Stephen McGee

[AdamJT13]

That was Tom Landry's rule and even Bill did not follow it. He cut Henson after 1 year and 2 Training Camps.

Henson was cut during training camp of his third season.

We traded for him in March 2004. He was on the team for all of 2004 and 2005. We released him right before the third preseason game in 2006.

 

[hammer1]

We knew from the get go that the physical tools were there and the mental aspects of the position were what would take time to develop, so why are you saying we should cut him because he has the physical tools but the mental aspects of the position are taking time to develo? You are saying we should cut him for exactly the reason we viewed him as a worthy project.

The guy missed time to injury in college and his college switched to a run based system while he was there. We knew he didn't have the kind of college background as a passer he would need and that it would take some time. He's been with the team just a little over a year at this point. People act like it's been 2 years, but from April 2009 to August 2010 not 2 years, and is not 2 seasons. As a project he should get at that much, and if he still doesn't look like he is on the track we need him to be on then we can cut him. It makes no sense to have a project and not have any patience.

Maybe you should re-read my post. What I said was...we shouldn't cut him. I do think however that we should continue to look at other options for backup QB and Romo's eventual replacement. Churning the roster...as it were.

 

[jterrell]

You have to constantly re-evaluate players and re-think them based upon what you know now.

McGee was drafted for potential and if they still see that he stays. Simple as that.

If they do not like his ability in certain areas and find a long shot for him to improve he goes.

Either way McGee is no likely to be the type of guy who engenders rue-age 5 years from now. I am trying to remember most of the guy we have "rued" but can only come up with Matt Moore/Jimmy Smith thus far.

 

[Stautner]

You have to constantly re-evaluate players and re-think them based upon what you know now.

McGee was drafted for potential and if they still see that he stays. Simple as that.

If they do not like his ability in certain areas and find a long shot for him to improve he goes.

Either way McGee is no likely to be the type of guy who engenders rue-age 5 years from now. I am trying to remember most of the guy we have "rued" but can only come up with Matt Moore/Jimmy Smith thus far.

This is a good point, and another point I would add is that people seem to think that whoever we might use a roster spot on other than McGee would carry some big potential to become a serious player, when the fact is he would be the last player to make the team, and despite how people think he looks in the preseason, he would still be a long shot to ever carve out a serious place for himself in the NFL.

 

[Nightshade]

...people seem to think that whoever we might use a roster spot on other than McGee would carry some big potential to become a serious player, when the fact is he would be the last player to make the team, and despite how people think he looks in the preseason, he would still be a long shot to ever carve out a serious place for himself in the NFL.

That's why you take McCray over Church.

 

[AdamJT13]

I am trying to remember most of the guy we have "rued" but can only come up with Matt Moore/Jimmy Smith thus far.

Brian Waters and Tony Richardson are two more.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Absolutely correct. Parcells did say that Landry taught him that rule. I know that Bill didn't always apply it to all players but really only to his own projects. Henson was JJ's project from the beginning and Parcells seemed to have little enthusiasm for him to the point where ignoring the 3 year rule in his case came as no surprise.

Mcgee has the physical tools and a bit more time might allow him to develop the decision making skills necessary to show something when he has the opportunity. I'm still hoping he steps up and shows something in these next couple of games.

Didn't Landry get that rule from George Young?

 

[jterrell]

Brian Waters and Tony Richardson are two more.

Waters is a great call.. especially since he played college ball so darn close.

Richardson I didn't ever rue. Fullbacks aren't all that juicy plus he would have been behind Moose for 5 years anyways. He was a Pro Bowl caliber player but that was almost 10 years after we cut him. So probably not many rues over him.

Waters, Moore and Smith had pretty quick returns once we parted ways with them so definite fan rueage

 

[dbair1967]

I am trying to remember most of the guy we have "rued" but can only come up with Matt Moore/Jimmy Smith thus far.

Still not quite sure why anyone would rue over Matt Moore. He had a nice little run at the end of last yr, but the Panthers saw more of him than we did and promtly drafted two more QB's (3 if you count the guy who played QB, that they are trying to move to WR)..Then with the upper hand on the starting job this yr he's come out and played terrible in the preseason. He wont be their starter long, if he does start the season as the #1 guy.

As for Jimmy Smith, he admits himself that had he not been released (twice actually, because Philly cut him too) that his career may have been quite different. He has always said he looked at the game and his dedication differently after that happened.

