Why do so many see McQuistan & Austin as chump change?

[Doomsday101]

I would think any guy drafted in the 6th rd on or picked up as an UDFA is considered a developmental player and far from being a sure thing. McQuistan may develop into a very good player but he is also more likely to be replaced as the team churns the bottom of the roster.

 

[jterrell]

Yes that is true, but isnt the perception that better players and only useful players are taken in higher rounds.....?

I don't think that is really the perception at all.

I think the perception is more that if no draftnik has seen nor heard of you and they have never seen you play on Saturdays then you must be a nobody.

Doesn't make the perception correct but its not like this draft thing is not a 24x7 365 million dollar industry or anything.

I like McQuistan. I like that his brother was drafted as well. Genetics play well as there are pro athlete ties all over the NFL. BUT before we go replacing Pro Bowl Left Tackles lets recognize maybe 100 people on Earth can play that position and its not all that great of odds any of them are on this team besides Flozell.

Austin is fast and tall with at least solid hands but is he quick? Can he get in and out of breaks at full speed? Can he deal with man coverage? Can he fit into seems in zones?

I played against former Cowboy Kevin Williams in high school. Went to an FCA camp with him and we had a college athlete assigned to about every 8 high school students for somewhere near 30 college athletes. Kevin Williams was by far the best athlete there. When we played flag football he could not ever be stopped. He leaped over bushes taller than hisself. He was short but extremely thick and quick and fast and explosive. He went to the University of Miami. All of that made him an ordinary 3rd NFL WR with some return skills.

 

[peplaw06]

Yes that is true, but isnt the perception that better players and only useful players are taken in higher rounds.....?

Yes, but that perception drops off as the draft gets to the later rounds. If you told me that Group A has 160 players and Group B has 625 players, then asked me which would produce more starters/quality players, it's a no-brainer.

 

[Hostile]

I am glad

Its a long, long off-season.

Ready for some football, sheesh.

I want the draft to get here so bad I can taste it. Then mini-camps, pre-season magazines and finally TC.

 

[Angus]

Iceberg, you are correct that what has been said is that McQuistan's done nothing to show us what he could be yet, and that unselected round-one talent generally has a higher chance of success than unselected round-seven talent. That was true before he was drafted - so far as the posters here knew and, perhaps, even the coaches (but not Ireland, hopefully). But that was then; McQuistan has been evaluated by the coaches for a year. His draft status is irrelevant now; only his talent is important, and while we on the outside haven't had an opportunity to evaluate it thoroughly, the coaches have. Since they apparently still believe he will be good - maybe more than good - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be tested by competition, only that his previous draft status should not be held against him.

 

[theebs]

Yes, but that perception drops off as the draft gets to the later rounds. If you told me that Group A has 160 players and Group B has 625 players, then asked me which would produce more starters/quality players, it's a no-brainer.

Thats true too. But numbers by volume do not mean people can play, in fact the draft is basically a gamble that those undrafted players cant play.

When did this thread become about how undrafted players are all going to the hall of fame. I was just finishing the stat winicki used from ourlads..

It doesnt mean anything, just that there is a trend there, this is a trendy league. We have some players who are undrafted who contribute. Thompson, Mcbriar, austin and hurd. We have some other guys who might in the future like rector, butler, polite, hoyte, bowen,elam, baker.

of course we have romo too. We had fowler who also contributed and Brett Pierce who could not stay healthy.

Its just a stat, or in my opinion a trend. Teams need to find any advantage they can so finding the best undraftable players is one.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Not only that but is skewed because kickers and punters are frequently non-draftees.

How many undrafted DEs are there starting in the NFL?

Sure, guys can fall through cracks but as that stat attests 45% of all starters in the NFL comes from the first two rounds of the NFL draft. Any team that wants to give me their 1st and 2nd every year can have my 3rd thru 7th rounders.

I'll even give them there top choice of my UFA's.

What you say is true...

However I doubt the NFL will be kind enough to grant us another 5 first and second round draft picks this year so I'm thinking that some of our "bottom-feeders" had better pan out or we're going to have issues.

