Ryan Mallett Life and Career Discussion
- Thread starter Phragle
- Start date
I think this is a fallacy of hindsight. People often forget that Belichick has had a first row seat to two backup QBs winning a Super Bowl: Brady in '01, and Hostetler in '90. (To say nothing of going 11-5 with Cassel)caesarbear said:
I think that's why Belichick just talked about how unacceptable he found the Colts' 1-15 season when Manning went down, and why he's committed to having solid backup QBs.
caesarbear said:
You are looking at the insurance analogy completely wrong. You think it's unjustified because (so far) Brady hasn't been hurt and therefore Mallett hasn't been used. But there is an entirely realistic scenario in which Brady tore his ACL again and the backup QB had to play an entire season. And in this case, it's preferable to have someone you think can be better than a replacement level journeyman. Of course who knows if Mallett actually is any good, but they obviously thought he was good value in the 3rd round at the time.
More broadly, insurance a prospective endeavor, but you are looking at it retrospectively. People want good health insurance because they don't know if they will get sick. Certainly if you pay for good heath insurance, and then don't get sick, you could look back and say you wish you saved some money and bought cheaper health insurance. But that's not really a useful way to look at it. Just be happy that you didn't get sick, and keep buying good health insurance.
You're going to have a backup capable of quarterbacking your team to a Super Bowl Championship just like Tom Brady did! Just like Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler, etc did when they began their seasons as backups.caesarbear said:
That's why you have quality backups especially at THE single most Important position on the field rather than someone capable of playing special teams when you have a roster full of backups at other positions to do so.
We've been talking on this board about the potential end of the Brady era pretty much since I've been here. While the post ACL years have thankfully been very kind to the optimistic side of things, it's not like there was 0 chance Ryan Mallett would ever get a chance to start. A third round pick for a borderline 1st round arm with only a UDFA backup in house was a completely reasonable expense at the time. With all due respect Caesar, I don't think you can look at Mallett as just a backup or just a successor. While we hopefully won't know how good of a player he actually is until he's playing elsewhere in fall 2015, I'm not sure any degree of hindsight will change my mind that it was a worthwhile risk. You're going to have a backup no matter what - why not look for crazy upside during your starter's 34-37 seasons?
radsoxfan said:
It's unjustified because it's a) unlikely for Brady to miss a lot of time b) a back-up with more talent than Hoyer or Hoyer-likes is not likely to perform substantially better over a handful of games that are his first in the NFL. Given an entire season, maybe we would see the difference of spending a 3rd rounder on a back-up, but otherwise the back-up role is less about talent and more about compatibility.
There no sense in paying for expensive health insurance if it's not going to keep you healthier. Cheap insurance pays for a gym membership just like an expensive platinum plan.
I think many of you are placing way too much importance on the talent of a backup. I think it's much more important for a backup to learn the intangibles than to have a great arm. If you were worrying about the end of Brady's career, then Mallett was easily justified. If it's just a couple of games at some point, like what most backups do? It's overpaying and losing a kickreturner or some other role player.Jungleland said:
caesarbear said:
Well Brady has already missed an entire season once. So has Manning. And so have many other great quarterbacks. It's not likely to happen in the sense that it's not the most likely scenario for any given season. But it's not so unlikely that you don't have to worry about it.
As to the added value of Mallett over a random journeyman who knows the plays.... thats still debatable. Certainly if you spend a 3rd rounder on a back-up, you hope that if that person is forced into action, he will perform better than the Colts QBs of 2011. Spending a 3rd rounder trying to improve that backup position is entirely reasonable to me, especially with the added benefit that it's also cheaper than spending money to bring in a more experienced back-up.
We don't need to go through the merits of cheap vs. expensive health insurance in great detail. That's obviously a different topic. Clearly if your expensive health insurance plan isn't giving you any added benefits, then get a cheaper one.
I guess what I'm arguing is that mid 30s and already victim to one season ending injury, you're entering the grey area where the backup is a. more likely to have to play a game or two in the middle of the season AND b. potentially going to get a chance to take over. Tom Brady is obviously not your average mid thirties quarterback, but I'm not sure any player is infallible/invincible to the point where the team's 5th pick off the board in a given draft is too much to give up for both insurance and a chance of being the future. Likewise, I'd argue that this smidge of a chance that you need to develop someone warrants the year you "waste" a roster spot carrying 3 qb's.
