Is The Flozell Adams Age Truly Over?

[superpunk]

Good for them (and us). For every one of those you name, I can name 10X as many. The fact that many on this board are willing to rely on McQ to take over for Flozell when the time comes DESPITE the odds against McQ being anything truly scares me. Just because we struck gold a couple of time doesn't mean we will continue to do so. Or that McQ is another gold mine.

Nothing's definite. I liked what I heard about McQ, and saw in preseason action. Then again, same goes for a guy like Hurd. The thing Parcells talked about was that he had to keep McQuistan off the practice squad, or he'd lose him. Even if that's just as a backup, a solid backup, that's a decent find in the 7th round.

If we can get a premier LT somehow this year, go for it. I'm completely making this up, but I'd say at this point his odds would be about as good as McQ's for starting in the next two years. But, if we get a rock there for the next ten years, by any means, I say hells yeah.

Petitti stuck around for a year, actually starting. Then he was cut. Parcells kept McQ around for a year. Who's to say McQ would be on the roster if Parcells had come back another year? Parcells may have well chosen to upgrade. Or maybe McQ makes it back. But McQ is far from a lock.

I wonder what will happen if Wade decides to upgrade and get rid of McQ?

That's true - Bill might have cut him. But given what he said that I mentioned above, I think it's unlikely.

As for the question, I suspect life will move on.

Until he proves otherwise, I disagree.

Lazy.

 

[burmafrd]

Everybody is so hung up where someone is drafted. That is dumb. All that matters is that they are on the team.

 

[Vintage]

Nothing's definite. I liked what I heard about McQ, and saw in preseason action. Then again, same goes for a guy like Hurd. The thing Parcells talked about was that he had to keep McQuistan off the practice squad, or he'd lose him. Even if that's just as a backup, a solid backup, that's a decent find in the 7th round.

I know that. A backup in the 7th round is doing pretty well. But its foolish IMO to expect anything more of him and even worse if we are thinking about relying on him to replace Flozell. Unless McQ has himself a great T.C. and preseason, I think we should explore possibilities in the draft of bringing in someone who is a better prospect/player.

Lazy.

I am trying to get ready to leave. My responses are quick and to the point as a result. I am going to hit golf balls for the first time this season.

 

[sbark]

Depending upon Columbo's performance and contract demands next offseason, might be able to move Flo to RT and squeeze out a couple extra years at a less physically demanding spot......

 

[superpunk]

I know that. A backup in the 7th round is doing pretty well. But its foolish IMO to expect anything more of him and even worse if we are thinking about relying on him to replace Flozell. Unless McQ has himself a great T.C. and preseason, I think we should explore possibilities in the draft of bringing in someone who is a better prospect/player.

Unless the current coaching staff thinks he's awesome. At this point - he's on the team. His draft status is irrelevent. Bring in more competition, for sure - we're shallow enough along the OL. But there's no sense discounting a guy because he was drafted in the 7th round at this point, if he's still on our team. He had to have shown something.

But definitely, bring in prospects. Fight it out in the camp.

Have fun golfing. It's still witch-tit cold in the north...*** global warming.

 

[Vintage]

Unless the current coaching staff thinks he's awesome. At this point - he's on the team. His draft status is irrelevent. Bring in more competition, for sure - we're shallow enough along the OL. But there's no sense discounting a guy because he was drafted in the 7th round at this point, if he's still on our team. He had to have shown something.

But definitely, bring in prospects. Fight it out in the camp.

Have fun golfing. It's still witch-tit cold in the north...*** global warming.

The draft stock stuff is relevant in terms of what I have been arguing about the odds. I just don't want to rely on him as an eventual replacement until he has shown to be more than just a depth guy. Which is why I want to see us draft an OL sometime on day 1; to bring in another starting caliber OL...

I know what you mean about the weather. I am in Milwaukee, WI....but I need to start swinging the sticks.

 

[iceberg]

Everybody is so hung up where someone is drafted. That is dumb. All that matters is that they are on the team.

why is that dumb? is it not logical to think that a #1 pick in the draft will likely be more successful than mr. irrelevant? just because you drafted someone and put 'em on the team doesn't mean they will success - as you seem to imply and that's just as dumb, if not moreso, to me.

we rate players on many things and grade them out to try and determine how they will ultimately perform in the league. if someone wasn't even on the "yes, he'll get drafted" board (like pat mcq was not as far as i know) then it's reasonable to assume they don't have the skillset in many peoples eyes to warrant even being drafted.

yet because parcells took him (and has such a stellar OL history) some people are convinced he'll be "all that" for us for many many years.

maybe he will. while we can lob out late round success (like a brock marion or leon lett) can can also lob out late round failures (like todderick macintosh, lucky, tarik smith, john nix and the like) also. where does that get us?

it's not unreasonable to think that someone who was never projected to be drafted will fail in this league. it's also not unreasonable to say that someone who's a 1st or 2nd round pick will have better potentail of success than said person who was never projected to be drafted.

while it's possible mcq will change that, it's not likely. so what's the harm in shoring up this position with better chances for success?

