Why in the heck would we spend a 4th on a player that won't even make the team?

[dargonking999]

This guy's a phony.

ever heard of a sucker punch?

 

[iceberg]

ever heard of a sucker punch?

bowling 4 soup song. : )

 

[Doomsday101]

yea, some people need "instant gratification" i suppose.

I can understand someone saying it is a questionable pick, I don't agree that it was a bad pick as 2233boys said. My only concern at this stage is was it a good pick and the only way any of us will know is once Stanback gets out on the field.

 

[VA Cowboy]

If you think about it, each and every pick is a questionable pick. Not even the first pick of the draft is a sure thing...

While it's true that the ultimate performance of a draftee is in question, that's not what people are referring to when they talk about a "questionable pick".

For example, no one can definitively say for sure that Calvin Johnson will be a great player. But I think very few, if any, will say drafting him in the top 5 was questionable.

 

[VA Cowboy]

I can understand someone saying it is a questionable pick, I don't agree that it was a bad pick as 2233boys said. My only concern at this stage is was it a good pick and the only way any of us will know is once Stanback gets out on the field.

I totally agree.

 

[Doomsday101]

I totally agree.

Evidently Dallas was not going to risk losing him and we had no pick in the 5th. So we take him in the 4th. The team must have felt he would not last to our 6th rd pick.

 

[Dodger12]

It was a 4th round pick, that was going to be selected a few picks later b the jags. He was drafted injured knowing he was going to be a project and not a big contributer if one at all.

Stanback wasn't drafted to be a "project", nor sit out TC. Many here, as well as those covering the Cowboys have their unofficial Stanback watch going because, while everyone knew he was injured, we all thought that he'd at least be able ready for TC and to participate in practice.

I'll give Ireland the benefit of the doubt and even if Stanback can't cut it in the NFL, I'll still be an Ireland fan. But lets not close our eyes and be defensive or offended because some choose to raise an eyebrow over the pick. Sooner or later, this guy is going to take someone's roster spot; I just hope he earns it based on his play (in practice), not his potential.

 

[VA Cowboy]

ask me a direct question, i'll give you a direct answer, holmes.

Ok...this should be good.

Why is it ok for you to question certain picks but not ok for anyone else to do so?

 

[Doomsday101]

Stanback wasn't drafted to be a "project", nor sit out TC. Many here, as well as those covering the Cowboys have their unofficial Stanback watch going because, while everyone knew he was injured, we all thought that he'd at least be able ready for TC and to participate in practice.

I'll give Ireland the benefit of the doubt and even if Stanback can't cut it in the NFL, I'll still be an Ireland fan. But lets not close our eyes and be defensive or offended because some choose to raise an eyebrow over the pick. Sooner or later, this guy is going to take someone's roster spot; I just hope he earns it based on his play (in practice), not his potential.

Dallas could alway put him on the PUP list if he can't go this season.

 

[eduncan22]

for those who have forgotten ....

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86719

 

[Yeagermeister]

for those who have forgotten ....

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86719

When he does play and plays well will you avoid this the same way you do Dallas East?

 

[iceberg]

Ok...this should be good.

Why is it ok for you to question certain picks but not ok for anyone else to do so?

first of all, define "ok". nevermind. you'd muck that up and ask me an irrelevant question then whine at me for not being direct. i'll take "ok" at face value in this instance.

do i do it? probably. do you? damn skippy. human nature? i guess we could all sit around and whine at each other for breathing and occasional body part leaking or getting rid of last nights dinner. it happens and we all do it.

we all see things from our own perspective and i suppose try to understand through our own built in translater. in the end oddly enough we'll find several groups to choose from.

group 1 - they agree on topic a
group 2 - they don't agree on topic a

group 1 and 2 argue about things. it gets noted and remembered for later use. unless you're VA then you just pull whatever out of your ta-haha and *say* someone said something - but that's topic c.

group 1 now splits and group 1a agrees on topicb and group 1b doesn't.
group 2 now splits and group 2a agrees on topicb and group 2b doesn't.

recombine groups based on topic at hand.

most can realize we just from topic to topic and can and will change viewpoints along the way. why? it's how we discuss things i would imagine. no one is perfect and most in here can get pretty emotional.

is it OK for someone to rag on draft pick b cause they hate it then rag on someone who hates draft pick Q? in a strict sense no but we seldom live on the edge and in that strict sense. most people try to work it out and not dwell on the extremes.

unless you're topic c where the topic was how did carter get into the discussion and please admit you're wrong comes in to play with someone who's in group"W t f" in which case every topic is an argument.

is it "right" - in a 100% strict sense, no.

do we all do it? i'd say a vast majority will argue a point or not based on their own experiences and not every situation is the same. was i ragging on *not* drafting an OL? yes. was i ragging on the people we did draft? no. made a lot of jokes at fasano's expense cause it was easy enough to do and use him for indirect shots at parcells.

is that right?

no but we all do it as a form of getting our thoughts out here or expressing emotional stances at the time.

saying FRIGFRAG WE DIDN'T DRAFT AN OL!!!! isn't "in a strict sense" the same thing as "stanback was a wasted pick" said so early on.

what do they have in common.

