So .... Who's your QB in 2014 ?! - [edit] Mallett?

[IDEXAN]

If OB likes Mallet as well as any QB in this Draft, eh's worth every penny of the 2.1 so to speak. andm it would free us up to make a trade with our 1.1 However it's difficult to see us trading our first round pick because there's no QB out there appealing enough to attract a suitor. However there's one scenario that could work: we could offer up our 1.1 say to a team with the 1.6 or 1.7 pick if they'd throw in an additional pick, but the exchange on the "Draft Value Chart" would look very unfavorable for the Texans. If we'd exchange our 1.1 with, for example, TB sitting at 7 for their first and second rounder, it would be
a 3000 point exchange for 'bout 2000 points. Personally I'd do it in a heartbeat given the tremendous depth of the Draft.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

I've read he's already undergone the surgery, just before his pro day, and recovery was expected at 6-8 weeks. Hopefully just before the draft he might be able to test for teams. But I attribute this to why he would fall to us at 2-33.

Your post is the first to mention the 5-10% failure rate for the surgery, which would be a concern; and you have a longer range for the recovery, which would prevent him from maybe testing prior to the draft.

I am definitely being optimistic, here. But if Tuitt could fully recover from this injury, he would be a tremendous and unexpected talent at 2-33. I've read reports that the way teams began to "solve" Crennel's defense was to simply refuse to double the DE because the player didn't have the ability to - the word the writer used was "punish" - the offense for blocking one-on-one.

Again, my main concern is not necessarily his acute recovery from the injury........it's his longer term ability to bring down his weight and regain his form.........certainly very questionable before the Draft.

 

[thunderkyss]

He has already done his bench sitting time to develop they would have to do. Mallett fell due to off field issues or he was a 1st round guy and there is nary a whisper of any problems since being drafted. His talent level is on par with the 3 QBs being considered at 1.1.

NFL.com draft prospect grades - Mallett 7.4, Bortles 6.4, Bridgewater 6.3, Manziel 5.9.

That's true... it's not like he couldn't beat Brady Quin out for playing time.

I never saw that grade before... that's almost as high as Clowney 7.5 I can see passing a 7.5 DE to draft a 7.4 QB makes more sense than drafting a 6.3 QB instead.

 

[Playoffs]

After tracking this Mallett stuff down, I can see Texans doing their due diligence gauging the market with Mallett before taking a run at Hoyer. I just don't see how Browns dump Hoyer in their situation.

John McClain ‏@McClain_on_NFL

If Texans are going to try to trade for a QB, I think Browns Brian Hoyer would be the most likely target. Spent 3 years with Bill OBrien at NE.

I told you last week Texans wouldn't be signing Matt Cassel. And they won't be trading for Ryan Mallett, either.

NFL.com draft prospect grades - Mallett 7.4, Bortles 6.4, Bridgewater 6.3, Manziel 5.9.

Link

Blaine Gabbert 8.4. No measurable for pocket presence.

 

[infantrycak]

I'll go ahead and stake this one out - I think trading a triscuit for Hoyer would be foolish. He's desperately trying to hang on in the league and we don't need to be his 5th team. He's not even lateral to Case Keenum.

I can only hope this is the Walrus' urge to stir the pot with dramatic statements and predictions.

Blaine Gabbert 8.4. No measurable for pocket presence.

Grades don't guarantee performance. That misses the point which was Mallett's on field value is higher than the QBs in this year's draft who folks want to get instead in the 3rd+ round in some sort of pick economizing measure.

 

[IDEXAN]

Didn't John McClain make a guarantee that the Texans would draft Reggie Bush back in 2006 ?

 

[thunderkyss]

After tracking this Mallett stuff down, I can see Texans doing their due diligence gauging the market with Mallett before taking a run at Hoyer. I just don't see how Browns dump Hoyer in their situation.

John McClain ‏@McClain_on_NFL

If Texans are going to try to trade for a QB, I think Browns Brian Hoyer would be the most likely target. Spent 3 years with Bill OBrien at NE.

