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

[ZeroClub]

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.

Draft status (which round or FA) is a lot like a high schooler's score on the ACT.

Both simply represent a predication of one's future success at the next level.

And in April, both are reasonably good predictors.

But come August and September (and later), far better predictors than April's ACT become available:

How is the new student adjusting to the next level?

Are they getting favorable reviews from their coaches/professors?

Did they make the team?

How are they grading out?

And so on ....

 

[iceberg]

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.

i'll let you sooner or later catch up to the fact that I'M one of the ones who've said since day 1 that round 1 talent has a higher chance of success then late rounds or FA's.

my point lately has been to get the pro-mcq crowd to show me who said he COULDN'T make it as a fact, due to his draft status.

i'm pro mcq also. pro all cowboys to be honest. but just because mcq is on our team doesn't mean he's THE diamond in the rough that WILL pan out.

not seen many say it to that extreme either, but the big argument seems to be on the other side.

so - yes. thank you but i fully realize a round 1 talent has a great chance of success than a 7th rounder or FA. as i've said several times.

so no idea where you got this idea from.

 

[iceberg]

Draft status (which round or FA) is a lot like a high schooler's score on the ACT.

Both simply represent a predication of one's future success at the next level.

And in April, both are reasonably good predictors.

But come August and September (and later), far better predictors than April's ACT become available:

How is the new student adjusting to the next level?

Are they getting favorable reviews from their coaches/professors?

Did they make the team?

How are they grading out?

And so on ....

i'm not going to get into the blow by blow one offs and how we need to watch out for them. i said GENERALLY and GENERALLY that's true.

 

[theebs]

i'll let you sooner or later catch up to the fact that I'M one of the ones who've said since day 1 that round 1 talent has a higher chance of success then late rounds or FA's.

my point lately has been to get the pro-mcq crowd to show me who said he COULDN'T make it as a fact, due to his draft status.

i'm pro mcq also. pro all cowboys to be honest. but just because mcq is on our team doesn't mean he's THE diamond in the rough that WILL pan out.

not seen many say it to that extreme either, but the big argument seems to be on the other side.

so - yes. thank you but i fully realize a round 1 talent has a great chance of success than a 7th rounder or FA. as i've said several times.

so no idea where you got this idea from.

again what are you talking about. Please find a post where I declared mcquistan anything? LOL people just argue here for the sake of arguing.

All I have done in this thread is finish winicki's stat because I have the ourlads guide also, and pointed out that the stats suprised me.

Now I have to listen to crap from you? FOr what, I dont even know what you are arguing about or yelling at me about? I am not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

Ridiculous. Whatever you want to think it, think it. I have no idea what your take on undrafted players is? I was simply talking about stats, so go and make up an imaginary argument with someone else.

 

[iceberg]

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.

again what are you talking about. Please find a post where I declared mcquistan anything? LOL people just argue here for the sake of arguing.

All I have done in this thread is finish winicki's stat because I have the ourlads guide also, and pointed out that the stats suprised me.

Now I have to listen to crap from you? FOr what, I dont even know what you are arguing about or yelling at me about? I am not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

Ridiculous. Whatever you want to think it, think it. I have no idea what your take on undrafted players is? I was simply talking about stats, so go and make up an imaginary argument with someone else.

asking me what my problem is "is" starting an argument. so don't act like mr innocent here, you're knee deep in the muck also.

 

[masomenos]

Draft status (which round or FA) is a lot like a high schooler's score on the ACT.

Both simply represent a predication of one's future success at the next level.

And in April, both are reasonably good predictors.

But come August and September (and later), far better predictors than April's ACT become available:

How is the new student adjusting to the next level?

Are they getting favorable reviews from their coaches/professors?

Did they make the team?

How are they grading out?

And so on ....

Interesting comparison but I would say that it's more like this. The students with higher ACT scores (and GPAs) get into better schools (which is akin to gettin drafted higher). Those students who were accepted by MIT, Brown, etc are going to have more earning potential than the students who were accepted by UTEP and Marshall. Sure one of the UTEP students may be the next Bill Gates, but it's more likely that he's coming from MIT.

Its the same way before the draft, players production and combine results are taken into account (like an ACT score) and they are drafted based on how good of a prospect they are. The better prospects get drafted higher (getting into better schools) and ultimately have a better chance at success, just like the students at top colleges.

You're right that other things should be considered though, like how they're adjusting to the new level. But things like that can't be taken alone either, otherwise you'd give up on players like Drew Brees and you would think Cadillac Williams was destined to be one of the greats. Also, making the team isn't necesarrily a HUGE thing...like I said, McQuistan wasn't exactly competing against good players in order to make the bottom of the roster. And how has he been graded out by the coaches? Well all the coaches are new now, maybe he was given a little leway because he was a Parcells project. I think all the things you brought up should be considered when evaluating a player, but they definitely aren't clear cut things.

