Ryan Mallett traded to Texans

[speedfreek]

I just want to address one last thing, and I think it's important.

If Obrien (and seemingly a lot of fans now) think that Mallett
is going to be starting over Fitz at some point, then how can
anyone say that the pats early price was "too high"?

If the staff believes that he could be the guy, then why wreck
his chances by putting him behind the 8-ball trying to get up
to speed a week away from opening day?

If you have a valid starter, a franchise prospect, then isn't it
worth a 4th or 5th round pick to get him into camp early and have
him prepared for the season?

If you do, then you can pay Fitz backup money instead of starting
money -- and you don't have to take a QB high in the draft
(round 1, round 2) next year..

The argument that the Texans somehow "saved" something is
absurd. It cost them much more to wait. they had to pay
Fitz more money, slow Mallett's development with the team,
give up a potential 6th round pick _and_ conceptually decrease
their chances to win games early in the season.

In essence, if you are BoB and you think that mallett is your man,
then you have agreed to just concede the first 2-3 games of the
year playing an inferior QB in Fitz just to save a round or two on
the pick you had to trade for Mallett?

I don't buy that. If BoB is supposed to be as smart as people say
he is then there is no way that is how it went down..

I think he fully expected Fitz to be more competent than he is,
and I think he expected one of either keenum or yates to understand
his "complex offense", and when that didn't happen he and
the front office panicked and went after mallett.

And, no, I am not a conspiracy theorist type..

 

[infantrycak]

I just want to address one last thing, and I think it's important.

If Obrien (and seemingly a lot of fans now) think that Mallett
is going to be starting over Fitz at some point, then how can
anyone say that the pats early price was "too high"?

If the staff believes that he could be the guy, then why wreck
his chances by putting him behind the 8-ball trying to get up
to speed a week away from opening day?

If you have a valid starter, a franchise prospect, then isn't it
worth a 4th or 5th round pick to get him into camp early and have
him prepared for the season?

If you do, then you can pay Fitz backup money instead of starting
money -- and you don't have to take a QB high in the draft
(round 1, round 2) next year..

The argument that the Texans somehow "saved" something is
absurd. It cost them much more to wait. they had to pay
Fitz more money, slow Mallett's development with the team,
give up a potential 6th round pick _and_ conceptually decrease
their chances to win games early in the season.

In essence, if you are BoB and you think that mallett is your man,
then you have agreed to just concede the first 2-3 games of the
year playing an inferior QB in Fitz just to save a round or two on
the pick you had to trade for Mallett?

I don't buy that. If BoB is supposed to be as smart as people say
he is then there is no way that is how it went down..

I think he fully expected Fitz to be more competent than he is,
and I think he expected one of either keenum or yates to understand
his "complex offense", and when that didn't happen he and
the front office panicked and went after mallett.

And, no, I am not a conspiracy theorist type..

Have you ever played poker? It's called bluffing and psssst, we won.

 

[Double Barrel]

OK, there's a backup QB available for trade.
One of the greatest head coaches in NFL history evaluated this QB and decided said QB was good enough to be the sole backup to one of the greatest QBs in league history for several seasons.
You can get that QB for a 7th round pick to be your backup, or a 6th round pick at the highest to be your starter if he plays well enough.

You'd be a damn fool not to do that.

yep. In addition, our current head coach was part of the staff that evaluated and eventually drafted Mallet, as well as got to know him for a year as a rookie.

I like the move. The Texans gave up very little to see if Mallet can be a starter. Like Vinny said, this new head coach and front office is showing signs of learning from past mistakes. They are not so obsessed with getting starting QB now that they are willing to settle. Build a team, and then find that right piece for the puzzle.

 

[thunderkyss]

I just want to address one last thing, and I think it's important.

If Obrien (and seemingly a lot of fans now) think that Mallett
is going to be starting over Fitz at some point, then how can
anyone say that the pats early price was "too high"?

If the staff believes that he could be the guy, then why wreck
his chances by putting him behind the 8-ball trying to get up
to speed a week away from opening day?

If you have a valid starter, a franchise prospect, then isn't it
worth a 4th or 5th round pick to get him into camp early and have
him prepared for the season?

If you do, then you can pay Fitz backup money instead of starting
money -- and you don't have to take a QB high in the draft
(round 1, round 2) next year..