I told you last week Texans wouldn't be signing Matt Cassel. And they won't be trading for Ryan Mallett, either.

"You" believe the Browns would trade up to draft Manziel, but don't believe they are ready to "dump" Hoyer for a high second?

Then you "believe" McClain.

Sorry Play0ffs, but you've gone off reservation on this one.

Blaine Gabbert 8.4. No measurable for pocket presence.

You mean Blaine Gabbert graded higher, much higher than these three.... & people still want to take them with the 1st overall? 8.4... that would make these 6.4, 6.3, grades late 2nd round prospects at best.


Unless it's a really, really ****ty draft.

 

[infantrycak]

Didn't John McClain make a guarantee that the Texans would draft Reggie Bush back in 2006 ?

Over the past few years he has gotten increasingly melodramatic in his proclamations and doesn't even have a pretense of basing them on "unnamed sources" or "word from the inside" anymore.

 

[Playoffs]

...Mallett's on field value is higher than the QBs in this year's draft who folks want to get instead in the 3rd+ round in some sort of pick economizing measure.

No doubt, Mallett was right there with Newton on physical QB traits and ahead on FB IQ.

 

[bah007]

I was never a fan of Mallett. Another in a long line of QB prospects who was overrated due to their size and arm strength.

I do admit that there are things to like about Mallett. But for me, the negatives always outweighed the positives. The biggest negative being that he was a consistent failure in the 4th quarter of games, which I documented in a post a couple of months ago when this idea first came up.

I also said at that time that it would take at least our #33 to get him, when many were thinking he could be had for our #65. NE has all the leverage in a deal like this, which I don't like. If O'Brien signs off on this then obviously I'm on board, but IMO Mallett is not a long term answer. And a trade like this would require a long term commitment, much like the Schaub trade did.

Mallett would be the best QB on this roster next year if we make no other changes, but he would just be the best of a bad group. Again, in my opinion. I see a potential franchise QB (yes, Bridgewater) at #1 who would be better in year 1 and better moving forward. That's what I'd do.

 

[steelbtexan]

if we do get mallet (whatever pick we give up 2nd or 3rd) we must trade down.
it would make this offseason as good as you can get.

I would consider getting Clowney/Mallet/James/a Lb Likr Christian Jones then this has been a very good draft.

 

[Lucky]

NFL.com draft prospect grades - Mallett 7.4, Bortles 6.4, Bridgewater 6.3, Manziel 5.9.

I agree with your point. But, I don't think these grades are on the same scale. Clowney tops out at 7.5 this year, while there were 4 players in 2011 with 8.6 grades (Miller, Peterson, Green, and Darius).

 

[infantrycak]

I agree with your point. But, I don't think these grades are on the same scale. Clowney tops out at 7.5 this year, while there were 4 players in 2011 with 8.6 grades (Miller, Peterson, Green, and Darius).

The grades were surprising to me (enough I looked and didn't find any formal scale change). I didn't intend it beyond an outside source that his talent level on the field was graded 1st round and he isn't your ordinary "3rd round" QB.

 

[IDEXAN]

I agree with your point. But, I don't think these grades are on the same scale. Clowney tops out at 7.5 this year, while there were 4 players in 2011 with 8.6 grades (Miller, Peterson, Green, and Darius).

I'd also take an edge rusher like Miller (if I didn't know he was a pot head), over any of this years QBs with our 1.1, but none of the other guys.

 

[Lucky]

I'm trying to download the 2011 drafttracker by grades, but it is super slow or just not loading for me. Regarding the top 3 QBs in this draft, Bortles & Bridgewater are 8-12 ranked, Manziel is in the 25-30 range.

 

[infantrycak]

I'd also take an edge rusher like Miller (if I didn't know he was a pot head), over any of this years QBs with our 1.1, but none of the other guys.

Sometimes the NFL and pundits get caught up in their own self-created rules. Gil Brandt has an article out saying the Texans shouldn't take Mack at 1.1 because he is a LB. Of course he doesn't apply the same logic to the Texans taking Clowney who would play LB for them as well.

