks apply to the quarterback and that is usually behind the line of scrimmage. I never made an issue out of Roy's number of tackles around the line of scrimmage involving receivers, tight ends and running backs.

Here it is in the nutshell for me. I perceive Roy Williams as not being the impact player he once was. In my opinion, over the last 2 years he has not lived up to the spirit of his contract.

I would have more empathy for Roy if he held himself more accountable rather than blaming others at times. I also am aware that fans and the media can exaggerate the negatives and the positives.

I feel your myth busting exercise is a little over the top. One could easily create an ongoing "statistic-mata" list but what is the point to go to that extreme. You apparently have disdain with fan hyperbole and how it is applied in debate or argument, but some fans can just as validly react to how statistics can be out of player performance context, nor detail the efficacy of a specific play and the associated game related variables.

In summary, statistics depict an end result but not the dynamics of performance which is critical when assessing a player. Extolling the virtues or criticizing a player cannot be established by strong or colorful opinion alone.

In fact fans engaging in either or both approaches to evaluating players are still short of the mark because they don't work in the NFL or in the case of Roy Williams they are not his defensive coach.

I do not wish Roy Williams to fail our team this year to prove me right to whatever degree. I much prefer he turns things around and plays with the impact and effectiveness he once did. That is a win-win-win situation for the team, the fans and most importantly Roy Williams.

 

[AdamJT13]

Then quote just the one's that aren't. The fact that your demanding proofs for hyperbole is making YOU look bad.

I haven't demanded any proofs for hyperbole. I've asked anyone to prove ANY of the myths to be true. Nobody has even tried.

I included the hyperbole on the list because they're frequently used by fans (and sometimes by the media, too). Perhaps if everyone sees how idiotic those statements are, they'll stop using them. My guess it they won't, because they don't care how idiotic and irrational they sound. If you want to make a thread about the positive hyperbole used to boast about any players, feel free.

If people stop using the hyperbole when they attack Roy, then all we need to do is get the media to learn the difference between truth and fiction.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

holla to my peeps up in the Roy myth thread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFKtHSlaMVI

 

[khiladi]

I haven't demanded any proofs for hyperbole. I've asked anyone to prove ANY of the myths to be true. Nobody has even tried.

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

If people stop using the hyperbole when they attack Roy, then all we need to do is get the media to learn the difference between truth and fiction.

So we got to cater to Roy even when it comes to common, everyday language? Wow... this guy is really high maintenance...

 

[DallasCowpoke]

I included the hyperbole on the list because they're frequently used by fans (and sometimes by the media, too). Perhaps if everyone sees how idiotic those statements are, they'll stop using them. My guess it they won't, because they don't care how idiotic and irrational they sound.

If people stop using the hyperbole when they attack Roy, then all we need to do is get the media to learn the difference between truth and fiction.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

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