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

[T.O.8120]

hello fellas Im a die hard cowboys fan but new to this site I was wondering would anyway be willing to teach or tell there die hard partner fan of the cowboys the ends and out on being up here:laugh2:

 

[dallasfaniac]

I'm not against testing the waters of a trade, however I just don't think we'd get much if anything for our backups. There's still serviceable free agent tackles (Tom Ashworth, Stockar McDougle, etc.) that have actual starting experience and while those two may suck, they are a known commodity unlike our backups.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

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.

Well, so do I. I even trust my own eyes over what Nate says, unless the player is mentally weak or stupid or something that you'd only pick up from watching a player in practice every day. But as huge as Parcells was on mental toughness, I doubt that's a problem.

But if Parcells and Sparano are right, shouldn't we keep him to make sure we have someone in case of injury?

Not that I'm opposed to your premise of getting good picks or players for our backups... But it looks to me like the plan is for McQ to replace Colombo, and I don't know who else would do that unless Marten makes a quantum leap.

 

[Vintage]

Eh, whatever. I don't think McQ will amount to anything anyway. Maybe we'll get lucky and Free can at least be a servicable OT for us...

Plus, an additional draft pick means I can hold out hope for Crabtree next year.

 

[dmq]

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, 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.

Yeah, but is he close to any South American Cartels?

 

[joseephuss]

I think Dallas kept 4 tackles last year because of long term considerations. If they could not get Flozell re-signed this off season, they didn't want to be left with a rookie tackle on the roster this year. They wanted to have guys that at least had a year or two in the system and maybe some spot duty as well. They may be in a similar position this year since I believe Colombo is in the last year of his Dallas contract.

Now if they can get a good deal in return I would not be shocked if they traded away one of the back up tackles. And desperation because of injuries like the Ravens are experiencing can lead to good deals for other teams. Jerry is probably open to a good deal if one comes along. Who knows if one will come along.

 

[ZeroClub]

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.

I was thinking a 5th, but who knows?

If we believe that McQ is in serious danger of not making the squad, sure, I'd be in favor of getting something for him instead of simply cutting him.

One of the pluses of having Leonard Davis on the team is that he can play tackle if one of the starters go down ... so I guess that should mean that the Cowboys are willing to consider going with a little less depth at OT (especially if the quality isn't there).

 

[InmanRoshi]

Well, so do I. I even trust my own eyes over what Nate says, unless the player is mentally weak or stupid or something that you'd only pick up from watching a player in practice every day. But as huge as Parcells was on mental toughness, I doubt that's a problem.

But if Parcells and Sparano are right, shouldn't we keep him to make sure we have someone in case of injury?

Not that I'm opposed to your premise of getting good picks or players for our backups... But it looks to me like the plan is for McQ to replace Colombo, and I don't know who else would do that unless Marten makes a quantum leap.

The Cowboys carried 5 tackles on the 53 last year, which was absolutely ridiculous. Many teams get by only carrying three ... two starters and a swing (and then maybe someone on the practice squad). The Cowboys have extra insurance at tackle since Bigg, Marten and Kozier have played tackle and can play the position pinch, and they could rearrange the deck chairs if need be.

I don't see the Cowboys keeping McQ this year if Free proves he can handle the swing. Not if they want to keep all these cornerbacks, bring in a 3rd QB and/or carry 6 WR's. So rather than giftwrapping him for the Dolphins by putting him on the waiver wire, or trading him off for a late round pick next year (which Dallas already has more Day 2 picks than they know what to do with), I would rather package him together with a midround pick to actually get something or someone that could make a meaningful impact.

 

[superpunk]

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

We pay everybody.

 

[Star-Fan]

Now I am NOT saying he's the same. However, last year McQ showed some speed, and skill for a big guy. Didn't Mc Q , on a punt or kick return, run down the field to stop a TD? (Shades of Larry Allen)

Yeah he's un-tested, but look who he's playing behind? And, like has been mentioned Sporano and BP thought highly of him. The Ravens are hurting, they might feel McQ is better than what they have now. Just saying. ...

