Wish to make a one time donation? Make it here.

Ryan Mallett

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
We think it can't get any worse, obviously O'Brien believes that it can. That should tell us all we need to know about Ryan Mallet.
It's only week 6... Fitz had the benefits of OTA's and Training Camp with the Texans and O'Briens offense that Mallett didn't have. We really have no clue as to BoB's plans going forward
 

Dishman

Miss Ya Blue
When questioned recently about if he would hold Arian out for one game to save him for a more important opponent in a later game, BoB said "he plays each week to win" and that was all he focuses on. If that is the case, and he is a man of his word, how does he not bench Fitzpatrick? Will Mallet give us a better chance to win? I don't know, but neither does anyone else really, because he hasn't had the chance.

I'm interested to see if BoB is a man of his word ...
BoB sees him in practice so he's got a fine idea of what Mallet is capable of at this point.
 

Texan_Bill

Hall of Fame
I think we see Mallet start against the Steelers. Barring the Texans beating the Colts.
Well, I'm pretty sure that's not gonna happen! ;)

****************

I do think some of us think Mallett "may be the guy". Myself? Guilty as charged. Than again, the Texans get a grade of FAIL for this season's draft. Clowney? So far, so FAIL (can't get on the field)... Nix, So far, so FAIL.... Savage? Was drafted to be the future? I think not!!!

Back to my original thought.... :hmmm: The Texans should've traded down, acquired a pick (maybe two) to aquire Blake Bortles or some such.....


This team needs a QB!!! Plain and simple!

***EDIT***

*HWSNBN* be an option?? I think he may or may not be out of work!


Y'all know who *HWSNBN* is right???
 

infantrycak

Admin & Mod
Fitz is our starting QB. Just how many "mistakes" is this guy going to make?
I never thought OB would or should change to Mallett on a short week.

But I think your post acting like OB not making a swap means the other QBS are worse is illogical and contrary to NFL history. Coaches make mistakes.
 

playa465

Veteran
Former players who are do commentary always say that backup QBs get no reps during the week. If that is the case, I can understand why Bob feels Fitz gives us the best chance to win. As long as Fitz is healthy and we're winning or in a position to win, Mallett will be on the sideline.
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
We think it can't get any worse, obviously O'Brien believes that it can. That should tell us all we need to know about Ryan Mallet.
It could just as well show O'Brien values timing as much as Mallet's ability when factoring in how much worse it can get.
 

Norg

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
yall people need to have some patience if fitz contines to play bad thenim sure we will see your golden boy mallet

obvs bob feels things are not bad yet if we lose to the colts and pitts then things will be officially bad but were are not at that point yet
 

beerlover

Hall of Fame
It's possible Mallet regressed after O'Brian left New England, to a point where without Bill coaching him up, slipped into obscurity at least in mind of Belichick. Mallet may get his chance if he puts in the work @ practice but since we have no or little inkling of that its just a wild guess. In the end I would like to see what Savage can do, but not until the offensive line can play a whole game as cohesive unit.
 

speedfreek

All Pro
If Fitz continues to play like he has in the first half of the last
few games and (Spandau)Mallett doesn't start -- then welcome
our new Matt Schaub..

You know, the guy that will never lose his job because the coach
doesn't have the scrote to pull the trigger?!?

SSDD
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
You know, the guy that will never lose his job because the coach
doesn't have the scrote to pull the trigger?!?

SSDD
Or the coach/gm did a poor job filling out the roster. However, OB gets a pass because he just got here & it was a poor offseason for QB. But Rick...

:toropalm:
 

Dishman

Miss Ya Blue
Fitz is likely to hang onto the starting job until the conditions on the pick are satisfied. Doesn't the pick the Texans gave up become less valuable if Mallet plays less than 40% of the snaps this season?
 

PapaL

Loose Screw
Fitz is likely to hang onto the starting job until the conditions on the pick are satisfied. Doesn't the pick the Texans gave up become less valuable if Mallet plays less than 40% of the snaps this season?
We're talking a 6th round pick here.
Wins > 6th
 

xtruroyaltyx

Hall of Fame
Former players who are do commentary always say that backup QBs get no reps during the week. If that is the case, I can understand why Bob feels Fitz gives us the best chance to win. As long as Fitz is healthy and we're winning or in a position to win, Mallett will be on the sideline.
Generally speaking, the immediate back ups get mostly mental reps. But it varies from team to team and by position group. QB>OL>Everyone else

And then you have other factors...injuries...resting guys...Wanting to get some guys involved in the mix because you are leaning towards them getting some snaps in a game.

