FYI-Pat McQuistan Scouting Report

[iceberg]

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.

oh man, i was on mountain tops shouting out how badly we needed to address the line. to me and my own way of thinking, bp knew bledsoe inside and out. he knew he needed a good line for bledsoe to have a shot at success.

he didn't even try to build a "good" one, he got a sleeper in kozier and a couple of 7th rounders, one of which got hurt before ever taking the field in camp, i believe. (but hey, talent is talent and since we got wonder-pat there, the other 7th rounder must be good also, right?)

with bledsoe gone, we don't need a "stellar" line like we did before, but i do think if you have a solid OL, it makes everything else so much easier, so i hate skimping on it time and time again. parcells skimped on it - regardless of how it turns out.

phillips has resigned columbo (where did he actually come from?) and we got davis. both valid attempts to address the problem. but i think a day 1 pick for the OL at center or OT would be a good move still.

 

[jay cee]

oh man, i was on mountain tops shouting out how badly we needed to address the line. to me and my own way of thinking, bp knew bledsoe inside and out. he knew he needed a good line for bledsoe to have a shot at success.

he didn't even try to build a "good" one, he got a sleeper in kozier and a couple of 7th rounders, one of which got hurt before ever taking the field in camp, i believe. (but hey, talent is talent and since we got wonder-pat there, the other 7th rounder must be good also, right?)

with bledsoe gone, we don't need a "stellar" line like we did before, but i do think if you have a solid OL, it makes everything else so much easier, so i hate skimping on it time and time again. parcells skimped on it - regardless of how it turns out.

phillips has resigned columbo (where did he actually come from?) and we got davis. both valid attempts to address the problem. but i think a day 1 pick for the OL at center or OT would be a good move still.

Right, Davis and Columbo, to former 1st round picks.

One they got on the cheap because he was coming off of a devastating injury and the other they had to pay a ton, even though he has not set the world on fire.

I like what they have done. And Center & OT would be my 1st choice also, but if one of those top guards fell in line with where they are picking, I would be ok there also.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I'm not "anti-offensive line" but I see absolutely no one being available at #22 representing the offensive line that I would take-- no one. Where as there will probably be at least one WR, one CB and one "tweener" that represents an equal or better value given the 22nd spot.

NOW if we trade down then that's an entirely different discussion all together. But as I look at the offensive line I think (based upon all the information given us) that our tackle depth is greater than our depth at guard or center SO having said that I would be most happy selecting a guard or even better, a guard that could play center somewhere during the first day of the draft.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Some people in this thread are acting like it's 11 months ago and we just drafted McQ and have never seen him play. In that case, yes, it would be crazy to count on him for anything or even to expect him to make the team.

(And for that matter, counting on almost anyone who's not a starter isn't smart. It's not like if we were drafting #2 and needed a LT we'd pass on Joe Thomas just because McQ was on the team.)

But to act like this guy is a random typical 7th rounder doesn't make sense. Some people say we haven't seen McQ yet... Were they watching the preseason games last year? Because he played tons then, and sometimes against good competition. If you paid attention, you saw a guy who is big, athletic, can move, and showed very high effort levels. McQ is, in my observation, a better prospect than Colombo. He's a better athlete and he's got better natural size and strength without being a fat guy. (Obviously I'm talking about bulk, not height.) His technique improved every single game he played. He can run like a guard. If any of you hardcore fools like me still have those games taped, check it out and you will be seriously impressed. The only time he really got beat was when he got confused on who to pick up -- not at all unusual for a rookie.

Now can he be a top NFL tackle? I'm not saying that. But does he have the talent to be a very solid NFL starter? No doubt about it IMO. And he'll be much better after a whole offseason of weights, not to mention lifting all season last year like it was offseason (the Parcells redshirt year plan). I expect him to be seriously powerful by now, because he looks like he has that natural big-boned "country strength" already. Add a year of serious training and proper eating and we have a real find. And even if he's only a starter-quality backup, isn't that a great find for depth? It would be nice to know we had a competent player behind Flo so we don't have a re-run of 2005 if our starting LT gets hurt. I think we do have that now.

 

[Angus]

It would be a good idea to make a distinction between "Parcells picks" and "Ireland picks." Apparently, jay cee and Iceberg don't think Ireland can find diamonds in the rough, but I have more confidence in him than in the would-be scouts who draw up mock drafts and the owners who let mock drafts influence their decisions in the draft.

Too many "can't miss" players taken high in the draft "miss." The evaluation of talent is hard because there are so many variables. But some scouts are better than others, and I think Ireland is one of those. I expect him to conduct good drafts.

