Ryan Mallett Life and Career Discussion

[Phragle]

He isn't dead and neither is his Patriots career, but the idea or hope that he'd be moved for a valuable asset seem to be. You could argue that the idea was dead from the beginning because Brady wouldn't let him on the field, but at the time I think most of us thought he'd be an investment. A player with first round talent and some baggage that they could shine up and sell later. Well it's three years later and he's still here. He's not much shinier - or possibly less if you've forgotten the talent - his contract is expiring, he's proven nothing on the field, and his replacement was drafted Saturday with a high pick.
 
Looking back, was this a good pick? Was this a good idea? Should they have tried harder to get him on the field or to trade him? Did fans invent this potential trade idea? When he does get to play somewhere in 2015 will his play affect your opinion on him as a draft pick?
 
(Quick reminder - don't feed the trolls.)

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Part of the value that people should consider is that a minimum salary backup saves $1-$3 mil over a veteran version.   That's money that buys real value in other places, even if he never sets foot on the field.
 
Overall, I think Pats have been good enough at UDFA (and bad enough at mid-late round picks) that I conclude opportunity cost is relatively low in taking Mallett.  But I realize if we project the 'best case' selection instead of him one can come to a different conclusion, too

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Someone put it best in the other thread, but he was never more than an insurance policy. I don't think its any accident that Bledsoe had years where we had 4 qb's on the roster and Brady has seen most years with only 2 qb's on the roster. The quality of Brady simply doesn't allow you, nor do you want, to have to determine what you have in your backup. Once Mallet proved to the coaches he was sufficient, Hoyer and others became unnecessary. Mallet is approaching the end of the rookie deal. There is one guy out there that might value him higher than another team, BoB, but honestly if he gives up greater value than a team who does not have 2+ years of first hand practice knowledge, he's just bidding against himself. 
 
Cassel, unlike Mallet, was forced to prove his value in a season where Brady was injured, barring that and he would have had less value than Mallet, since he had less of a college starting resume than Mallet. We struck backup QB gold in an expiring rookie deal with Cassel, but we had to tag him just to maintain the asset so we could get something for him and took a huge risk if we didn't work out a deal.
 
We don't have a QB controversy, which is specifically why a backup on an expiring rookie deal has little trade value, barring some Pats friendly extension, or a coach with some intimate knowledge of his practice performance the last few years.
 
Plus you have to figure the Matt Flynn fiasco hasn't helped the "overpay for backup QB" market. He had a 6 touchdown game, struck gold, and sucked. Doesn't play well for teams taking a chance on an unproven Mallet.

 

[radsoxfan]

It's hard to know if Mallet is actually any good, so I don't think we can say if it was a "good" pick or not yet. I never bought the idea that the point of drafting Mallet was to trade him for a higher pick than they used to draft him though. 
 
But to the larger question of drafting a QB in the 3rd round with Brady clearly locked in as the QB for the forseeable future at the time of the pick..... it was insurance.  It's always better if you don't have to use your insurance policy.  But just because the Pats haven't had to use their insurance (knock on wood), that doesn't make it a bad idea to buy insurance. 
 
It was always unlikely Mallet was going to be the QB of the future barring a premature end to Brady's career.  He was picked to be a cheap backup who might turn out to be better than a random journeyman.  That's it.  The Garoppolo pick is different, because there actually is a good chance BB wants him to be the Patriots QB in 4 or 5 years. 
 
edit: Beaten to it a bit by PMB.  

 

[Phragle]

Part of the value that people should consider is that a minimum salary backup saves $1-$3 mil over a veteran version.   That's money that buys real value in other places, even if he never sets foot on the field.

 
But is that worth it for sure? That's 1-2% of the salary cap saved over a veteran backup. It depends on the team and the cap situtation, but I wouldn't always prefer a rookie backup at the third round cost.
 
If you could sell a third round pick for 2 Million in cap space you'd have some buyers.
 

It's hard to know if Mallet is actually any good, so I don't think we can say if it was a "good" pick or not yet.