 

[burmafrd]

Actually BP had a better record with late rd picks then early rd picks on the O line. Pettiti did start 16 games for us; how many did rogers? BP got Colombo off of the scrap heap and he started 17 games for us. How many did Peterman? Johnson started two seasons for us but was finally benched by a guy that just about everyone but BP had given up on. So I would make the point that McQ being a late rd guy is actually a point in his favor. Sure you can have high expectations of someone who is a first rd pick and you should have. But to discount someone just because he is a 7th rd pick is just stupid.
As everyone knows, Tom Brady was a 6th rd pick. And look at how many first rd QBs bust.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

why is that dumb? is it not logical to think that a #1 pick in the draft will likely be more successful than mr. irrelevant? just because you drafted someone and put 'em on the team doesn't mean they will success - as you seem to imply and that's just as dumb, if not moreso, to me.

we rate players on many things and grade them out to try and determine how they will ultimately perform in the league. if someone wasn't even on the "yes, he'll get drafted" board (like pat mcq was not as far as i know) then it's reasonable to assume they don't have the skillset in many peoples eyes to warrant even being drafted.

yet because parcells took him (and has such a stellar OL history) some people are convinced he'll be "all that" for us for many many years.

maybe he will. while we can lob out late round success (like a brock marion or leon lett) can can also lob out late round failures (like todderick macintosh, lucky, tarik smith, john nix and the like) also. where does that get us?

it's not unreasonable to think that someone who was never projected to be drafted will fail in this league. it's also not unreasonable to say that someone who's a 1st or 2nd round pick will have better potentail of success than said person who was never projected to be drafted.

while it's possible mcq will change that, it's not likely. so what's the harm in shoring up this position with better chances for success?

No but what is bad is that is entirely the basis of your argument: hes a 7th rounder therefore he is not good. We saw him play against starters in preseason and hold his own and we heard what Parcells said about him.

Once weve seen them play in our system, to me the draft is irrelevant.

 

[superpunk]

The draft stock stuff is relevant in terms of what I have been arguing about the odds. I just don't want to rely on him as an eventual replacement until he has shown to be more than just a depth guy. Which is why I want to see us draft an OL sometime on day 1; to bring in another starting caliber OL...

I know what you mean about the weather. I am in Milwaukee, WI....but I need to start swinging the sticks.

At this point, the odds have been bucked so many times they're nearly meaningless.Yeah, there's a good chance McQuistan ain't anything. The draft is there, for a team with as much "alleged" talent as Dallas, to build depth, competition and prepare for the future.

We can do that at any position, and I'll be fine with it. RB, WR. CB, OL, QB, DL, anything. That doesn't necessitate writing off McQuistan. Just like hoping we address something other than OL doesn't necessitate propping McQuistan up to be this great untapped talent.

He had bad grades, and bad technique because of lack of playing time. Bill talked favorably about him. I think he's got a shot at contributing in the future.

 

[scottsp]

There are busts throughout. The draft will always be an inexact science. But the rate of success dwindles with each passing round.

We don't know what McQuistan will be or if he even makes the squad. I would not use him as an example of "hitting" on a pick late in the draft. Not yet.

 

[iceberg]

Actually BP had a better record with late rd picks then early rd picks on the O line. Pettiti did start 16 games for us; how many did rogers? BP got Colombo off of the scrap heap and he started 17 games for us. How many did Peterman? Johnson started two seasons for us but was finally benched by a guy that just about everyone but BP had given up on. So I would make the point that McQ being a late rd guy is actually a point in his favor. Sure you can have high expectations of someone who is a first rd pick and you should have. But to discount someone just because he is a 7th rd pick is just stupid.
As everyone knows, Tom Brady was a 6th rd pick. And look at how many first rd QBs bust.

ooo - you played the brady card!!!! why some people will point to 1 success story that clearly goes against the odds to prove their point is beyond me. sure mcq can have success in this league - no one has said otherwise.

what HAS been said (that gets warped around according to who's reading it) is that a 7th round pick doesn't give a lot of people warm fuzzies and calling those people "draft snobs" and the like doesn't change the fact that statistics bears out that for every brady you have a lot of people no longer in the league from that draft slot.

yelling BRADY BRADY!!!! is about as useless as me yelling WOOD WOOD!!! to prove my point. on their one neither mean a thing.

as a whole, there's a reason so many players get evaluated and ranked according to how professional feel they will perform on the NFL level. you can dismiss it all day long and hope mcq pans out, but it's still there. you can lob "brady" at me as if that makes it all different, but the woods are still there.

pat will do what pat will do and i agree it's got nothing to do with where he was drafted *now* - but the fact he was never projected to even *be* drafted can't be so easily dismissed by screaming "brady!!!" in a discussion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And discounting McQuistans play in preseason is even worse. When a rookie comes in during the presason and play well with the first team that tells you something. He bit as a puppy. the moment he did that he ceased to just be 7th round draft pick and began to be a guy that can compete with NFL starters.

