Williams facing hazy future - Mosley - 5/24/08

[AdamJT13]

Here's a little note about the Moss touchdowns from, of all people, avowed Roy-basher Jennifer Floyd Engel in her "Little Balls of Hate" column for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Sept. 22, 2005 --

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=517361&postcount=1

"Oops: Sports Illustrated listed safety Roy Williams as "one of the most overrated defensive players in the NFL" on Wednesday because of his poor coverage skills on display in Monday's loss to the Commanders, which would be a good point if not for that teeny, tiny fact that everybody at Valley Ranch says Williams was not responsible for Santana Moss."​

Let me guess -- everyone's lying, right?

 

[masomenos]

Did you even read the link? Or are you too busy wallowing in your ignorance to bother?

That quote was about the second play only. And he was blaming himself for not making the play, even though it wasn't his responsibility to make the play.

This is just for the sake of argument, but isn't it every players responsibility to "make a play" on any given down? It reminds me of the play Derek Jeter made in the playoffs in 2001 when he flipped an overthrown cutoff throw to Posada for the tag out of Giambi. It's what defines the great players, in any sport, the ability to make plays that are against the odds, or that the majority of other players wouldn't make.

Now, I didn't read the quote, and that's why I said I was just arguing the point. I understand the idea that players have to play to their assignments and have confidence that their teammates will preform, but so often it seems that the truly special players are those who make plays even when it's not their reponsibility.

 

[AdamJT13]

This is just for the sake of argument, but isn't it every players responsibility to "make a play" on any given down? It reminds me of the play Derek Jeter made in the playoffs in 2001 when he flipped an overthrown cutoff throw to Posada for the tag out of Giambi. It's what defines the great players, in any sport, the ability to make plays that are against the odds, or that the majority of other players wouldn't make.

Now, I didn't read the quote, and that's why I said I was just arguing the point. I understand the idea that players have to play to their assignments and have confidence that their teammates will preform, but so often it seems that the truly special players are those who make plays even when it's not their reponsibility.

You are correct, in a sense, as Roy explained. He was blaming himself for not being able to go above and beyond his specific coverage responsibility and make the play. But that doesn't mean he was the one who got beaten.

 

[28 Joker]

What does any of that have to do with what I said? If you want to blame him for plays that aren't his fault because of something else he did, go right ahead. But that doesn't make them his fault. It just means you're blaming the wrong person.




I never said Roy wasn't to blame on the second one. I said Bradie James was more to blame.

Here's what Jerramy Stevens said about the play --

"(My responsibility) was to get down the middle, and if I could run past the linebacker, to keep on running. ... I knew if I got past him, Matt was going to put the ball up. I think we put them in a bind with the formation. It was a great call because we have too much speed on them right there. They were forced to vacate the middle, and all I had to do was outrun the middle linebacker."

James had one player to cover, and he failed. If he was too heavy, he was too heavy. Either way, he failed. And that put Roy in the position of having to cover two receivers deep -- Burleson and Stevens. Against that type of play in Cover 2, if the underneath coverage doesn't do their jobs, it makes the safety's job very difficult because they have to cover so much ground. Roy almost got there in time, but he didn't. So he's partly to blame. But James is more to blame. If he had done his job, the throw becomes extremely difficult, and Hasselbeck likely throws it elsewhere or James breaks up the pass (see Zach Thomas against Jason Witten or DeMarcus Ware against Donald Lee). Keith Davis would get a small share of the blame, too, for failing to recognize the two vertical routes on the other side and none on his side and not helping on the backside TE post.

Adam,

After the Saints game, teams were exploiting both of them. Brees hit Devrey Henderson for a 50 yarder over Wiliams. Williams bit on a play fake and was burned. I think Williams gave a deep one up before the half as well. Teams were dropping the ball between James and Williams all the way through the playoff game. The Saints gave the blue print of how to attack Dallas deep. In cover-2, the safeties are the last line of defense for the conerbacks on their side of the field. It is Williams' job to take half the field and protect his corner over the top and deep. He should be able to react to the play in front of him. He has poor instincts in pass coverage and he doesn't have the speed to recover once he makes a mistake. Williams talks about it being "tough" to cover tightends and receivers in the middle of the field. He says they could go either way and you have no help. That is why the corners get big bucks. He is the help! That's what safeties do in deep patrol or in cover-2.