 

[Texian]

If Bill Belichick is willing to trade you Ryan Mallett then you don't want him.

 

[infantrycak]

If Bill Belichick is willing to trade you Ryan Mallett then you don't want him.

 

[steelbtexan]

I was never a fan of Mallett. Another in a long line of QB prospects who was overrated due to their size and arm strength.

I do admit that there are things to like about Mallett. But for me, the negatives always outweighed the positives. The biggest negative being that he was a consistent failure in the 4th quarter of games, which I documented in a post a couple of months ago when this idea first came up.

I also said at that time that it would take at least our #33 to get him, when many were thinking he could be had for our #65. NE has all the leverage in a deal like this, which I don't like. If O'Brien signs off on this then obviously I'm on board, but IMO Mallett is not a long term answer. And a trade like this would require a long term commitment, much like the Schaub trade did.

Mallett would be the best QB on this roster next year if we make no other changes, but he would just be the best of a bad group. Again, in my opinion. I see a potential franchise QB (yes, Bridgewater) at #1 who would be better in year 1 and better moving forward. That's what I'd do.

Mallett did lead the Hogs to a Sugar Bowl. How many BCS bowls have they been to since. He had some problems in the 4th qtr but Arkansas team was lacking talent over all. Don't believe me, look at what happened to Tyler Wilson.

Even though Mallett talks like a Arkansas redneck. He's actually a very smart guy. (Parents were educators) I saw him breakdown defenses on the Gruden QB camp and he impressed me. He should've only gotten better with 3 yrs in the Pats system.

Bottom line is do you believe Mallett has the ability to be a franchise QB? I think he does. I would ask in a trade for a change in draft positions in the 2nd rd. 2-33 for 2-61 and the Texans 2015 3rd. That seems like a fair trade to me.

 

[thunderkyss]

I was never a fan of Mallett. Another in a long line of QB prospects who was overrated due to their size and arm strength.

I do admit that there are things to like about Mallett. But for me, the negatives always outweighed the positives. The biggest negative being that he was a consistent failure in the 4th quarter of games, which I documented in a post a couple of months ago when this idea first came up.

I respect your take on college prospects. If you're not a fan, I'm cautious. This may be a smoke screen for all I know, but if it happens, I hope like heck you're wrong. Lot of things I can overlook... but consistent failure in the 4th??

Do you know why he was so consistent?

I also said at that time that it would take at least our #33 to get him, when many were thinking he could be had for our #65. NE has all the leverage in a deal like this, which I don't like. If O'Brien signs off on this then obviously I'm on board, but IMO Mallett is not a long term answer. And a trade like this would require a long term commitment, much like the Schaub trade did.

New England has no leverage. We don't have to have Mallet. Like to... They found Mallet, they find guys like him all the time. New England knows it's more about development than finding that "special" talent.

Mallett would be the best QB on this roster next year if we make no other changes, but he would just be the best of a bad group. Again, in my opinion. I see a potential franchise QB (yes, Bridgewater) at #1 who would be better in year 1 and better moving forward. That's what I'd do.

I wish I believed that, because I'd like to get this QB thing behind us. But when this all started, after I looked at these QBs, Bridgewater wasn't the one I thought most likely to succeed. I didn't believe him to be a good enough prospect for the 1-1 overall, & I didn't see much separation between him & the others. Everything that has come out since validates my opinion.

I don't pretend to be an expert. I don't have a very good record predicting the success of college prospects (kinda missed wide on that VY thing). So I would have absolutely no problem if the powers that be took Bridgewater at 1-1, or Bortles, or even JFF... but it screams mistake to me. A chance/gamble we don't have to take.

 

[infantrycak]

New England has no leverage. We don't have to have Mallet. Like to... They found Mallet, they find guys like him all the time. New England knows it's more about development than finding that "special" talent.

Mallett is the highest pick Belichick has spent on a QB, Cleveland or NE, and he didn't need a starter or for that matter a backup. They had Hoyer when they drafted Mallett.

 

[Lucky]

Even though Mallett talks like a Arkansas redneck. He's actually a very smart guy. (Parents were educators) I saw him breakdown defenses on the Gruden QB camp and he impressed me.