 

[Vintage]

Interesting comparison but I would say that it's more like this. The students with higher ACT scores (and GPAs) get into better schools (which is akin to gettin drafted higher). Those students who were accepted by MIT, Brown, etc are going to have more earning potential than the students who were accepted by UTEP and Marshall. Sure one of the UTEP students may be the next Bill Gates, but it's more likely that he's coming from MIT.

Its the same way before the draft, players production and combine results are taken into account (like an ACT score) and they are drafted based on how good of a prospect they are. The better prospects get drafted higher (getting into better schools) and ultimately have a better chance at success, just like the students at top colleges.

You're right that other things should be considered though, like how they're adjusting to the new level. But things like that can't be taken alone either, otherwise you'd give up on players like Drew Brees and you would think Cadillac Williams was destined to be one of the greats. Also, making the team isn't necesarrily a HUGE thing...like I said, McQuistan wasn't exactly competing against good players in order to make the bottom of the roster. And how has he been graded out by the coaches? Well all the coaches are new now, maybe he was given a little leway because he was a Parcells project. I think all the things you brought up should be considered when evaluating a player, but they definitely aren't clear cut things.

Exactly.

Parcells made McQ one of his projects much like he did Petitti. I think some of the luster comes from that.

I think some think bec. of the success we've had with players like Romo, Reeves, Crayton, the "potential" of Miles and Hurd.....people assume the trend will continue.

And I think there's just a general hoping McQ is the answer bec. we'd get him at a big time position for little cost and resources.

Odds are against us. But if we struck gold once or twice or thrice, why not more?

---------

For the record, I think we need to draft an OT on day one. If McQ makes the team and develops into something other than a backup - great. Its a luxury to have too many LT's.

But as of now, we don't have that luxury. And if we are banking on McQ being the answer....well....it will be awhile before we get that elusive playoff win we are craving for.

 

[iceberg]

Exactly.

Parcells made McQ one of his projects much like he did Petitti. I think some of the luster comes from that.

I think some think bec. of the success we've had with players like Romo, Reeves, Crayton, the "potential" of Miles and Hurd.....people assume the trend will continue.

And I think there's just a general hoping McQ is the answer bec. we'd get him at a big time position for little cost and resources.

Odds are against us. But if we struck gold once or twice or thrice, why not more?

---------

For the record, I think we need to draft an OT on day one. If McQ makes the team and develops into something other than a backup - great. Its a luxury to have too many LT's.

But as of now, we don't have that luxury. And if we are banking on McQ being the answer....well....it will be awhile before we get that elusive playoff win we are craving for.

very reasonable statement and way to look at it.

 

[masomenos]

But as of now, we don't have that luxury. And if we are banking on McQ being the answer....well....it will be awhile before we get that elusive playoff win we are craving for.

Agreed.

 

[Hostile]

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.

Some did put stock in him. Some didn't. It doesn't make those who wanted to see more wrong. It means they wanted more. That's all. Nothing nefarious or subversive about that.

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.

Out of curiosity, why is this true when the statement above about those who doubted Romo paints them as silly for doubting what the coaches said and wanting to see more? Isn't this still only about seeing more?

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.

Guys make the team every year, and are gone the next. Just because McQ made the team in 2006 doesn't mean anything. Petitti made the team in 2005. Parcells said of Petitti, "I'll die before I let you fail." He started the man 16 games whereas McQ was only active for 1 game and didn't play. I consider that giddy and glowing.

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

That's cool. I can't say I would until I see more. In stocks you'd either go boom or bust with moves of that little evidence. Mine would be seen as the more steady, wait for some signs investing. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

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

Careful, some people might accuse you of thinking the man is "chump change."

 

[theebs]

asking me what my problem is "is" starting an argument. so don't act like mr innocent here, you're knee deep in the muck also.

you are the one coming after me for no reason, for me to show YOU who said what.

I am innocent, I didnt even know there was an argument going on until you got all pushy, rude and defensive.

Give it a rest. I am in no muck. I havent even given an opinion on mcquistan or austin...

I have lost alot of respect for you bro. So at this point I will say this, go pick an argument over nothing with someone who cares, Cause I sure dont.

 

[Angus]

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."

First, as you state the case, it is illogical, but you incorrectly stated the case - at least, as far as I am concerned. I am hopeful and inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to reserve players in whom the coaches have expressed confidence, but I have never maintained that either McQuistan or Austin is convincingly of intrinsic value as a player for years to come, or ready to take over.

The only thing I am complaining about is the tendency of some to dismiss as inconsequential the uncertain value of a player on the squad without much playing time solely on the basis of his previous, lowly draft status. Once he is on the squad his previous draft status should be irrelevant (low or high).

 

[burmafrd]

Trying to compare 2005 to 2006 is really stretching it as regards tackles. The Hotel was back and we had Colombo so McQ not playing much makes sense. BY the way Sparano ALSO was very pleased with McQ, AND there were several teams interested in McQ which was why he was never put on the practice squad. So it was not just BP who liked him.

