Video: Bradie James & Roy Williams

[theogt]

I would expect him to say that however, I saw both those players play. That is a sentimant I would not share. At least, not at this point in RLW career.

You would expect him to say that? Why? Did he say Ware was better than Merriman? Did he say that Romo was better than Elway?

He was comparing Roy with those players and then stopped in mid-sentence to stress that Roy was better than both. It's not common-place for coaches to say their current player is better than an older player. In fact, coaches usually go out of their way to not say one way or the other.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You would expect him to say that? Why? Did he say Ware was better than Merriman? Did he say that Romo was better than Elway?

He was comparing Roy with those players and then stopped in mid-sentence to stress that Roy was better than both. It's not common-place for coaches to say their current player is better than an older place. In fact, coaches usually go out of their way to not say one way or the other.

Not that I am aware of but then, I didn't hear him say that Roy was better then Atwater either. I would expect it because Roy is currently playing for him. This is not uncommen IMO. However, if you say it is, that's fine. I find it interesting that a Coach who has never coached a player would be so certain that said player was better then another but that's fine. As I said, that is not my opinion of the player.

I'm a bit surprised you find this so shocking. What would you expect Phillips to say? Roy sucks?

 

[theogt]

Not that I am aware of but then, I didn't hear him say that Roy was better then Atwater either. I would expect it because Roy is currently playing for him. This is not uncommen IMO. However, if you say it is, that's fine. I find it interesting that a Coach who has never coached a player would be so certain that said player was better then another but that's fine. As I said, that is not my opinion of the player.

I'm a bit surprised you find this so shocking. What would you expect Phillips to say? Roy sucks?

I would expect him to not lie. I would expect that, if he didn't believe what he was saying, he wouldn't have said it. If he didn't think Roy was better, he could have simply not said it. It's not like he was asked whether Roy was better. He stopped in the middle of a setence to emphasize that Roy was better. Oh well, maybe he's a liar. Or maybe he just doesn't know how to rate a safety. If that's the case, we're probably in trouble.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would expect him to not lie. I would expect that, if he didn't believe what he was saying, he wouldn't have said it. If he didn't think Roy was better, he could have simply not said it. It's not like he was asked whether Roy was better. He stopped in the middle of a setence to emphasize that Roy was better. Oh well, maybe he's a liar. Or maybe he just doesn't know how to rate a safety. If that's the case, we're probably in trouble.

All these things could be true, or not. I was once told that people can change there minds. I was once told that it has happened on occasion. Tell me, have you changed your mind? Do you think I've changed mine?

 

[theogt]

All these things could be true, or not. I was once told that people can change there minds. I was once told that it has happened on occasion. Tell me, have you changed your mind? Do you think I've changed mine?

You seem to have changed your position quite a bit actually. Regardless of whether you think you have or not, it certainly doesn't mean that others can't.

 

[TEK2000]

I'm saying that when Woodson was here, Roy was allowed to do what Roy was allowed to free lance much more. I'm saying that Roy Williams is a bad fit for a Cover2. I'm saying that if we continue to play Cover2, yes, he can be replaced. I do not like Cover2. I never have since the days Pittsburg played it. I like the traditional Strong Free with lots of man principles. I really like bump and run with heavy pressure. Unfortunatly, what I like is rarely what I get.

I'm not sure if you've watched many of San Diego's games or read many of the comparison discussions about our previous 3-4 vs the Phillips 3-4... but I think you will be VERY VERY pleasantly surprised by the defense that you'll see in the 2007 season. Wade Phillips' defense is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Mike Zimmer/Bill Parcell's defense.

Phillips' defense is about TAKING IT TO THE OFFENSE rather than sitting back in a deep Cover 2 letting the offense take it to the defense (Zimmer's style).

I fully expect there to be some BIG changes offensively and defensively scheme wise (not so much player wise).

Offensively, I just hope that we move TO around A LOT more rather than just having him be a generic reciever. Philly knew how to use him and kept moving him around to get favorable matchups and to get him the ball... we simply lined him up and ran him in generic routes on every play. Hopefully Jason Garrett and the gang don't do the same thing we did last season.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You seem to have changed your position quite a bit actually. Regardless of whether you think you have or not, it certainly doesn't mean that others can't.

You seem to be seeing things in my posts that I am not saying. I doubt my position has changed at all. In fact, I'm certain of it. However, if you see it, that's really all that matters.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you feel the same way you did before we ever started this discussion as well.