It's also beng forgotten that Hoyer was getting expensive, he was tendered at the second round level. Mallet has been dirt cheap over his contract compared to other second string QBs.
caesarbear said:
What if it's a playoff game? Don't you want the best possible guy you can get in that situation? Keep in mind, you can't keep a Brady backup for more than a few years because inevitably they'll want a chance to compete for a starting job. When a cheap backup hits free agency, they're very likely gone. Cassel, Hoyer, and Mallett all. So we were either going to pay more money to someone with experience or save money on a rookie deal.
The other half of this I think you're overstating is the opportunity cost. How many of the 50 players picked after Mallett can be labeled as "impact"? A handful? What are the chances they would have drafted one of those guys? What are the odds they hit on the 3rd round pick in comparison to the odds that Brady gets hurt and they need a good backup?
This whole argument sounds like a politician criticizing one of the police precincts for having bought bullet-proof vests. Nobody in that precinct even got shot in the last couple of years, why have they been wasting money on vests? I mean, even if they got shot, it probably wouldn't be in the chest, am I right?
If it's a playoff game, you don't want a rookie backup and you don't want a QB that's never taken a snap in a real game before. If you want to be serious about an insurance policy in a playoff situation then you pay for a veteran backup. Why not trade the 3rd round pick for someone's veteran backup if you want "the best possible guy you can get in that situation?" Best possible certainly isn't a kid that's never played in the NFL before.
Why compare an "impact" player with a clipboard holder? Of course you want the impact player on the field rather than the complete unknown that's never on the field. It doesn't have to be the opportunity for an impact player though, A mediocre role player can help. Wouldn't it have been nice to have just a Vincent Brown or a Leonard Hankerson available last year? Or even a Greg Salas. How helpful was Austin Collie last year compared to Mallett?
The analogy is terrible. And don't make out of football comparisons, that's not really helpful. The argument is between one guy that's never played an NFL game or some other hypothetical guy that's also never played in the NFL. Speak to the value difference there. What percentage chance do you think the 3rd rounder will screw up in their first ever game experience that might also be a playoff game as opposed to a 7th rounder? Now how about a veteran QB?
Why compare an "impact" player with a clipboard holder? Of course you want the impact player on the field rather than the complete unknown that's never on the field. It doesn't have to be the opportunity for an impact player though, A mediocre role player can help. Wouldn't it have been nice to have just a Vincent Brown or a Leonard Hankerson available last year? Or even a Greg Salas. How helpful was Austin Collie last year compared to Mallett?
The analogy is terrible. And don't make out of football comparisons, that's not really helpful. The argument is between one guy that's never played an NFL game or some other hypothetical guy that's also never played in the NFL. Speak to the value difference there. What percentage chance do you think the 3rd rounder will screw up in their first ever game experience that might also be a playoff game as opposed to a 7th rounder? Now how about a veteran QB?
They drafted Mallett in 2011. Hoyer was going to start getting expensive in 2012. They kept Hoyer on the roster as a backup in '11 for insurance. Once they had seen Mallett for a year in practice and in two training camps, they kept him as the backup and let Hoyer go. QB is an important position, and they are going to do what they can to make sure they don't turn into the 2011 Colts or have their season nearly submarined like the 2013 Packers if Brady goes down for six weeks.
No offense, but its really not that complicated of a line of thought to understand.
No offense, but its really not that complicated of a line of thought to understand.
caesarbear said:
$$$$$$$. You don't want to give up a 3rd round pick because it could cost you a role player. But what do you think happens when you tie up several million dollars in a veteran backup QB with experience? The money you save by having someone on a rookie deal allows you to afford other better players at other positions.
caesarbear said:
The analogy is fine, you're simply saying that if Brady goes down you're fine with punting the season and the Patriots aren't. It's really as simple as that. As for the bolded, I'd say the value difference between getting a QB in the 3rd round and getting one in the 7th round is about 4 rounds of value. Give or take. You legitimately seem to think that talent level just plays no part in the success of a QB over his initial starting period. I think that's ludicrous, but to each his own.
