FYI-Pat McQuistan Scouting Report

[Q_the_man]

It may not have been pretty but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once on a while.

At this point I think it's clear that McQ offered more potential than Petitti, Fabini and even Peterman to some extend and that's why McQ is here and the rest are gone.

Petitti made it thru one year, Fabani too, McQ too. we have to see if he even makes the team this year...............

 

[burmafrd]

BP did better with late rds and discards then with high picks. Strange but true.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I believe he will develope into a valuable player for us......

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Petitti made it thru one year, Fabani too, McQ too. we have to see if he even makes the team this year...............

OK YOU go ahead and "see" that.

 

[Jarv]

oh you silly past-living people. you never paid attention to the "why's" - just focused on the short term.

we addressed it with
colombo stepping up, resigning
davis
bledsoe being gone.

one of my disdains for the line was that parcells KNEW bledsoe needed top notch help but he didn't provide it, did he? w/romo it's less of an issue but i'm still sticking to my basics, that's all.

but go ahead and overstate things and totally miss *why* i felt we needed to address the line better than we had, and NOW most of those reasons have changed/or been addressed - but keep feeling like i demand OL in the 1st day when i already said i'd like it but it won't be a priority. : )

damn reps sure can be hard to shake.

You got beat up last year Jer, but you were also right on IMHO. The O-line was not even an average group during BP's tenure and Bledsoe just made that more apparrent.

I was not a Bledsoe or BP fan the last 2 years. I hope McQ is a player but I'm no longer tied up with BP's legacy here. BP was better than Campo in a lot of ways, but stubborn in his own way. BP's time here was like purgatory, better than Campo (who never had cap room or draft picks) but not where I wanted us to be.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

those are sound and fair arguments of which i happen to simply disagree. but if we're talking BPA when we draft and it happen to be staley or a OT, i'm on it. cause my logis simply says i'd rather go w/1st day talent than a longshot an 0'er at the position coach "likes".

if bp got some "good" calls on the OL i'd be more apt to care what he thinks of mcq. till then please, lob all the positive press at me you can. that'll do it. >g<

Problem solved then because at #22 the BPA won't be a o-lineman.

 

[iceberg]

You got beat up last year Jer, but you were also right on IMHO. The O-line was not even an average group during BP's tenure and Bledsoe just made that more apparrent.

I was not a Bledsoe or BP fan the last 2 years. I hope McQ is a player but I'm no longer tied up with BP's legacy here. BP was better than Campo in a lot of ways, but stubborn in his own way. BP's time here was like purgatory, better than Campo (who never had cap room or draft picks) but not where I wanted us to be.

well i was seen as being a hater. most people who have known me through the years knew better, but hey - people come into your life when they come in. but i said for the most part bledsoe needed a stellar line and bp simply didn't even try to build it. he got kosier. that was upsetting to me.

maybe i did "hate" too much - i admit that now but that still doesn't change the position we're in for the OL.

we're in a better position going into this year than last so i'm not OL OR BUST with the 1st pick or two. i'm bpa. if we trade down and get some picks and take staley, i think it's a huge score. blalock? socre. in trading down.

if we stand pat and get meacham, i'm happy cause we're trying to address WR before it's a MUST HAVE - i have MUST HAVES cause that means you've usually messed up or planned poorly.

but as you can see, people will think i'm just OL for the sake of OL and ignore all the reasons that got me there. : ) it happens.

 

[iceberg]

Problem solved then because at #22 the BPA won't be a o-lineman.

and like i've said several times, i'm ok with that. bpa - hopefully meacham at wr or if poz falls, hey - snag him. but if who we want is gone trade down and if then we're at OL, take it.

 

[jay cee]

I'm in agreement with Iceberg, I don't see how anyone can say that the o-line is set for the next several seasons because the Cowboys have McQ to take over if Adams is gone after next season.

Look at all the posters claiming that the Cowboys need to take a WR to be ready to replace Owens and Glenn. They are not counting on Crayton, Hurd or Austin to step up and be starters.

I can't see how anyone can count on McQ being a solid starter at the LT position.

IMO, it is easier to get by with a great o-line and below average Wr's, than it is to get by with great WR's and a below average o-line.

I'm glad they resigned Columbo, and brought in Davis, but I hope they are not done. IMO there is no such thing as too much o-line talent.

I would like to see the Cowboys be in a position that they don't NEED to bring Flozell back after next season, that way they won't have to overpay him.

To do that, I think they need to have competition already in place to replace him.

 

[burmafrd]

The boys know more about McQ now then anyone they could draft. Think about that.

 

[iceberg]

The boys know more about McQ now then anyone they could draft. Think about that.

and like jay-cee said, we know more about crayton, hurd and austin too. why take a wr now?

we know more about carpenter and all our other lb's...why take a lb?

maybe we know enough about mcq that we DO need to look around and improve that talent. for all the while i'm not discounting that he may make it and be "all that" you won't even seem to admit that he's a longshot just the same.

kidna sounds "kool aid'ish" to me but whatever. time will answer these, not forum sarcasm.

 

[burmafrd]

And that is why we will not grab for a O lineman early this year. We have people already in place. If we draft any it will be second day- unless someone like Staley drops to us in the 2nd. Won't happen but it could.

 

[jay cee]

and like jay-cee said, we know more about crayton, hurd and austin too. why take a wr now?

we know more about carpenter and all our other lb's...why take a lb?

maybe we know enough about mcq that we DO need to look around and improve that talent. for all the while i'm not discounting that he may make it and be "all that" you won't even seem to admit that he's a longshot just the same.

kidna sounds "kool aid'ish" to me but whatever. time will answer these, not forum sarcasm.

