FYI-Pat McQuistan Scouting Report

[burmafrd]

Wah wah wah. I don't like it so I am picking up my marbles and going home.
That is what this thread is sounding like.

 

[scottsp]

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

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?

Some organizations believe strongly in fortifying their offensive line to the point of strength. Those same organizations will also play those guys early.

Is it because they are able to identify talent in the draft? Or is it a developmental issue? I don't know. Either way, this organization fails miserably in this area.

The culture here seems to be one of just "getting by." It's just not a priority here.

Throwing money at the problem isn't always the solution either. We are certainly proof of that. Typically, throwing tens of millions at a free agent has shown to be nothing more than an attempt to cover for draft ineptitude.

And good offensive tackles who can still play rarely make it to market.

We can point to some fairly gaudy offensive numbers and make the claim this offensive line is one of quality. I look at our past four December performances and feel otherwise.

Like many of you, I watch the games intently. My eyes tell me plenty about how this offense has been wretched at running the ball late in games and in short yardage situations. I can clearly see how we protect (or don't) against quality defensive fronts.

This trend has been a constant over the past several seasons, particularly in December. This past season, the defensive collapse made many of us forget just how inefficiently the offense ran - as it has the last month of the past few seasons.

All that said, none of us have a clue as to how the Cowboy draft board will read. I'm not one to advocate the drafting of a guard/tackle (or any position) solely out of need. But I certainly would not rule a player out either.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only tackle that could come in and start if we draft them would be Levi Brown. If he falls to us then of course we pick him. Hes actually one of a few players I quietly pray drop to us. Lynch, Hall, Branch and Nelson are the others.

Staley at the very least needs to put on more weight hes at most 300 and not too long ago was 250. Staley, Blalock and Grubbs arent going to be there at 57 and are not good value at 22. The one thing we dont need to do is reach for a position because we feel that our BACKUPS are not good enough. Adams-Kosier-Gurode-Leonard-Columbo are good enough especially with 4/5 of them having played a year together at least.

I just think of power sweeps with the size of the right side and Kosiers ability to pull. That and Jones speed could be effective I think.

 

[scottsp]

It's just hard to know right now.

 

[iceberg]

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.

like i said, we define "ignore" differently. you're in the literal sense and i'm in the "did we do enough" sense. if you know you need something and you don't make every effort to get it, but only throw some poo on the wall and see if it sticks, are you *really* addressing the problem or "hoping" that it sticks?

and wg - you're leaving off some very important info on WHY i don't feel the line is as big a need as last year...

...no bledsoe. have i or have i not put bledsoe at the corner of *having* to have a stellar line? have i or have i not put bledsoe's immobility as a reason to GO AFTER top flight OL's and we lob a kosier at him and 2 7th round picks. i don't feel that's close to legit to compensate for your known issues with drew.

no drew, no need to compensate, we can now do "less" on the line and still make improvements. when you factor all this back in, i hope it makes more sense in why i feel we ignored it (yes we made moves but they were clearly not enough to address blesdoe's *weakness* or he'd not have been pulled now would he? we may not know, but a good OL is what drew needed and bp never gave it to him - that never made sense to me). if you feel we did more last year than this, i simply disagree.

as for "doing more last year" you're counting (2) 7th round picks in your "math" here and i don't have that benefit yet cause we've not had the draft so it's premature to say we did more last year than this year.

i'm happy we resigned our prospect on the line in colombo.
i'm happy we took a chance at someone who could have potentail to be our "stud" in davis.

kosier was *never* brought in to be our stud.
mcq is still up for debate and maybe he can pan out - please refer to the serveral times i've said that.
but i also think we need to address the OL in day1 of the draft still either OT or C or a good G if that's who's there when we're picking.

in the end, yes. there *is* a "type of ignore". you can know you need 5 items to set yourself up for success. you do 2.

you ignored the crux of the problem because you failed to give it known needed attention, but yes, you did "something." if i let people build me a house in the same manner and i wind up with some walls, a door and a toilet on the front yard, i'm going to feel they ignored my overall need and just tried to pacify me.

 

[iceberg]

Wah wah wah. I don't like it so I am picking up my marbles and going home.
That is what this thread is sounding like.

sounds like rational people talking over differences of opinion OF WHICH is why we come to message boards, TO ME.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sorry but signing Rivera, Kosier, Columbo, and Leonard while drafting McQuistan is not ignoring the problem regardless of how you try and spin it.

Negligent would be the better word to try and use although i dont agree with that summation either.

 

[superpunk]

kosier was *never* brought in to be our stud.

What a ridiculous statement.

Given the difficulty in scouting Olinemen, and the track record of star guards who fit one place but not another, your statement makes no sense.

It may not have been your idea of what was best, but it worked. Kosier was a serious upgrade from Larry Allen, no matter how you look at it. He might not be a perennial probowler, but there are only 3 of those each year anyway. They did quite well without overextending the finances, and came out of it quite well.

Hardly "ignoring" the issue.