I saw that segment, and Mallett does come off as football savvy. Is he the type of guy McNair would want as a spokesman for the organization? I don't know. Should that really matter when building a winning football organization? Probably not.

 

[Lucky]

New England has no leverage. We don't have to have Mallet.

New England doesn't "have to" trade Mallett, either. They could keep him through 2014, lose him in 2015 free agency, and possibly get a comp draft pick for Mallett in 2016. Or trade him pre-or-mid season to a team that loses a QB. There's also the possibility that other QB hungry teams (JAX, OAK, CLE, etc.) could want Mallett after evaluating this class of QBs. You're making a lot of assumptions that don't pass the smell test.

 

[_King_]

I wish we'd just take bridgewater at 1.1 since I believe he's the best of the available qb's, but I can get behind trading for mallet since I do like him. Trading for mallet would open up options in the draft and possibly allow us to make the team stronger. Especially if mallet can come in and play well immediately.

We could trade 1.1 for a kings ransom or take clowney and hope he is that good.

 

[Lucky]

We could trade 1.1 for a kings ransom or take clowney and hope he is that good.

There's so much draft smoke going on, you can't see a foot in front of you. The Texans will trade for Mallett. No they won't. The Texans like Bridgewater. I mean Bortles. I mean Clowney. Who the h-e-l-l knows? It's possible the Texans could trade out of 1-1 and still get a QB. It's too smoky to know anything for sure right now.

I still like Bridgewater the best. But I also like Manziel and Bortles. And Mallett makes sense. Whatever they decide to do, I like the Texans chances of coming out of this process with a QB for the future.

 

[thunderkyss]

Mallett is the highest pick Belichick has spent on a QB, Cleveland or NE, and he didn't need a starter or for that matter a backup. They had Hoyer when they drafted Mallett.

& we still have the #1 overall pick. We can get any QB in this draft.

I want the Mallet deal to go down, I don't have a problem with giving up 33, but I don't believe New England has all the leverage. We don't have to have Mallet.

 

[Playoffs]

Bottom line is do you believe Mallett has the ability to be a franchise QB?

I'll believe whatever OB believes. On almost all of these decisions we face he appears to be the more informed to choose that most anyone could be.

Something I'm picking up that I think is good... there are no organizational leaks coming out of the Texans FO so far. Nobody knows which of the many options we prefer. John McClain is as in the dark as you and me. Loose lips sink ships.

 

[steelbtexan]

I wish we'd just take bridgewater at 1.1 since I believe he's the best of the available qb's, but I can get behind trading for mallet since I do like him. Trading for mallet would open up options in the draft and possibly allow us to make the team stronger. Especially if mallet can come in and play well immediately.

We could trade 1.1 for a kings ransom or take clowney and hope he is that good.

^^^^
This

Do you believe Mallett has a chance to be better than Bridgewater?

I think he will be better.

 

[thunderkyss]

I saw that segment, and Mallett does come off as football savvy.

This one?

 

[IDEXAN]

& we still have the #1 overall pick. We can get any QB in this draft.

I want the Mallet deal to go down, I don't have a problem with giving up 33, but I don't believe New England has all the leverage. We don't have to have Mallet.

So do I, and not so much because I want us to draft Clowney with our 1.1, which I do because I think he's a great talent, but I just don't want to use our 1.1 on one of these QBs when a Mallet would be as good or better and we could also have a stud edge-rusher or OT like perhaps Auburn's Robinson.

 

[Lucky]

This one?

Yes. The whiteboard session starts at 2:37.

Of course if John Daly is a good buddy of yours, that may be a red flag.

 

[Lucky]

John McClain ‏@McClain_on_NFL

I told you last week Texans wouldn't be signing Matt Cassel. And they won't be trading for Ryan Mallett, either.

I so want this trade to happen, now. Not that McClain would mind eating crow. As long as you put some powdered sugar and syrup on it.