 
I know. That's why I asked if his eventual performance will affect your opinion. It will probably affect mine.
 

I never bought the idea that the point of drafting Mallet was to trade him for a higher pick than they used to draft him though.

 
Did you buy that it was part of it in addition to filling the backup role? Cause that's what I meant. They did have Hoyer though.
 

The Garoppolo pick is different, because there actually is a good chance BB wants him to be the Patriots QB in 4 or 5 years.

 
This isn't about Garoppolo. This thread is here because Mallett is still here.

 

[Phragle]

Looking back, was this a good pick? Was this a good idea?

 
If the idea was to get a good cheap backup that you could groom for 2-3 years then sell for a profit, it was a good pick and idea. If he was picked only as an insurance policy, I think they overpaid.
 

Should they have tried harder to get him on the field or to trade him?

 
If that was the plan, yes. The only completion he threw was at the end of a 38 point win vs the Rams in 2012. I think you have to get him more exposure than that. 
 

Did fans invent this potential trade idea?

 
No idea.
 

When he does get to play somewhere in 2015 will his play affect your opinion on him as a draft pick?

 
Yes. 

 

[Shelterdog]

It's obviously hard to tell because we don't know how good he is.  I've got to assume he's at least halfway decent--he was good enough to beat Hoyer out in the 2012 pre-season, and if he sucks you'd assume he would have gotten cut like o'Connell.    
 
Assuming he's no worse than a guy like Hoyer, then yes, I think he's a good pick: you need a second QB who's good enough that the team doesn't completely shit itself if Tom gets hurt, having a guy on a rookie contract saves you a million bucks a year under the cap.
 
Furthermore, we grossly overestimate how valuable third round picks are.  They're unbelievable when you hit on them but overtime there's a sixty to seventy percent change the positional player you would have drafted is going to suck.  This holds true for Mallet's draft class--if you look at the ten guys picked after Mallet Casey is a total stud,  Culliver and Foster are nice enough and the other seven guys (Moffit, Rackley, Pettis, Hankerson, Van Dyke, Brown and Jerngian) are garbage.

 

[lithos2003]

 
But is that worth it for sure? That's 1-2% of the salary cap saved over a veteran backup. It depends on the team and the cap situtation, but I wouldn't always prefer a rookie backup at the third round cost.
 
If you could sell a third round pick for 2 Million in cap space you'd have some buyers.
 

I think that's a bit disingenuous though.. you're talking 2 million in cap space per year for the time he's here, not just 2 million for one year.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
I know. That's why I asked if his eventual performance will affect your opinion. It will probably affect mine.

 
Mallett's future performance will affect my opinion of how good of a pick they made.  If he turns out to be a quality starter, even if it's not for the Patriots, then it was a better pick.  It means they bought better insurance, even if they didn't have to use it. 
 
 

 
Did you buy that it was part of it in addition to filling the backup role? Cause that's what I meant. They did have Hoyer though.
 

 
Like I said, I never bought into the idea that building Mallett up and trading him for a 2nd or 1st rounder was a major (or even minor) part of the decision to draft him. Too hard to predict what his value would be a few years in the future.  And it's really not that common to trade unproven players for high picks. 
 
 

 
This isn't about Garoppolo. This thread is here because Mallett is still here.
 

 
 
So if the thread is about Mallett, we can't include a one liner about the Pat's most recent QB pick to illustrate how Mallett's selection was different?  Ok.... 

 

[caesarbear]

I don't think the groom for trade angle was ever realistic. That was a fabrication by pundits trying to understand why the Pats would spend a high 2/3 pick on a clipboard holder. I also don't see realistic explanations today with Garoppolo as groom for eventual starter... 4 or more years from now. Certainly QB is the most important role on the team but spending high picks for players that never take the field when you can find serviceable and even talented players with 7th round picks or free agency doesn't translate to any kind of consideration of value. Mallett was not a pick for value. Nor is Garoppolo. They are non-commodities and just clipboard holders to every one else but the Patriots.
 