You said for the best possible guy. Veteran QBs are proven and have a record of being excellent backups. The backups mentioned earlier that helped teams win it all were all veterans. You want to be realistic in that situation, then you want a veteran don't you? Don't fire out two conflicting sides in a discussion and not discuss the whole consideration. What do you mean "4 rounds" of value? Does 4 rounds == a veteran's salary?Hendu for Kutch said:
I believe talent plays a small role in what we see from a QB on their first few games. The majority of performance is from preparation, comfort level and coaching. Lots of rookie QBs looked ok before we discovered they were crap. The small difference that talent plays in the starting few games of a QBs career is not worth "4 rounds" of value, whatever that means.
Also, only a few QBs are going to be picked in any draft. They aren't collected like WRs or DBs. There are plenty of competitive college systems out there. Drafting a QB in the 7th is not like drafting a corner or a lineman in the 7th. Their competency doesn't fall off as dramatically since there's only a dozen or less taken in any given draft.
caesarbear said:
Last year, there were two projected opening-day starting quarterbacks across the NFL who were drafted past the 3rd round (Brady and Romo, who was undrafted). Twenty-two of the projected opening day starters were first round draft picks, four were second round, and four were third rounders (I'm countring Pryor as a third). It seems to me that the skill of QB's tends to equate with where they are picked, and there's likely to be a significant different in talent between a second and seventh round QB.
caesarbear said:
4 rounds of value is in regards to you asking me to quantify the difference between a 3rd rounder and a 7th rounder. 4 rounds. Tongue in cheek.
You're of the mind that talent makes no difference over small samples. I disagree. I can give you a ton of examples where a higher-round player performed better than a lower-round player in their first few games and I'm sure you can provide counter-examples where a low round player did great immediately.
The only way you can expect to acquire a backup QB that's good enough to start in the NFL, especially behind a HOF QB, is to draft one fairly early. No starting-caliber QB is going to sign with the Patriots to sit behind Brady. And if they found one who would he'd cost a lot of money.
The Patriots want a good backup QB that they feel confident won't immediately tank the season, Curtis Painter style, if Brady gets hurt. They ID'd Garoppolo as that guy and acquired him, just like they did with Mallett, just like they did with O'Connell. Sometimes they picked the right guy and sometimes they didn't, but the strategy has remained the same.
But we're talking about back-ups not starters, not Brady's successor. Lots of late round QBs still playing as backups, including Curtis Painter.Ed Hillel said:
Why not select a backup in the 1st round otherwise?
Patriots have found at least two backups "good enough to start in the NFL" without drafting them early. Where's the evidence that you have to draft them high? How much talent difference is there between Mallett/JG and Hoyer/Cassel and why is it worth "4 rounds."Hendu for Kutch said:
I get that you're being flippant, and that's fine, but I don't know why you don't want to go there. You say stuff like you think it's "ludicrous" but then back it up with nothing. Make an argument instead of just saying "4 rounds."
I don't think the Patriots went into the process saying "we need to draft a QB in the second round." Obviously it was a priority for them, but they evaluated QBs at various different price points. Here's a list of their meetings. These are just what was publicly reported; certainly there were more meetings, and certainly there was more film study on guys they didn't meet with.caesarbear said:
http://walterfootball.com/draft2014meetingsteams.php
Tajh Boyd, QB, Clemson (PRO) - 6th round (216)
Teddy Bridgewater, QB, Louisville (PRI) - 1st round (32)
Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Eastern Illinois (PRI) - 2nd round (62)
Garrett Gilbert, QB, SMU (PRO) - 6th round (214)
Kenny Guiton, QB, Ohio State (PRO) - undrafted
Seth Lobato, QB, Northern Colorado (INT) - undrafted
Johnny Manziel, QB, Texas A&M (PRI) - 1st round (22 overall)
A.J. McCarron, QB, Alabama (PRI) - 5th round (164)
Zach Mettenberger, QB, LSU (PRI) - 6th round (178)
Aaron Murray, QB, Georgia (PRI/PRO) - 5th round (163)
Connor Shaw, QB, South Carolina (PRO) - undrafted
Logan Thomas, QB, Virginia Tech (PRI/PRO) - 4th round (120)
Keith Wenning, QB, Ball State (PRI) - 6th round (194)
It's not like they didn't look at a bunch of late-round / UDFA options. Evidently they didn't feel the value was there as it was with Cassel and Hoyer, or Garoppolo was just such a great prospect in their eyes that it was worth using a fairly high pick. I think if they'd felt like Lobato or Shaw was some sort of Cassel-esque super-sleeper they might have gone there in the 6th or 7th and used the 2nd somewhere else. I also think if they'd thought Bridgewater was a Luck / Newton-caliber prospect slipping for stupid reasons, they would have taken him at 29 (and there were rumors they would have taken Bortles there).
