Baltimore Ravens - Let's Make A Deal...

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
Ravens have lost both of their starting tackles to injury already, and Ozzie Newsome is reportedly burning up the phone lines looking for a tackle. If Free looks like he's ready to take the swing tackle spot, McQ should be expendible.
 

DallasDW00ds0n

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,179
Reaction score
11,634
I dont think McQ is exactly what they would be looking for when they need STARTING tackles.
 

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
DallasDW00ds0n;2164867 said:
I dont think McQ is exactly what they would be looking for when they need STARTING tackles.

Do you think there are other teams lining up to give Ozzie one of their STARTING tackles?

I'm guessing probably not. Most teams barely have one STARTING tackle, much less three.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
I think the most we could get for one of our backups is a 6th

I don't think it's worth it
 

DallasDW00ds0n

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,179
Reaction score
11,634
InmanRoshi;2164873 said:
Do you think there are other teams lining up to give Ozzie one of their STARTING tackles?


I think there are probably teams with better depth and better backup tackles that might be able to take it to the next level. McQ is clearly not an option to be a STARTING tackle.
 

CrazyCowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,287
Reaction score
440
InmanRoshi;2164856 said:
Ravens have lost both of their starting tackles to injury already, and Ozzie Newsome is reportedly burning up the phone lines looking for a tackle. If Free looks like he's ready to take the swing tackle spot, McQ should be expendible.

What WR would you go for?
 

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
DallasDW00ds0n;2164879 said:
I think there are probably teams with better depth and better backup tackles that might be able to take it to the next level. McQ is clearly not an option to be a STARTING tackle.


With so many teams stacked with at least three STARTING offensive tackles, it makes you wonder why seven of them were taken in the 1st round this year.
 

Woods

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
61
I don't think we'd get much for McQ. I'd rather just keep him.
 

DallasDW00ds0n

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,179
Reaction score
11,634
Do you honestly believe the Ravens are gonna give up anything for McQ? youre crazy.

but hey, we can dream.
 

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
DallasDW00ds0n;2164892 said:
Do you honestly believe the Ravens are gonna give up anything for McQ? youre crazy.

but hey, we can dream.

I think Dallas kept 4 offensive tackles on the roster last year for a reason when most teams carry 3.

I think McQuinstan would last about 3 seconds on the waiver wire if he was released right now.

Damien Woody got a big money contract in free agency this offseason as a RT (as a STARTER), and he's been washed up for over 5 years.
 

ZeroClub

just trying to get better
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
1
InmanRoshi;2164856 said:
Ravens have lost both of their starting tackles to injury already, and Ozzie Newsome is reportedly burning up the phone lines looking for a tackle. If Free looks like he's ready to take the swing tackle spot, McQ should be expendible.

What do you think McQ's value is? What sort of draft choice would you expect in return?
 

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
ZeroClub;2164910 said:
What do you think McQ's value is? What sort of draft choice would you expect in return?

I would say probably a 4th. Take advantage of their desperate situation and package McQ with another mid round pick and maybe you could pry them loose of the Mark Clayton who is coming off a bad year and is fighting for a starting spot against Demetrius Williams, who the Ravens really like, so he's a buy low candidate.

Clayton played for OU, I have to think the Cowboys would be high on him. Lacewell probably has him ranked as the 3rd or 4th WR in the NFL.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
InmanRoshi;2164916 said:
I would say probably a 4th. Package it with another mid round pick and maybe you could pry them loose of the Mark Clayton, who is fighting for a starting spot. Clayton is coming off a bad year, so he's a buy low candidate.

:eek: wow dude
 

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
Bob Sacamano;2164918 said:

I think he's capable of being a mediocre starting tackle in the NFL. He's been our #3 tackle for 2 year running, he just hasn't gotten a chance to play with the Cowboys because Flozell and Colombo have played almost every game for the last two years.
 

Chocolate Lab

Run-loving Dino
Messages
37,097
Reaction score
11,410
I think only Parcells might give a 4th or 5th for McQ. ;)

FWIW, Nate Newton has said (as cowboyjoe posted earlier) that he's not impressed with McQ or Marten. Says Free looks okay, but didn't rave about him, either. Nate thinks we're in trouble if we get any OL injury.

Now we know Parcells loved the McQ, and I personally am the McQ Bandwagon Driver :) because I watched him closely in preseason the last two years and thought he showed a lot of ability. But maybe Nate knows what he's talking about.

Myself, I'd keep him unless they plan on paying Colombo next year, which I doubt they do.
 

Thick 'N Hearty

Active Member
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
0
InmanRoshi;2164916 said:
I would say probably a 4th. Take advantage of their desperate situation and package McQ with another mid round pick and maybe you could pry them loose of the Mark Clayton who is coming off a bad year and is fighting for a starting spot against Demetrius Williams, who the Ravens really like, so he's a buy low candidate.

Clayton played for OU, I have to think the Cowboys would be high on him. Lacewell probably has him ranked as the 3rd or 4th WR in the NFL.

I would do the Clayton trade. He had a bad year last season, but put up some decent numbers in '06: 900+ yards and 5 TDs.
 

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
Chocolate Lab;2164926 said:
I think only Parcells might give a 4th or 5th for McQ. ;)

FWIW, Nate Newton has said (as cowboyjoe posted earlier) that he's not impressed with McQ or Marten. Says Free looks okay, but didn't rave about him, either. Nate thinks we're in trouble if we get any OL injury.

Now we know Parcells loved the McQ, and I personally am the McQ Bandwagon Driver :) because I watched him closely in preseason the last two years and thought he showed a lot of ability. But maybe Nate knows what he's talking about.

Myself, I'd keep him unless they plan on paying Colombo next year, which I doubt they do.

Parcells didn't just form that opinion alone. Sparano also was really high on McQ, and Sparano is a widely respected OL coach around the NFL. I happen to think Sparano might even be a better OL expert than Nate Newton.

I know he's internet messageboard pariah because he's tied to Parcells (heaven forbid, you're linked to a no-brainer first ballot Hall of Fame football mind), but I think Sparano's opinion would carry some weight around the league considering he's now a head coach, was interviewed by other franchises for head coaching gigs and Sean Payton tried to hire him to run his offense.
 
Top