Now as to what value they have to Belichick and the team rather than NFL fans, draftniks and opposing GMs might be different, but we can only speculate. My speculation is that these guys are a way to keep a fire under Brady, that Brady has a better camp when he's got a cocky, talented competitor.

 

[Phragle]

I think that's a bit disingenuous though.. you're talking 2 million in cap space per year for the time he's here, not just 2 million for one year.

 
Good point but we're actually both wrong. You would have to pay the 2M annually over the life of the hypothetical backup's contract - 4 years, but after that you could extend the hypothetical player without the 2M. I think you'd still sell some picks. There are a lot of teams that need picks more than cap space - TB, OAK, CLE, JAX. This team just isn't one of them. A large part of that is because of the dead money they have against the cap.
 
The point is the cap is pretty huge, you can be a successful team with a highly paid veteran backup, a highly picked backup, or a shitty cheap backup, and every team has a finite amount of assests. Whether you're using the draft assets or the cap space assets it doesn't matter.
 

Like I said, I never bought into the idea that building Mallett up and trading him for a 2nd or 1st rounder was a major (or even minor) part of the decision to draft him. Too hard to predict what his value would be a few years in the future.  And it's really not that common to trade unproven players for high picks.

 
You didn't say that. You said "I never bought the idea that the point of drafting Mallet was to trade him for a higher pick than they used to draft him though." That tells me you didn't think the entire point of the pick was to trade him. We agree on that, but that doesn't tell me you don't think any part of the pick was as an investment, which is what I asked.
 

So if the thread is about Mallett, we can't include a one liner about the Pat's most recent QB pick to illustrate how Mallett's selection was different?  Ok....

 
Right. I'm trying to avoid the Garoppolo snowball.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Mallett was an insurance policy.
I don't think the Patriots ever really thought they would groom him for trade, I think they thought he was a good guy to have in case Brady got hurt, while saving money.
Look at this year's QB FA class as an example, there aren't many good veteran backups, and most of those want to go to teams with no starter or bad starters so they can get a shot to play.
The few who do settle for backup roles tend to be older and cost more. Jon Kitna is an ok veteran backup, he makes $3.1M a year.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

Regarding Mallett as insurance, then why him and why not another QB?

 

[caesarbear]

But don't the Pats have a record of finding serviceable QBs with low picks and free agency. Why pay a high pick for an insurance policy. It's not like Mallet was going to carry the team to a Superbowl if Brady was injured. It doesn't take an extraordinary talent to win games with the Patriots, just a good fit.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

We tend to think of Mallett as "a 3rd round pick" because we selected him in that round however prior to some minor off the field issues he was WIDELY considered a lock to be picked in the first round in a draft class that was loaded with QB's. Newton, Ponder, Gabbert, Locker, Dalton, and Kaepernick going in the first 36 picks. He was still around in the 70's because all those teams with QB needs didn't look past his personal issues.

It was a great pick as you'd have this highly regarded QB ready to take over if Brady was finished at 37 which we didn't know the answer to when he was 33. The reason we need someone else now is that Mallett is a FA next spring and isn't going to sign here to hold a clipboard for another 3-4 years. Otherwise he'd be a very reasonable option to stay and ultimately replace Brady.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Regarding Mallett as insurance, then why him and why not another QB?

Because he was good value? He was a 1st round type talent in the 3rd. Sure a later round pick might be groomed into a 10-11 game winner like Cassel, but if they believed Mallett had top QB potential he gives you a chance to be Super Bowl contenders even with a Brady injury.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
You didn't say that. You said "I never bought the idea that the point of drafting Mallet was to trade him for a higher pick than they used to draft him though." That tells me you didn't think the entire point of the pick was to trade him. We agree on that, but that doesn't tell me you don't think any part of the pick was as an investment, which is what I asked.
 
 
Right. I'm trying to avoid the Garoppolo snowball.

 
Not sure why you are trying to split hairs for the sake of creating an argument.  I said I don't think they drafted Mallet to get a higher pick out of it.  It's a simple point.  If I thought part of the reason for for drafting him was to get a higher pick out of it, I would have said so.  
 