 

[Number19]

Sometimes the NFL and pundits get caught up in their own self-created rules. Gil Brandt has an article out saying the Texans shouldn't take Mack at 1.1 because he is a LB. Of course he doesn't apply the same logic to the Texans taking Clowney who would play LB for them as well.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...s-should-not-draft-khalil-mack-with-no-1-pick
And of course, in Crennel's 2-gap 34, it's the LB's who are the primary pass rushers, not the DE's.

The question which was posed to me earlier as I was developing my defense centric mock is, if Clowney is projected to the Elephant, how do we utilize Mercilus? Do we just jettison our 2012 #26 pick. Granted, he has not performed to expectations, but we have no idea, as of now, how well he would adapt to Crennel's defense. You usually don't abandon this high of a pick after only two seasons without extremely good cause.

So is Clowney projected to DE and if so, he probably won't produce the high sack totals justifying Gil Brandt's analysis. Or is he projected to the strong side OLB position, right along side JJ, which I suggested earlier this past week. If this were the case, could he cover the RB and TE responsibilities in the flat routes?

If we were to trade for Mallet, then the decision to draft Clowney, or Mack, would come down to Crennel having a strong vision how the pieces will fit into his defense. At at this point in time, we have no idea what he has in mind. It's nothing but conjecture on our part.

 

[ObsiWan]

New England doesn't "have to" trade Mallett, either. They could keep him through 2014, lose him in 2015 free agency, and possibly get a comp draft pick for Mallett in 2016. Or trade him pre-or-mid season to a team that loses a QB. There's also the possibility that other QB hungry teams (JAX, OAK, CLE, etc.) could want Mallett after evaluating this class of QBs. You're making a lot of assumptions that don't pass the smell test.

Out of all those options regarding moving Mallett, getting a 2-1 in a talent rich draft seems, to me, to be the best for the Pats. Comp picks start at round 3; they'd get what amounts to a late one if we pull the trigger. Offering Mallett up in case OAK/JAX/CLE/etc. wants him later on won't get them a 2-1 ....unless they're goofy enough to give the Pats their 1st round pick for a backup.

No, they don't have to trade Mallett at all. But this sure would be a sweet deal for them. Unless O'Brien really likes the kid AND plans on running a very similar offense to the one the Pats ran back then, and maybe he does, I don't see any advantage for the Texans.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

This one?

Much different (impressive) than the college interview I posted earlier where he sounded like he would compete well against a box of rocks. Three years without any trouble, apparent maturation, good understanding of breaking down plays, cannon arm, mobile enough, tree-top height.............I'd be all for making a play for him. Throw in the fact that his college career was injury-free, and the only injury suffered during his Pats time was a short-lived head injury which has shown no residual effects..........and it sweetens the pot.

 

[Playoffs]

"You" believe the Browns would trade up to draft Manziel, but don't believe they are ready to "dump" Hoyer for a high second?

Sorry Play0ffs, but you've gone off reservation on this one.

Just because I post news doesn't make me the author of it. Browns for Manziel was "ages" ago because Lombardi lusted after JFF. Lombardi is was fired. If Cleveland wants Manziel he'll be there at 1-4, imo.

As for Hoyer, I'd keep him and start him if I were the Browns. I don't see him on Mallett's level. Never said we'd offer a 2nd for him.

Where did I say I "believed" McClain? McClain says without equivocation Texans will draft QB at 1-1 -- I disagree. As for Mallett, my opinion is the Texans won't trade their 2-1 for him as it's a virtual #1 pick in a great draft. I could be wrong -- been wrong before. And I'm not an American Indian.

 

[Lucky]

Out of all those options regarding moving Mallett, getting a 2-1 in a talent rich draft seems, to me, to be the best for the Pats. Comp picks start at round 3; they'd get what amounts to a late one if we pull the trigger. Offering Mallett up in case OAK/JAX/CLE/etc. wants him later on won't get them a 2-1 ....

Tk's point (I think) was that the Texans wouldn't have to pony up 2-1. That the Texans have all the leverage. No, they don't. If they really want Mallett, they would have to meet Belichick's price. The Pats don't have to deal Mallett. And I don't see why they would, unless they received at least a high 2nd, such as the Texans, Browns, Raiders, or Jags.

