FYI-Pat McQuistan Scouting Report

[iceberg]

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.

and i'd be happy we treated the OL with some respect and took a day 1 chance on a legit prospect regardless of where we put the player.

 

[superpunk]

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.

We performed better in all facets of the offense. Our run game to the right was years better. Our pass protection was better. Kosier wasn't whiffing on blocks in the open field. I have no idea where these alleged "quotes" would come from, but if they said anything other than "Kosier was an upgrade over Larry Allen", I assure you, they are completely wrong.

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.

Because you used it completely wrong. There is no instance on earth where ignore can be defined as "addressed the issue, but we didn't do exactly what iceberg hoped we would do." So quit acting the victim and get off your "ignored" angle, already.

 

[iceberg]

Because you used it completely wrong. There is no instance on earth where ignore can be defined as "addressed the issue, but we didn't do exactly what iceberg hoped we would do." So quit acting the victim and get off your "ignored" angle, already.

i used it in a manner that makes perfect sense to me in how i view the situation/topic.

since i did use it that way - then i could get just as...um...bullheaded to say that YOU'RE WRONG cause there "is an instance on earth" where it did happen this way - i did it.

so it did, didn't it? you just disagree and i've said time and again that's fine and i can understand why.

do you feel we put enough effort into the line last year to give drew what historically we know he needs to succeed as a qb?

if you do, great. if not, great. there's both sides to this and since neither of us are going to make a sudden move to the "other earth" here, why keep harping on it?

detroit fan on the topic:
http://commissioner.netscape.com/mcc/messages/chrono/3323/0/0/38444#ID38444
Dude, did you just actually put in writing that klye kosier is an upgrade over Larry Allen. Take it from a Lions fan. HE SUCKS!!!! He would not even started a game in detroit if not for injuries. THE LIONS!!! NOT A STARTER!!!! Have you watched any fooball the last two years? The Lions suck!!! Larry Allen could be 60 years old and not be worse than kosier. If your hopes are the line being better to get you to the promised land and Kyle Kosier is evenon the squad then you better get excited aboout Hockey season. NOT A STARTER ON THE LIONS!!!! Remember that.

known blogger
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/nfl/2006/08/
I talked to Kyle only once in the past two weeks and, from what I can tell, he seems like a pretty decent guy. What remains to be seen is whether he's a decent offensive lineman.

Bill Parcells and Jerry Jones sounded Thursday like they're not so sure he is.
Asked if he was happy with Kosier, Jones said: "I think that's too narrow for me to answer. I've got to look at the whole picture there. I don't feel any different than I felt when we came to camp or the way I felt this spring. We've got to see some things (from the offensive line) and we've got some work to do."

or

After 11 practices, it's clear the offensive line remains the club's weak link, partly because Kosier has been serviceable at best during training camp.

or

Good luck. Larry Allen way on the wrong side of 30 is still better than Kyle Kosier at age 28.

Judging from their comments today, Parcells and Jones are beginning to feel the same way.

-----

like i said, i can find links but all that will do is give you something to refute. but apparantely there are other people who feel the way i do but just avoid all the hassle in trying to talk about.

 

[WoodysGirl]

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.

From my point of view, it's not about picking a word and then grinding it death. I actually understand your point of view. I don't agree with it for the most part, but I understand it. The reason why "ignore" stands out, is in the manner in which you used it. The word "ignore" doesn't apply and that's why it's being argued. I don't recall the thread off the top of my head, but it was the same thing when you referred to Kosier as a "scrub" or something.

Terminology is everything on this board, simply because people can't read your mind as to what you meant, what you intended to mean, or what you were thinking in general.

So while I read and understood every example you posted; "ignore" as you interpreted it cannot be translated in a literal sense to something else.

 

[iceberg]

From my point of view, it's not about picking a word and then grinding it death. I actually understand your point of view. I don't agree with it for the most part, but I understand it. The reason why "ignore" stands out, is in the manner in which you used it. The word "ignore" doesn't apply and that's why it's being argued. I don't recall the thread off the top of my head, but it was the same thing when you referred to Kosier as a "scrub" or something.

Terminology is everything on this board, simply because people can't read your mind as to what you meant, what you intended to mean, or what you were thinking in general.