 
If you want to avoid using other players' names in a thread for the sake of avoiding cross-talk, you are going to have a shittier thread. Other players and picks are useful counterpoints when discussing the decision to draft Mallett. One sentence about a relevant comparison isn't going to derail the main thrust of the thread. 

 

[caesarbear]

So then the verdict on Mallet is that he did not live up to his potential? If Mallet is actually a good QB, when was he going to be given the opportunity to play with the Patriots? Good, bad, he was still just a third round pick clipboard holder.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

So then the verdict on Mallet is that he did not live up to his potential? If Mallet is actually a good QB, when was he going to be given the opportunity to play with the Patriots? Good, bad, he was still just a third round pick clipboard holder.

You wanted Belichick to bench Brady so Mallett could strutt his stuff? Brilliant

 

[caesarbear]

You wanted Belichick to bench Brady so Mallett could strutt his stuff? Brilliant

No, I'm saying there's no point in spending a high pick on a QB that might be a decent starter when you have Brady. If Mallett was a trade commodity, then seeing him inserted into the game would have been exactly what to expect.

 

[Phragle]

Not sure why you are trying to split hairs for the sake of creating an argument.  I said I don't think they drafted Mallet to get a higher pick out of it.  It's a simple point.  If I thought part of the reason for for drafting him was to get a higher pick out of it, I would have said so.

 Not looking for a fight, just pointing out that you didn't already answer the question I asked.
 

If you want to avoid using other players' names in a thread for the sake of avoiding cross-talk, you are going to have a shittier thread. Other players and picks are useful counterpoints when discussing the decision to draft Mallett. One sentence about a relevant comparison isn't going to derail the main thrust of the thread.

 
Fine.

 

[Cellar-Door]

No, I'm saying there's no point in spending a high pick on a QB that might be a decent starter when you have Brady. If Mallett was a trade commodity, then seeing him inserted into the game would have been exactly what to expect.

Sure there is.
People get hurt happens very often in the NFL.

 

[pappymojo]

 
Good point but we're actually both wrong. You would have to pay the 2M annually over the life of the hypothetical backup's contract - 4 years, but after that you could extend the hypothetical player without the 2M. I think you'd still sell some picks. There are a lot of teams that need picks more than cap space - TB, OAK, CLE, JAX. This team just isn't one of them. A large part of that is because of the dead money they have against the cap.
 
The point is the cap is pretty huge, you can be a successful team with a highly paid veteran backup, a highly picked backup, or a shitty cheap backup, and every team has a finite amount of assests.

Unlike those other teams the Patriots are usually built very deep. This drives competition and balances the cost across the roster.

 

[Darnell's Son]

No, I'm saying there's no point in spending a high pick on a QB that might be a decent starter when you have Brady. If Mallett was a trade commodity, then seeing him inserted into the game would have been exactly what to expect.

 
So what's your succession plan? I don't mean to pick on you, or anyone else for that matter, but the New England Patriots aren't working in a world where falling to last place in the AFC East if Brady's career is abruptly ended(via injury or choice) is acceptable. I can guarantee that Bob and Jonathan Kraft want nothing but to be competitive every year. Taking a possible future franchise QB a little early is part of that process.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

No, I'm saying there's no point in spending a high pick on a QB that might be a decent starter when you have Brady. If Mallett was a trade commodity, then seeing him inserted into the game would have been exactly what to expect.

In the other thread there were 5-6 examples listed of backup quarterbacks stepping in and leading their team to a Super Bowl Championship. To ignore depth at the most Important position for a perennial playoff team would be completely irresponsible on Belichick's behalf.

 

[caesarbear]

Sure there is.
People get hurt happens very often in the NFL.