Another option would be trade out of 1-1, and use some of those picks to deal for Mallett. If the Falcons have a pre-draft deal with Rams if Clowney is on the board, wouldn't they also be willing to move up to 1-1? The Texans could take a Jake Matthews at 1-6, deal the Falcons 2nd rounder to New England for Mallett, and still have 2-1. And while Mallett isn't necessarily a statue, he needs good protection. Drafting a very good pass blocking OT would make a lot of sense.

 

[Lucky]

And I'm not an American Indian.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[steelbtexan]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...s-should-not-draft-khalil-mack-with-no-1-pick
And of course, in Crennel's 2-gap 34, it's the LB's who are the primary pass rushers, not the DE's.

The question which was posed to me earlier as I was developing my defense centric mock is, if Clowney is projected to the Elephant, how do we utilize Mercilus? Do we just jettison our 2012 #26 pick. Granted, he has not performed to expectations, but we have no idea, as of now, how well he would adapt to Crennel's defense. You usually don't abandon this high of a pick after only two seasons without extremely good cause.

So is Clowney projected to DE and if so, he probably won't produce the high sack totals justifying Gil Brandt's analysis. Or is he projected to the strong side OLB position, right along side JJ, which I suggested earlier this past week. If this were the case, could he cover the RB and TE responsibilities in the flat routes?

If we were to trade for Mallet, then the decision to draft Clowney, or Mack, would come down to Crennel having a strong vision how the pieces will fit into his defense. At at this point in time, we have no idea what he has in mind. It's nothing but conjecture on our part.

Mercilus isn't a good enough football player to justify his draft status. I would move on from him. He symbolizes everything that was wrong with the last regime. I would try to trade Mercilus for a 3rd/4th rd pick to make up for some of the equity loss of the trade for Mallett.

It's time to move on from the past.

 

[IDEXAN]

How come some sharp young guy like Lance Zierlein or Seth Payne instead of John McClain be the face of the NFL Draft discussion from Houston ?

 

[steelbtexan]

Tk's point (I think) was that the Texans wouldn't have to pony up 2-1. That the Texans have all the leverage. No, they don't. If they really want Mallett, they would have to meet Belichick's price. The Pats don't have to deal Mallett. And I don't see why they would, unless they received at least a high 2nd, such as the Texans, Browns, Raiders, or Jags.

Another option would be trade out of 1-1, and use some of those picks to deal for Mallett. If the Falcons have a pre-draft deal with Rams if Clowney is on the board, wouldn't they also be willing to move up to 1-1? The Texans could take a Jake Matthews at 1-6, deal the Falcons 2nd rounder to New England for Mallett, and still have 2-1. And while Mallett isn't necessarily a statue, he needs good protection. Drafting a very good pass blocking OT would make a lot of sense.

I could see trading down. But I think McNair wants Clowney. Give me Barr/Shazier/Maytthews at 6 and I'm very happy.

 

[Playoffs]

How come some sharp young guy like Lance Zierlein or Seth Payne instead of John McClain be the face of the NFL Draft discussion from Houston ?

Those guys aren't famous actors...

John McClain, who grew up in Waco and graduated from Baylor, left the Waco Tribune-Herald to join the Houston Chronicle in October 1976 to cover the original Houston Aeros of the World Hockey Association. His first Oilers' training camp was 1977. He has covered the Oilers, NFL and Texans for the Houston Chronicle.

He does eight weekly sports talk shows in Houston, Austin, Waco and Nashville. He appears on three weekly sports talk shows on the Texans' flagship, Sports Radio 610, and three on the Titans' flagship, 104.5 The Zone. He's a contributor to The Sports Xchange, The Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, the NFL Network and Sirius Radio.