The argument that the Texans somehow "saved" something is
absurd. It cost them much more to wait. they had to pay
Fitz more money, slow Mallett's development with the team,
give up a potential 6th round pick _and_ conceptually decrease
their chances to win games early in the season.

Fitzpatrick is getting veteran QB money, not starting QB money. $4.5M/yr is back up pay. He was going to get that anyway.

As far as getting Mallet in as early as possible, I agree. If they think he's a starter, a 2nd is not too high. But if Mallet isn't willing to sign more than a one year deal, next year's 7th is too high.

 

[santo]

Mallett was going to be cut anyway when they drafted Garoppolo, even if Mallett would have played lights out in New Egland. Why, because Mallett would have been asking for starter money after this season.
New England pretty much lost leverage when they drafted Garoppolo this year.

I like this trade because the Texans really didn't give up much to get him, plus if he doesn't work out here, they don't have to give him a contract.

I see more of a win-win here than the Schaub trade Kubiak did, because we didn't give up 2 2nd round picks.

Also, Mallett has been playing in the similar system that O'Brien is going to use here, so the learning curve is smaller for him than with Savage or Fitzpatrick.

 

[DBCooper]

I feel the exact opposite of you. I like that they didn't rush out and overspend for a QB like those dumpster diving Franchises. I like that they knew what they wanted in a Coach. I like how they brought in bigger core players. I like how they committed to a strong D and core players with this Mgmt teams first draft. I can be patient as a fan and not have to have some bs move to appease instant gratification.

The only thing I didn't like was retaining Rick Smith. Otherwise I think I feel better about this franchise than I have been feeling for what is going on years now.

Nailed it, Vinny!

 

[speedfreek]

But if Mallet isn't willing to sign more than a one year deal, next year's 7th is too high.

Agreed, I think that if "The Texas Hammer" lights it up he will definitely
be the steal of free agency.

The only problem, like you implied, is that he might get really expensive really
quickly after the one year deal.

If this team, as constructed right now, goes 7-9, 8-8 with Mallett getting
a majority of the starts -- then you pay him and give him another few years.

Specially if Fitz cost you a game or two early in the season before Mallett
was ready..

The sticky point, for me, would be if the team is 3-10 when mallett gets
the reigns and the team wins 2 of 3 under him.

Why? Because you still don't know what you have with him, and the body
of work isn't large enough to know if he is a franchise guy..

You don't want to lose him, but you don't want to pay him either -- GM
purgatory. (which we, as a franchise, have handled poorly)

So, if I'm BoB, I get him into the starters role ASAP! He supposedly has
3 years in a similar scheme -- time to sink or swim.

The vast majority of the (non sunshine pumper) Texans fan base is willing
to scuttle this season just to see what we can go forward with next year.

 

[Lucky]

On 790 this morning, LZ said that his sources told him that Mallett was the Texans #2 target with the first being Matt Barkley. I think I'd take Mallett over Barkley but I found it interesting if the story is true.

I heard that. One possibility was that the talks with Belichick regarding Mallett had stalled and the Texans were looking at other QBs. When the Eagles wouldn't trade Barkley, the Texans went back to the Pats and a deal was made. Unless someone hacks into Rick Smith's computer (ala Jeff Luhnow) we may never know the truth.

 

[ChampionTexan]

Don't tell that to Earl Morrall or the Colts who put him in when Johnny Unitas went down and led them to a 13-1 record. The only undefeated team ever in the NFL did it with a back up QB most of the year as well.

The 2001 Patriots might take exception to that statement also.

 

[Carr Bombed]

The 2001 Patriots might take exception to that statement also.

Or the 99' St Louis Rams.

 

[thunderkyss]

On 790 this morning, LZ said that his sources told him that Mallett was the Texans #2 target with the first being Matt Barkley. I think I'd take Mallett over Barkley but I found it interesting if the story is true.

Found this

A report out of Sports Talk 790 in Houston states that before the Texans acquired New England Patriots backup quarterback Ryan Mallett, they tried to convince the Eagles to part ways with Barkley.

Assuming this is true...

 

[infantrycak]

I heard that. One possibility was that the talks with Belichick regarding Mallett had stalled and the Texans were looking at other QBs. When the Eagles wouldn't trade Barkley, the Texans went back to the Pats and a deal was made. Unless someone hacks into Rick Smith's computer (ala Jeff Luhnow) we may never know the truth.