Sure, but we don't have a similar injury replacement ready for Gronk. The argument could be made that Gronk wins us games, so why not clipboard holding Gronk-replacement?
If Brady goes down, the plan can't be to activate Brady 2.0. The plan is and can only be, to activate a guy that only knows the game and system from the practice field. No matter how talented that guy is it's not a formula for winning playoff games and Superbowls. The very few people that have done that didn't get drafted with a high pick. Why put a lot of value on what in any event will be always be a gamble?
 
 

In the other thread there were 5-6 examples listed of backup quarterbacks stepping in and leading their team to a Super Bowl Championship. To ignore depth at the most Important position for a perennial playoff team would be completely irresponsible on Belichick's behalf.

But Belichick has already shown that depth can be had without spending a high pick.
 
 

 
So what's your succession plan? I don't mean to pick on you, or anyone else for that matter, but the New England Patriots aren't working in a world where falling to last place in the AFC East if Brady's career is abruptly ended(via injury or choice) is acceptable. I can guarantee that Bob and Jonathan Kraft want nothing but to be competitive every year. Taking a possible future franchise QB a little early is part of that process.

That's fine, but it's probably more geared towards a Succession QB thread. If we are considering Mallett as an option in the succession plan, which seems possible, then I think our answer is that he did not live up to expectations and is a failure as a successor. If we perhaps count O'Connell as well then I would argue that this is a succession plan that can do harm to your team. Succession plans like 'Suck for Luck' can be ugly but the NFL draft seems to be designed to let the worst teams find their new franchise player in as few terrible seasons as possible.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Sure, but we don't have a similar injury replacement ready for Gronk. The argument could be made that Gronk wins us games, so why not clipboard holding Gronk-replacement?
If Brady goes down, the plan can't be to activate Brady 2.0. The plan is and can only be, to activate a guy that only knows the game and system from the practice field. No matter how talented that guy is it's not a formula for winning playoff games and Superbowls. The very few people that have done that didn't get drafted with a high pick. Why put a lot of value on what in any event will be always be a gamble?

Are we seriously comparing a TE no matter how good with a QB? When Gronk gets hurt, (or a better scenario, Aarron Hernandez's career ends.) you plug in the next TE on the roster who you think can succeed in the NFL, and you shift some of the offensive burden to WR, and RB. If your QB's career ends it is much harder to find an NFL caliber replacement, there are so few QBs who can take you to the playoffs and be contenders that it is more important to have one ready. There are lots of ways to put together a quality NFL receiving core because you can have 5 pass catchers on the field at once to shift the burden. The QB is one guy.

 

[caesarbear]

Next man up still applies to QBs though. With Murderfuckingmoron gone the Pats adapt by using other resources on offense or otherwise play to the replacement's strengths. When a back-up QB steps in, you go to more running plays. There isn't and can't be a plan to continue business as usual. A teams loses their starting QB, they've lost a lot of their game planning as well and need to redesign. At that point it is a gamble. There's no way to say that a higher pick spent on backup QB will allow for a smoother transition when you loose your starter.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Next man up still applies to QBs though. With Murderfuckingmoron gone the Pats adapt by using other resources on offense or otherwise play to the replacement's strengths. When a back-up QB steps in, you go to more running plays. There isn't and can't be a plan to continue business as usual. A teams loses their starting QB, they've lost a lot of their game planning as well and need to redesign. At that point it is a gamble. There's no way to say that a higher pick spent on backup QB will allow for a smoother transition when you loose your starter.

Sure there is. \Higher picks tend to be better players. At the very least they tend to have more NFL level skills. Higher picks tend to succeed at QB more often than lower picks. Therefore if you pick a QB higher he is more likely to be able to play at a level high enough to take over as the starter when you lose your QB. It is playing the odds.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Remember the value play here guys. Some of you are blurred by the fact that we used a 3rd on Mallet. Like that's too rich of an insurance policy. But if you're getting R1 value in R3, isn't that a better play than getting a fourth round talent in R4?
 
Remember we didn't need a 4th QB in Brady, but Bill felt he shouldn't have still been on the board at 199 and they couldn't pass on the value, even if they didn't need him.