 

[burmafrd]

ice is just whining because the boys did not do it HIS way.

 

[iceberg]

What a ridiculous statement.

Given the difficulty in scouting Olinemen, and the track record of star guards who fit one place but not another, your statement makes no sense.

It may not have been your idea of what was best, but it worked. Kosier was a serious upgrade from Larry Allen, no matter how you look at it. He might not be a perennial probowler, but there are only 3 of those each year anyway. They did quite well without overextending the finances, and came out of it quite well.

Hardly "ignoring" the issue.

then you show me where he *was* brought in to be our stud. i'll wait over here. holding my breathe.

 

[iceberg]

Sorry but signing Rivera, Kosier, Columbo, and Leonard while drafting McQuistan is not ignoring the problem regardless of how you try and spin it.

Negligent would be the better word to try and use although i dont agree with that summation either.

i'm not about to get into the overly anal world of word defination. i've told you why i felt the way i do, and will go that route. you disagree, great. i have no problem with that and can see and understand your views also. but the last thing i'm going to do is wordsmith my way around because someone doesn't like 1 or 2 words so my entire stance is null and void.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

then you show me where he *was* brought in to be our stud. i'll wait over here. holding my breathe.

he doesnt need to be a stud. hes a better than average guard.

 

[WoodysGirl]

like i said, we define "ignore" differently. you're in the literal sense and i'm in the "did we do enough" sense. if you know you need something and you don't make every effort to get it, but only throw some poo on the wall and see if it sticks, are you *really* addressing the problem or "hoping" that it sticks?

You're creating a definition of ignore that doesn't exist. I've acknowledged that you feel the team didn't do enough, but that doesn't mean they ignored it.

and wg - you're leaving off some very important info on WHY i don't feel the line is as big a need as last year...

...no bledsoe. have i or have i not put bledsoe at the corner of *having* to have a stellar line? have i or have i not put bledsoe's immobility as a reason to GO AFTER top flight OL's and we lob a kosier at him and 2 7th round picks. i don't feel that's close to legit to compensate for your known issues with drew.

no drew, no need to compensate, we can now do "less" on the line and still make improvements. when you factor all this back in, i hope it makes more sense in why i feel we ignored it (yes we made moves but they were clearly not enough to address blesdoe's *weakness* or he'd not have been pulled now would he? we may not know, but a good OL is what drew needed and bp never gave it to him - that never made sense to me). if you feel we did more last year than this, i simply disagree.

I didn't ignore your point about Bledsoe, I just didn't address it.

You use Bledsoe as a justification for why you feel the way you do, where to me, he's a non-factor. The main point is whether they addressed the OL. Did they attempt to shore up the OL? Maybe not to your satisfaction, but you can't sit there and say they didn't, regardless of who was playing at QB.

as for "doing more last year" you're counting (2) 7th round picks in your "math" here and i don't have that benefit yet cause we've not had the draft so it's premature to say we did more last year than this year.

Then qualify that up to this point, they had done slightly more for towards the OL.

i'm happy we resigned our prospect on the line in colombo.
i'm happy we took a chance at someone who could have potentail to be our "stud" in davis.

kosier was *never* brought in to be our stud.
mcq is still up for debate and maybe he can pan out - please refer to the serveral times i've said that.
but i also think we need to address the OL in day1 of the draft still either OT or C or a good G if that's who's there when we're picking.

Exclude me from your ongoing debate about McQ. He's a big "I don't know" as far as I'm concerned. I'm more inclined to believe that Flo will get another contract here and another OT drafted.

And while I won't scream at the idea of a combo guard/center being drafted on the 1st day, I'd prefer a NT.

in the end, yes. there *is* a "type of ignore". you can know you need 5 items to set yourself up for success. you do 2.

Disagree. Either you addressed something or you don't. Ignore is a fairly simple word and to add qualifications and justifications to its meaning doesn't make sense to me.

you ignored the crux of the problem because you failed to give it known needed attention, but yes, you did "something." if i let people build me a house in the same manner and i wind up with some walls, a door and a toilet on the front yard, i'm going to feel they ignored my overall need and just tried to pacify me.

Extreme exaggeration is always a great example. ~sigh~

 

[superpunk]

then you show me where he *was* brought in to be our stud. i'll wait over here. holding my breathe.

I don't have the slightest idea what that even means.

He was brought in to be a starter. Stud is a subjective term, and would probably only be used by Jerry Jones referencing seeing Kosier in the shower, making some Michael Irvin comment about his ancestry.

You'll doubtless be hard pressed to find anything about Minnesota bringing in Hutchinson to be their *stud*, or Leonard Davis for us this year. That's because it's a ridiculously subjective term that in this instance, is relying entirely on what you define it to be.