So while I read and understood every example you posted; "ignore" as you interpreted it cannot be translated in a literal sense to something else.

well this is further than i ever thought i'd get w/it wg.

ignore seems an abosolute to some, to me it seems an overall stance on how you go about something.

like you getting water at the dinner table and then the waiter never coming back. ignored or just badly serviced? you got water, after all.

with drew we KNEW we needed a very solid OL. we didn't go out and get "a very solid OL" so we ignored what we needed and the counter argument to me would be "we did what we could". i don't totally buy that, but that makes more sense to me than to say it's wrong to say "ignored" cause we put in some players.

to me, if you know what you need to fix a problem and you for whatever reason intentionally don't do it, you ignore it. giving it lip service doesn't "fix" the problem to me or how adequate attention.

putting a band aid on severed limb is ignoring the problem. not the symptoms but the problem. i think the moves we made addressed the symptoms but ignored the problem.

now everyone can go rip into that stance and i need to go get some work done. : )

 

[superpunk]

i used it in a manner that makes perfect sense to me in how i view the situation/topic.

since i did use it that way - then i could get just as...um...bullheaded to say that YOU'RE WRONG cause there "is an instance on earth" where it did happen this way - i did it.

so it did, didn't it? you just disagree and i've said time and again that's fine and i can understand why.

The way you've used it, you've asked an entire forum to be able to read your mind.

Words have definitions for a reason.

do you feel we put enough effort into the line last year to give drew what historically we know he needs to succeed as a qb?

if you do, great. if not, great. there's both sides to this and since neither of us are going to make a sudden move to the "other earth" here, why keep harping on it?

I've already said, if we could have gotten 2005 Bledsoe behind that blocking, we'd have been a good bit better than 3-3. We didn't, and we weren't.

The rest of your post is almost entirely derived from before last season ever took place. In Detroit, Kosier was a disappointment. So was Leonard Davis in Arizona - but you've already said you view his signing as legitimately addressing the line. I guarantee I could find similar "quotes" for one Leonard Davis, but at the end, they really amount to a bunch of worthless crap. The question is, why is signing Arizona's garbage preferable to Detroit's? Maybe they just fit here better than their former squads. But I hardly see the logic in dismissing one while heralding the other, when the one you're dismissing has already played here for an entire year at a very nice level.

Facts are what interest me. And the fact is that our offensive line performed much better with Kyle Kosier than Larry Allen, in all facets.

 

[iceberg]

The way you've used it, you've asked an entire forum to be able to read your mind.

Words have definitions for a reason.



I've already said, if we could have gotten 2005 Bledsoe behind that blocking, we'd have been a good bit better than 3-3. We didn't, and we weren't.

The rest of your post is almost entirely derived from before last season ever took place. In Detroit, Kosier was a disappointment. So was Leonard Davis in Arizona - but you've already said you view his signing as legitimately addressing the line. I guarantee I could find similar "quotes" for one Leonard Davis, but at the end, they really amount to a bunch of worthless crap.

Facts are what interest me. And the fact is that our offensive line performed much better with Kyle Kosier than Larry Allen, in all facets.

which is why i'm really not a "quote" person. then the threads become who can quote the most, not validate their own views the most.

as for defination of words - they change over time and are, by and large, defined by our own environment in as much as a dictionary.

i wonder when "gay" got changed, for example, in websters dictionary. or at least ammended.

 

[WoodysGirl]

well this is further than i ever thought i'd get w/it wg.

ignore seems an abosolute to some, to me it seems an overall stance on how you go about something.

that's because how you define the word is more abstract than the literal definition for it. Ignore is a simple term and you've made it more abstract.

like you getting water at the dinner table and then the waiter never coming back. ignored or just badly serviced? you got water, after all.

I could easily say, did I just ask for water? and did he give me water, yes. I've only been ignored me if I never requested additional service from him or anyone else in the restaurant.

with drew we KNEW we needed a very solid OL. we didn't go out and get "a very solid OL" so we ignored what we needed and the counter argument to me would be "we did what we could". i don't totally buy that, but that makes more sense to me than to say it's wrong to say "ignored" cause we put in some players.

Was Kosier not a solid o-lineman? Did Colombo not turn out to be a solid lineman? Gurode put in a solid year. Flozell started off rough but ended up putting in a solid year. Nothing more needs to be said about Rivera, as he's being replaced.