 

[Stitch01]

Third round picks under BB

JR Redmond, Brock Williams, Guss Scott, Ellis Hobbs, Nick Kazcur, David Thomas, Shawn Crable, Kevin Oconnell, Brandon Tate, Tyrone Mckenzie, Taylor price, Mallett, Ridley, Bequette, Ryan, Harmon

Mallett seems comfortably above average.

 

[dcmissle]

That's brutally unfair Stitch -- in the alt universe of "not worth" we're drafting a HOF player in his place.

All Mallet has done is his job, plus stay out of trouble. We're having this conversation only because of unrealistically high expectations of flipping Mallet, which coalesced with the drafting of JG. Proof of this is the utter failure of KOC and the reaction thereto -- everyone yawned, "it happens."

Of course, people regret paying the insurance premiums after the policy period lapses without claims.

 

[caesarbear]

Remember the value play here guys. Some of you are blurred by the fact that we used a 3rd on Mallet. Like that's too rich of an insurance policy. But if you're getting R1 value in R3, isn't that a better play than getting a fourth round talent in R4?
 
Remember we didn't need a 4th QB in Brady, but Bill felt he shouldn't have still been on the board at 199 and they couldn't pass on the value, even if they didn't need him.

But it's not like BB had a say in who his starting QB was then. BB picked Brady as a successor or at least to compete as one. The guy holding the clipboard job just isn't worth keeping 3 extra QBs for. Also the back-up role is different from the starting role. You plan your offense around your starter. A back-up you want fungible, compatible and competent, not necessarily excelling at any one thing.
 
This is starting to get circular. Sure if Mallett was probably a 1st round pick in talent then it makes sense to spend a third for him... if you want him to play for your team. If he was a succession project then it makes sense. If he was brought in simply to be insurance, that's really expensive insurance. They only way we talk about Mallett being a value is if he was supposed to eventually start for this team and in that respect it was a failure. Lots of very talented prospects don't get drafted simply because the team had no need for them. Having an elite starting QB means you have no need for another starting QB.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

You lost me on BB doesn't have a say on the starting QB.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Mallett was not expensive insurance. He's saved is a lot of cap space by our backup QB being on a rookie deal than that of having to pay a veteran substantially more to do the same job. This allowed us to sign additional help where it was needed on the roster each season.

Mallett having the upside of his potentiall was an additional benefit.

 

[caesarbear]

You lost me on BB doesn't have a say on the starting QB.

He inherited the team as the new HC.Yes he had a say in that he could have cut Bledsoe but that would be crazy. What he could do was have a competition for the new starting QB during the season. Each of those 3 backup QBs saw playing time during the 2000 regular season.
 

Mallett was not expensive insurance. He's saved is a lot of cap space by our backup QB being on a rookie deal than that of having to pay a veteran substantially more to do the same job. This allowed us to sign additional help where it was needed on the roster each season.

Mallett having the upside of his potentiall was an additional benefit.

That's only so if we assume another acceptable backup QB wasn't available later in the draft or as an UDFA that same year or the next year, since the Patriots cut Hoyer. Or that the Patriots would not be able to extend Hoyer for substantially below a veteran's price.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

He inherited a team with Drew Bledsoe at the helm, a player who was the starting QB when they went to the Super Bowl where BB the DC on Parcells staff. To say he didn't have a say in his starting QB is foolish. He knew what he had, he knew that when he resigned as HC of the NYJ, and he knew who is starter was when he drafted Brady and every start after that for an entire year up to the Moe Lewis hit.
 
My point was he didn't need Brady when he picked him at 199 because he had Bledsoe + 2 others, but he drafted him anyway because the value he provided at that slot in the draft (199) was too great to pass up. Something I suspect he felt when he selected Mallet. Keep in mind we didn't take Mallet with an earlier pick and I'm too lazy to go back and post how many picks we made in that draft prior to the Mallet pick, but I'm guessing it was +/-2. My point was BB doesn't pass up value even when balanced against decreased need.