Here is what Bradie James told Tim MacMahan after the Saints game about the cover-2:

"That is why you have a safety position. That's is the last line of defense".

Bradie James DMN

According to MacMahan, James said that he'd take the blame, but he expected help from the safety.

The seam routes being dropped over James and Williams happened against the Eagles. Matt Schoebel got them good for 25 yards. Holmgren saw this on film, and Stevens did the same thing to them. James couldn't get close to running with them due to his weight, and Williams didn't do his part, either. He should have known by the playoff game in Seattle that the tight-end is going to attack James underneath and him over the top. An NFL safety has to be able to cover a tightend on a seam route. If you put time in the film room, you should be able to diagnose the plays and react to them better. How much does Roy study? He makes the same mistakes over and over again. The Giants new safety, Phillips, says that Ed Reed taught him to study film 3-4 hours per day.

On the second Santana Moss TD, which the Cowboys were clearly in cover-2, Aaron Glenn is playing an inside technique on Moss. An inside technique is designed to force the receiver to the inside where the safeties live in deep patrol. It is the safety's job not to get beat over the top in cover-2. That is why they are back there and deep. Williams has to protect the corner on his side of the field. Williams didn't protect Glenn when Moss gained too much separation while running to the inside. On the play, Keith Davis has one half the field and is in deep patrol. He is covering Henry's receiver over the top. Williams has Glenn's over the top support. Williams blew it. He let Moss get behind him again. I posted a link where Williams himself stated it was his fault. Williams admitted he was at fault. What about that aspect of this conversation. It seems to have been lost. Saunders isolated Roy in space and won the game. Space isn't Roy's friend.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD1ZQ8NnauQ

This video will clearly show Dallas' defense in a cover-2 shell on the second Santana Moss TD. Williams and Davis are lined up in cover-2 to prevent the bomb, and Williams fails to protect Glenn from getting beat again.

Look at the 1:46 mark of the clips. Both TDs are on there.

 

[28 Joker]

Before the first Santana Moss TD, Brunell threw deep into triple coverage. Williams let the ball slip right through his hands. The ball hit him in the facemask. Three plays later, Moss scored his first TD. Brunell had just thrown the ball deep on them, and his receivers were running deep routes on his long scramble right before the first TD on 4th and 15.

On that first TD to Moss, Glenn is playing inside technique again. Again, this technique is used to funnel the receiver to the inside. Who is the only defender to Glenn's inside and in deep patrol? ROY WILLIAMS (Philllps uses this technique now with the corners.) Glenn is defending the sideline at the numbers. However, Glenn lets Moss get too much inside separation after the double move Moss uses on him. If Glenn is playing an inside techniqe and forcing Moss to the inside, the saftey must provide the deep over the top help for Glenn. The only safety over there is Roy Williams.

Chris Cooley runs his route to the inside and down the middle of the field. Anthony Henry covers him in zone well first and passes him off to a linebacker. The linebacker has him covered. Williams is paying too much attention to a well covered Cooley on his right and doesn't react to the play like he should. Cooley breaks free from the linebacker, but the ball is in the air headed towards Williams, over the top, when Cooley breaks free. The linebacker did his job on Cooley.

Williams completely turnes his hips towards the covered Cooley and therefore, turns his back on the fast closing Moss, who has gained too much separation from Glenn on the inside. The rest is history. Just look at the play on video.

 

[starfrombirth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD1ZQ8NnauQ

This video will clearly show Dallas' defense in a cover-2 shell on the second Santana Moss TD. Williams and Davis are lined up in cover-2 to prevent the bomb, and Williams fails to protect Glenn from getting beat again.

Look at the 1:46 mark of the clips. Both TDs are on there.

I still get mad just watching that.

 

[Hostile]

We have no idea what special packages the Cowboys have. We don't even know half the time who will be on the field in a 3rd and 12 scenario. Wade and Stew played with all kinds of combos last season.