This looks to me like the Texans did a good job of seeing two players they liked and crashing the market price. The Eagles won't hold Barkley for long. They'll inevitably be in the NE situation but they aren't up against the wall like NE yet.

 

[michaelm]

I heard that. One possibility was that the talks with Belichick regarding Mallett had stalled and the Texans were looking at other QBs. When the Eagles wouldn't trade Barkley, the Texans went back to the Pats and a deal was made. Unless someone hacks into Rick Smith's computer (ala Jeff Luhnow) we may never know the truth.

I'm glad it turned out the way it did. I'm definitely not sold on Mallett, but I never liked Barkley at all. He always seemed like a poor man's Sanchez to me, and that's no bueno.
Mallett might not be the second coming of Montana or anything, but he has some elite physical attributes that most other QBs in the league don't possess.

 

[sandman]

The sticky point, for me, would be if the team is 3-10 when mallett gets
the reigns and the team wins 2 of 3 under him.

You honestly believe that OB (or McNair for that matter) is going to get all the way to 3-10 before pulling Fitz? Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Carr Bombed]

You honestly believe that OB (or McNair for that matter) is going to get all the way to 3-10 before pulling Fitz? Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I was thinking the same thing.. Fitzpatrick most likely has the shortest leash in the entire league. The only other ones that I think are close is Hoyer and Hene.. Maybe Ponder as well.

No way Fitz gets to 3-10 as a starter, I bet as soon as Mallett gets the verbiage down and learns the playbook he'll become the starter.

 

[infantrycak]

I was thinking the same thing.. Fitzpatrick most likely has the shortest leash in the entire league. The only other ones that I think are close is Hoyer and Hene.. Maybe Ponder as well.

Ponder's going to get thrown off the bench?

 

[santo]

You honestly believe that OB (or McNair for that matter) is going to get all the way to 3-10 before pulling Fitz? Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If anything I think Mallett might start the second half of the Washington game if Fitzpatrick is struggling.

But I see OB starting Mallett by the 3rd game.

 

[Carr Bombed]

Ponder's going to get thrown off the bench?

Last preseason game on NLFN I saw they said said the plan was to start him and bring Teddy along slowly... Oh well, there you go, expect Fitz to suffer a similar fate.

 

[BullNation4Life]

1) If Fitz gets hurt, it's a 6th.. Who knows what holes we'll have
by the end of the year (maybe Cush isn't Cush anymore, etc.)

2) If he addresses the biggest need on the team, then he should
have been the guy _instead of_ Fitz months ago..

3) Signing a guy 5-6 days before the regular season isn't helping
any team "now".

You're not understanding my argument..

where are the "holes" you speak of and what 6th-7th round pick is gonna fill those holes productively?

 

[infantrycak]

Last preseason game on NLFN I saw they said said the plan was to start him and bring Teddy along slowly... Oh well, there you go, expect Fitz to suffer a similar fate.

You heard a confused commentator. Cassel is the starter. Ponder is 3rd string.

 

[sandman]

I was thinking the same thing.. Fitzpatrick most likely has the shortest leash in the entire league. The only other ones that I think are close is Hoyer and Hene.. Maybe Ponder as well.

No way Fitz gets to 3-10 as a starter, I bet as soon as Mallett gets the verbiage down and learns the playbook he'll become the starter.

Definitely the shortest leash in the league after the Mallett trade. This is more sure than a baby mama claim against Shawn Kemp. It's that sure...

 

[Carr Bombed]

You heard a confused commentator. Cassel is the starter. Ponder is 3rd string.

****, maybe I was confused, too much mango juice.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

If anything I think Mallett might start the second half of the Washington game if Fitzpatrick is struggling.

But I see OB starting Mallett by the 3rd game.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Mallet trots out as the starter in the Washington game.

 

[DX-TEX]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Mallet trots out as the starter in the Washington game.

I have thought about and considered this but I do NOT see it happening. Just doesn't seem to be BOBs style

 

[Playoffs]

On 790 this morning, LZ said that his sources told him that Mallett was the Texans #2 target with the first being Matt Barkley. I think I'd take Mallett over Barkley but I found it interesting if the story is true.