Former president of Pro Football Writers of America

Member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee

Member of the Texas Sports Hall of Fame Selection Committee

Has a plaque in the Pro Football Hall of Fame after winning the 2006 Dick McCann Memorial Award for long and distinguished reporting on the NFL

Member of the Screen Actors Guild with appearances in The Rookie, The Longest Yard, Invincible, The Game Plan, Secretariat, Cook County and Spring Breakers

 

[Hottoddie]

Tk's point (I think) was that the Texans wouldn't have to pony up 2-1. That the Texans have all the leverage. No, they don't. If they really want Mallett, they would have to meet Belichick's price. The Pats don't have to deal Mallett. And I don't see why they would, unless they received at least a high 2nd, such as the Texans, Browns, Raiders, or Jags.

Another option would be trade out of 1-1, and use some of those picks to deal for Mallett. If the Falcons have a pre-draft deal with Rams if Clowney is on the board, wouldn't they also be willing to move up to 1-1? The Texans could take a Jake Matthews at 1-6, deal the Falcons 2nd rounder to New England for Mallett, and still have 2-1. And while Mallett isn't necessarily a statue, he needs good protection. Drafting a very good pass blocking OT would make a lot of sense.

If that scenario were to happen, then why not make signing a veteran FA RT the number 1 priority on the 11th? That would allow us to possibly draft Mack in the 1st, get a starting QB & still retain the 1st pick in the 2nd round. We'd basically be substituting Mack for Clowney.

 

[Lucky]

If that scenario were to happen, then why not make signing a veteran FA RT the number 1 priority on the 11th?

That would make sense, also. Just don't know who would be available or exactly what the Texans are trying to do in free agency. It has to be a consideration, though.

 

[ObsiWan]

Tk's point (I think) was that the Texans wouldn't have to pony up 2-1. That the Texans have all the leverage. No, they don't. If they really want Mallett, they would have to meet Belichick's price. The Pats don't have to deal Mallett. And I don't see why they would, unless they received at least a high 2nd, such as the Texans, Browns, Raiders, or Jags.

Another option would be trade out of 1-1, and use some of those picks to deal for Mallett. If the Falcons have a pre-draft deal with Rams if Clowney is on the board, wouldn't they also be willing to move up to 1-1? The Texans could take a Jake Matthews at 1-6, deal the Falcons 2nd rounder to New England for Mallett, and still have 2-1. And while Mallett isn't necessarily a statue, he needs good protection. Drafting a very good pass blocking OT would make a lot of sense.

Now you know I like this scenario.
A lot.
We get a good OT, O'Brien gets a QB he already knows, and if Ford is still around we can grab him - or the best pass rusher on the board - with our 2-1 and improve the defense.

...dammit Lucky, you now have me salivating.

 

[_King_]

^^^^
This

Do you believe Mallett has a chance to be better than Bridgewater?

I think he will be better.

I do think he has a chance to be better than TB because of the big arm. And he's had a chance to sit and learn in a good system.

Grabbing mallet has a chance to make us a better team overall...and more quickly.

 

[thunderkyss]

Tk's point (I think) was that the Texans wouldn't have to pony up 2-1. That the Texans have all the leverage. No, they don't. If they really want Mallett, they would have to meet Belichick's price. The Pats don't have to deal Mallett. And I don't see why they would, unless they received at least a high 2nd, such as the Texans, Browns, Raiders, or Jags.
.

No... not my point at all. My point was that we don't "really" want Mallet... at least I don't believe we do.

I may have mispoke about the leverage terminology. Yes, New England don't have to take anything less than 2-1 if that is their asking price. We've got nothing to impend them to take less. As of yet, they have nothing to lose.

But we aren't in a position to where we have to have Mallet. That's all I was saying.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

McClain on 610 just a little while ago again stated he has no idea where this Mallet trade "rumor" started, but he can "guarantee" that the Texans have NO interest at all in Mallet.

 

[infantrycak]

McClain on 610 just a little while ago again stated he has no idea where this Mallet trade "rumor" started, but he can "guarantee" that the Texans have NO interest at all in Mallet.

Whoohooo, Mallett's our new starting QB.

 

[Lady.Gaga.3000]

Would you rather have Mallet for the 2.1 or use the 2.1 on someone around Derek Carr's range?