1. both are reviewing who we drafted.

how are they different.
1. one wants a particular position drafted and doesn't get it and is mad "at the draft" not the player picked as it's recognized as a seperate subject.
2. one talks about not giving a player a chance early on. how he "must show something" to earn a job (what a concept on it's own, huh?) and shows dire needs for player in question to step it up or be gone.

so one is talking position and the other player - so it is the "same" thing in "ragging on draft picks?" well in the sense they were both drafted - yes. in what we're referring to after the fact, no.

if i would have said last year "that carpenter better show something or he's gone!" by the 2nd week of training camp it would be closer to the "same thing" hypocracy would be spawned from. but even then i need to whine at skyler green right - not carp.

maybe i did say the player sucked and would never make the team last year by week 2 but i don't think so and that alone already makes where we're headed *after the draft* different directions in discussion.

so if i said draft player "c" sucks by week 2 of last year then we have apples and apples here but since i didn't say that - it's not the same thing OTHER than we're talking about recent drafts and picks and people confuse it all after that.

and *IF* i would have said "player C sucks by week 2" and it was a wasted pick then YES it would be wrong to yell at someone for saying the same thing now.

but as you can see, that's not what happened, just you taking things off on some carter track.

now - care to explain why you went cliche happy on me and were wrong on all accounts?
1) i didn't like the carter pick so saying "probably still think" makes you WRONG despite your clever placement of "probably". and i also don't see our team through rose colored glasses defending every move or we WOULDN'T FREAKING BE HERE RAGGING ON ME FOR RAGGING ON OUR LACK OF OL FOCUS now would we?

wrong again, buckweat.

now let's see you man up and admit you were just trying to get cute, not accurate.

 

[joseephuss]

Stanback wasn't drafted to be a "project", nor sit out TC. Many here, as well as those covering the Cowboys have their unofficial Stanback watch going because, while everyone knew he was injured, we all thought that he'd at least be able ready for TC and to participate in practice.

I'll give Ireland the benefit of the doubt and even if Stanback can't cut it in the NFL, I'll still be an Ireland fan. But lets not close our eyes and be defensive or offended because some choose to raise an eyebrow over the pick. Sooner or later, this guy is going to take someone's roster spot; I just hope he earns it based on his play (in practice), not his potential.

Yes, he was drafted as a project. He is changing from a college QB to an NFL receiver. That is a project. It takes most college receivers time to make the jump to NFL receiver. It will take Stanback longer if he does make it. Plus he was recovering from injury. He was and is very much a project.

He is similar and different than Skyler Green from last year. Green was somewhat a project as a receiver. He was not going to be forced into playing time as a wide out, but the coaches hoped that in a few years he would be a very good contributor at receiver. Green was looked at as immediate return guy. Not just the punt returner and kick returner, but a possible force at both spots.

I agree that it is a questionable pick. There could have been a few other spots that Dallas could have gone with. I don't think there were any can't miss or must have players at that spot. Anyone else Dallas could have picked would probably also be fighting to make the team. Stanback was questionable and most anybody else available at that pick would also be questionable. Maybe he starts to practice and proves something. Maybe he doesn't practice and goes on PUP or IR. Maybe he practices and shows himself to be horrible and gets cut. I am eager to see what happens.

Bradie James was drafted in the 4th round of 2003. He really did nothing his first year. Several were not pleased with him the latter portion of last season.

Bruce Thornton was drafted in the 4th round of 2004. Gone.

Marion Barber III was drafted in the 4th round of 2005. Many wanted him cut after the pre-season game against Seattle. He suffered early injuries and did not look great during training camp and pre-season. Parcells seemed to dog him out frequently. Now people clamor for him to get more playing time.

 

[jazzcat22]

Umm Who said Urban was going to make the team

and next time, please spell check your title

I don't think Rector makes the team either.

 

[2233boys]

And yet, he was passed over for about 30 more picks, until Minnesota picked him in the 5th. 3 other WRs were taken ahead of Allison, after Stanback.