caesarbear said:
The Patriots are of the mind that your backup is one play away from being a starter. If your point is that talent doesn't matter if the guy has no chance of playing, then we are in agreement on that. But the reality is backups suddenly become starters all the time. If some team (like any team that has Painter as their primary backup QB) is willing to punt the season if their starter gets hurt, good for them. I wouldn't want my team to be run that way and BB apparently agrees (by his own statements).
You don't take a backup in the 1st round because a) he costs too much money, and b) the opportunity cost is much higher than it is later on.
caesarbear said:
I'm really not being flippant, I'm truly mystified by you. Do you believe that because the Patriots have hit on some late-round QBs that it therefore stands to reason that late round QBs = early round QBs on the aggregate? Because that flies in the face of common sense and the numbers Ed Hillel posted. What have you shown that proves this is a universal truth? How do you expect me to prove anything in regards to Mallett or Garoppolo when they've thrown a combined 8 passes in the NFL?
For Garoppolo the assumption is that it's a successor pick (although an early one.) That dosen't really explain Mallett.Super Nomario said:
Ed was talking about starters. There's over a dozen non-rookie QBs in the league that are backups that were drafted in the 5th round or later. Many teams have found quality in the later rounds, not just the Patriots. QBs drafted early are brought in to compete for a starting position. The only guy in recent memory that was drafted with an early pick to be a backup was Brock Osweiler and that's because Peyton was recovering from nerve damage. There's precious few examples of both a high pick and a low pick QB for a non-vacancy at starter, but Brian Brohm vs Matt Flynn comes to mind. How did that turn out?Hendu for Kutch said:
I'm still agnostic about the Garoppolo pick, but why does anyone keep pointing to the "proven veterans" who are backups? The backups mostly suck. What have they proven except that they suck? Hell, some of the starters in the league kinda suck.
Between that and the late rounders, I'm sorta flummoxed by caesarbear's continual invocation of QBs who are "good enough to start" without any investigation of whether or not they suck or not.
Bill Belichick does not want a QB who sucks. I'm not sure he's constitutionally capable of even dealing with it at this point.
Between that and the late rounders, I'm sorta flummoxed by caesarbear's continual invocation of QBs who are "good enough to start" without any investigation of whether or not they suck or not.
Bill Belichick does not want a QB who sucks. I'm not sure he's constitutionally capable of even dealing with it at this point.
Well that's a different argument if you want to say that most QBs including starters will suck and that a "good enough" QB is very hard to get. But how much value are you willing to spend to get a good enough QB when you already have one? Is this just a show of extravagance? The Patriots spend high picks on QBs simply because they can?
caesarbear said:
They don't draft QBs to be extravagant. They do it because BB does not want to be caught without a good backup. He has drafted O'Connell, Mallett, and JG in round 2 or 3 every 3 years since 2008 when Brady was past 30 years old. You may not like it but BB does not want to be caught without someone he believes can develop into a quality QB.
Interesting note from Reiss' mailbag today:
Mike
(11:28 AM)
Rich, I think the team fully expects Ryan Mallett to seek out a starting job next year. If it works out well for the team, it will receive a 2016 third-round compensatory draft choice when Mallett does so
I don't understand the compensation pick process well enough to know how likely this is, but it's something to keep in mind - there's potential value even assuming the Pats don't trade him.