You have to present the appearance of other options when you go into a negotiation, and that we were even asking around was indicative of the fact we had one QB on the roster who could execute most of our offense from the LOS. Belichick had the option of rostering Mallett, which doesn't look like such a bad option with Brady already missing practice with a calf injury.

If I were BB, I would have held out to see if Texans go 1-3, then squeeze them for a higher/nearer pick. But, that's why he gets paid the big bucks and not me.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I have thought about and considered this but I do NOT see it happening. Just doesn't seem to be BOBs style

I think OB's "style" is to put the players who give the team the best chance to win on the field and to lie to the media before he does it.

I think Mallett is better than Fitzpatrick.

 

[santo]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Mallet trots out as the starter in the Washington game.

I want to think that too. It would make the offense watchable if it happened.

 

[BullNation4Life]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Mallet trots out as the starter in the Washington game.

man that would be something for the Washington Redepidermises. Mallett out there slinging it...

O'Brein is sneaky that way...

 

[speedfreek]

where are the "holes" you speak of and what 6th-7th round pick is gonna fill those holes productively?

If "Fat Randy" goes back to being early 2013 "Fat Randy" and we lose
a game because of it -- you can bet your fanny I'd use a #7 on a kicker..

 

[speedfreek]

You honestly believe that OB (or McNair for that matter) is going to get all the way to 3-10 before pulling Fitz? Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

McNair gave 8 years to Gary, and no one on here knows squat about
BoB yet. So your guess as to whether or not Fitz would be pulled is
no better than anyone elses..

Not that I said he wouldn't, but the whole point was rhetorical anyway.

Truth is, this entire staff -- outside of RAC is a big question mark..

 

[BullNation4Life]

If "Fat Randy" goes back to being early 2013 "Fat Randy" and we lose
a game because of it -- you can bet your fanny I'd use a #7 on a kicker..

or most likely they would sign one of the 40+ free agent kickers off the street...

so 1 hypothetical hole, what other holes need to be filled by a 7th round pick?

 

[Carr Bombed]

McNair gave 8 years to Gary, and no one on here knows squat about
BoB yet. So your guess as to whether or not Fitz would be pulled is
no better than anyone elses..

Not that I said he wouldn't, but the whole point was rhetorical anyway.

Truth is, this entire staff -- outside of RAC is a big question mark..

McNair giving 8 years to Gary has nothing to do with anything.

Try reading the tea leaves. Fitz wasn't signed to be O'brien's long term starter. He then drafted a guy he feels he can possibly develop, he then trades for another guy who's younger, has more upside/ability, that has played in his system, and has a one year Window to see what he can do. I think it's a safe bet to assume that he isn't going to give Fitzpatrick 3-10 rope.. The clock on Fitzpatrick already started the day he was signed, now that clock has been accelerated.

 

[DX-TEX]

I think OB's "style" is to put the players who give the team the best chance to win on the field and to lie to the media before he does it.

I think Mallett is better than Fitzpatrick.

Agreed on Mallet but I just cant see it.

if he DOES do it I will s**t myself.

 

[speedfreek]

Well, if you don't like my first suggestion, I would probably
grab the highest rated "athlete" available with good kick and punt
return skills.

We just took the kid out of Tulsa last week to attempt to handle
this problem (so obviously the staff wasn't comfortable with martin and
posey)

If he doesn't work out then go after a guy who is PR/KR
first and try to win the yardage battle against teams
with your defense and special teams.

or most likely they would sign one of the 40+ free agent kickers off the street...

so 1 hypothetical hole, what other holes need to be filled by a 7th round pick?

 

[BullNation4Life]

Well, if you don't like my first suggestion, I would probably
grab the highest rated "athlete" available with good kick and punt
return skills.

We just took the kid out of Tulsa last week to attempt to handle
this problem (so obviously the staff wasn't comfortable with martin and
posey)

If he doesn't work out then go after a guy who is PR/KR
first and try to win the yardage battle against teams
with your defense and special teams.

they signed a street FA to return punts, didn't draft him. so now it is a kicker and PR/KR. 2 positions so important that you need to draft them in the 7th round in order to be successful?

where is this box of straws you keep reaching for?

 

[PapaL]

Anyone else feel like they should stop checking in on this thread but just can't?