 

[Chuck 54]

The key is that McGee isn't being groomed to replace Romo; he's being groomed to replace Kitna as the backup.

McGee will be a free agent long before Romo is ready to step down or be replaced, and we're not going to groom him, but never see him play and give him a big contract to stay with us.

We want to find a guy who can be Romo's backup in the next year or two at the most. If McGee isn't showing that, then you're wasting time on him. I don't think he gets cut unless it's for someone else's castoff QB that we like better.

We won't start looking seriously for a Romo successor for a few more years.

 

[Stautner]

The key is that McGee isn't being groomed to replace Romo; he's being groomed to replace Kitna as the backup.

McGee will be a free agent long before Romo is ready to step down or be replaced, and we're not going to groom him, but never see him play and give him a big contract to stay with us.

We want to find a guy who can be Romo's backup in the next year or two at the most. If McGee isn't showing that, then you're wasting time on him. I don't think he gets cut unless it's for someone else's castoff QB that we like better.

We won't start looking seriously for a Romo successor for a few more years.

McGee is being groomed to develop as much as he can, which theoretically could include being Romo's replacement. We never know if ir when romo's game will deteriorate or if or when Rom will suffer a major injury. If McGee does develop into a potential starter down the road, and Romo is still playing strong, then we would have a very strong bargaining chip to help us bring in another quality player or a high draft pick.

 

[Sandyf]

No matter the thinking, it comes down to the best 53 that can help the team win and hopefully get to the Super Bowl.

Maybe we keep McGee, maybe we don't but the question is "can he help us any at all this year or for that matter does it appear that he could be Kitna's replacement next year". So far it doesn't appear that way.

He will have the Miami game to make his case because against Houston, we will see Romo for close to 3 quarters and Kitna for the rest.

If the so called draft experts are correct, there are some 14 plus QBs that look to have NFL potential coming the draft next year. If so, then at worst case, we take one mid rounds again. Another option is the cuts made by other teams such as Green Bay or SF. Nate Davis looks pretty good although understand he might be a head case, then again Dez Bryant was to be one also.

There are options. Personally, I don't think McGee gets claimed if waived. He just has shown any improvement over the preseason and if anything has regressed a bit.

If we keep a McCray or Church or McCann or any other player and let McGee go, it will be because we need the numbers at that spot more than a 3rd string QB or the potential of that 53rd player has more upside than McGee.

The new CBA will probably address some of this because if we are going to 18 games then you can expect the roster size to grow somewhere in the 7 to 12 range.

Seems funny that we are all arguing somewhat about a 3rd string QB and don't want to see what happen to him like Matt Moore but last time I read about the Panthers is that Moore is getting pushed by Clausen so he not a given yet either.

 

[Stautner]

No matter the thinking, it comes down to the best 53 that can help the team win and hopefully get to the Super Bowl.

Maybe we keep McGee, maybe we don't but the question is "can he help us any at all this year or for that matter does it appear that he could be Kitna's replacement next year". So far it doesn't appear that way.

He will have the Miami game to make his case because against Houston, we will see Romo for close to 3 quarters and Kitna for the rest.

If the so called draft experts are correct, there are some 14 plus QBs that look to have NFL potential coming the draft next year. If so, then at worst case, we take one mid rounds again. Another option is the cuts made by other teams such as Green Bay or SF. Nate Davis looks pretty good although understand he might be a head case, then again Dez Bryant was to be one also.

There are options. Personally, I don't think McGee gets claimed if waived. He just has shown any improvement over the preseason and if anything has regressed a bit.

If we keep a McCray or Church or McCann or any other player and let McGee go, it will be because we need the numbers at that spot more than a 3rd string QB or the potential of that 53rd player has more upside than McGee.

The new CBA will probably address some of this because if we are going to 18 games then you can expect the roster size to grow somewhere in the 7 to 12 range.

Seems funny that we are all arguing somewhat about a 3rd string QB and don't want to see what happen to him like Matt Moore but last time I read about the Panthers is that Moore is getting pushed by Clausen so he not a given yet either.

I disagree with this completely. Teams that play only for the year they are in are destined to suck down the road. Rosters are always revolving, and teams have to prepare for the future along with the present. That's why a guy like Choice was drafted even though we had Barber and Felix.