The third string guys and guys who aren't going to suit up are mostly doing scout team stuff.

I'd be curious to know if Mallett has been given an increase or any reps at all. You can kind of get a sense of how a coach feels about certain players by watching the practices.
 

michaelm

vox nihili
Fitz is likely to hang onto the starting job until the conditions on the pick are satisfied. Doesn't the pick the Texans gave up become less valuable if Mallet plays less than 40% of the snaps this season?
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but this makes no sense whatsoever. There is no way a team is going to sit a QB, if it thinks he's the better option, just to save the difference between a 7th and 6th round pick two years from now. Absolutely no way.
 

infantrycak

Admin & Mod
To BACK UP Fitzpatrick so that Savage isn't playing prematurely.
It is rare for teams to trade picks for a back up QB. This year it happened with Pryor and Gabbert, both of whom have starting experience and both of whom went to teams with solid QB situations.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but this makes no sense whatsoever. There is no way a team is going to sit a QB, if it thinks he's the better option, just to save the difference between a 7th and 6th round pick two years from now. Absolutely no way.
Add me to this logic train.
 

HOU-TEX

Ah, Football!
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but this makes no sense whatsoever. There is no way a team is going to sit a QB, if it thinks he's the better option, just to save the difference between a 7th and 6th round pick two years from now. Absolutely no way.
Agreed.
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
My method has always been that there is no better time than the present.
Trying to make a qb change so early in a season is surely a time sensitive issue. Especially when the present situation, although not pretty from that position, is far from dire from the team as a whole.

I'm looking forward to seeing Mallett take the reigns, don't get me wrong, just thinking OB is trying to calculate this move as carefully as possible is all.

Mallett's reps have to be taken into account. And playing qb carousel, certainly after last year, is the last thing this locker room needs to see from the new regime.
 

Norg

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Trying to make a qb change so early in a season is surely a time sensitive issue. Especially when the present situation, although not pretty from that position, is far from dire from the team as a whole.

I'm looking forward to seeing Mallett take the reigns, don't get me wrong, just thinking OB is trying to calculate this move as carefully as possible is all.

Mallett's reps have to be taken into account. And playing qb carousel, certainly after last year, is the last thing this locker room needs to see from the new regime.

Why we will prob be drafting our franchise QB next year anyways and savage will be penciled in has he week 1 starter I think that's the plan
 

The Pencil Neck

Hall of Fame
Why we will prob be drafting our franchise QB next year anyways and savage will be penciled in has he week 1 starter I think that's the plan
As a 4th round draft pick, we don't have a lot invested in him. If he has developed and he's looking like he could be a starter, then we may or may not draft a QB early. Same with Mallett, with only a 7th or 6th round draft pick invested in him, we aren't under any pressure to get him into the lineup and if he develops and can be a quality starter, great but if he doesn't, no big deal. But if Savage doesn't seem to be getting it and if Mallett isn't getting it, then we'll draft a QB early and we might draft a QB early just to throw him into the mix and create competition at the position.
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
Why we will prob be drafting our franchise QB next year anyways and savage will be penciled in has he week 1 starter I think that's the plan
If we end up having to address QB1 in the draft next year so be it, but I'm not convinced that's what's being considered moving from week 5 to 6 and so on.

So for the time being just chucking Mallett out there without any concern for maximizing his preparedness wouldn't be doing him or this team any justice, part and parcel to OB's responsibilities. And I would think getting the most he can out of Mallett moving forward, along with Savage in tow, is a calculation OB would like to use to keep a future draft scenario from having to be of the franchise qb or bust variety.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
There is no way a team is going to sit a QB, if it thinks he's the better option, just to save the difference between a 7th and 6th round pick two years from now. Absolutely no way.
With that in mind, it's obvious OB doesn't think Mallet is the better option.
 