Exactly.

How can you call for upgrading the WR's or LB's early in the draft, and you're willing to go into next year with a 2nd year 7th rd pick as the backup at your tackle spots, and he may have to take over as the starter at LT in '08, if you can't resign your current starter?

Excuse me for being a little uneasy about that scenario.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Exactly.

How can you call for upgrading the WR's or LB's early in the draft, and you're willing to go into next year with a 2nd year 7th rd pick as the backup at your tackle spots, and he may have to take over as the starter at LT in '08, if you can't resign your current starter?

Excuse me for being a little uneasy about that scenario.

You look around the league jay cee there are late round draft picks starting everywhere.

If the current braintrust/coaching staff doesn't draft an OT in the first day then I'm perfectly happy in their apparent decision to let McQ be the third tackle this year and potentially Adams' replacement in '08.

If having a 7th round draft pick as your apparent starter makes you uneasy I'd hate to get your thoughts on global warming.

 

[jay cee]

You look around the league jay cee there are late round draft picks starting everywhere.

If the current braintrust/coaching staff doesn't draft an OT in the first day then I'm perfectly happy in their apparent decision to let McQ be the third tackle this year and potentially Adams' replacement in '08.

If having a 7th round draft pick as your apparent starter makes you uneasy I'd hate to get your thoughts on global warming.

Well, then no one should be complaining if they don't draft a LB or WR. Those positions seem to have better depth than the O-line.

 

[iceberg]

And that is why we will not grab for a O lineman early this year. We have people already in place. If we draft any it will be second day- unless someone like Staley drops to us in the 2nd. Won't happen but it could.

we have people in place at every position, burm...does that mean we simply skip the draft this year? the goal is to constantly rate and improve our talent. just because someone has been here a year doesn't mean they're a lock to stay another. in fact, ask petitti if he'd recommend mcq buys a nice house in southlake right about now.

i've said time and again i'm not 100% MUST HAVE OL 1ST!!! yet that's still all people seem to hear. i'm all for a WR if a good one comes to us. hell, if we need a pass rushing LB to help ware and williams and one falls - take him. but i'm not going to say that because parcells brought mcq flowers last year he's a lock mostly because parcells has a bad track record for OL in dallas. we've got one sleeper in kosier and he's doing ok, but we can still improve.

that's the goal here. in my own draft-snob mind, staley would out perform mcq hands down so we've improved that position. would a WR improve that position or just add some depth and maybe improve later?

who knows. but i'm ok with either, i'm just tired of 7th round OL reaches.

 

[iceberg]

Well, then no one should be complaining if they don't draft a LB or WR. Those positions seem to have better depth than the O-line.

this is so odd to me - someone agreeing with my OL stances. : )

i think we made good moves to address the OL, moreso than last year. w/romo being mobile and GOOD when mobile, i don't consider the OL *as pressing* as bledsoe needing the help, but it's still not "fixed" simply due to a mobile qb; it just helps.

we're better than last year at this point, sure. but that doesn't mean we can stop making it more than it is now.

 

[jay cee]

we have people in place at every position, burm...does that mean we simply skip the draft this year? the goal is to constantly rate and improve our talent. just because someone has been here a year doesn't mean they're a lock to stay another. in fact, ask petitti if he'd recommend mcq buys a nice house in southlake right about now.

i've said time and again i'm not 100% MUST HAVE OL 1ST!!! yet that's still all people seem to hear. i'm all for a WR if a good one comes to us. hell, if we need a pass rushing LB to help ware and williams and one falls - take him. but i'm not going to say that because parcells brought mcq flowers last year he's a lock mostly because parcells has a bad track record for OL in dallas. we've got one sleeper in kosier and he's doing ok, but we can still improve.

that's the goal here. in my own draft-snob mind, staley would out perform mcq hands down so we've improved that position. would a WR improve that position or just add some depth and maybe improve later?

who knows. but i'm ok with either, i'm just tired of 7th round OL reaches.

Why do you think that is so hard for these guys to understand. It's about trying to upgrade the entire team.

 

[iceberg]

Why do you think that is so hard for these guys to understand. It's about trying to upgrade the entire team.

cause they want something else for the team, in as much as we want more depth on the OL. i understand that, i really do. but just because you got a couple of good reports out of camp (and how many camp/team reports DOG a player anyway?) on someone you have doesn't mean much.

again, i'd love to see pat make it. but logic and statistics tell me it's a longshot. possible to be sure. but i don't want too many sleepers, long shots and dev guys on the OL. that's just not smart to me.

 

[jay cee]

this is so odd to me - someone agreeing with my OL stances. : )

i think we made good moves to address the OL, moreso than last year. w/romo being mobile and GOOD when mobile, i don't consider the OL *as pressing* as bledsoe needing the help, but it's still not "fixed" simply due to a mobile qb; it just helps.

we're better than last year at this point, sure. but that doesn't mean we can stop making it more than it is now.

Last year I agreed with someone who brought up the o-line weakness in a thread (I guess it was you Iceberg).

I remember that stance was roundly criticized by most of the other posters, and they even had me starting to think that maybe I was wrong in believing that the O-line was going to be a problem.

Of course that was quickly dispelled once the games began.

I agree that they have made good moves so far this off-season in regards to the o-line, but I can't see any reason to stop right here.

The offensive line is too important to ignore the question marks that still exist.