But, we can actually have a discussion in the realm of reality about whether these guys were brought in to be upgrades. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Kosier was a huge upgrade last year, no holding of breath needed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i'm not about to get into the overly anal world of word defination. i've told you why i felt the way i do, and will go that route. you disagree, great. i have no problem with that and can see and understand your views also. but the last thing i'm going to do is wordsmith my way around because someone doesn't like 1 or 2 words so my entire stance is null and void.

nah thats fine and i do understand but you going out of your way and trying to justify using ignored was something i kust couldnt pass up.

if we draft an OL on day 1 will you be happy and what you should really be talking about is center because we only have 1.

 

[iceberg]

I don't have the slightest idea what that even means.

He was brought in to be a starter. Stud is a subjective term, and would probably only be used by Jerry Jones referencing seeing Kosier in the shower, making some Michael Irvin comment about his ancestry.

You'll doubtless be hard pressed to find anything about Minnesota bringing in Hutchinson to be their *stud*, or Leonard Davis for us this year. That's because it's a ridiculously subjective term that in this instance, is relying entirely on what you define it to be.

But, we can actually have a discussion in the realm of reality about whether these guys were brought in to be upgrades. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Kosier was a huge upgrade last year, no holding of breath needed.

kinda like ignore. : )

wg - i get most of your points and can see the logic behind them. i think on the surface and in general we'd agree on a lot of things but somehow got mired into some specifics of what a word meant to define a thought process and here we are - living in extreme verbiage in order to illustrate a problem.

for the house example, would you feel ignored?
if you were trying to order food at a nice rest. and they only brought you water and didn't pay attention to you after that, are you ignored or just not fully serviced?

some would say - dare i say it - ignored.

for bledsoe - i *do* count in him as a part of why i felt the line was "ignored"

say you know bledsoe needs a LEVEL 10 LINE to succeed and you knowingly only give him a LEVEL 5.

i think you failed to address the issue, hence my use of ignored.

you either give something the attention it deserves or you don't. you're in the middle looking at the gray and i'm on the black and white side of it saying we didn't do enough.

i understand your point, i understand where you disagree with me and i can even agree on why - but i still don't think 'ignored' is such a horrible word. if people (and it seems some will) want to rally behind that 1 word to refute or counter my stance, great.

i'll be glad to keep talking to try and explain it till people start getting goofy about it and calling me childish.

 

[iceberg]

nah thats fine and i do understand but you going out of your way and trying to justify using ignored was something i kust couldnt pass up.

if we draft an OL on day 1 will you be happy and what you should really be talking about is center because we only have 1.

not many can. but my passion has been warned out of me for the day, so i'll move on and everyone can we adequately addressed the line both years and we can sing kumbyya in the parking lot when the new stadium opens.

and i can't disagree at all for the C position. only gurode there scares me more than maybe i would be willing to talk about. i mean, if you can get in trouble for thinking a 7th round pick may have odds against him, i'd hate to think what would happen if you question a certified starter. >g<

 

[MichaelWinicki]

not many can. but my passion has been warned out of me for the day, so i'll move on and everyone can we adequately addressed the line both years and we can sing kumbyya in the parking lot when the new stadium opens.

and i can't disagree at all for the C position. only gurode there scares me more than maybe i would be willing to talk about. i mean, if you can get in trouble for thinking a 7th round pick may have odds against him, i'd hate to think what would happen if you question a certified starter. >g<

I feel more comfortable at tackle than I do at center. Maybe it's because Davis could probably be a more than acceptable RT and play an OK LT... at least for a couple games.

At center we have "not much". And at guard maybe a wee bit more than "not much".

The bottom line is if we draft an o-lineman on the first day I would prefer it be a guy that play either guard or center.

 

[superpunk]

Ignore is not a subjective word.

Saying that Kosier was never brought in to be a stud, is entirely subjective. You don't know his ceiling, and there is NO disputing that he was brought in to be an upgrade (he was) just as Leonard Davis is brought in to upgrade.

Approval of one and not the other is nonsense, and at this point just hanging onto what the old scouting reports said - in which case Colombo being brought on can hardly be justified as "ignoring" the line.

You can't have steaks on every plate. Bringing in Kosier and Colombo were a couple of very nice moves by Parcells, reclamation projects that worked out for us, and helped us keep the cap managed for now.

Again

But, we can actually have a discussion in the realm of reality about whether these guys were brought in to be upgrades. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Kosier was a huge upgrade last year, no holding of breath needed.

 

[iceberg]

Ignore is not a subjective word.

Saying that Kosier was never brought in to be a stud, is entirely subjective. You don't know his ceiling, and there is NO disputing that he was brought in to be an upgrade (he was) just as Leonard Davis is brought in to upgrade.

Approval of one and not the other is nonsense, and at this point just hanging onto what the old scouting reports said - in which case Colombo being brought on can hardly be justified as "ignoring" the line.

You can't have steaks on every plate. Bringing in Kosier and Colombo were a couple of very nice moves by Parcells, reclamation projects that worked out for us, and helped us keep the cap managed for now.

Again

and i can go find quotes over whether or not kosier was an upgrade over larry allen and we're still here on opposite sides of the fence.

again, pick on the use of the word and miss the entire meaning of my overall position. that's fine. seems like a popular thing to do.