 

[jterrell]

Iceberg, you are correct that what has been said is that McQuistan's done nothing to show us what he could be yet, and that unselected round-one talent generally has a higher chance of success than unselected round-seven talent. That was true before he was drafted - so far as the posters here knew and, perhaps, even the coaches (but not Ireland, hopefully). But that was then; McQuistan has been evaluated by the coaches for a year. His draft status is irrelevant now; only his talent is important, and while we on the outside haven't had an opportunity to evaluate it thoroughly, the coaches have. Since they apparently still believe he will be good - maybe more than good - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be tested by competition, only that his previous draft status should not be held against him.

If Bobby Carpenter were on the inactive list all 17 games last season would you hold that against him or say the coaches said they really like him so he'll be great real soon?

Don't get me wrong, I sincerely hope we hit on most if not all these guys we have drafted late or added in UFA but your comments seem to suggest much more than Cowboy coaches have committed to. Parcells did state he liked McQuistan; but Parcells also stated he liked guys he cut 2 months later each and every training camp. In fact he often said he tried to build up some guys he actually thought were struggling and ignore guys that were playing well.

I will say I'd take McQuistan's chances over Skyler Green's.

 

[ZeroClub]

Holy hypocrisy Batman!!!

If posters on a message board aren't convinced that a player is a long term solution because said player has not contribute din meaningful games yet; it is jumping the gun because they do not see everything the coaches do in practice.

If on the other hand posters are convinced of a player's intrinsic value for years to come it is justified; even though they to do not see everything the coaches do in practice.

I'm sorry, I do not follow that logic at all, and if I were going to follow it, my gut would tell me to trust what hasn't been seen more than what has been seen. In other words, the fact that the 2 players in question did little to contribute in 2006 just might indicate that they are roster spot players moreso than long term solutions.

Now, I am not saying that is the case. I am saying that until we see them contribute in actual NFL games as opposed to pre-season, that it is premature to think one is the solution at LT when Flo leaves, and the other is a #1 or #2 WR. That's a leap of faith that is far more perplexing than an erroneous assumption that those looking for more evidence think these 2 guys are "chump change."

Take Romo, for example.

None of us saw much of him before last preseason. But I liked what I saw of him and I put a lot of stock into what the coaches were saying about him (e.g., Parcells and Payton).

There were other posters who thought it was foolish to expect anything of Romo. He was, after all, an undrafted free agent. And that status (UFA) was used as evidence that he would amount to no good. And if Romo performed well in preseason, "it's only preseason" was the response. And when the coaches said something good about him, "what do you expect them to say about him?" was the response. Romo was a career 2nd teamer at best, we were told. And all-in-all, being a life-time 2nd teamer would be a wonderful outcome for Romo, we were told, given that he began his NFL life as a lowly free agent.

It would be naive to assume that McQ is destined to be a fine starting LT. It would also be naive to assume that McQ is unlikely to make a quality starting LT.

There are several indications of McQ 's chances of being a long-shot success story. First off, he made the team. The Cowboys preferred McQuistan to both of the players who started at tackle at the end of the previous year. Parcells not only spoke well of McQuistan. Parcells was giddy and glowing about McQuistan.

If McQuistan were a stock, I'd invest in him. His chances are now much better than they were a year ago.

But sure, I'd also diversify. No need to put all of one's eggs in that basket.

 

[burmafrd]

Right on Angus. The COACHES are the ones who seem pleased with McQ, and that matters far more then anything anyone on a blog says. They also do not care where he came from= unlike so many draft "snobs". They have had a full year to watch him in practice ina ddition to the games he plaed pre season last year. I think the fact that we made no move to pick up a single tackle in fa, and letting Fabini go, speaks volumes. Now whether he can actually start and play well in regular season games is another story= but you can bet the staff will find out this year.

 

[iceberg]

Yes that is true, but isnt the perception that better players and only useful players are taken in higher rounds.....?

no. this is what people want to push the argument to.

generally a round 1 pick has a greater chance of success than a round 7 or a FA walk on.

who said "only useful players taken in the higher rounds"?

show me that please.