Once a player is on the team, however, it is a lot easier to evaluate him. That's one reason I have a certain confidence about McQuistan if he is depended upon for Adam's replacement. The Cowboys' coaches - not just Parcells - and Ireland have had ample opportunity now to size him up. If they are satisfied, I am prepared to be.

 

[jay cee]

Angus and C-lab, we are not saying that McQ is going to flop. We both hope he makes it.

But, IMO, he should not be the only option, nor should they just bring in another low rd draft choice to compete with him.

That's the same as saying that you should not draft another good receiver, becaus you have Hurd and Austin, or you should not draft a db because you have Reeves.

At some point you have to draft to upgrade every position, and we think the o-line could still use some upgrades. That's not saying that McQ is not going to succeed. But I think he is a long shot.

I would like to see more options in place. I don't want them to have to overpay to keep Adams, because they don't have better options in place.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

It would be a good idea to make a distinction between "Parcells picks" and "Ireland picks." Apparently, jay cee and Iceberg don't think Ireland can find diamonds in the rough, but I have more confidence in him than in the would-be scouts who draw up mock drafts and the owners who let mock drafts influence their decisions in the draft.
Too many "can't miss" players taken high in the draft "miss." The evaluation of talent is hard because there are so many variables. But some scouts are better than others, and I think Ireland is one of those. I expect him to conduct good drafts.

Once a player is on the team, however, it is a lot easier to evaluate him. That's one reason I have a certain confidence about McQuistan if he is depended upon for Adam's replacement. The Cowboys' coaches - not just Parcells - and Ireland have had ample opportunity now to size him up. If they are satisfied, I am prepared to be.

Ice & JC are "haters".

 

[WoodysGirl]

oh man, i was on mountain tops shouting out how badly we needed to address the line.

I don't think people disagreed that the OL needed to be addressed last year. However, you didn't like the moves that were made to address the OL. To me that was the crux of the arguments that were had last year. You didn't like the signings/draft picks that were made. And that's ok, but to say they ignored the OL would be incorrect, IMO.

They've seemingly addressed the OL to your satisfaction, but only one new signing was done and that was Davis. The others were here last year. So I would say that it was sufficiently addressed last year.

As for McQ, he goes in the "Who knows?" file. No one knows how he's going to turn out.

 

[burmafrd]

Highest I can see us going O line is maybe 3rd if someone we like is there. Other then that strictly second day.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I don't think people disagreed that the OL needed to be addressed last year. However, you didn't like the moves that were made to address the OL. To me that was the crux of the arguments that were had last year. You didn't like the signings/draft picks that were made. And that's ok, but to say they ignored the OL would be incorrect, IMO.

They've seemingly addressed the OL to your satisfaction, but only one new signing was done and that was Davis. The others were here last year. So I would say that it was sufficiently addressed last year.

As for McQ, he goes in the "Who knows?" file. No one knows how he's going to turn out.

Very true. To say we haven't paid any attention to the offensive line would be completely false.

I hope Ice is a big enough man that he'll soon come on here and apologize for his previous statements.

 

[iceberg]

I'm not "anti-offensive line" but I see absolutely no one being available at #22 representing the offensive line that I would take-- no one. Where as there will probably be at least one WR, one CB and one "tweener" that represents an equal or better value given the 22nd spot.

NOW if we trade down then that's an entirely different discussion all together. But as I look at the offensive line I think (based upon all the information given us) that our tackle depth is greater than our depth at guard or center SO having said that I would be most happy selecting a guard or even better, a guard that could play center somewhere during the first day of the draft.

check back - i've said time and again if we trade down. if for some reason levi brown is there at 22, take him. blalock and staley - a bit later on in the 1st or top of the 2nd is about right. i agree that i'd rather have meacham over either OL prospect if we stay at 22 and have said so now that we've addressed the line better this year than last.

Some people in this thread are acting like it's 11 months ago and we just drafted McQ and have never seen him play. In that case, yes, it would be crazy to count on him for anything or even to expect him to make the team.

(And for that matter, counting on almost anyone who's not a starter isn't smart. It's not like if we were drafting #2 and needed a LT we'd pass on Joe Thomas just because McQ was on the team.)

But to act like this guy is a random typical 7th rounder doesn't make sense.

just as much sense as to put faith and hope ahead of normal reality. if mcq were on the ravens would you even know his name? would you think he's "all that" or just another 7th round bucket of chicken we hope tastes good? like jay and i have said - we hope he does make it, but it doesn't make sense to make him your best option with a whole draft ahead of us to help improve that position. that's all.

It would be a good idea to make a distinction between "Parcells picks" and "Ireland picks." Apparently, jay cee and Iceberg don't think Ireland can find diamonds in the rough, but I have more confidence in him than in the would-be scouts who draw up mock drafts and the owners who let mock drafts influence their decisions in the draft.

