Dallas Cowboys Discussion - Page 217

robert_in_bigd · 03-21-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modano

Last year Ayodele easily outperformed James.

First half of the season James played better. Second half he fell off a cliff -- particularly in coverage. The TE and FB/RB coverage problems in no small way has lots to do with Bradie.

shane_man · 03-21-2007, 07:19 PM

So... David Carr's about to be thrown on his ass... What does everyone think of him as a backup to push Romo in Dallas for the starting job?

Im_a_Romosexual · 03-21-2007, 07:38 PM

no too expensive and we signed johnson although hes old and Romo is the man for us next year

shane_man · 03-21-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Im_a_Romosexual

no too expensive and we signed johnson although hes old and Romo is the man for us next year

Realistically though its only expensive this year... After which we will have surely made the decision who our starting QB is... Romo is currently only on contract for this year. Johnson i assume can be cut at just about any time... and if Romo doesnt recover from last year... We are left in the same hole as the last five years with nothing to cover our butts.

At least with Carr we have a QB with starting experience(every game of the last four seasons)... Hes been hit so often he feels like a tackling dummy but he still gets up which shows hes durable. And he plays a little like Romo from what i have seen anyway.

If the price is right i think we should definately make a run for him...

thule · 03-21-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shane_man

Realistically though its only expensive this year... After which we will have surely made the decision who our starting QB is... Romo is currently only on contract for this year. Johnson i assume can be cut at just about any time... and if Romo doesnt recover from last year... We are left in the same hole as the last five years with nothing to cover our butts.

At least with Carr we have a QB with starting experience(every game of the last four seasons)... Hes been hit so often he feels like a tackling dummy but he still gets up which shows hes durable. And he plays a little like Romo from what i have seen anyway.

If the price is right i think we should definately make a run for him...

I agree...for the right price he would be valuable. Not only for his talent and experience but also for the leverage he would give us in our contract negotiations with Romo here in the near future.

dpl85 · 03-22-2007, 10:25 AM

We're negotiating with Ken Hamlin today per the Ticket radio station in Dallas. I doubt Jerry would let him get out of town without a signed contract. I like the signing but I think he's really more of a SS and I hope this doesn't preclude us from taking a FS in the first like Reggie Nelson.

Paul · 03-22-2007, 10:49 AM

I feel the same, he would of been a SS if it wasn't for Boulware. But he should still be a abit of upgrade when it comes to coverage. And probably on passing downs we'll see him and Watkins out there at the same time.

robert_in_bigd · 03-22-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

I feel the same, he would of been a SS if it wasn't for Boulware. But he should still be a abit of upgrade when it comes to coverage. And probably on passing downs we'll see him and Watkins out there at the same time.

Sit Roy on passing downs? Sort of defeats the point of saying he "needs to play in the box more to be effective?"

For that, you might as well play an additional LB and get more run support / blitzing potential. A 3-5-3 of sorts.

Not sure I get all talk of rotating Roy. If he can't play SS -- then he can't play SS. SS needs to be able to cover as well as run support seemlessly. Put him back at FS like when he was a rookie and play predominantly man-up coverage -- these fress him into his Rover spot we all talk of.

TNewFan41 · 03-22-2007, 01:30 PM

Per NFL.com, Justin Blalock is coming for a visit, what do you think of that?

mtmock · 03-22-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert_in_bigd

Sit Roy on passing downs? Sort of defeats the point of saying he "needs to play in the box more to be effective?"

For that, you might as well play an additional LB and get more run support / blitzing potential. A 3-5-3 of sorts.

Not sure I get all talk of rotating Roy. If he can't play SS -- then he can't play SS. SS needs to be able to cover as well as run support seemlessly. Put him back at FS like when he was a rookie and play predominantly man-up coverage -- these fress him into his Rover spot we all talk of.

why the heck would we play him at FS! he is best at SS...FS have to be good at covering...SS not as much...i think you have the positions mixed up...he cant play free safety but is good at SS...he played SS his first year by the way thats y he was so effective...woodson was playing free...from the lack of productivity in recent years he has had to play FS at times and thats when he got burned constantly...

