Ryan Mallett

[rollins94]

Brady IMO is done after '15, why would BB be gone before that?

There is significant turnover every year.
And the theory has failed miserably more than it has succeeded. BB will chose the QB to succeed TB based on talent, not a ESPN/Kiper fashion show.
WTF does that matter? He's not in charge of the draft.
Define significant? The two best QB's of the past 35 years are a 3rd and 6th rounder. Unitas, Staubach, Starr make it 5 of the top 10 all time. Fours and Jurgensen are two more in the 13-16 bracket. Warner is right there too.
That's true of every position, so?
There are no sure things. Look at all the bust first picks.
I'd rather BB use his judgment to do the job, and it takes a high pick so be it.

So basically what we are disagreeing upon is that Brady is done after '15 right? I think that estimate is conservative given past statements saying he wants to play until 40 and other than the knee, which was relatively a freak accident, he has been injury free and performing at a elite level. If he stretches past your estimate for '15, the Mcdaniels questions become a whole lot more relevant, right? Do you honestly expect BB to stay on for 5 more years/ after Brady does? I sure as hell dont. Age and legacy are likely huge factors to consider there. As for all of the smack you give Kiper, not terribly relevant IMO. We both know BB isnt influenced by him or other ESPn ilk, but do you really think that there is no overlap between BB's highest rated prospects and overall/ ESPN's picks? As for all of the guys you list as good QBs found in later rounds, great. But you have to acknowledge how incredibly hard it is to hit on those types of guys, and that relatively speaking, a 1st round QB is more likely to have what it takes. I think I hear you agreeing on that point and am then a bit confused on your stance, so just for clarification purposes, are you in favor of a 1st or later QB?

[bagwell368]

So basically what we are disagreeing upon is that Brady is done after '15 right? I think that estimate is conservative given past statements saying he wants to play until 40 and other than the knee, which was relatively a freak accident, he has been injury free and performing at a elite level.

Words are nothing compared to injuries and decline. In the history of the NFL QB's playing top shelf through age 40 are 30 times rarer than a blue moon. Di you know that Brady has had his right shoulder scoped at least six times to date?

At this point in time, BB is younger for a Coach than TB is for a QB. Also, if you think that TB hasn't declined since his knee injury - it's hard to even have a conversation. He has a much harder time stepping into the ball, spent several games jumping at shadows earlier this year, his arm strength/accuracy for throws over 35 yards is well down from 2007 or even 2010.

If he stretches past your estimate for '15, the Mcdaniels questions become a whole lot more relevant, right? Do you honestly expect BB to stay on for 5 more years/ after Brady does?

In what capacity? I expect BB to retire as a Coach at the same time, or no more than two years after Brady, I do expect him to be the GM for longer. The reason I believe that is that he'll want McDaniels to immerse himself in the Coaching role first, then the GM. IMO for McDaniels GM'ing will be harder to learn than Coaching. The replacement for Brady should be gotten if possible in '13 or '14. That seems to leave McDaniels out of the mix as the prime decision maker. Even into '15 and '16 I expect BB to be exerting the major GM power here.

I sure as hell dont. Age and legacy are likely huge factors to consider there. As for all of the smack you give Kiper, not terribly relevant IMO. We both know BB isnt influenced by him or other ESPn ilk, but do you really think that there is no overlap between BB's highest rated prospects and overall/ ESPN's picks?

Kiper is a total moron. He knows nothing but how to parse scouting reports, get his hair to look like Eddie Munster, and over talk everyone on else on TV that is sitting next to him. No pro team has ever spent a cent on his services, he invented the role of TV draft pundit himself. He's reamed BB for choosing Vollmer, Wilson (and was dead wrong) among many others. So - he's a perfect example of what I meant - all glitz and no substance.

As for all of the guys you list as good QBs found in later rounds, great. But you have to acknowledge how incredibly hard it is to hit on those types of guys, and that relatively speaking, a 1st round QB is more likely to have what it takes. I think I hear you agreeing on that point and am then a bit confused on your stance, so just for clarification purposes, are you in favor of a 1st or later QB?

Finding/crafting a top 7 pocket passing QB for today's NFL is very hard from almost any angle in recent years. However this recent trend of read quick/run QB's offers opportunities - not just for drafting/signing one - but because the NFL is a trend following league, and teams chasing down the next RG III might spend less time/draft capital on a pocket passer we might like to go for.

I'm in favor of what will work. If BB thinks we need to go for the #6 pick to get our guy - OK. But if he thinks he can get a guy with less measurables, but as much of a shot at #39, than that's OK too - better actually.

I disagree with you in that you seem to be indicating that a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round is magnitudes less likely to be a great QB than a guy in the 1st. Even if you isolate only on the top 3 picks there are a number of failures. Unless it was a Luck type player, BB I think would rather go for a DL or OT - positions with much lower bust potential than a QB - than take the QB at #35 or #67

[rollins94]

At this point in time, BB is younger for a Coach than TB is for a QB. Also, if you think that TB hasn't declined since his knee injury - it's hard to even have a conversation. He has a much harder time stepping into the ball, spent several games jumping at shadows earlier this year, his arm strength/accuracy for throws over 35 yards is well down from 2007 or even 2010.