 

[Angus]

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.

Why not throw Romo in there too? Talk to the Giants. They will probably take you up on that deal. Even without Romo.

 

[ZeroClub]

Some did put stock in him. Some didn't. It doesn't make those who wanted to see more wrong. It means they wanted more. That's all. Nothing nefarious or subversive about that.

Out of curiosity, why is this true when the statement above about those who doubted Romo paints them as silly for doubting what the coaches said and wanting to see more? Isn't this still only about seeing more?

Oh, IMO, you are tweaking things a bit here in an attempt to gain rhetorical advantage.

For the record, I do not consider reasonable people to be unreasonable.

I do not think that people who were not wrong, were in fact wrong.

But I do believe that people who were wrong, were wrong.

And that they were largely wrong because they allowed themselves to be so blinded by Romo's draft status that they were unable to trust their own eyes and ears.

This doesn't mean that these people were nefarious or subversive. It just means that they got it wrong, most likely because they weren't paying attention to the relevant variables. They were, in many cases, preoccupied by what amounts to an ACT score that was 3 or 4 years old.

That's cool. I can't say I would until I see more. In stocks you'd either go boom or bust with moves of that little evidence. Mine would be seen as the more steady, wait for some signs investing. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

You won't make much of a return investing only in CDs or finally concluding today "I've seen enough. I think this Terrence Newman kid is going to be pretty good."

 

[masomenos]

You won't make much of a return investing only in CDs or finally concluding today "I've seen enough. I think this Terrence Newman kid is going to be pretty good."

I think that may be the other extreme in the investing analogy. While McQuistan is virtually completely unknown, Newman is a well proven commodity. Really the best bet would be to invest in someone like Tony Romo or even Bobby Carpenter. This investing analogy is really kind of interesting, because I'm sure while you would be willing to invest in McQuistan, you wouldn't invest a ton in him. Sure, pour some money into a boom/bust type stock and you have the potential of making a lot of money, but put too much into it then the risk is too high and isn't in proportion with the reward.

It's really the same thing with NFL players. Sure we can keep "investing" in McQ by giving him a roster spot, but like you said, we do need to diversify and balance out the risk/reward projection of out "portfolio".

 

[Hostile]

First, as you state the case, it is illogical, but you incorrectly stated the case - at least, as far as I am concerned. I am hopeful and inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to reserve players in whom the coaches have expressed confidence, but I have never maintained that either McQuistan or Austin is convincingly of intrinsic value as a player for years to come, or ready to take over.

But Angus, that is the stated intent of the thread as evidenced by the author's first post. Therefore, you agree with me by this statement.

The only thing I am complaining about is the tendency of some to dismiss as inconsequential the uncertain value of a player on the squad without much playing time solely on the basis of his previous, lowly draft status. Once he is on the squad his previous draft status should be irrelevant (low or high).

Point of fact, I did not do this. I did not bring up their draft status. I brought up how much playing time they got (McQ, active for 1 game. Austin, not used until Thompson went down for the year, no catches in the offense). I could give a crap where they got drafted. It is very hard for me to state McQ is obviously the long term answer at LT once Flo is gone when we have no evidence to support this other than hope. Or that Austin is a #1 or #2 WR in the making when there is no evidence to support this other than hope.

 

[iceberg]

you are the one coming after me for no reason, for me to show YOU who said what.

I am innocent, I didnt even know there was an argument going on until you got all pushy, rude and defensive.

Give it a rest. I am in no muck. I havent even given an opinion on mcquistan or austin...

I have lost alot of respect for you bro. So at this point I will say this, go pick an argument over nothing with someone who cares, Cause I sure dont.

when you ask me what the *** my problem is, that's not asking for civil recourse, that's being knee deep in the muck of an argument just as much as the rest of us.

mr innocent.

 

[theebs]

when you ask me what the *** my problem is, that's not asking for civil recourse, that's being knee deep in the muck of an argument just as much as the rest of us.

mr innocent.

Do me a favor then, put me on ignore or dont talk to me. I dont feel like talking to people who make up imaginary arguments and then act like jerks.

I said that to you because I didnt know what you were talking about, still dont and dont understand all the contempt.

So just ignore me.

 

[iceberg]

Do me a favor then, put me on ignore or dont talk to me. I dont feel like talking to people who make up imaginary arguments and then act like jerks.

I said that to you because I didnt know what you were talking about, still dont and dont understand all the contempt.

So just ignore me.

you're the one exersizing your civil rights. you wanna talk trash to me, don't get upset if i fire back. you wanna ignore me, quit replying, telling me how stupid i am while all the while proclaiming your own innocence in the "argument".

you wanna ignore me mr clean, ignore me. but you're a bigger fool than i thought if you really believe i'm going to let you tell me what to do.