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Anyone else feel like they should stop checking in on this thread but just can't?

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I'm so damned pumped and ready for the season to start.

 

[infantrycak]

Anyone else feel like they should stop checking in on this thread but just can't?

You know you should tell her not to do it...but just can't bring yourself to do it.

 

[ChampionTexan]

I think OB's "style" is to put the players who give the team the best chance to win on the field and to lie to the media before he does it.

I think Mallett is better than Fitzpatrick.

I agree with you most of the time, but I think your way off base on this (The part about Mallett starting, not necessarily the part about him being better). Fitzpatrick will start the game, and unless he's injured, he'll finish it. His leash is short, but I don't see it so short that he doesn't get even a full game to show something.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I agree with you most of the time, but I think your way off base on this (The part about Mallett starting, not necessarily the part about him being better). Fitzpatrick will start the game, and unless he's injured, he'll finish it. His leash is short, but I don't see it so short that he doesn't get even a full game to show something.

I expect that you're right. My expectation is that Fitzpatrick gets one or two games to show what he can do. And I don't think it's about winning or losing the games, I think it's about command of the offense. So Fitz could win a game or two and still get pulled.

BUT what I said that started this is that I wouldn't be surprised if Mallett starts the first game... not that I expect it. I know that's a semantic quibble. I think Mallett could start the first game; I think he has a command of enough of this offense to do it and I don't think OB would have much of a compunction against starting him if he was a marked improvement over Fitzy. Furthermore, I hope he starts Mallett... I just don't expect him to pull that trigger before a game has been played out of deference to Fitzpatrick and the work he's done preparing for this season.

 

[b0ng]

I expect that you're right. My expectation is that Fitzpatrick gets one or two games to show what he can do. And I don't think it's about winning or losing the games, I think it's about command of the offense. So Fitz could win a game or two and still get pulled.

BUT what I said that started this is that I wouldn't be surprised if Mallett starts the first game... not that I expect it. I know that's a semantic quibble. I think Mallett could start the first game; I think he has a command of enough of this offense to do it and I don't think OB would have much of a compunction against starting him if he was a marked improvement over Fitzy. Furthermore, I hope he starts Mallett... I just don't expect him to pull that trigger before a game has been played out of deference to Fitzpatrick and the work he's done preparing for this season.

I think you're backpedalling a little to try and say that. I would be shocked if O'Brien starts a QB that hasn't been on the team for more than a week and a half, and didn't play at all in any preseason game. He may know the system, but I don't think he'll have the rapport developed with Hopkins/Andre/The O-line that you would want in a game situation.

Maybe I'm being naive and O'Brien is a master trickster, but if somebody had proposed they wouldn't be surprised to see Mallet taking snaps in a blowout, that wouldn't be shocking to read. To start the game though? Yeah, that'd shock the hell out of me, and would be completely unexpected. Especially since dramatic moves like that tend to get leaked somehow before gameday.

 

[DBCooper]

Well, if you don't like my first suggestion, I would probably
grab the highest rated "athlete" available with good kick and punt
return skills.

We just took the kid out of Tulsa last week to attempt to handle
this problem (so obviously the staff wasn't comfortable with martin and
posey)

If he doesn't work out then go after a guy who is PR/KR
first and try to win the yardage battle against teams
with your defense and special teams.

Lol.

So, we upgrade our pathetic QB situation this year with someone better than any on the roster right now and you're whining about kickers and punt returners we may be able to get in the draft in the 6th or 7th round 2 years from now, are you mad?

The current regime obviously didn't see our franchise QB in this years draft and judging by how they are not willing to spend now on a mediocre prospect, my guess is they have a plan for next year to significantly upgrade our QB.

I'm reading a book called "A Feast for Crows", I think the Texans season this year is going to be called "A Feast of Crow".

Put your bib on.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I think you're backpedalling a little to try and say that. I would be shocked if O'Brien starts a QB that hasn't been on the team for more than a week and a half, and didn't play at all in any preseason game. He may know the system, but I don't think he'll have the rapport developed with Hopkins/Andre/The O-line that you would want in a game situation.

Maybe I'm being naive and O'Brien is a master trickster, but if somebody had proposed they wouldn't be surprised to see Mallet taking snaps in a blowout, that wouldn't be shocking to read. To start the game though? Yeah, that'd shock the hell out of me, and would be completely unexpected. Especially since dramatic moves like that tend to get leaked somehow before gameday.