Dishman

Miss Ya Blue
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but this makes no sense whatsoever. There is no way a team is going to sit a QB, if it thinks he's the better option, just to save the difference between a 7th and 6th round pick two years from now. Absolutely no way.
Fair enough. We picked him up for very little and perhaps there's something to that, like he's not all that. Right now Fitz is starting so he must be the better option. If Fitz isn't the better option then he is sitting for some reason to which we can only speculate.
 

ghostlight

Veteran
We are struggling in our running game so handing the ball off 30+ times a game is something Mallett can do as well as Friz. Mallett is not a rookie and knows OB system so working him in on some plays during each quarter so he would be ready if OB likes what he sees. Right now there is not a clear picture of a high 1st that makes me want to trade up to get.
 

infantrycak

Admin & Mod
We are struggling in our running game so handing the ball off 30+ times a game is something Mallett can do as well as Friz. Mallett is not a rookie and knows OB system so working him in on some plays during each quarter so he would be ready if OB likes what he sees. Right now there is not a clear picture of a high 1st that makes me want to trade up to get.
What is with this each quarter theory? That's a good way to destroy both QBs' rhythm. Everywhere I have seen something like that tried it has been hated by the QBs, the team, and had bad results.
 

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
We are struggling in our running game so handing the ball off 30+ times a game is something Mallett can do as well as Friz. Mallett is not a rookie and knows OB system so working him in on some plays during each quarter so he would be ready if OB likes what he sees. Right now there is not a clear picture of a high 1st that makes me want to trade up to get.
are you suggesting we platoon qb's?
 

Nitrofish

Let The Big Fish Eat!
I don't know why mallet is here.
Same here... I was not a Keenum fan, but why go through all the trouble just to replace Keenum as the backup?

To BACK UP Fitzpatrick so that Savage isn't playing prematurely.
Keenum could have done that if that is all it is, and Keenum was the better PR move.

If Fitz continues to play like he has in the first half of the last
few games and (Spandau)Mallett doesn't start -- then welcome
our new Matt Schaub..

You know, the guy that will never lose his job because the coach
doesn't have the scrote to pull the trigger?!?

SSDD
+1 for the 80's reference. In terms of "scrote", I am beginning to think the same thing myself.

Generally speaking, the immediate back ups get mostly mental reps. But it varies from team to team and by position group. QB>OL>Everyone else

And then you have other factors...injuries...resting guys...Wanting to get some guys involved in the mix because you are leaning towards them getting some snaps in a game.

The third string guys and guys who aren't going to suit up are mostly doing scout team stuff.

I'd be curious to know if Mallett has been given an increase or any reps at all. You can kind of get a sense of how a coach feels about certain players by watching the practices.
But none of us know whether Mallett is getting any real reps, because if he is only getting mental reps, then he is for sure not being considered for the starting role. O'Brien is not going to allow anyone to report that either, and why would he?

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but this makes no sense whatsoever. There is no way a team is going to sit a QB, if it thinks he's the better option, just to save the difference between a 7th and 6th round pick two years from now. Absolutely no way.
Agreed

If we end up having to address QB1 in the draft next year so be it, but I'm not convinced that's what's being considered moving from week 5 to 6 and so on.

So for the time being just chucking Mallett out there without any concern for maximizing his preparedness wouldn't be doing him or this team any justice, part and parcel to OB's responsibilities. And I would think getting the most he can out of Mallett moving forward, along with Savage in tow, is a calculation OB would like to use to keep a future draft scenario from having to be of the franchise qb or bust variety.
But if Mallett is not getting any real reps in practice then how is OB "maximizing his preparedness?" Why jettison Keenum and trade for Mallett if he was destined to be a backup? Surely keeping Keenum is the better PR move. Why did O'Brien say "As we sit her today, Keenum makes the 53 man roster" when it seems obvious to me at least that OB had been negotiating with BB since he got the job. Those reports of interest by the Texans in Mallett did not start on their own. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I believe like others that Fitz keeps playing just good enough to keep his job, but there has to be a hard deadline in mind where if Fitz has not cratered by that time he will get the hook if O'Brien got Mallett to become the eventual starter. I would like to see Fitz succeed, but I think that is just wishful thinking because he is a likeable guy who gives great effort. But we know it the only way to go is down based on his history. Does a multi INT game during the Colts game get him benched, as it should?
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
But if Mallett is not getting any real reps in practice then how is OB "maximizing his preparedness?" Why jettison Keenum and trade for Mallett if he was destined to be a backup? Surely keeping Keenum is the better PR move. Why did O'Brien say "As we sit her today, Keenum makes the 53 man roster" when it seems obvious to me at least that OB had been negotiating with BB since he got the job. Those reports of interest by the Texans in Mallett did not start on their own. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I believe like others that Fitz keeps playing just good enough to keep his job, but there has to be a hard deadline in mind where if Fitz has not cratered by that time he will get the hook if O'Brien got Mallett to become the eventual starter. I would like to see Fitz succeed, but I think that is just wishful thinking because he is a likeable guy who gives great effort. But we know it the only way to go is down based on his history. Does a multi INT game during the Colts game get him benched, as it should?
He's got a 4 extra day stretch following the Colts that would make this Thursday the ideal game changing evaluator. It's a 4 day plus prep period for Mallett, fairly maximizing.
 