Okay, then why assume that Roy isn't doing exactly what the Coaches and scheme requires? I mean if we don't know one side, why do we know the other side? See how this line of thinking can be turned right back around? We don't know, literally means that we don't know. Sorry but I don't buy this. I mean how do teams ever study film if they don't know what "special packages" they might see?

Here they are in Cover 2...oh no it's really cover 4...whatever will we do???!!!

Throw it at Roy's man!

:laugh2:

Ever heard of looking off a Safety Hos? Now I know this ain't your first rodeo either so please tell me you know Safeties are not supposed to be looking into the backfield for an entire play. Roy can take a quick peak and then find his guy in coverage and get on him. Too often he looks way too long and before you know the ball is coming and he's 10 yards away from the receiver.

LOL

Define when looking at the QB to read his eyes is perfect and when it is too long. When isn't it long enough? Where do I find the book that defines these exact times? When did instincts get swept aside for the formula in this book?

Come on man, that's gagging on a gnat and swallowing a camel. DBs read the QBs eyes to try and get a jump on a route. There is no clock in their heads where they watch the QB for 1.2 seconds, find their guy, watch for a half second, find their guy again. You can see movement in your periphery and you try and do both. That's why they also try and keep the play in front of them so they can see both.

I never once said in my post that Roy was the only person in the NFL that has these faults. You are assuming this is what I meant and it goes towards the atmosphere around here that 'everyone is out to get Roy Williams'.

I don't think people are out to get him. I think people need something to piss and moan about and Roy is it because it is in vogue.

For the most part I avoid these threads. I joined this one because I thought it was funny that someone said quarters coverage is a zone coverage scheme. No other reason. I asked for proof of this claim no less than 5 times before I finally provided a link that shot that BS all to hell.

I've defended Adam from a couple of insults (funny how losers always revert to those when they can't win a debate) and I've discussed that quarters is actually a man coverage for the Safety and posted a link that specifically described the exact assignments for the Safety and it is always a specific WR not a part of the field. In other words it is man coverage, not a zone.

I've actually said very little about Roy's abilities and when I have I've been critical just as much as I've been defensive. By all means go back and read my posts if you doubt this.

I have said 20 something times that I could care less if he sucks in coverage because I know he's not a CB, but he needs to make up for it with other parts of his game.

I agree with this. My complaints about Roy are not that he is a liability in coverage. It's that he didn't have enough big hits last year. That is what I want from him. I want teams to fear the middle of the field. I mean really fear it. Last year they didn't. He had a bad year. I've never said he didn't.

Very few safeties are great in coverage. I happen to think Roy is great in run support. That is where I look for him to contribute and according to Brian Stewart, he does. Would I like to see more? Of course.

The same people who are on here acting like apologists for Roy are being just as 'blind to the reality' with their posts as are the people who are bashing him.

Some are, yes. All are? No, I don't buy that. Look back at your "he stares at the QB for too long" argument. You're just as guilty of this as I am and others are. That stuff was plain ridiculous man.

Right now there is no in between for anyone. That's why everyone has 'Roy Fever', lol. There is a war going on within Cowboys Nation and you must choose a side or else. lol.

It's madness I tell ya!!!

:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

That I agree with and have said Roy is the new Quincy. People join and immediately share their opinion of Roy just like they told whether they were a Q-dawg or a Mother Hutcher.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Eh.... Roy wasn't much to blame for the first one, more for the second one, but what we should really talk about is how STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE it was of Aaron Glenn to go for the interception on the second one. When you're up by 6 points that late in the game and you get beat, you MAKE THE TACKLE on the guy and make them score on you from 30 yards out. The last thing you do is give them a gift and let the guy walk in. Totally inexcusable and, frankly, selfish.

 

[Goldenrichards83]

Where in those quotes (i.e. PROOF) does Stewart say that Roy's great or even good in coverage?



I've already addressed the Reeves/Akin thing...IMO, they were properly addressed. Heck, I've even stated that Spears is overrated.

It's not hard to understand. I NEVER was on board with Roy's new contract, and once he got his money, I became even more critical of his play.

Expectations. Play to your play.