In the end, my original post still stands. It is what it is. Nothing has changed and so, what's the point of repeatedly discussing the same thing?

:horse:

 

[theogt]

You seem to be seeing things in my posts that I am not saying. I doubt my position has changed at all. In fact, I'm certain of it. However, if you see it, that's really all that matters.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you feel the same way you did before we ever started this discussion as well.

In the end, my original post still stands. It is what it is. Nothing has changed and so, what's the point of repeatedly discussing the same thing?

:horse:

Your original position was that Roy was a liability in coverage. Your position now is that he's not bad, but he simply doesn't live up to his draft status.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your original position was that Roy was a liability in coverage. Your position now is that he's not bad, but he simply doesn't live up to his draft status.

And this is why I hate posting on this subject. My position is not, and has never been, that Roy Williams is just, Not Bad. He is a liability in coverage IMO. If used in a more classic defensive posture, he may prove to be a very effective player but that remains to be seen. You are correct in the assumption that I do not believe he has lived up to his draft status, as yet. However, that was my opinion before we ever started this discussion so that is not really relivant IMO.

I don't know what to tell you other then the fact that my opinion of Roy has really not changed at all.

Thank you,

 

[theogt]

And this is why I hate posting on this subject. My position is not, and has never been, that Roy Williams is just, Not Bad. He is a liability in coverage IMO. If used in a more classic defensive posture, he may prove to be a very effective player but that remains to be seen. You are correct in the assumption that I do not believe he has lived up to his draft status, as yet. However, that was my opinion before we ever started this discussion so that is not really relivant IMO.

I don't know what to tell you other then the fact that my opinion of Roy has really not changed at all.

Thank you,

So why did he rank in the top 5 in '05 of all SSs and in the top 1/3 in 06 in all safeties? If that's a liability, sign me up for a team full of them.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So why did he rank in the top 5 in '05 of all SSs and in the top 1/3 in 06 in all safeties? If that's a liability, sign me up for a team full of them.

Again, just another reason why I hate these kinds of discussions. This is 07, 05 is gone. Roy Williams has not been a SS for Dallas. We played Cover2. There really is no Strong of Free in that scheme. Compare him to Strong all you wish but the truth is that he is not really a Strong Safety, to this point in his career. Will that change? For Roy's sake, I certainly hope so.

I can not speak for your stats. I don't know how they are compliled etc. I only know what I have seen on the field of play and I would be very hard pressed to say that Roy Williams has played like one of the best safeties in the NFL over the last two seasons. All of this, I have said repeatedly. Now, you basically ask me to re-state that opinion. This is why my original post was valid.

Consider yourself signed up.

 

[STSINAZ]

He's definetly not good in coverage and teams exploited that to score on us But 3rd and inches and he usually makes a play. The simple solution is take him off the field when running the cover 2...


Nice work on the video

bradie was hurt the last half of the year along with roy, and henry, and newman, and ellis...and glenn...the whole team was hurt!

 

[CF74]

bradie was hurt the last half of the year along with roy, and henry, and newman, and ellis...and glenn...the whole team was hurt!

Yeah and the fans felt it

 

[theogt]

Again, just another reason why I hate these kinds of discussions. This is 07, 05 is gone.

Oh. I didn't know that you already knew he was a liability in coverage in 07. Could you tell me how Romo performs as well? Does the team make the playoffs? The point was that he wasn't a liability in '05 and in '06.

Roy Williams has not been a SS for Dallas. We played Cover2. There really is no Strong of Free in that scheme. Compare him to Strong all you wish but the truth is that he is not really a Strong Safety, to this point in his career. Will that change? For Roy's sake, I certainly hope so.

A couple things. One, we didn't run the Cover 2 every single down. That's just silly. Second, Roy is a strong safety. Regardless of what position he plays, he was drafted as a strong safety. So, I will compare his performance to other strong safeties. If he was drafted as a FS, then I would compare his performance to other free safeties.

I can not speak for your stats. I don't know how they are compliled etc.

They've been posted by AdamJT13 several times before. It's based on YPA and Completion percentage.

I only know what I have seen on the field of play and I would be very hard pressed to say that Roy Williams has played like one of the best safeties in the NFL over the last two seasons.

The problem is that your perception does not equal reality. Simply because you think he's a liability doesn't make it so.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh. I didn't know that you already knew he was a liability in coverage in 07. Could you tell me how Romo performs as well? Does the team make the playoffs? The point was that he wasn't a liability in '05 and in '06.