 

[theebs]

no. this is what people want to push the argument to.

generally a round 1 pick has a greater chance of success than a round 7 or a FA walk on.

who said "only useful players taken in the higher rounds"?

show me that please.

I said perception. I never said anyone said that nor did I quote anyone.

And again I am not the spokesperson for undrafted free agents, I was simply finishing the stat...

 

[jterrell]

What you say is true...

However I doubt the NFL will be kind enough to grant us another 5 first and second round draft picks this year so I'm thinking that some of our "bottom-feeders" had better pan out or we're going to have issues.

Hey, if we can learn to draft in the first four rounds we won't need to rely on undrafted free agents, lol.

Pretty sure we would like to go back and hang a 3rd round draft selection on Romo and tie him up longer for cheaper.

I am hopeful for day 2 guys and undrafted guys every year; its just most don't pan out and the better the team gets the less and less of them make it to the roster.

Hitting on those guys is important obviously; but its also guys you had 7 to 9 chances to draft and did not.
I like Crayton, Austin, Myles and McQuistan but I'd trade all four right now for the 20th pick in this draft.

 

[iceberg]

What you say is true...

However I doubt the NFL will be kind enough to grant us another 5 first and second round draft picks this year so I'm thinking that some of our "bottom-feeders" had better pan out or we're going to have issues.

no one said the bottom rounds wouldn't pan out - did they? no, again this is where the "other side" pushes the issue to and that gets tiresome.

yes some of them better pan out. let's call it 1 out of every 8 do it. reasonable? give it time and let's see what he does. if he does more than a role player, yay-ha we can all be happy. but arguing over potential that you simply can't prove and going as nuts as we have been on it is just getting strange.

generally speaking the greater talent lies in the top rounds.

look where that general statement got us. : )

 

[iceberg]

Hey, if we can learn to draft in the first four rounds we won't need to rely on undrafted free agents, lol.

Pretty sure we would like to go back and hang a 3rd round draft selection on Romo and tie him up longer for cheaper.

I am hopeful for day 2 guys and undrafted guys every year; its just most don't pan out and the better the team gets the less and less of them make it to the roster.

Hitting on those guys is important obviously; but its also guys you had 7 to 9 chances to draft and did not.
I like Crayton, Austin, Myles and McQuistan but I'd trade all four right now for the 20th pick in this draft.

good logial way to look at it. sure maybe they'll hit soon, but till then, let's not act as if critiszing them is such a crime.

 

[iceberg]

I said perception. I never said anyone said that nor did I quote anyone.

And again I am not the spokesperson for undrafted free agents, I was simply finishing the stat...

if no one said it why do you stick it out there and where did this "perception" come from? it has to be based off what *someone* said or the perception could never come around.

 

[burmafrd]

There have been more then a few posts by people saying that SINCE McQ is a 7th rd pick, he will not replace the Hotel. I would say that it is unlikely, but less unlikely then this time last year.

 

[carphalen5150]

I like Crayton, Austin, Myles and McQuistan but I'd trade all four right now for the 20th pick in this draft.

Well played...

 

[iceberg]

There have been more then a few posts by people saying that SINCE McQ is a 7th rd pick, he will not replace the Hotel. I would say that it is unlikely, but less unlikely then this time last year.

show me one that says that flat out. i've not seen it yet and maybe there is. there has to be SOMETHING under all this smoke causing it.

if no one said it flat out, i wonder why people argue like someone did.

 

[theebs]

if no one said it why do you stick it out there and where did this "perception" come from? it has to be based off what *someone* said or the perception could never come around.

dude *** is your problem? That is the essence of the draft and trading..Trying to get the best players. The perception and the setup of the nfl draft or any draft is that the best players are taken in the higher pick or round.

What is your problem? Your trying to start an argument over nothing.

If you think that for the past 40 years the perception hasnt been that drafted players are better than undrafted, well I cant help you or reason with you.