I don't think I'm backpedaling at all. Here's what I've been saying:

They might go with Fitz week 1 just to try to give Mallett time to get situated but... they might decide that Mallett is the guy and trot him out there immediately.

I think Mallett is going to be under center sooner than later.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Mallet trots out as the starter in the Washington game.

I've said since the trade was made that I think Mallett is going to be our starter and that I think he's going to be our starter as soon as OB can get him ready to play. I'm not going to be surprised if he's ready to play this week.

Like you said, though, OB might want more time to develop rapport and knowledge of his receivers but I think Fitzy has a game or two of being the starter at most.

 

[Mollywhopper]

I think rolling Mallett out on sunday would send a panicky message to the rest of the team. Two games sounds about right as the barometer for Fitzpatrick.

0-2 and you can yank him because, not only his he likely a key reason why, but you gotta hope you've bought enough time for Mallett to feel as comfortable as need be to step in.

2-0 and of course you roll with him for a bit, even if it's in spite of his play, for continuity's sake. And at this point you're buying more and more time to ease Mallett in when you'll likely need to later.

1-1 and now the question is A) has Fitz helped us to .500 or B) is Fitz holding us to .500?

I think the key though is that whenever O'Brien does give the call to the bullpen he's got to know there's no going back. Once Fitzpatrick's pulled, short of injury scenarios, he's pulled. The last thing we need is some amateur hour QB circle jerk. And the move for Mallett leads me to believe that they don't want Savage to take a snap short of a all-hope-is-lost dumpster fire in the backfield.

 

[thunderkyss]

I think rolling Mallett out on sunday would send a panicky message to the rest of the team. Two games sounds about right as the barometer for Fitzpatrick.

0-2 and you can yank him because, not only his he likely a key reason why, but you gotta hope you've bought enough time for Mallett to feel as comfortable as need be to step in.

2-0 and of course you roll with him for a bit, even if it's in spite of his play, for continuity's sake. And at this point you're buying more and more time to ease Mallett in when you'll likely need to later.

1-1 and now the question is A) has Fitz helped us to .500 or B) is Fitz holding us to .500?

Ryan Fitzpatrick gives us the best chance to win.


Don't sound right does it? For that reason alone, I wouldn't be surprised to see Mallet playing Sunday.

 

[Vance87]

Ryan Fitzpatrick gives us the best chance to win.


Don't sound right does it? For that reason alone, I wouldn't be surprised to see Mallet playing Sunday.

That right there is shades of :kubepalm:

 

[Mollywhopper]

Ryan Fitzpatrick gives us the best chance to win.


Don't sound right does it? For that reason alone, I wouldn't be surprised to see Mallet playing Sunday.

It doesn't sound any wackier than "we're running out, at quarterback, the 26 year old we just picked up last week".

Maybe at cornerback. Maybe at wideout. At QB that's dicey. I wouldn't sh*t my pants if it happened. And I'm not gonna undersell Mallett as our starter, as I like the trade. It just seems awfully quick is all.

It'd be pretty freakin interesting though.

 

[infantrycak]

I think you're backpedalling a little to try and say that.

Not a bit. A lack of surprise is not a prediction.

 

[b0ng]

I don't think I'm backpedaling at all. Here's what I've been saying:

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Mallet trots out as the starter in the Washington game.

to

I expect that you're right. My expectation is that Fitzpatrick gets one or two games to show what he can do.

Is a backpedal to me. I think your initial assessment (Mallet starts Washington game) is off and then goes into believable territory (Fitzpatrick gets a few starts and then gets analyzed). I think it'd be fairly shocking to see Mallet get any snaps while the Washington game is still in question since he's so new to the rest of the team. I think the only reason there is any buzz to Mallet is because he was drafted by the Patriots. If he was a Jaguars player that we traded for I think a lot less forum posters would be as high on him as to claim that it would not be a big deal if he just happened to start the season as QB1.

 

[gohogs14]

One tidbit i hadn't seen posted is that the Patriots actually had Mallett as the #1 QB on their draft board way back in the 2011 draft. It's obvious they saw something they liked about him.

Surely he'll be better than Gabbert and Ponder from that draft at least right?