Too many "can't miss" players taken high in the draft "miss." The evaluation of talent is hard because there are so many variables. But some scouts are better than others, and I think Ireland is one of those. I expect him to conduct good drafts.

Once a player is on the team, however, it is a lot easier to evaluate him. That's one reason I have a certain confidence about McQuistan if he is depended upon for Adam's replacement. The Cowboys' coaches - not just Parcells - and Ireland have had ample opportunity now to size him up. If they are satisfied, I am prepared to be.

great. we were satisfied enough with petitti to let him start 16 games then he's out the door. we had a year of him in the trenches to pull from that we simply do not have in mcq. the "confidence" you feel i would call hope, but that's nitpicking. no one is denying there are blown picks high up in the draft. no one is saying we've not made our share. what jay cee and i *are* saying is that we'd feel more comfortable with a staley backing up adams than mcq.

Angus and C-lab, we are not saying that McQ is going to flop. We both hope he makes it.

But, IMO, he should not be the only option, nor should they just bring in another low rd draft choice to compete with him.

...

I would like to see more options in place. I don't want them to have to overpay to keep Adams, because they don't have better options in place.

what he said.

Ice & JC are "haters".

because we disagree with you? am i ranting and raving like i was last year? am i being unreasonable in my stance that a 1st or 2nd round pick is likely to have a better career than a 7th round pick who was never even projected to *be* drafted? i'll call myself logical and going with the odds, but i suppose you can call me a draft snob and a hater cause i think we've still got some work at that position.

I don't think people disagreed that the OL needed to be addressed last year. However, you didn't like the moves that were made to address the OL. To me that was the crux of the arguments that were had last year. You didn't like the signings/draft picks that were made. And that's ok, but to say they ignored the OL would be incorrect, IMO.

They've seemingly addressed the OL to your satisfaction, but only one new signing was done and that was Davis. The others were here last year. So I would say that it was sufficiently addressed last year.

As for McQ, he goes in the "Who knows?" file. No one knows how he's going to turn out.

yep. it was. kosier is still the biggest pick. you want to make "ignored" mean we did nothing at all, that's fine. i can see that. ignored to me is we didn't do enough and the in-between talk is just hair splitting.

if you need ABC and D through known experience in a player and you give him C and part of D, that's ignoring the problem. i don't view going half - arsed at something as a legitimate effort to address a problem. maybe it's because there wasn't much there to choose from, sure. i never said that wasn't the issue. but we took carp in the 1st, and fasano in the 2nd, sklyer "already gone" green in the 5th was it? and we didn't touch the line till the 7th round.

is that a legitimate effort to you? if so, fine. it's not to me and i view not going after a known problem with more effort as a type of ignoring it and hoping it takes care of itself.

it didn't, but now bledsoe is gone so it doesn't really matter; the OL isn't as big an issue cause it doesn't need to be.

but it can still be better than it is. if mr wonderful mcq steps up and shows the world he's as good as his twin, great. no cowboy fan would be unhappy with that. but based on a lot of things (maybe even in my own mind) he's still a 7th round hopefull that simply don't do well in today's NFL.

not saying he can't or won't be the exception, but that he would have to be and those don't come along very often and certainly not just because we want them to be.

it's kinda emotional vs. "spock" thinking maybe, but that's how i see it.

 

[iceberg]

Very true. To say we haven't paid any attention to the offensive line would be completely false.

I hope Ice is a big enough man that he'll soon come on here and apologize for his previous statements.

winicki - you just trying to "pick a fight"?

hater, draft snob, "admit you're wrong damn it!!!" type stuff?

i won't apologize for a thing - if that bugs you, therapy dude. in my previous post i explain "ignore" in my own terms. if you want to disagree, pick up the constitution and do it, dude. but don't call me wrong because you disagree.

that's crap on a plate i just ain't hungry for. i don't feel we did enough *last year* to address a KNOWN MOBILITY ISSUE in bledsoe, so to me we ignored what we knew we needed to do.

if a band aid and a q-tip if enough for you to say "addressed" fine - i just disagree but don't call either of us wrong, haters, snobs or the like.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

winicki - you just trying to "pick a fight"?

hater, draft snob, "admit you're wrong damn it!!!" type stuff?

i won't apologize for a thing - if that bugs you, therapy dude. in my previous post i explain "ignore" in my own terms. if you want to disagree, pick up the constitution and do it, dude. but don't call me wrong because you disagree.

that's crap on a plate i just ain't hungry for. i don't feel we did enough *last year* to address a KNOWN MOBILITY ISSUE in bledsoe, so to me we ignored what we knew we needed to do.

if a band aid and a q-tip if enough for you to say "addressed" fine - i just disagree but don't call either of us wrong, haters, snobs or the like.

