Allow me to preface my comments with this: I've defended Roy Williams tirelessly over the years. On another board, I was in constant debate with another poster who despised Roy Williams. He actually became so agitated with me that he started making terrible comments about my wife.
But I never wavered in my support of Roy and never reciprocated his attacks. I just accepted Roy as a player who excelled in run support but was average in coverage.
However, after last season and the beginning of this season, I'm less certain about my position, and I'm forced to wonder about Roy, "At what point do we call a spade a spade?"
I know what my eyes see on Sundays. They see a player beaten repeatedly in coverage. Of course, my observations are less than meaningless. I don't understand coverages; I can't recognize their idiosyncrasies. And even if I could, I don't have access to game film. What do I know?
However, week in and week out, different analysts--former players normally--go about breaking down game film and telling me just how poor, how much of a liability, Williams is in coverage. For instance, last Week on the NFL Network, Sterling Sharpe explained how teams scheme to put Roy in coverage, hoping to exploit his weaknesses. Should I simply dismiss them as agenda-driven Cowboy haters, or people who are blinded by the negative press surrounding Roy Williams?
Perhaps I should dismiss them, but what do I do about Mickey Spagnola--the biggest Cowboy apologist ever--who spent the offseason castigating Roy for his coverage woes, stating he needed to make substantial improvements.
Please understand I have no agenda against Roy. I want him to succeed. Although I'm a Longhorn fan, I was ecstatic when the Cowboys selected him on draft day. But my confidence in him is wavering.
And before you chide me too harshly, ask yourself this: What if Roy Williams was a Commander or an Eagle? What would you say then?[/QUOTE]
Your last sentence is perfect.......this whole board will be laughing at Roy!