 

[Boysboy]

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.

Free is talented has has alot of potential, while McQ could be ready to start after another year of polishing.

However-I don't think ANYONE would go as far as giving up alot for 2 guys who don't have any experience to begin with.

Plus Free and McQ give us nice depth on the OL-no way we give them up for anything.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Cowboys carried 5 tackles on the 53 last year, which was absolutely ridiculous. Many teams get by only carrying three ... two starters and a swing (and then maybe someone on the practice squad). The Cowboys have extra insurance at tackle since Bigg, Marten and Kozier have played tackle and can play the position pinch, and they could rearrange the deck chairs if need be.

I don't see the Cowboys keeping McQ this year if Free proves he can handle the swing. Not if they want to keep all these cornerbacks, bring in a 3rd QB and/or carry 6 WR's. So rather than giftwrapping him for the Dolphins by putting him on the waiver wire, or trading him off for a late round pick next year (which Dallas already has more Day 2 picks than they know what to do with), I would rather package him together with a midround pick to actually get something or someone that could make a meaningful impact.

Three way trade? We send the Ravens McQ, they send Kyle Boller back to the PAC10 (which is probably where he belongs) and the Bruins send us Norm?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Three way trade? We send the Ravens McQ, they send Kyle Boller back to the PAC10 (which is probably where he belongs) and the Bruins send us Norm?

damn you and your CHow fetish

but seriously, I don't think we get much other than a conditional, late-round pick for an inexperienced backup lineman, no matter how talented they are

 

[theogt]

wow dude

+1

Ridiculous to think McQuistan could fetch as much as Ayodele and Fasano combined.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

They are pretty weak at WR.

I doubt we trade anyone for just picks. Dont we have like 13 picks?
If we make trades, itll be the opposite, picks for players.......

 

[Vintage]

The Cowboys carried 5 tackles on the 53 last year, which was absolutely ridiculous. Many teams get by only carrying three ... two starters and a swing (and then maybe someone on the practice squad). The Cowboys have extra insurance at tackle since Bigg, Marten and Kozier have played tackle and can play the position pinch, and they could rearrange the deck chairs if need be.

I don't see the Cowboys keeping McQ this year if Free proves he can handle the swing. Not if they want to keep all these cornerbacks, bring in a 3rd QB and/or carry 6 WR's. So rather than giftwrapping him for the Dolphins by putting him on the waiver wire, or trading him off for a late round pick next year (which Dallas already has more Day 2 picks than they know what to do with), I would rather package him together with a midround pick to actually get something or someone that could make a meaningful impact.

QB- Romo, Johnson, ????
RB- Barber, Jones, Choice
FB- Fat
WR- Owens, Crayton, Hurd, Austin, Stanback
TE- Witten, Bennett, Curtis
OL- 5 starters + McQ, Free, Marten, Proctor
=
24

DL- 3 Starters + Hatcher, Bowen, Johnson
LBers- 4 starters + Carpenter, Burnett, Spencer, and....Walden?
CBs- 5 usual suspects + Ball
S- Usual 4
=
24

Folk, McBriar, LP..Ladou(whatever his name is)...

=51

2 more roster spots...

We have plenty of room to carry an extra LBer or WR if need be and keep McQ, if we decide to go that route.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

damn you and your CHow fetish

Bob, you say this like it's a bad thing?

 

[jterrell]

Trade Columbo to them for Clayton and a late pick.

We'd start McQ ourselves at RT.
It seems that is the plan for next year anyways.

Bigg can play RT obviously if need be though he is so good inside I'd hate to move him.

The more I type it the less I think I'd do anything.

Yes we prolly lose Columbo for nothing next year but this is a Super Bowl run....

 

[aikemirv]

I don't think you can afford to give up your best depth at T. It is just too important of a position.

Have we so quickly forgotten Rob Pettiti?

 

[lkelly]

I don't trade anyone until training camp is over. An injury or two and suddenly we're in the same position as the Ravens - looking for depth or starters.