Originally Posted by Nitrofish
Test and quizzes are not playing, and they mean 0 when it comes to playing in the games. If you don't care, why such a lengthy response, or any response at all?
How about the player a coach is familiar with is better than the one he isn't familiar with.
And by "better" I mean, with Mallett O'Brien has a known commodity. With a rookie, ANY rookie QB brought in this year, O'Brien has to start from zero. The rookie has to learn what "open" really means in the NFL vs. college. They have to learn what "NFL game speed" means vs. college game speed. The rookie is at a disadvantage with respect to knowledge of what O'Brien expects out of the QB position - reads, accuracy, timing, what adjustments are available and make sense given the defensive formation vs. his offensive personnel group.
One would think that a 3 year vet (3 years in the same, or very similar, offensive system) would have an advantage over a rookie; at least going into training camp.
Can the rookie overtake the vet? Sure, there's always that chance. In fact, a good coach drafts to build in that competition - not just at QB but everywhere. So if he (the rook) is smart enough, has enough drive, and has the physical tools, he can take the job from the vet; if not in year one, maybe year two. Walsh was a genius at that. Not even Joe Montana's job was secure.
And I expect no less from O'Brien. Note that he told Fitzpatrick he would have a fair shot to compete for the starting job. He (O'Brien) didn't hand it to him on a platter. Bringing in Mallett would up the ante even farther.