For me, it's the same for every player. Heck, now that Newman and Barber have signed their new deals, expectations are that they should AT LEAST stay on par with their current play. IF their performance begins to wane, as with Roy, I suspect many will be unnerved.

So basically your a fair weathered fan, as soon as a guy struggles you nail him. Watch out Newman and Barber. And you had no problem with Akin Ayodeles contract, what about Bobby Carpenter, Terry Glenn. There are many others who haven't at least played "half good"(your words) yet 90% of your post are about Roy.

 

[Kangaroo]

My apologies.

The point is still that this isn't going to be resolved by a few games in September, and that's what you were implying. Why would you specifically say September if you didn't think it would be over by then?

I disagree between training camp and September we will know what the coaches are thinking at what Roy looks like to that point. Will we know everything no it takes the entire season for that will we have a general idea what Roy is going to do by that point probably.


We can hope for the old Roy back I doubt we ever see that again; I just hope for more impact plays from him when games get tight like Ware does

 

[Cowboyz88]

So basically your a fair weathered fan, as soon as a guy struggles you nail him. Watch out Newman and Barber. And you had no problem with Akin Ayodeles contract, what about Bobby Carpenter, Terry Glenn. There are many others who haven't at least played "half good"(your words) yet 90% of your post are about Roy.

Oh, you got me good. I'm so opposite the fair weathered, its ridiculous. I was there when I was ten years old. I was there, in person, for bounty bowl (one of the coldest games I ever attended, BTW), seen five SuperBowl victories, two SuperBowl losses, the catch, Harper's slant and run and everything in between.

Now, you want to go over every player on the team? No thanks, but understand that I think Carpenter's a bust, but he's still on his rookie contract, so there's not much anyone can do. Those are the breaks with rookie contacts.

Again, my feelings on Akin are know... He is, correctly, no longer on the team.

Now, if you're gonna sit there and tell everyone that your expectations for Newman and Barber haven't changed, then you're either a fool or a liar.

Geez man, now that he's given them all that money, Jerry's sure not expecting them to lay an egg either, and if you think he's happy with Roy's recent play, you're crazy.

 

[DallasFanSince86]

Come on man, that's gagging on a gnat and swallowing a camel. DBs read the QBs eyes to try and get a jump on a route.

:laugh2: Never heard that saying before Hostile.

 

[iceberg]

The same people who are on here acting like apologists for Roy are being just as 'blind to the reality' with their posts as are the people who are bashing him.

i'm not an apologist. in fact, i can't name a single person who's said roy has NOT slipped in the last year or more.

who has said roy has NOT slipped? anyone?

all i and most people like me are saying is chill the hell out on the slams. no one is going to change their mind and every play has been more analyzed the the paparatzi has analyzed every single stars private life.

i've not seen any "apologists" dcfanatic. i've seen a lot of tired and worn out people tired of all the "venting" people do on roy, justified or not. i'm tired of adam putting up 38+ myths and not one has been debunked yet it was forced out into the open that the "haters" exaggurate to prove a point.

NO! REALLY???

i'm saying when a writer slams roy (and it's so in vogue now you can't swing a dead cat w/o hitting a whiner getting the last shot in just because he wants to be a part of the cool clique) even if that writer was yesterdays gift to all idiots across the world, the roy bashers take that as gold. FINALLY the writer got something right.

yet if a writer says roy may not be as bad as the big bad mob would have him out to be (and by the admittance of the myth thread, the haters *do* exaggurate) suddenly the exaggurations are real despite no proof to back them up.

that's what happens when you say something for so long and so loud - you believe it in spite of a lack of evidence to help prop it up.

so i see no apologists for roy anywhere. i see a handful of people trying to fight back the idiocy of a lynch mob. the mob then calls those like me "apologists" because to do otherwise would have to have them admit they "over-exaggurated" about roys play.

i rarely if ever see a "hater" do that. and to be fair most people are not "haters" per se but we must live in the extremes of hate/apologize to those who do have to keep things on an extreme. most "haters" just want roy to improve but hey - since all the cool people are slamming roy, dive in - the bashing's fine.

i was never one to follow a mob and i've never been one to allow every day simple details mean more for one side than another because *I* need it to prop up arguments that simply don't exist.

the vast majority of us "apologists" just want people to chill the hell out with the bashing and not insist on taking over the forum with talk that will change no ones mind in here and won't get rid of roy any quicker.

if that makes me an apologist fine. but then i think the bashers need to apologize for force-feeding this topic on us for so long when it accomplishes nothing but whining and venting that's long since served any useful need.