D-Unit · 03-22-2007, 03:19 PM

Uh guys.. I dunno what the argument is about... but if Hamlin signs, he'll be our starting FS and Roy will stay where he is.

robert_in_bigd · 03-22-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtmock

why the heck would we play him at FS! he is best at SS...FS have to be good at covering...SS not as much...i think you have the positions mixed up...he cant play free safety but is good at SS...he played SS his first year by the way thats y he was so effective...woodson was playing free...from the lack of productivity in recent years he has had to play FS at times and thats when he got burned constantly...

I may be nuts but Roy was a FS in the Campo 4-3. He did little coverage because Woodson/Coakley covered the TE most of the time and they played mostly man. Roy was a FS in the sense he was a safety and was "free" to roam. So he could play with more abandon near the line.

Labels are not of interest to me (so if I mis-spoke I apologize) but I am interested moreso in how he was used. The SS position in the current Cowboys scheme was similar tp what Woodie and Coakley played in some form back in '02.

robert_in_bigd · 03-22-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Uh guys.. I dunno what the argument is about... but if Hamlin signs, he'll be our starting FS and Roy will stay where he is.

Depends on how Wade uses his FS and Corners. I dunno much about his system. If we go Cover 1 you are right -- Hamlin in Centerfield.

Cover 0 probably not. Cover 0 will likely free Roy to blitz or play near the line with Hamlin picking up the TE.

Maybe I am crazy but my assumption is the SS primary role in coverage is the TE and Roy is bad at that.

Can someone comment properly on that.

mtmock · 03-22-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert_in_bigd

I may be nuts but Roy was a FS in the Campo 4-3. He did little coverage because Woodson/Coakley covered the TE most of the time and they played mostly man. Roy was a FS in the sense he was a safety and was "free" to roam. So he could play with more abandon near the line.

Labels are not of interest to me (so if I mis-spoke I apologize) but I am interested moreso in how he was used. The SS position in the current Cowboys scheme was similar tp what Woodie and Coakley played in some form back in '02.

in a sense you are right, but roy williams is a SS in the sense that is the safety that hits...the FS is the cover guy, kind of like a 3rd corner who hits harder...the labels can mislead...but he has struggled covering as a FS and is a top3 SS in the league...i hope we move him around more and that is what wade plans to do

robert_in_bigd · 03-23-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtmock

in a sense you are right, but roy williams is a SS in the sense that is the safety that hits...the FS is the cover guy, kind of like a 3rd corner who hits harder...the labels can mislead...but he has struggled covering as a FS and is a top3 SS in the league...i hope we move him around more and that is what wade plans to do

SS is a safety that hits? No wonder we have issues at SS. We completely are confusing that position with a LB. I am sorry to say too much ESPN "Jacked-Up" highlights are confusing us. Take a look at this article, it may help us all understand what a SS is supposed to do......

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news.cf...7C16E92C35AB73

Someone else posted it but it certainly helps.

Roy given what he wants to do and the fact that no coach seems to be able to fix his lack of disipline needs to go BACK to FS in a Cover 0 scheme where he can freelance. Assuming we want to "put Roy in a position to contribute." {Code words for "not a good team mate"}. You want to move him around and play rover ---- make him a FS. And no, he is not a top 3 SS and never was. He can't cover a TE and if you can't then it is like saying you are a top 3 receiver but have bad hands.

SS is a position that requires discipline more than big hits. Again, maybe I am nuts but I think most fans are really confused about what a SS does in a base 4-3 or base 3-4.

Hitting is nice but a "positive residue" of playing the position properly.

JJJ888 · 03-25-2007, 08:26 PM

That's a nice article you found Robert...and I agree with your points on people's impression of what a safety should do.

To bump this topic back up to the top let's hear early projections on the Cowboys record next year. I'll start off with 10-6, the same record I've predicted for the past 3 seasons.

LSUALUM99 · 03-25-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert_in_bigd

SS is a safety that hits? No wonder we have issues at SS. We completely are confusing that position with a LB. I am sorry to say too much ESPN "Jacked-Up" highlights are confusing us. Take a look at this article, it may help us all understand what a SS is supposed to do......

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news.cf...7C16E92C35AB73

Someone else posted it but it certainly helps.

Roy given what he wants to do and the fact that no coach seems to be able to fix his lack of disipline needs to go BACK to FS in a Cover 0 scheme where he can freelance. Assuming we want to "put Roy in a position to contribute." {Code words for "not a good team mate"}. You want to move him around and play rover ---- make him a FS. And no, he is not a top 3 SS and never was. He can't cover a TE and if you can't then it is like saying you are a top 3 receiver but have bad hands.