 

[caesarbear]

With most other positions where you end up with two greats instead of one there's options to put them both on the field. That's not the case with QB. That casts BB as just taking a random gamble, because even if his 199 pick is good it's not like he can play special teams. Brady didn't get cut but neither did Bishop. That's an extraordinary measure to take if they are just competing to hold a clipboard. BB was looking for a successor to Bledsoe.
 
Mallett was either part of a long term succession plan or a sacrifice to the lord of passing. As insurance he's an unjustified expense, or at the very least, more expensive than keeping Hoyer.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

With most other positions where you end up with two greats instead of one there's options to put them both on the field. That's not the case with QB. That casts BB as just taking a random gamble, because even if his 199 pick is good it's not like he can play special teams. Brady didn't get cut but neither did Bishop. That's an extraordinary measure to take if they are just competing to hold a clipboard. BB was looking for a successor to Bledsoe.
 
Mallett was either part of a long term succession plan or a sacrifice to the lord of passing. As insurance he's an unjustified expense, or at the very least, more expensive than keeping Hoyer.

Why did it have to be either/or? If Brady had began to break down over the past year or two it was Mallett who would have had first opportunity to be the long term successor. Since Brady didn't break down he ended up as an insurance policy on a cheap rookie deal.

Fwiw the Pats drafted Solder, Dowling, Ridley and Vareen prior to Mallett.

 

[caesarbear]

Why did it have to be either/or? If Brady had began to break down over the past year or two it was Mallett who would have had first opportunity to be the long term successor. Since Brady didn't break down he ended up as an insurance policy on a cheap rookie deal.

But that's what you are 'paying extra' for, the chance he could be your successor. If not looking for a successor, there's no need to pay that third rounder for insurance you already have. At some level Mallett was an attempt at an upgrade, either for starter or back-up. If it was for back-up, how it is that justified? Whether it's Mallett, Hoyer or Tyrod Taylor, they're going to be holding a clipboard. I'll take an Ellis Hobbs over a guy that holds a clipboard better.

 

[Dollar]

But that's what you are 'paying extra' for, the chance he could be your successor. If not looking for a successor, there's no need to pay that third rounder for insurance you already have. At some level Mallett was an attempt at an upgrade, either for starter or back-up. If it was for back-up, how it is that justified? Whether it's Mallett, Hoyer or Tyrod Taylor, they're going to be holding a clipboard. I'll take an Ellis Hobbs over a guy that holds a clipboard better.

 
Since Mallett was drafted in 2011, only 9 of the 32 teams had just one player make every start for their team (Brady, Brees, Stafford, Eli, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Newton, Dalton.)  The other 23 teams needed a backup to step in and make at least one start over that time period.  While we didn't get to see what Mallett could do these past few years, that doesn't mean it was a wasted pick to take him.  A few inches here or there on any of the 99 times Brady was sacked the past three years, and maybe he suffers an injury and misses a few games, and we'd be having a much different conversation.  But just because that didn't happen doesn't mean we should call Mallett a waste of a draft pick.  Moreso, I think we should all be very grateful that it never happened.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

But that's what you are 'paying extra' for, the chance he could be your successor. If not looking for a successor, there's no need to pay that third rounder for insurance you already have. At some level Mallett was an attempt at an upgrade, either for starter or back-up. If it was for back-up, how it is that justified? Whether it's Mallett, Hoyer or Tyrod Taylor, they're going to be holding a clipboard. I'll take an Ellis Hobbs over a guy that holds a clipboard better.

Except when Brady goes down for a month in Week 6 you have a real live NFL quarterback to be the next man up.......rather than Ellis Hobbs. This is why you have backups who can play.....so they can step in and get you wins like when Cassell had to play. Ellis Hobbs wouldn't do that.