Yeah he has declined, but couldnt you argue they have changed their offense to suit/ highlight his current skillset? No reason to think this cant happen in the future as well. If anything, they seem to be focusing on preserving his career/ emphasizing strengths: resigning both Gronk and Hernandez and investing picks on the OL in Solder and Vollmer over recent years has to be seen as shaping the offense to fit what he does best right? Accurate short/ intermediate throws with great ability to read the line and exploit matchups as he sees them. How much further do you see him declining in these areas? And at some point, injury risk is there for every player, and increased for again players. All that said, Brady is looking about as good as any 35 yr old QB in nfl history, no? And I would expect you would trust BB to continue to put in position to succeed better than pretty much any coach in the game.

In what capacity? I expect BB to retire as a Coach at the same time, or no more than two years after Brady, I do expect him to be the GM for longer. The reason I believe that is that he'll want McDaniels to immerse himself in the Coaching role first, then the GM. IMO for McDaniels GM'ing will be harder to learn than Coaching. The replacement for Brady should be gotten if possible in '13 or '14. That seems to leave McDaniels out of the mix as the prime decision maker. Even into '15 and '16 I expect BB to be exerting the major GM power here.

From our conversation I was pretty sure you understood I was talking about coach... but fine. Say BB becomes GM after Brady retires, and he does the grocery shopping while JMcD coaches on the field. Im not sold on BB's ability to draft/coach another QB to pro bowl level or so, and dramatically less sold on this arrangement. Again, we seem to disagree on the window for Brady's career as I think '13 is clearly too early, '14 being more of a possibility but still counterproductive in assembling the best team for Brady's closing window, which is realistically a better chance to win a championship than any of his sucsessors first 3-4 years or so.

Kiper is a total moron. He knows nothing but how to parse scouting reports, get his hair to look like Eddie Munster, and over talk everyone on else on TV that is sitting next to him. No pro team has ever spent a cent on his services, he invented the role of TV draft pundit himself. He's reamed BB for choosing Vollmer, Wilson (and was dead wrong) among many others. So - he's a perfect example of what I meant - all glitz and no substance.

Yeah Kiper's ****, agreed. But he's also reamed BB for taking some pretty bad overdrafts in the past. Looks great when it works, bad when it doesnt, but theres a reason BB is the GOAT and Kiper is a joke. Still, consistently deviating from most other teams boards at times fails to maximize value (eg Wilson, while a good pick, could likely have been had rounds later) and sometimes reduces the impact of having multiple high round (1-3) picks.

Finding/crafting a top 7 pocket passing QB for today's NFL is very hard from almost any angle in recent years. However this recent trend of read quick/run QB's offers opportunities - not just for drafting/signing one - but because the NFL is a trend following league, and teams chasing down the next RG III might spend less time/draft capital on a pocket passer we might like to go for.

Moneyball theory? Not sure if it applies here given recent overdrafts pocket QBs the last couple years, notable examples being Tannehill, Locker, Ponder, etc. Good pocket QB prospects are always in demand

I'm in favor of what will work. If BB thinks we need to go for the #6 pick to get our guy - OK. But if he thinks he can get a guy with less measurables, but as much of a shot at #39, than that's OK too - better actually.

So just find what works? Thats the goal, its not a methodology.

I disagree with you in that you seem to be indicating that a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round is magnitudes less likely to be a great QB than a guy in the 1st. Even if you isolate only on the top 3 picks there are a number of failures. Unless it was a Luck type player, BB I think would rather go for a DL or OT - positions with much lower bust potential than a QB - than take the QB at #35 or #67[/QUOTE]

Then maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. It goes without saying a first round QB is more likely to succeed than a 2nd rounder. He likely has superior tools, college performance, coaching, etc. If you can find a guy that slips through he cracks thats great, but you also have to recognize that its very rare. Has to be a marriage of a prospect being undervalued, you knowing better than 31 other teams and no small margin of sheer luck. mallett for example, where this thread began, had no shortage of college production, a strong skillset in some regards (lacking in others, particularly for this system) and was perceived to be undervalued where we got him. Is it working? No. At this point you punt him to some sucker for whatever you can get before hes just another hoyer/cassell/burgerflipper.

[bagwell368]

Yeah he has declined, but couldnt you argue they have changed their offense to suit/ highlight his current skillset? No reason to think this cant happen in the future as well.

Surely they have changed to suit TB. Manning wasn't asked to throw long either for Denver this year. At some point they'll be throwing with less distance/accuracy or just get whacked in the knee or the neck again. It takes longer to heal, etc. and so on. I also can't imagine either one of those guys being a 75 QB Rating QB just hanging on either.