Mike
(11:28 AM)
Rich, I think the team fully expects Ryan Mallett to seek out a starting job next year. If it works out well for the team, it will receive a 2016 third-round compensatory draft choice when Mallett does so
I don't understand the compensation pick process well enough to know how likely this is, but it's something to keep in mind - there's potential value even assuming the Pats don't trade him.
That sounds like pure Patriots propaganda to me, because there are some major IFs he didnt touch on. To get compensation picks you have to lose more in free agency than you add. Unfortunately the formula isnt public, so we cant exactly quantify what would need to happen for us to get the 3rd but overall I think Mallett would have to be almost a full time starter and we couldnt sign a full time starter in free agency. Also, take Luke McCown who didnt qualify for compensatory purposes this year, I dont know if thats because he didnt play in Atlanta or he didnt play the entire year in Chicago but chances are Mallett would have more of a McCown situation than a full time starter.
Then look at the teams that got 3rd rounders this year and their +/- :
Baltimore Ravens: Lost: Dannell Ellerbe, Paul Kruger, Ed Reed, Cary Williams. Signed: None.
Green Bay Packers: Lost: Greg Jennings, Erik Walden. Signed: None.
Pittsburgh Steelers: Lost: Keenan Lewis, Rashard Mendenhall, Ryan Mundy, Mike Wallace. Signed: Bruce Gradkowski.
San Francisco 49ers: Lost: Ted Ginn, Dashon Goldson, Ricky Jean Francois, Isaac Sopoaga, Delanie Walker. Signed: Craig Dahl, Phil Dawson, Glenn Dorsey, Dan Skuta
They all lost at least one full time starter if not more. Then look at our +/- that got us a 4th rounder:
Patriots: Lost: Patrick Chung, Donald Thomas, Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead. Signed: Danny Amendola, Isaac Sopoaga, Will Svitek.
I would argue Woodhead contributed more than Amendola did and he certainly had more games played and snaps. Meanwhile, Chung got decent playing time and Welker was a full time starter, but we only got a 4th.
Then look at the teams that got 3rd rounders this year and their +/- :
Baltimore Ravens: Lost: Dannell Ellerbe, Paul Kruger, Ed Reed, Cary Williams. Signed: None.
Green Bay Packers: Lost: Greg Jennings, Erik Walden. Signed: None.
Pittsburgh Steelers: Lost: Keenan Lewis, Rashard Mendenhall, Ryan Mundy, Mike Wallace. Signed: Bruce Gradkowski.
San Francisco 49ers: Lost: Ted Ginn, Dashon Goldson, Ricky Jean Francois, Isaac Sopoaga, Delanie Walker. Signed: Craig Dahl, Phil Dawson, Glenn Dorsey, Dan Skuta
They all lost at least one full time starter if not more. Then look at our +/- that got us a 4th rounder:
Patriots: Lost: Patrick Chung, Donald Thomas, Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead. Signed: Danny Amendola, Isaac Sopoaga, Will Svitek.
I would argue Woodhead contributed more than Amendola did and he certainly had more games played and snaps. Meanwhile, Chung got decent playing time and Welker was a full time starter, but we only got a 4th.
I think it's because you're thinking of Josh McCown.wutang112878 said:
There are also ways around compensation - for instance, the Pats will get compensation for Talib (because he left as a FA) but Revis won't factor negatively into compensation because he was cut by Tampa. Smart teams will game the system in this way.wutang112878 said:
Super Nomario said:
Well that might have something to do with it on McCown, idiot!
As for the compensatory maneuvering, wouldnt you rather the team get the guys it really wants rather than pick and chose to try to get a 3rd and a rookie who is a 50/50 shot to be a player anyway??
Yes. And I think the Pats do: Amendola and LaFell are two guys they signed despite potentially factoring into compensation. Browner is, too, though his suspension will likely diminish how much he factors in. Revis was cut, so no compensation there. But I think this is less about who they sign and more a function of the way the Patriots structure contracts - they don't use a lot of fake / funny money years at the end of contracts, so they have more guys who play out their contracts and leave rather than are cut with a nonsense year left.wutang112878 said: