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

[silverbear]

I'm thinking he is another potential goal line option like Barber. Perhaps as the FB.

At UH was he a goal line guy? I honestly don't know.

Houston has never had need of a goal line guy...

 

[theebs]

this thread is nuts

 

[DallasEast]

this thread is nuts

You betcha!

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

It has always amazed me How Questions of this nature are asked. I mean I know Some people are draft gurus but when you have a team, as stacked with Talent and you just don't need alot, all needs were adressed in F.A and the draft, So I would ask , why not get a untility player,loaded with Talent, That will be a project for later? Our Wr corps is Deep, We have a Deep runningback stable, Qb? set, OL ?set (The youngings seem to have something, Time will tell). What else would we use a 4th round pick on?

You may not agree with the Tactic used but That does not mean it's wrong, It just means you don't agree with it.

 

[dargonking999]

You betcha!

gotta love nuts

 

[2233boys]

Actually, it's authoritarian evidence against your argument.

Other teams selected other WRs and Gs ahead of Beekman and Allison, after we picked.

But you're smarter than all of them, as well as the Dallas coaching staff - because you've already had the foresight to deem the Stanback pick a disaster.

You also fail to see that the outliers that you mentioned (Owens, Brady) are the exception to the rule, and are every bit as much evidence why Stanback will be enormously successful as they are otherwise - in short - irrelevent. If TO succeeded, so can Stanback. After all, both were passed over several times.

Try familiarizing yourself with some logical concepts sometime.

Your alternatives were idiotic, and based on the generic scouting reports that you no doubt scarf up while creaming over Allison's measurables. Reading about players from people who may not have ever seen them play is not "scouting". Leave your misinformed opinions and alternatives at the door, little buddy.

I didn't fail to see that, but it shows that teams aren't right. You will defend this pick because you are a homer and Dallas can do no wrong. The guys I mentioned weren't idiotic, just guys Dallas didn't pick, so you don't like them. You are a moron. Go figure, you are defending Stanback as a pick...

 

[iceberg]

It has always amazed me How Questions of this nature are asked. I mean I know Some people are draft gurus but when you have a team, as stacked with Talent and you just don't need alot, all needs were adressed in F.A and the draft, So I would ask , why not get a untility player,loaded with Talent, That will be a project for later? Our Wr corps is Deep, We have a Deep runningback stable, Qb? set, OL ?set (The youngings seem to have something, Time will tell). What else would we use a 4th round pick on?

You may not agree with the Tactic used but That does not mean it's wrong, It just means you don't agree with it.

you speak too much sense in an instant gratification society. people need to see something NOW when the rest of the news is showing the rest of the team or that person just isn't on the team or was a "wasted" pick. when they don't see that they tend to hit extremes in their verbiage, spawning rediculous convo's like the one we had yesterday.

like VA and i's "discussion". could i agree it was a questionable pick?

sure. but that wasn't the debate. the debate at hand was a "wasted" pick and it's far too early to tell that yet - "extremes/instant gratification".

questionable? i can see where someone would say that regardless of who else was looking at that player. but all players when picked likely had several people looking at them also. with stanback it's likely because of the type of player he is people felt he may fall more or "why risk it"? then as others have pointed out, all picks are risks. then as was countered, there are degrees of risk and there'in lies our biggest discussions.

stanback will be fine. we won't cut him cause someone else *will* pick him up so we'll just have to chill out and let it play out.

some people just can't have that and wanna call it today so they can feel some strange sense of accomplishment, i suppose.

 

[VA Cowboy]

like VA and i's "discussion". could i agree it was a questionable pick?

sure. but that wasn't the debate. the debate at hand was a "wasted" pick and it's far too early to tell that yet - "extremes/instant gratification".

All I posted was that it was a questionable selection. I never said anything about it being a wasted pick.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1577420&postcount=91

So you actually agree that it could be labeled as questionable yet still had to argue ad nauseum? omg

I guess some folks just like to argue... I should've known from earlier "discussions" this year.

 

[iceberg]

All I posted was that it was a questionable selection. I never said anything about it being a wasted pick.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1577420&postcount=91

So you actually agree that it could be labeled as questionable yet still had to argue ad nauseum? omg

I guess some folks just like to argue... I should've known from earlier "discussions" this year.

oh yea - you're the poster child for "can't we all just get along"?

face it dude - you like to argue as much as i do - maybe more. no crime. well, unless you try to say you don't then you just look pretty foolish.

and what i was *really* aruging "WITH YOU" was your stupid dive into how my "probaby still think" carter was a good pick when i never did and then you compounded your stupidity with my "silver and blue colored glasses" that defends everything. you were wrong twice and it took much pounding to even get you to think about admitting you were *wrong*.

it's crap-arsed statements like that which spawn day long discussions cause you say it to be cute/clever and self serving and usually cause you like to hear yourself talk - NOT because it was an actual discussion at hand.

which it never was cause you simply made up arguments and "pretended" i said them.

THAT was our argument, homer.

and you whine at others comprehension ability...

let's just move on now. go ahead and get your "shot" in - you know you need to.

 

[2233boys]

All I posted was that it was a questionable selection. I never said anything about it being a wasted pick.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1577420&postcount=91

So you actually agree that it could be labeled as questionable yet still had to argue ad nauseum? omg

I guess some folks just like to argue... I should've known from earlier "discussions" this year.

I think it was a wasted pick, and by the end of the preseason, if he isn't put on the IR, I will be proven right when he is cut.

 

[VA Cowboy]

oh yea - you're the poster child for "can't we all just get along"?

face it dude - you like to argue as much as i do - maybe more. no crime. well, unless you try to say you don't then you just look pretty foolish.

and what i was *really* aruging "WITH YOU" was your stupid dive into how my "probaby still think" carter was a good pick when i never did and then you compounded your stupidity with my "silver and blue colored glasses" that defends everything. you were wrong twice and it took much pounding to even get you to think about admitting you were *wrong*.

it's crap-arsed statements like that which spawn day long discussions cause you say it to be cute/clever and self serving and usually cause you like to hear yourself talk- NOT because it was an actual discussion at hand.

which it never was cause you simply made up arguments and "pretended" i said them.

THAT was our argument, homer.

and you whine at others comprehension ability...

let's just move on now. go ahead and get your "shot" in - you know you need to.

Who likes to hear themselves talk?

Yeah...let's move on, so that 10 pages from now you won't come back and say, "well, I actually agree with him, but I just wanted to listen to myself argue..." :laugh2:

 

[Bleed Blue]

you speak too much sense in an instant gratification society. people need to see something NOW when the rest of the news is showing the rest of the team or that person just isn't on the team or was a "wasted" pick. when they don't see that they tend to hit extremes in their verbiage, spawning rediculous convo's like the one we had yesterday.

like VA and i's "discussion". could i agree it was a questionable pick?

sure. but that wasn't the debate. the debate at hand was a "wasted" pick and it's far too early to tell that yet - "extremes/instant gratification".

questionable? i can see where someone would say that regardless of who else was looking at that player. but all players when picked likely had several people looking at them also. with stanback it's likely because of the type of player he is people felt he may fall more or "why risk it"? then as others have pointed out, all picks are risks. then as was countered, there are degrees of risk and there'in lies our biggest discussions.

stanback will be fine. we won't cut him cause someone else *will* pick him up so we'll just have to chill out and let it play out.

some people just can't have that and wanna call it today so they can feel some strange sense of accomplishment, i suppose.

No accomplishment here. I knew the title maybe somewhat of a push but it was the only way to fire the keyboards to disspell the push and get to the bottom of the real truth. Stanback will be around this year but he still may not make the "Team" as in the active 53 roster. PuP,IR,not active on game day will be his sentence. The linemen have a much easier ride and time to develope. When a new "Weapon" is drafted the clock starts then. Sad but true.

 

[iceberg]

You probably still think Quincy was a great pick just because the Raiders and maybe one other team had him on their board on day one.

Believe it or not, not every pick we make is going to be a good choice.

And as for Stanback, all I've said is that he was a questionable selection in the early 4th. But I'm sure even if we took him the 2nd round you'd be defending the decision simply because some can never see beyond their blue and silver colored glasses. It's interesting how objectivity gets thrown out the window with some folks when it comes to discussing their own team.

so who brought in "carter"? you did.
who said *I* thought he was a great pick? you did.
who said i'd defend the stanback pick in the 2nd? you did.
who says i wear silver and blue glasses and lose objectivity when discussing my own team? you did.

if you're not talking about anything *i've* actually said, then what are you doing if not rambling around to hear yourself talk?

*this* was why we argued yesterday cause you went right into a lot of lies and tried to say *I* was that way when it was just not so.

when you're ready to listen to and address what other people say lemme know. till then no sense in talking to you cause you'll make up both sides of the convo anyway and run with it.

so run. i'm done.

 

[iceberg]

No accomplishment here. I knew the title maybe somewhat of a push but it was the only way to fire the keyboards to disspell the push and get to the bottom of the real truth. Stanback will be around this year but he still may not make the "Team" as in the active 53 roster. PuP,IR,not active on game day will be his sentence. The linemen have a much easier ride and time to develope. When a new "Weapon" is drafted the clock starts then. Sad but true.

yea, wasn't it called a "3 year window"?

and before you cut someone you at least try to see if they can make it on the field. i don't know of too much history where we've put someone on the "to cut list" before the 1st pre-season game due to not being able to practice. can you cite one for us? one example will be fine that fits this scenario.

so, since the clock is ticking - as you say - you must have history to base this off of - who have we cut before due to inablity to practice before our 1st pre-season game? if not cut - who was in "deep danger" of being cut if things didn't turn around dramatically? please provide quotes/articles/links.

or just say you felt like starting a crapstorm - kinda like you already did.

 

[VA Cowboy]

so run. i'm done.

Is that a promise? ray:

 

[Bleed Blue]

yea, wasn't it called a "3 year window"?

and before you cut someone you at least try to see if they can make it on the field. i don't know of too much history where we've put someone on the "to cut list" before the 1st pre-season game due to not being able to practice. can you cite one for us? one example will be fine that fits this scenario.

so, since the clock is ticking - as you say - you must have history to base this off of - who have we cut before due to inablity to practice before our 1st pre-season game? if not cut - who was in "deep danger" of being cut if things didn't turn around dramatically? please provide quotes/articles/links.

or just say you felt like starting a crapstorm - kinda like you already did.

Oh, pipe down. You are running with it again. I didn't mean literally on the "to cut list" before the first preseason game. I ment everyone would be looking with bated eyes to see anything the the new player was doing.look at it like this,Tony Romo got his time to learn with out the "Wolves" wanting to eat him every day. It's all about the profile. By the way "crapstorm"lol! you know you have enjoyed this thread.

 

[iceberg]

Oh, pipe down. You are running with it again. I didn't mean literally on the "to cut list" before the first preseason game. I ment everyone would be looking with bated eyes to see anything the the new player was doing.look at it like this,Tony Romo got his time to learn with out the "Wolves" wanting to eat him every day. It's all about the profile. By the way "crapstorm"lol! you know you have enjoyed this thread.

when you're mix it up with a bunch of turds, it's hard to wipe it all off between posts, so there can be some turd-carry-over. VA can go argue with himself (as he does anyway) and until my next bout of boredom, i'm done talking to him, so his prayers are answered. it's not as if he needed anyone else to argue with anyway the way he makes up both sides...

*in any event* - we all want to see stanback play and yes, it's frustrating that we've not been able to get him on the field yet. but we're only a few weeks into camp and no, his spot isn't in jeapordy at this point. if he *never* sees the field all preseason and we're now to opening day regular season and he's still hurt - we'd have to have made a move by then anyway but we'll figure something out to keep him. as you and others have said.

for the most part it just seemed premature to put stanback on the 'to cut' list like we seemed to have been headed.

 

[dogunwo]

A lot of people are running for cover on this one.

We needed depth at CB, NT, and WR.

All seemed to be missed in this draft.

Thats the reason it was rated so low [D to F] by so many.

We drafted two corners and a WR. Dont start again

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

this thread is nuts

Now with you here, it is guaranteed to be nuts.

I was trying to think who else was as excitable as slushy aka Ice.
When you arrived I finally remembered.

:laugh2:

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

when you're mix it up with a bunch of turds, it's hard to wipe it all off between posts, so there can be some turd-carry-over. VA can go argue with himself (as he does anyway) and until my next bout of boredom, i'm done talking to him, so his prayers are answered. it's not as if he needed anyone else to argue with anyway the way he makes up both sides...

*in any event* - we all want to see stanback play and yes, it's frustrating that we've not been able to get him on the field yet. but we're only a few weeks into camp and no, his spot isn't in jeapordy at this point. if he *never* sees the field all preseason and we're now to opening day regular season and he's still hurt - we'd have to have made a move by then anyway but we'll figure something out to keep him. as you and others have said.

for the most part it just seemed premature to put stanback on the 'to cut' list like we seemed to have been headed.

A poster questioned a pick

Slushy went wild like a young lady at Spring Break

Got off the track

Then he quit

Yes, Slushy blinked
You go home, Slushy. The thing is, i would guess would be in general agreement wit you that Stanback will excell

Then you went off the deep end.
Go home slushy, you blinked first
IT'S NEVER A BAD THING TO QUESTION ANYTHING ANYTIME ANYWHERE -- EVEN A FOURTH-ROUND DRAFT PICK:bang2: HAVEN'T YOU LEARNED THAT? IT'S A FORUM FERGOSHSAKES!!!