Was your idea of going out and getting a solid OL was signing Hutch and Bentley? Two guys who never wanted to come here?

to me, if you know what you need to fix a problem and you for whatever reason intentionally don't do it, you ignore it. giving it lip service doesn't "fix" the problem to me or how adequate attention.

putting a band aid on severed limb is ignoring the problem. not the symptoms but the problem. i think the moves we made addressed the symptoms but ignored the problem.

I would actually understand this stance if the majority of the guys who played on the line last year didn't put in solid campaigns. Granted we didn't know they'd play this well, but because the team did address it, we can now, with hindsight, say they did a good job. Because even with Bledsoe, most of the guys on the line played solid.

now everyone can go rip into that stance and i need to go get some work done. : )

Work is overrated.

 

[iceberg]

well, i can't put it much differently than that last analogy.

i think what we did *even at the time* addressed some of the symptoms, but i don't think they addressed the problem of not trying to replace high qualiy with high quality.

obvoiusly many feel differently. but in this light i would agree we addressed symptoms but i don't think we addressed the problem.

now we just go off and define "problem" now and if you have to ask me what i feel "the problem" is we'd not have had much of this discussion.

yes, we had some 2nd and 3rd round busts on the line, so some want to "hedge bets" and get those players in later rounds. except we've had busts in the late rounds also but no one seems to mind those as much cause they don't really "hurt" as much. well, except when you're still having overall problems on the line.

i think a lot of things helped the line last year. a split rb combo attack and amore mobile qb. w/bledsoe finishing the year, i don't think the line would have done as well. but that's over now and no one would ever prove either side.

 

[jay cee]

I can't believe all of this because Iceberg said ignore. I will say that they did not do nearly enough to help a qb like Bledsoe be successfull.

And who can forget all the plays Romo had to make on the run. It's not like Romo was doing all of that scrambling for nothing.

 

[iceberg]

I can't believe all of this because Iceberg said ignore. I will say that they did not do nearly enough to help a qb like Bledsoe be successfull.

And who can forget all the plays Romo had to make on the run. It's not like Romo was doing all of that scrambling for nothing.

which is why my "cry for the line" isn't as hard this year - need not as big. w/bledsoe it was a known to even the youngest fan. slow, needs stellar line to succeed.

the problem is we don't have a stellar line.

the moves we made could have "helped" the line so i will agree that by strict defination of the problem being not addressing the line, no they didn't ignore the problem.

if *the problem* is they didn't address it adequately to be "stellar" (and from my POV they didn't even try) then yes, we ignored *that* part of the problem. like i said, i understand what others are saying. i really do. it just seems that they don't understand i seperate "the problem" from being doing anything at all vs. doing what you know you need to do.

had we not gone after bledsoe, i'd likely not have been as adamant about the line and would feel like we made moderate steps towards long term improvement but "stellar" wouldn't have been a need, so the moves less drastic.

it's like buying a high performance car knowing it needs hi-octane fuel and you only put in regular cause it "addresses the problem". if the problem is not being able to start w/o gas, you did address the need. if the problem is that you didn't put in high octane fuel, you ignored the issue.

the *real* argument is that there wasn't a lot in FA to choose from, but i think we should have at least inquired about hutch and labently. maybe we did and no one just really knows.

my counter here is that we also could have used solid players in the draft. the argument there is "no one would have started, so why bother"? well, so maybe they could start now. get that "year of experience" out of the way and know who we have. it did wonders for mcq to get that, wouldn't it not do the same for a higher draft pick? if both panned out, yippe - our OL troubles are just that much less.

just because they're not gonna start shouldn't mean you don't draft 'em high. those who feel that way talk to me about carpenter and fasano. couple of high picks that didn't start a whole lot, even with vaunted (2) TE offense we were going to move to.

carp didn't start at all, fasano 5 times.

i'd be happy w/meacham as a pick, but it's to build for the future cause he ain't starting much this year either, barring injury.

anyway - been an interesting discussion that i'm sure i'll be happy to talk about again soon enough (much to the pain of some).

maybe it wasn't defining "Ignore" in as much as what i was applying the word to - the problem. but yea, all this over 1 word.

just be careful of how you use "castoff" also. that's another one of "those" words. >g<