The Pencil Neck

Hall of Fame
He's got a 4 extra day stretch following the Colts that would make this Thursday the ideal game changing evaluator. It's a 4 day plus prep period for Mallett, fairly maximizing.
Exactly.

If we're going to make the switch, there are two good places to do it: our bye week and this extra-large gap between a Thursday night and a Monday night game.

My hope is that Mallet is that much better than Fitzy and that OB knows it and realizes it and is just waiting for the right time to swap them out.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
Exactly.

If we're going to make the switch, there are two good places to do it: our bye week and this extra-large gap between a Thursday night and a Monday night game.

My hope is that Mallet is that much better than Fitzy and that OB knows it and realizes it and is just waiting for the right time to swap them out.
Normally I would agree, if we had a QB who has been playing well, instead we've been winning in spite of our QB, so it doesn't really matter how "prepared" Mallet is, he can't be any worse than what we've been getting from Fitz... we could have been starting Tom Savage & expect to be 3-2 or 2-3 at this point. If we win tonight, it will not be on the arm of Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If Mallet was truly "Plan A" (as the trade rumors around draft day would suggest) then he's been preparing to start since he got here. Today is just as good a day as any to make the change.
 

ObsiWan

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
I'm not subscribing to any of the below but I can do an out of body thing and tell you why you won't see Mallett/Savage until late in the season, if then...
hear me out:

As long as we're not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs with Fitzpatrick at QB, O'Brien has no reason to change QBs.

The only way we'll see Mallet/Savage this season is if - and only if - Fitzpatrick's play starts to definitively cost us games.

Right now we have a winning record. Even if we lose tonight, we'll still be at .500. Compared to last season when we were 2-4 after six games, that's an improvement.

Coaches don't mess with what they think is working; even if it's only half-assed working....
ESPECIALLY for an unknown commodity.
And as frustratingly unsatisfying as his play has been, Fitz. is. a. KNOWN.
Coaches can manage a substandard known.
They do it all the time.
They "hide" LBs who can't cover.
The help out O-line guys who suck at pass blocking.
And with a quasi-healthy Foster and an improving Blue, O'Brien can run the ball 50-60-70% of the time and only call "safe" passes and "hide" Fitz. Hell, that's how we won the first two games. And thanks to our defense, we haven't had to play serious catchup (say, like the Browns just did)

Now, you guys want O'Brien to give up a known -albeit a sucky known but a manageable known for a complete unknown.

Bottom line: Unless Fitz goes down with injury or the possibility of playoffs is eliminated, a QB change is not gonna happen.
:twocents:
 

Carr Bombed

Hall of Fame
I can easily see a scenario where if Shitzpatrick has a clunker of a half (likes he's done all season) O'Brien starts the second half with Mallett. That way he can get a look at another QB, without officially naming or tieing himself to another signal caller.

Winning games or not, I'm pretty sure O'brien recognizes (at least I hope so) that we need more production out of that position..especially on 3rd down.
 

Hervoyel

BUENO!
I'm not subscribing to any of the below but I can do an out of body thing and tell you why you won't see Mallett/Savage until late in the season, if then...
hear me out:

As long as we're not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs with Fitzpatrick at QB, O'Brien has no reason to change QBs.

The only way we'll see Mallet/Savage this season is if - and only if - Fitzpatrick's play starts to definitively cost us games.