 

[peplaw06]

i'm not an apologist. in fact, i can't name a single person who's said roy has NOT slipped in the last year or more.

who has said roy has NOT slipped? anyone?

all i and most people like me are saying is chill the hell out on the slams. no one is going to change their mind and every play has been more analyzed the the paparatzi has analyzed every single stars private life.

i've not seen any "apologists" dcfanatic. i've seen a lot of tired and worn out people tired of all the "venting" people do on roy, justified or not. i'm tired of adam putting up 38+ myths and not one has been debunked yet it was forced out into the open that the "haters" exaggurate to prove a point.

NO! REALLY???

i'm saying when a writer slams roy (and it's so in vogue now you can't swing a dead cat w/o hitting a whiner getting the last shot in just because he wants to be a part of the cool clique) even if that writer was yesterdays gift to all idiots across the world, the roy bashers take that as gold. FINALLY the writer got something right.

yet if a writer says roy may not be as bad as the big bad mob would have him out to be (and by the admittance of the myth thread, the haters *do* exaggurate) suddenly the exaggurations are real despite no proof to back them up.

that's what happens when you say something for so long and so loud - you believe it in spite of a lack of evidence to help prop it up.

so i see no apologists for roy anywhere. i see a handful of people trying to fight back the idiocy of a lynch mob. the mob then calls those like me "apologists" because to do otherwise would have to have them admit they "over-exaggurated" about roys play.

i rarely if ever see a "hater" do that. and to be fair most people are not "haters" per se but we must live in the extremes of hate/apologize to those who do have to keep things on an extreme. most "haters" just want roy to improve but hey - since all the cool people are slamming roy, dive in - the bashing's fine.

i was never one to follow a mob and i've never been one to allow every day simple details mean more for one side than another because *I* need it to prop up arguments that simply don't exist.

the vast majority of us "apologists" just want people to chill the hell out with the bashing and not insist on taking over the forum with talk that will change no ones mind in here and won't get rid of roy any quicker.

if that makes me an apologist fine. but then i think the bashers need to apologize for force-feeding this topic on us for so long when it accomplishes nothing but whining and venting that's long since served any useful need.

/thread

 

[WDN]

the vast majority of us "apologists" just want people to chill the hell out with the bashing and not insist on taking over the forum with talk that will change no ones mind in here and won't get rid of roy any quicker.

if that makes me an apologist fine. but then i think the bashers need to apologize for force-feeding this topic on us for so long when it accomplishes nothing but whining and venting that's long since served any useful need.

Nobody said you had to reply to the topics. If you don't like the topics than ignore them. Threads only have life if someone replies to it. If you feed the "bashers" then you are doing the same thing.

 

[iceberg]

/thread

it's my last ditch effort peplaw. this dead horse beating is about to beat me out of here to saner lands of smaller forums that just don't get caught up in all the traffic/bashings.

 

[iceberg]

Nobody said you had to reply to the topics. If you don't like the topics than ignore them. Threads only have life if someone replies to it. If you feed the "bashers" then you are doing the same thing.

oh. you're right. people can post and say whatever they want, right?

you mean like i'm doing.

 

[WDN]

oh. you're right. people can post and say whatever they want, right?

you mean like i'm doing.

You were complaining about the bashing. It really is a simple solution.

 

[iceberg]

You were complaining about the bashing. It really is a simple solution.

you're right. stop the bashing.

if it's their *right* to bash roy, i've got the same rights in the same forum. you don't like it - read something else.

pretty crappy advice isnt it?

 

[WDN]

you're right. stop the bashing.

if it's their *right* to bash roy, i've got the same rights in the same forum. you don't like it - read something else.

pretty crappy advice isnt it?

I wasn't the one complaining.