 

[caesarbear]

Cassell was not a third round pick. Nor was Hoyer. I am not calling Mallett a waste but an unjustified expense. I also don't agree that just because you draft someone 2nd or 3rd means that they are so much closer to being a "real live NFL QB" than a 7th or UDFA. If you want an elite QB perhaps, but having a guy that can manage the gameplan and not lose you the game all by himself is not rarefied air.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Cassell was not a third round pick. Nor was Hoyer. I am not calling Mallett a waste but an unjustified expense. I also don't agree that just because you draft someone 2nd or 3rd means that they are so much closer to being a "real live NFL QB" than a 7th or UDFA. If you want an elite QB perhaps, but having a guy that can manage the gameplan and not lose you the game all by himself is not rarefied air.

Mallett was considered pretty close to elite depending on your definition before his personal decisions cost him being a first round pick. He never was considered a game manager. Being able to grab a talent like this in the 3rd round is very rare.

 

[Super Nomario]

The only regret I have with the entire Mallett situation and tenure is that they never got him into some real games. We can speculate all we like about how he would have done and recall how he never looked good in preseason, but that was always playing with back ups and guys trying to make the team. Cassell looked like shit in 2008 under similar circumstances and when he got a chance to play with a game day roster, he won 11 games. At the very least, had Mallett gotten some run with the big boys during blow outs over the last three years, we might have been able to flip him. I always looked at him as a commodity, but it certainly seems BB viewed him as insurance. Even in that case, some real game snaps would have helped.

I don't think so. Getting in at the end of blowouts, when effort on both sides is uncertain, when some starters sub out, and when you're primarily running the ball because you're trying to run down the clock, isn't really a better indicator than the preseason. There are examples of guys who became assets when they shone in a full game situation and turned into assets - Matts Schaub, Cassel, and Flynn off the top of my head - but I can't think of anyone who impressed in garbage time and turned himself into something desirable.

 

[lambeau]

So why not give Mallett some 4th Quarter snaps--since you can't evaluate a QB holding a clipboard?
edit-Asked and answered?

 

[mascho]

So why not give Mallett some 4th Quarter snaps--since you can't evaluate a QB holding a clipboard?

I'd hazard a guess that one of the most dangerous places on the field during a Patriots game is between Tom Brady and the offensive huddle.

 

[Darnell's Son]

I'd hazard a guess that one of the most dangerous places on the field during a Patriots game is between Tom Brady and the offensive huddle.

 
A thousand times this. Brady is notorious for not even wanting to give up mini camp snaps. He would be livid if you tried to take him out of a real game to give someone else a shot at taking his job.

 

[radsoxfan]

The only regret I have with the entire Mallett situation and tenure is that they never got him into some real games. We can speculate all we like about how he would have done and recall how he never looked good in preseason, but that was always playing with back ups and guys trying to make the team. Cassell looked like shit in 2008 under similar circumstances and when he got a chance to play with a game day roster, he won 11 games. At the very least, had Mallett gotten some run with the big boys during blow outs over the last three years, we might have been able to flip him. I always looked at him as a commodity, but it certainly seems BB viewed him as insurance. Even in that case, some real game snaps would have helped.

 
Brady was never going to come out of a game that was even remotely in doubt (and SoSH would flip out if he did). I'm not sure how giving Mallet a series or two at the end of a 30 point blowout makes any difference in how people view him.  He would have been handing the ball off, and even if he threw a few passes, he would have been playing with the backups on both sides of the ball.  
 
A backup QB on a team with a healthy Pro Bowl QB is going to get a few preseason games a year to show his stuff. Maybe it's not fair, but that's the reality.  BB was never letting Mallett into a regular season competitive situation with the game in doubt if he could help it.  And it would have been borderline insane for him to do otherwise. 

 

[caesarbear]

Mallett was considered pretty close to elite depending on your definition before his personal decisions cost him being a first round pick. He never was considered a game manager. Being able to grab a talent like this in the 3rd round is very rare.

But what good is it if you can't put that talent on the field? I'll return your question to you, would you allow Mallett to play just to strut? With an Ellis Hobbs-type you can play them on special teams or occasionally in certain situations every game of the week. What good is near elite talent if it's going to warm a bench every week. Sure it's a rare opportunity, but unless you're thinking of a successor, then what are you going to do with him?