 

[burmafrd]

ICE is sitting in the corner holding his breath untill he turns blue or the boys do what he wants.

 

[iceberg]

No but what is bad is that is entirely the basis of your argument: hes a 7th rounder therefore he is not good. We saw him play against starters in preseason and hold his own and we heard what Parcells said about him.

Once weve seen them play in our system, to me the draft is irrelevant.

wow - people can get that tunnel vision going. here's why i think pat is a longshot, draft position notwithstanding.

http://www.srfboy.com/football/cowboys/offseasongrades.htm
G/T Pat McQuistian - B
Pat is a huge sleeper who will have a hard time making the team without an injury. He is a big, strong and fairly athletic lineman, but he is as raw as you can get. Practice squad guy.

http://www.sportsoverload.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?stnum=1170373358
A lot of their strategy will be determined by how much confidence they have in Pat McQuistian. He was there seventh round pick last year out of Wichita State, and Parcells loved him. Only problem was he was extremely, EXTREMELY raw. But, he has all the tools – he's big, strong, and athletic. If he can find the technique, they believe he can be the future left tackle.

so yes, there is some good and bad here, right? in time sure maybe he can turn it around. but it just seems odd to me that because of a few accolades in pre-season games (the same games tell you nothing about a backup qb situation) give people confidence there are still no ?'s around this position.

till pat does it, i have ?'s about this position, period.

 

[iceberg]

ICE is sitting in the corner holding his breath untill he turns blue or the boys do what he wants.

unfortuately what i want is your simple comprehension that we simply disagree. but since simple comprehension escapes you, trust me in that there will be no breathe holding here for you.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wow - people can get that tunnel vision going. here's why i think pat is a longshot, draft position notwithstanding.

http://www.srfboy.com/football/cowboys/offseasongrades.htm
G/T Pat McQuistian - B
Pat is a huge sleeper who will have a hard time making the team without an injury. He is a big, strong and fairly athletic lineman, but he is as raw as you can get. Practice squad guy.

http://www.sportsoverload.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?stnum=1170373358
A lot of their strategy will be determined by how much confidence they have in Pat McQuistian. He was there seventh round pick last year out of Wichita State, and Parcells loved him. Only problem was he was extremely, EXTREMELY raw. But, he has all the tools – he's big, strong, and athletic. If he can find the technique, they believe he can be the future left tackle.

so yes, there is some good and bad here, right? in time sure maybe he can turn it around. but it just seems odd to me that because of a few accolades in pre-season games (the same games tell you nothing about a backup qb situation) give people confidence there are still no ?'s around this position.

till pat does it, i have ?'s about this position, period.

tunnel vision? i dont discount any of this but i dont see how it outweighs the fact that the guy showed he could compete with NFL starters.

Wow you have two scouting reports that boil down to "McQuistan is raw." How very compelling.

Look at it this way. His work ethic is good and he is coachable. Last preseason with him being very very raw he was able to come in and outside of one mental error, he more than held his own against starters from the other team at LT.

Now in your mind i suppose that you think that with ayear with the coaching staff and the training staff his going to regress? I happen to know that the biggest jump in football for a players learning and physical curve is after that first season.

If he was able to hold his own last year then he should be able to more than hold his own this year.

 

[iceberg]

sorry - "tunnel vision" addressed a lot of replies to me today, not any one person. when it comes at you from all sides, things turn into a blur sometimes.

i'll stop here where i've said a lot of times that yes pat can make it. sure it can happen.

go cowboys. we rule. any player wearing a star will succeed and i just need to remember that cause we want it to be that way.

 

[superpunk]

go cowboys. we rule. any player wearing a star will succeed and i just need to remember that cause we want it to be that way.

when all else fails, brush legitimate argument off with sarcasm and hyperbole.

 

[iceberg]

when all else fails, brush legitimate argument off with sarcasm and hyperbole.

hey, i tried having a good convo on it and that didn't work either and i was told i was a child holding my breathe.

what's the point of trying to have a good discussion if you're just going to get called out for your views?