I'm just seeing if I can drive you back to rehab ice... Seems like a good thing to do on a Monday.

 

[iceberg]

I'm just seeing if I can drive you back to rehab ice... Seems like a good thing to do on a Monday.

you do that.

 

[WoodysGirl]

yep. it was. kosier is still the biggest pick. you want to make "ignored" mean we did nothing at all, that's fine. i can see that. ignored to me is we didn't do enough and the in-between talk is just hair splitting.

if you need ABC and D through known experience in a player and you give him C and part of D, that's ignoring the problem. i don't view going half - arsed at something as a legitimate effort to address a problem. maybe it's because there wasn't much there to choose from, sure. i never said that wasn't the issue. but we took carp in the 1st, and fasano in the 2nd, sklyer "already gone" green in the 5th was it? and we didn't touch the line till the 7th round.

is that a legitimate effort to you? if so, fine. it's not to me and i view not going after a known problem with more effort as a type of ignoring it and hoping it takes care of itself.

There's no such thing as a type of ignoring it. Either they ignored it or they didn't. Ignore means to refrain from noticing or recognizing something.

So again it wasn't addressed to your satisfaction. That's not hair splitting to me. You didn't like the moves made. Pretty simple and doesn't even require much more of an explanation. Kosier was a solid signing. You panned it.

Colombo, Petitti, and Fabini were all guys who competed for the RT spot. Colombo won out and did a solid job. You hail re-signing him as a good thing, this year. But you panned the actual competition last year. Maybe, because the conventional thinking was that Petitti was going to take that spot again. I can see how that might not delight you.

They drafted a couple late round picks and you panned that.

That's not half-arsed attempts to me. Seems they made legit efforts to address the OL and you didn't like the moves last year. This year, the only moves they've made has been to resign two guys who were on the line from last year and one to replace Rivera. But now all of a sudden the OL has been addressed to your satisfaction. They've made less moves to address the OL this year than they did last year, but you're happy now. Go figure.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

you do that.

OK.

 

[jay cee]

Ice, one thing is for sure, you were right in your prediction for last year's o-line problems.

They did not do near enough to shore up that weakness before last season. It's better now, but that does not mean it should not be addressed early in this draft.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Ice, one thing is for sure, you were right in your prediction for last year's o-line problems.

They did not do near enough to shore up that weakness before last season. It's better now, but that does not mean it should not be addressed early in this draft.

What do you mean "addressed"?


No matter who they draft this year that person is (probably) going to have little or no affect on how well the oline plays in '07. AND if they are out there starting then I have news for you-- we won't be very successful in 2007. You have two 1st round draft picks and two 2nds out there starting at the moment-- this isn't a dogshat offensive line. And even last years unit was good enough to rack up 400+ points-- And this year's looks even better at this point.

 

[jay cee]

What do you mean "addressed"?

The same way you address any position in the draft. Take players that play that position.

No matter who they draft this year that person is (probably) going to have little or no affect on how well the oline plays in '07. AND if they are out there starting then I have news for you-- we won't be very successful in 2007. You have two 1st round draft picks and two 2nds out there starting at the moment-- this isn't a dogshat offensive line. And even last years unit was good enough to rack up 400+ points-- And this year's looks even better at this point.

I'm not just thinking about '07, I'm also thinking about '08 and beyond. I know you guys think McQ can take over for Adams, and maybe he can, but I have my doubts, so I want them to bring someone else in who can give them the option to let Adams walk after next season if necessary.

Also, they may be able to get someone who is an upgrade over Kosier, who knows. I don't have a problem with them trying to upgrade players that are already on the roster.

You guys seem to be ok with upgrading every position except o-line. Why is that?

 

[superpunk]

The offensive line played pretty well last year. Particularly early in the year, except against the Eagles. I was pretty happy with the protection Bledsoe was getting.

Unfortunately, something happened in between 05 and 06, and Bledsoe completely sucked in 2006. If we had had 2005 Bledsoe playing behind that line, or even preseason Bledsoe, the outcome of our first six games would have been a good bit better than 3-3.

The line looked alot better once Tony started, because he was getting rid of the ball, but (shocker) started to look bad once Julius and Marion faded and Tony started emulating 2006 Drew Bledsoe as much as he could - holding onto the ball, always looking for the big play. It resulted in less sacks because Tony is more elusive, but still, the play of our QBs and RBs made the offensive line look worse than it really was.

Except for Marco Rivera. He completely sucks.