Right now we have a winning record. Even if we lose tonight, we'll still be at .500. Compared to last season when we were 2-4 after six games, that's an improvement.

Coaches don't mess with what they think is working; even if it's only half-assed working....
ESPECIALLY for an unknown commodity.
And as frustratingly unsatisfying as his play has been, Fitz. is. a. KNOWN.
Coaches can manage a substandard known.
They do it all the time.
They "hide" LBs who can't cover.
The help out O-line guys who suck at pass blocking.
And with a quasi-healthy Foster and an improving Blue, O'Brien can run the ball 50-60-70% of the time and only call "safe" passes and "hide" Fitz. Hell, that's how we won the first two games. And thanks to our defense, we haven't had to play serious catchup (say, like the Browns just did)

Now, you guys want O'Brien to give up a known -albeit a sucky known but a manageable known for a complete unknown.

Bottom line: Unless Fitz goes down with injury or the possibility of playoffs is eliminated, a QB change is not gonna happen.
:twocents:
I hate you for being so right here but well, "You're right".

Everybody better start breaking these out if we want to see Mallet or Savage this year

:voodoo:

The only way it's going to happen is if Fitz plays so bad it's undeniable that he's got to go or he gets injured. I don't want to see the man injured and I don't want to see the Texans doing so badly that he's made a compelling case for another player to start ahead of him so I'm kind of in a corner. I don't want the guy we have and I don't want to go through what it's going to take to get rid of him. I want the head coach to have some kind of super-secret genius plan he's waiting to spring on the NFL. Mallet being a cleverly disguised, enhanced clone of Tom Brady who needs the last few "Super-QB formula" injections and some time in a "Vita-ray" machine built by Howard Stark to begin his final transformation and OB kept vials of the formula when he left New England for example.

That would play out just fine. :koolaid:
 

ObsiWan

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
I hate you for being so right here but well, "You're right".

Everybody better start breaking these out if we want to see Mallet or Savage this year

:voodoo:
:spit:
you got me good with the voodoo doll.

We're gonna need some beard shavings to make this work.

And just stick him in the ankle please.

NO disintegration!
 

amazing80

Fire Billy O
So 2 touchdowns and 6 ints is working? Losing 2 of 3 is working? Your offense is near the bottom of the league is points per game, that is working too? Near the bottom in passing yards per game, thats working out too right? Thats how OB drew up the season? The Raiders are the only team with less passes beyond 20 (including 40+ passes) yards...thats what OB and co. want?

Stop being naive people. OB is not happy with our poor qb play and he will make a move. His whole coaching structure is based on team above individuals and playing your best players. Clearly Fitz is not that guy.

Now everyone says, how do you know Mallett or Savage is that guy....we DON'T, thats why you try them and see how it goes.
 

ObsiWan

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
So 2 touchdowns and 6 ints is working? Losing 2 of 3 is working? Your offense is near the bottom of the league is points per game, that is working too? Near the bottom in passing yards per game, thats working out too right? Thats how OB drew up the season? The Raiders are the only team with less passes beyond 20 (including 40+ passes) yards...thats what OB and co. want?

Stop being naive people. OB is not happy with our poor qb play and he will make a move. His whole coaching structure is based on team above individuals and playing your best players. Clearly Fitz is not that guy.

Now everyone says, how do you know Mallett or Savage is that guy....we DON'T, thats why you try them and see how it goes.
If what you said is true, then Mallett or Savage should start tonight.
Let's wait and see.
:D
 

amazing80

Fire Billy O
If what you said is true, then Mallett or Savage should start tonight.
Let's wait and see.
:D
I think they roll Fitz out there and if he does bad again, we MIGHT see Mallett at the half. If not and Fitz goes back out there and we lose, then I see Mallett starting next week.

The only way IMO Fitz keeps his job is if he lights up the Colts.
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
Normally I would agree, if we had a QB who has been playing well, instead we've been winning in spite of our QB, so it doesn't really matter how "prepared" Mallet is, he can't be any worse than what we've been getting from Fitz... we could have been starting Tom Savage & expect to be 3-2 or 2-3 at this point. If we win tonight, it will not be on the arm of Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If Mallet was truly "Plan A" (as the trade rumors around draft day would suggest) then he's been preparing to start since he got here. Today is just as good a day as any to make the change.
Fitz has made plays to help this team win games. To say that doesn't also say that I think he's leading us to the promised land. But to act like inserting Savage just whenever would necessarily yield any of the same plays Fitz has made is foolish. This isn't Madden. Prep time is real, and it's very valuable.