A couple things. One, we didn't run the Cover 2 every single down. That's just silly. Second, Roy is a strong safety. Regardless of what position he plays, he was drafted as a strong safety. So, I will compare his performance to other strong safeties. If he was drafted as a FS, then I would compare his performance to other free safeties.

They've been posted by AdamJT13 several times before. It's based on YPA and Completion percentage.

The problem is that your perception does not equal reality. Simply because you think he's a liability doesn't make it so.

Of course. Your right. It's never Roy. Please, compare all you wish. As I said earlier, these discussions are pointless.

 

[theogt]

Of course. Your right. It's never Roy. Please, compare all you wish. As I said earlier, these discussions are pointless.

That may be true, but it's only because some people refuse to recognize reality.

Oh, and stop the straw man argument bull****. I never said "it's never Roy." Roy isn't perfect. He could be better. He could be a top 5 safety in the league in terms of coverage. I wish he were, but he isn't. But is he a "liability?" No. That's just some stupid meme started because people don't know any better.

 

[TexasAce]

James was horrible there, but Roy was just as bad.

Especially on the Saints TD, I mean what the hell kind of angle was that that he took? If he would've followed the ball, he would've seen that it was underthrown and he would've made the tackle, but for some stupid reason he keeps running towards the spot where he figured the receiver would catch the ball.

James is terrible in coverage, this is no secret, but Roy is rapidly becoming one of the players I like the least on the team. He has such think skin it's ridiculous.

No offense to the female members of this board, but Roy has female tendencies, he get's all uptight over criticism and I HATE that about him. Man up for once! Even if it's not your fault, don't be so quick to whine and moan on how this and that play isn't your fault, just say that you'll try to get better or something along those lines.

I found the article the other day about him wanting to prove his critics wrong to be an absolute joke. I understand Roy is a good guy off of the field and I'm ok with that that, but if he really wanted to improve for this season, he wouldn't have spent all off-season in the his office for his charity work.

He would instead have spent most of his time getting in much better shape (which he needs to do badly) and hitting the film room and try to get a better understanding of what's going on.

The problem is, Roy doesn't love football, he doesn't come off as a guy who is passionate about the game. As long as he is this way he will never develop the drive and work ethic that the greats have that makes them better.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That may be true, but it's only because some people refuse to recognize reality.

Oh, and stop the straw man argument bull****. I never said "it's never Roy." Roy isn't perfect. He could be better. He could be a top 5 safety in the league in terms of coverage. I wish he were, but he isn't. But is he a "liability?" No. That's just some stupid meme started because people don't know any better.

You need to get it under control there bud. I do not agree with you.

"He could be a top 5 safety in the league in terms of coverage" Yeah, perhaps but he's not and he never has been. If you would like to characterize me as uninformed, then that's fine. Makes little difference to me one way or the other. He is not a top 5 safety IMO. If you don't like my opinion, don't ask me for it. It's not really all that difficult a problem to solve.

 

[theogt]

You need to get it under control there bud. I do not agree with you.

"He could be a top 5 safety in the league in terms of coverage" Yeah, perhaps but he's not and he never has been. If you would like to characterize me as uninformed, then that's fine. Makes little difference to me one way or the other. He is not a top 5 safety IMO. If you don't like my opinion, don't ask me for it. It's not really all that difficult a problem to solve.

I don't care what anyone's opinion is. What I do care about is how they reached that opinion.

Meaning, how can someone claim that he's a liability when he's clearly better than the majority of safeties. That just boggles my mind. The facts say one thing, and the head coach's opinion agrees with the facts. But for some reason people claim the opposite. Why is Roy a liability? Does he allow more receptions than most safeties? No, we know that he doesn't. Does he allow more yards per reception than most safeties? No, that can't be it either because we know, for a fact, that he doesn't. Does he get less INTs than other safeties? No that can't be it. He gets plenty of INTs. I just would like to know the reason why some believe he's a liability.

 

[CF74]

I don't care what anyone's opinion is. What I do care about is how they reached that opinion.

Meaning, how can someone claim that he's a liability when he's clearly better than the majority of safeties. That just boggles my mind. The facts say one thing, and the head coach's opinion agrees with the facts. But for some reason people claim the opposite. Why is Roy a liability? Does he allow more receptions than most safeties? No, we know that he doesn't. Does he allow more yards per reception than most safeties? No, that can't be it either because we know, for a fact, that he doesn't. Does he get less INTs than other safeties? No that can't be it. He gets plenty of INTs. I just would like to know the reason why some believe he's a liability.

Because he doesn't make 100% of the plays