What would you do about Roy? Trade him?

[WoodysGirl]

I don't think I have ever seen a member of the media say something bad about the Cowboys without someone here at the Zone tearing them apart for it. Take it for what you will.

Just the nature of fandom.

 

[zrinkill]

To be honest I was upset about the Landry pick up at first because I felt we had other needs that needed to be addressed first; however, he has exceeded all of my expectations and has really allowed Taylor to do what he does best which is play centerfield. My opinion on drafting him has done a complete 180. I guess thats why I'm not paid to make the decisons.

Best pick you guys have made in a long long time .....

Very Jealous

 

[WoodysGirl]

That's natural. And in some cases, analysts do have agendas against certain teams. But in Roy's case, the criticism seems so widespread.

I think it depends on the analyst. Some you respect more than others. Most of their opinions, if not all, should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[AdamJT13]

So are you contending that Sterling Sharpe is a poor analyst and that we should disregard his commentary?

I'm not challenging you. I'm simply trying to understand my own feelings about Roy.

No, I'm saying you can't take everything the TV guys say as fact.

Sharpe showed three plays. On one, Roy had to switch coverage responsibilities from one receiver to another on a crossing route, and he allowed a completion on an out to the second wide receiver (Toomer, I think). Given the coverage, there's not a lot he could have done to prevent the catch. The scheme was designed to take away the other receiver running the post, which it did. The Giants took the underneath route. On the second play, Sharpe said Roy should have flattened out more to take away the curl on the outside, which might or might not be true but almost certainly wouldn't have prevented Reeves from getting beaten. And the third one was the last TD to Burress, which was Roy's fault -- but also a perfect throw and great catch.

I'm sure you could take three plays from most players' worst games of the season and make it look like they're inept, especially when you're using some plays that aren't even that bad and claiming that they should have done something that the rules prohibit players from doing.

 

[AdamJT13]

So, again, I would ask you this: Are the facts of those analysts who criticize Roy Williams in error?

It depends on what they're saying, obviously.

 

[Kilyin]

You answer my question, who exactly was Roy covering on those two plays?

That's right, the same guy someone else was already covering.

Pretty sure he was involved in a double team on Mike Vrabel, since that's probably where they thought Brady wanted to go. Maybe it was, and Brady checked it down to the other Brady. Is that Roy's fault?

 

[Stash]

I'm not spouting my opinion Stash. Your answer for Adam's question was Newman, but then back to Roy.

That is NOT the answer to his question. On a curl underneath, whose assignment is it if Roy has deep on Moss?

Let me get it straight so I can give you an honest answer:

The Patriots were - in fact - 6 yards away from the end zone.

How 'deep' can Moss go?

Moss ran a quick post pattern while Watson went outside towards Newman.

He entered his zone - therefore Watson became Newman's responsibility - not Roy's.

Moss entered Roy's assigned zone - making him Roy's responsibility.

I don't agree with playing zone that close, but if that was the call, Roy needed to be on the same page with his teammates.

In that close an area, I don't see the benefit of running both Moss and Watson towards Roy's zone together.

Does that help?

 

[Hostile]

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?

I just want to answer this point. It wouldn't make me change my opinion in the least.

Some here hate Sean Taylor. I don't. I think he's one hell of a good football player.

Every player has strengths. Every player has weaknesses. Do the strengths outwiegh the weaknesses or the other way around?

IMO with Roy Williams the ledger looks like this.

Run support...strength
Blitz capability...strength
Big play ability INTs, FFs, Sacks, big hits)...stength
Tackling...stength
Deep coverage...liability

Now the assignment is to compare him to other safeties in the league because all of these can't suck can they?

Roy has more big plays and more tackles than any of them.

If someone wants to focus only on the deep coverage, be my guest, but that is silly IMO.

Teams have to account for him every single play. Why? Because if they don't he will tear someone's head off. They have to do what they can to exploit his weakness.

Yes, that is coverage, but posters here place WAY too much emphasis on that and ignore the rest. They don't understand coverages and zones at all. not everyone mind you. Some do.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I think it depends on the analyst. Some you respect more than others. Most of their opinions, if not all, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Depending on the credentials of analysts, he or she may be very insightful. Obviously, I lend more credence to ex-players such as Sterling Sharpe, Brian Baldingers, and Tom Jackson than I do journalists such as Jen Engel. People who develop pet names for players (i.e. Roy Willy) come off as petty and agenda-driven more than anything else.

 

[Stash]

Pretty sure he was involved in a double team on Mike Vrabel, since that's probably where they thought Brady wanted to go. Maybe it was, and Brady checked it down to the other Brady. Is that Roy's fault?

No.

That would be the fault of any idiot dumb enough to call such a scheme - if it even existed.

 

[zrinkill]

IMO with Roy Williams the ledger looks like this.

Run support...strength
Blitz capability...strength
Big play ability INTs, FFs, Sacks, big hits)...stength
Tackling...stength
Deep coverage...liability

Now the assignment is to compare him to other safeties in the league because all of these can't suck can they?

Roy has more big plays and more tackles than any of them.

If someone wants to focus only on the deep coverage, be my guest, but that is silly IMO.

Teams have to account for him every single play. Why? Because if they don't he will tear someone's head off. They have to do what they can to exploit his weakness.

Yes, that is coverage, but posters here place WAY too much emphasis on that and ignore the rest. They don't understand coverages and zones at all. not everyone mind you. Some do.

Very nice post ....