It matters how prepared a qb is to take over a huddle and run an offense. Even with Mallett, who's been around the league, I'm certain OB would want a full week of 1st team reps to get him ready. It just makes sense. And the timing of evaluating things after tonight's game leading into a longer week to use to make a switch only makes more sense.

The only way you prepare to start is if you're the starter and you get those reps. Getting to know the offense and the particulars of the system is one thing, and that's what Mallett's been doing, but he hasn't prepared to start a single game yet, regardless of what OB's down the road hopes may have been upon acquiring him.
 

Carr Bombed

Hall of Fame
Fitz has made plays to help this team win games. To say that doesn't also say that I think he's leading us to the promised land. But to act like inserting Savage just whenever would necessarily yield any of the same plays Fitz has made is foolish. This isn't Madden. Prep time is real, and it's very valuable.

It matters how prepared a qb is to take over a huddle and run an offense. Even with Mallett, who's been around the league, I'm certain OB would want a full week of 1st team reps to get him ready. It just makes sense. And the timing of evaluating things after tonight's game leading into a longer week to use to make a switch only makes more sense.

The only way you prepare to start is if you're the starter and you get those reps. Getting to know the offense and the particulars of the system is one thing, and that's what Mallett's been doing, but he hasn't prepared to start a single game yet, regardless of what OB's down the road hopes may have been upon acquiring him.
To say that "he's made plays to help this team win".. Is like saying he did his job and didn't screw up on a few crucial plays. Who cares if he actually did what he was supposed to on a couple of plays when he spends the majority of the game shooting us in the foot. You can win against the Redskins, Bills, and Raiders playing like that.. sadly though, we don't play them every week.
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
To say that "he's made plays to help this team win".. Is like saying he did his job and didn't screw up on a few crucial plays. Who cares if he actually did what he was supposed to on a couple of plays when he spends the majority of the game shooting us in the foot. You can win against the Redskins, Bills, and Raiders playing like that.. sadly though, we don't play them every week.
No it's not.

I'm disputing that just shoving any other guy in there whenever, prep or no prep, is going to yield no worse a result. That can't be said accurately, especially when the assumption is the previous results have been 100% bad, which my statement proves they haven't.
 

infantrycak

Admin & Mod
No it's not.

I'm disputing that just shoving any other guy in there whenever, prep or no prep, is going to yield no worse a result. That can't be said accurately, especially when the assumption is the previous results have been 100% bad, which my statement proves they haven't.
Straw man. NOBODY is saying Fitz has been 100% bad.
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
Straw man. NOBODY is saying Fitz has been 100% bad.
I'm not trying to fool anyone with that, so no.

I'm making a point off hearing an actual person say that we're 3-2 completely in spite of Fitz and that anyone could immediately come in and make the plays he's made. Which is a leaping assumption.
 

infantrycak

Admin & Mod
I'm not trying to fool anyone with that, so no.

I'm making a point off hearing an actual person say that we're 3-2 completely in spite of Fitz and that anyone could immediately come in and make the plays he's made. Which is a leaping assumption.
Fitz has taken 350 odd snaps so yes some of them have had positive contributions. Brice McCain made some good plays in his time too. But on balance considering all the plays neither is/was a net positive to the team over average play at the position.
 

Mollywhopper

Facilitator
Staff member
Fitz has taken 350 odd snaps so yes some of them have had positive contributions. Brice McCain made some good plays in his time too. But on balance considering all the plays neither is/was a net positive to the team over average play at the position.
I don't know why you've hopped in to dispute some position I haven't taken.

I'm not defending Fitz as the guy. In fact it's written clear as day in my posts that I don't think he's the guy, that I would like to see Mallett. My point all along has been about the timing of the switch. That to say Fitz has contributed nothing and anyone could just come in cold and make any of the plays he's made is purely conjecture and shows little regard for the amount of focus, attention, and 1st team oriented detail that's attributed to being a starting NFL quarterback.
 


Top