But you liked Allison....so that's that I guess.


DeOssie was intriguing, I'll give you taht. At that point, did we need LBs more than WRs?

Beekman was passed over by two teams looking for guards after Stanback was taken.

But you know best, I suppose. Those other teams, and their countless hours and dollars spent on scouting, meetings, research - they can't hold a candle to 2233boy's couch evaluation, can they? I mean, you poured over countless generic scouting reports and read a few combine reports online - you're certainly more qualified than the scouts for the Cowboys, Buccaneers, Packers, Lions, Panthers and Titans, aren't ya Big Fella?


I didn't say anything about Stanback being a great pick - just asked you to offer alternatives instead of your incessant *****ing and moaning about all the homers here (as an aside - you reek of someone who's only purpose is to ***** and moan and trot out the same generic response to everyone, regardless of their stance or viewpoint - so big ups on that, genius...).

The alternatives you offered make no sense. That's not my problem.

Maybe think before posting next time. It's never done me wrong.

My alternatives made no sense. What are you ********???

You comment that Allison slide to the 5th as evidence and teams passed on some of the other players I mentioned as evidence. Teams do that stuff every year. TO was a 3rd round pick, Brady a 2nd day pick, Montana a 2nd rounder, Emmitt Smith was the second back taken in his draft. These may be extreme examples, but it does show that your argument is about as worthless as tits on a nun...

 

[2233boys]

What is even funnier is how you have developed a spiel about Stanback being a crap pick when what you really want to come out and say is "I really wanted us to take Player X and I've never heard of Stanback and Mel Kiper said he was a bad pick."

It wasn't even about that. It was about reaching for a project. It was all about making a bad choice there with that pick...

But hey you know what was on my mind.

 

[VA Cowboy]

first of all, define "ok". nevermind. you'd muck that up and ask me an irrelevant question then whine at me for not being direct. i'll take "ok" at face value in this instance.

That's so big of you to take it at "face value" only after contriving some type of erroneous hypothetical you made up in your mind.

Typical icehole...er...berg.

do i do it? probably. do you? damn skippy. human nature? i guess we could all sit around and whine at each other for breathing and occasional body part leaking or getting rid of last nights dinner. it happens and we all do it.

Actually there's no "probably" to it...but at least you somewhat owned up to it.

1) i didn't like the carter pick so saying "probably still think" makes you WRONG despite your clever placement of "probably".

Yeah, I acknowledged this a couple of pages back, but someone kept going off on his little tangent beating it into the ground.

i also don't see our team through rose colored glasses defending every move or we WOULDN'T FREAKING BE HERE RAGGING ON ME FOR RAGGING ON OUR LACK OF OL FOCUS now would we?

Good to hear.

The way you were practically berating anyone in this thread for even daring to question the selection of a 4th rounder, I naturally assumed you never questioned any pick before, thereby making you a hypocrite. Hence the QC comment which you ran with.

Seeing now, how you in fact don't wear rose colored glasses and have out right questioned previous draft picks, I can only assume you'll understand when others do the exact same thing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are wee really complaining about a 4th draft pick that hasnt been cut yet who in all likely hood will either be our last receiver or on the IR even before weve had a chance to see how this unfolds?

 

[iceberg]

That's so big of you to take it at "face value" only after contriving some type of erroneous hypothetical you made up in your mind.

you mean like
"probably still think carter was a good pick"
or
"defend stanback anywhere he's drafted cause you have silver and blue colored glasses" (indirect quote but you know what i mean.

you'd NEVER just go off to some erroneous hypothetical YOu made up would you? yet, i'm the hypocrite even after i show you (2) back to back things you whine at me for.

The way you were practically berating anyone in this thread for even daring to question the selection of a 4th rounder, I naturally assumed you never questioned any pick before, thereby making you a hypocrite. Hence the QC comment which you ran with.

Seeing now, how you in fact don't wear rose colored glasses and have out right questioned previous draft picks, I can only assume you'll understand when others do the exact same thing.

you miss the rest of my post where i clearly explained my saying we need to draft OL and getting mad about that IS NOT the same thing as saying Player X won't make it and was a wasted pick prematurely?

ok - you keep making crap up, i'm gonna go grout my tile.

 

[iceberg]

Are wee really complaining about a 4th draft pick that hasnt been cut yet who in all likely hood will either be our last receiver or on the IR even before weve had a chance to see how this unfolds?

i'm not really sure what we're doing at this point but i'm sure it's pretty stupid just the same.