 

[BigDFan5]

I can at least have an honest, informed debate with Adam - even if we see things from polar opposite positions.

ummm what? There is no debate, you cant even answer Adams simple questions you are spinning like a top trying to get around them

 

[BigDFan5]

So are you contending that Sterling Sharpe is a poor analyst and that we should disregard his commentary?

I'm not challenging you. I'm simply trying to understand my own feelings about Roy.

I think he is saying if Sharpe can get something so easy so wrong, then how can you trust him about a coverage scheme he has no idea about

 

[Hostile]

Let me get it straight so I can give you an honest answer:

The Patriots were - in fact - 6 yards away from the end zone.

How 'deep' can Moss go?

Moss ran a quick post pattern while Watson went outside towards Newman.

He entered his zone - therefore Watson became Newman's responsibility - not Roy's.

Moss entered Roy's assigned zone - making him Roy's responsibility.

I don't agree with playing zone that close, but if that was the call, Roy needed to be on the same page with his teammates.

In that close an area, I don't see the benefit of running both Moss and Watson towards Roy's zone together.

Does that help?

In a Zone, deep means behind the defender. It has nothing to do with how many yards.

That is literally the terminology. I swear.

Safeties almost always play Zone. They have 2 primary assignments. Run support first so that if the ball carrier gets past the LBs he can step up. As soon as run has been abandoned and it is pass, he becomes responsible for his coverage Zone.

FYI, the correct answer is once pass is established the LBs who are not blitzing the passer have the responsibility to fade back into coverage. In this case the ILBs.

You play to stop the run first always. That is the immediate or hot read.

If the TE curls underneath and the SS is in man at the back of the endzone with Moss, the TE is going to score.

It is called good offense by New England. To cover it properly James or Ayodele needed to be in that curl zone in the middle. They were not and since it was not a run and they were not blitzing their assignment becomes the TEs and RBs. Watson was upfield drawing Roy over. Had the ILB been there Roy would have been deeper to double Moss.

 

[Cochese]

I
Run support...strength
Blitz capability...strength
Big play ability INTs, FFs, Sacks, big hits)...stength
Tackling...stength
Deep coverage...liability

Run support I agree with.

Blitz capability, I dont agree. No sacks this year, none in 06. Two and a half in 05 and none in 04.

Big play ability-It goes either way, he is capable of it, but doesnt seem to be the type of playmaker everyone thought he was going to be after that torrid rookie year.

Tackling-He fails to wrap up. It can be a strength when he is knocking fools out, but it can also be a liability when he tries to get too cute like he did against Clark in Chicago.

Deep cover-Everyone knows that.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

No, I'm saying you can't take everything the TV guys say as fact.

Sharpe showed three plays. On one, Roy had to switch coverage responsibilities from one receiver to another on a crossing route, and he allowed a completion on an out to the second wide receiver (Toomer, I think). Given the coverage, there's not a lot he could have done to prevent the catch. The scheme was designed to take away the other receiver running the post, which it did. The Giants took the underneath route. On the second play, Sharpe said Roy should have flattened out more to take away the curl on the outside, which might or might not be true but almost certainly wouldn't have prevented Reeves from getting beaten. And the third one was the last TD to Burress, which was Roy's fault -- but also a perfect throw and great catch.

I'm sure you could take three plays from most players' worst games of the season and make it look like they're inept, especially when you're using some plays that aren't even that bad and claiming that they should have done something that the rules prohibit players from doing.

It depends on what they're saying, obviously.

I agree completey that we should consider the credentials of the analyst and the nature of his medium (i.e. television) before we choose to believe him. However, in Roy's case, the criticism is so persisent and widespread among so many pundits, fairly respectable ones, that I am given pause concerning my opinion of Roy Williams.

Also, I concede that the NFL Network does tend to repeat and analyze the same game footage to an excessive degree; however, it seems that tendency could be due more to production and time constraints than anything else.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I think he is saying if Sharpe can get something so easy so wrong, then how can you trust him about a coverage scheme he has no idea about

No one is perfect. One mistake, in and of itself, won't completely undermine my opinion of him. I'm simply trying to reach a consensus of opinion here.

 

[Hostile]

Run support I agree with.

Blitz capability, I dont agree. No sacks this year, none in 06. Two and a half in 05 and none in 04.

Big play ability-It goes either way, he is capable of it, but doesnt seem to be the type of playmaker everyone thought he was going to be after that torrid rookie year.

Tackling-He fails to wrap up. It can be a strength when he is knocking fools out, but it can also be a liability when he tries to get too cute like he did against Clark in Chicago.

Deep cover-Everyone knows that.

You need to focus on one play in Chicago.

My response, whoop dee freaking doo. I can show you missed tackles by every defensive player in the Hall of Fame.

Utterly ridiculous stance.

Big play ability does not go either way.

Blitz pressure does not mean you have to get sacks. It means you occupy a blocker and free someone else up. If you think QBs don't fear this man then you are out of your everloving mind.

 

[zrinkill]

No one is perfect. One mistake, in and of itself, won't completely undermine my opinion of him.

Iro........ oh nevermind.

 

[BigDFan5]

No one is perfect. One mistake, in and of itself, won't completely undermine my opinion of him. I'm simply trying to reach a consensus of opinion here.

But this wasnt a mistake on a hard subject this was a mistake on a very easy and frequently called penalty.

After making that kind of mistake how can you take him seriously in the rest of the conversation when he is discussing the play of a position he has no experience with, and a scheme he has never been in or studied.

He talks about receiving I will listen.