SS is a position that requires discipline more than big hits. Again, maybe I am nuts but I think most fans are really confused about what a SS does in a base 4-3 or base 3-4.

Hitting is nice but a "positive residue" of playing the position properly.

Historically you are correct. The problem now is that the TE's in the league right now are far more athletic than in the past. Shockey, Gates, Crumpler, Gonzalez, KWII all present a problem that Roy Williams can't possibly cover. Neither can any LB. In a perfect situation you'd play Nickle and blitz Roy and have the Anthony Henry (or other Big CB) cover the TE if the other team has a TE of that caliber.

Roy does fine against teams that don't have athletic TE's. Problem is Washington, NYG, and to a lesser extent Philly all have them.

robert_in_bigd · 03-25-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUALUM99

Historically you are correct. The problem now is that the TE's in the league right now are far more athletic than in the past. Shockey, Gates, Crumpler, Gonzalez, KWII all present a problem that Roy Williams can't possibly cover. Neither can any LB. In a perfect situation you'd play Nickle and blitz Roy and have the Anthony Henry (or other Big CB) cover the TE if the other team has a TE of that caliber.

Roy does fine against teams that don't have athletic TE's. Problem is Washington, NYG, and to a lesser extent Philly all have them.

So to build on your point what we really need is a change in scheme and a real SS that can cover. Simply keeping Roy at SS and saying "play him near the line" is bad football. That is why I say make him a FS without any real coverage responsibility and force your corners into man.

Modano · 03-26-2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert_in_bigd

So to build on your point what we really need is a change in scheme and a real SS that can cover. Simply keeping Roy at SS and saying "play him near the line" is bad football. That is why I say make him a FS without any real coverage responsibility and force your corners into man.

The FS is the centerfield and play far behind the LOS. Roy gives the best of himself playing near the line...

D-Unit · 03-26-2007, 03:55 AM

Roy at FS is a nightmarish thought.

TNewFan41 · 03-26-2007, 06:49 AM

Did anyone see Roy sucking at the LOS towards the end of the year too? Because I sure did. I don't remember one bone-crushing roy williams type hit in the last 6 games. Maybe he was hurt, or something, idk, but if this team can live up to the talent it has, Roy better get his act together.

LSUALUM99 · 03-26-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert_in_bigd

So to build on your point what we really need is a change in scheme and a real SS that can cover. Simply keeping Roy at SS and saying "play him near the line" is bad football. That is why I say make him a FS without any real coverage responsibility and force your corners into man.

Well I think it's fair to say that our 3-4 Scheme last year wasn't the best. Wade was brought in specifically to adjust the scheme, which I'm sure he'll do.

I think that Roy is better near the line of scrimmage, but that doesn't mean the scheme won't allow him to be more effective than he has been in the past away from it either.

D-Unit · 03-26-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNewFan41

Did anyone see Roy sucking at the LOS towards the end of the year too? Because I sure did. I don't remember one bone-crushing roy williams type hit in the last 6 games. Maybe he was hurt, or something, idk, but if this team can live up to the talent it has, Roy better get his act together.

So is it merely the bone crushing hits that reflects how good his play was? He had an interception against Seattle in the playoffs, had 7 tackles against Detroit, 6 tackles against Atlanta in a big time win, 7 tackles in another big time win over the Giants, had another INT against the Bucs in that win...

Interestingly, the 2 blow out games we had in the loss to New Orleans and Philly, Roy failed to show up big on the stat sheet. That could either show how much we need him to play well in order for us to win... or that we lost because the whole team did bad and Roy's play was not the determining factor.

I'll side with the latter. Roy may have had bad games vs. NOR and PHI... but so did the entire team.

Ward · 03-26-2007, 02:22 PM

Roy's worst game was easily Carolina. Keyshawn made it his mission to shut him down against the run, and he did.

dpl85 · 03-27-2007, 01:43 PM

We're opening the 07 season at home against the Giants on September 9 at 7:15 on NBC. We're also going to host the Jets on Thanksgiving on CBS at 3:15. The full schedule will be released on April 5 I heard on the Ticket.

My prediction is 11-5, seems like a reasonable improvement.