If anything, they seem to be focusing on preserving his career/ emphasizing strengths: resigning both Gronk and Hernandez and investing picks on the OL in Solder and Vollmer over recent years has to be seen as shaping the offense to fit what he does best right? Accurate short/ intermediate throws with great ability to read the line and exploit matchups as he sees them. How much further do you see him declining in these areas? And at some point, injury risk is there for every player, and increased for again players. All that said, Brady is looking about as good as any 35 yr old QB in nfl history, no? And I would expect you would trust BB to continue to put in position to succeed better than pretty much any coach in the game.

Sure, all true. But Brady looks better than most 35 year old QB's in history just like he looks better than most QB's from day 1 through age 35 too.

From our conversation I was pretty sure you understood I was talking about coach... but fine. Say BB becomes GM after Brady retires, and he does the grocery shopping while JMcD coaches on the field. Im not sold on BB's ability to draft/coach another QB to pro bowl level or so, and dramatically less sold on this arrangement.

Making a great QB has a lot of component parts, GM's choosing and HC's coaching are two, but then there is QB Coach and/or OC, the team, and most important the QB himself. Yesterday during a time out Brady was talking to a Coach and Mallett came over, but instead of attending to the conversation his eyes were wandering all over the field. Very hard to say what will happen since we don't even have a real QB in hand to replace Brady.

Again, we seem to disagree on the window for Brady's career as I think '13 is clearly too early, '14 being more of a possibility but still counterproductive in assembling the best team for Brady's closing window, which is realistically a better chance to win a championship than any of his sucsessors first 3-4 years or so.

Read what I said again. I said that the new QB must drafted in '13 or '14 if possible. I said in a prior email that I think Brady will retire after '15. Given his salary, I don't see BB/Kraft wanting him around as a back-up/injured presence in '16 or '17.

Yeah Kiper's ****, agreed. But he's also reamed BB for taking some pretty bad overdrafts in the past. Looks great when it works, bad when it doesnt, but theres a reason BB is the GOAT and Kiper is a joke. Still, consistently deviating from most other teams boards at times fails to maximize value (eg Wilson, while a good pick, could likely have been had rounds later) and sometimes reduces the impact of having multiple high round (1-3) picks.

SD and another team were in line to take him with their next pick. BB's complete set of choices: draft picks, UDFA, FA, trades, and allowing guys to leave taken as a whole destroys every other franchise since he drafted Seymour. He's obviously made mistakes - made worse by how deep his roster tends to be and how many more picks than average he generates and uses.

Moneyball theory? Not sure if it applies here given recent overdrafts pocket QBs the last couple years, notable examples being Tannehill, Locker, Ponder, etc. Good pocket QB prospects are always in demand

Sure, but with teams like SF, WSH, SEA, etc. enamored of the other type, and more teams seeing a quicker path to success with that type than the pocket QB I see an opportunity over the next 2-4 years for more pocket guys and a bit less demand (if the supply is there, this draft looks pretty poor for QB's from what I have seen).

So just find what works? Thats the goal, its not a methodology.

Sure thing, but your model is a straight jacket for picking up a QB in a certain way that will be costly in draft resources. My method is trusting BB and co. to choose the best cost/benefit QB they can get, not just the most costly.

Then maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. It goes without saying a first round QB is more likely to succeed than a 2nd rounder. He likely has superior tools, college performance, coaching, etc. If you can find a guy that slips through he cracks thats great, but you also have to recognize that its very rare. Has to be a marriage of a prospect being undervalued, you knowing better than 31 other teams and no small margin of sheer luck. mallett for example, where this thread began, had no shortage of college production, a strong skillset in some regards (lacking in others, particularly for this system) and was perceived to be undervalued where we got him. Is it working? No. At this point you punt him to some sucker for whatever you can get before hes just another hoyer/cassell/burgerflipper.

Not all 31 other teams want a QB every year. Not all 1st round QB's succeed, but all 1st round picks are costly in terms of draft resources and salary.

The first tumbler to fall in gouging a team for Mallett was releasing Hoyer. BB decided Mallett was better on a cost/benefit analysis. I don't think this years QB draft class is all that sharp. I think he could pull a pick from #55 through about #105. Since he's not the guy, whatever we get is a gain IMO. Even better if we take the pick in '14 for a higher pick, and than parlay that for possibly a QB.

Say the next Aaron Rodgers at #24, Favre at #33, Montana at #84, Staubach at #122, Warner as an UDFA

OR

Vick (1), Couch (1), Carr (1), JaMarcus (1), Leaf (2), Akili Smith (2), Harrington (3), Vince Young (3), Leinhart (10), Ponder (12), Leftwich (7)

Yeah, drafting is a certain science....

[rollins94]

Read what I said again. I said that the new QB must drafted in '13 or '14 if possible. I said in a prior email that I think Brady will retire after '15. Given his salary, I don't see BB/Kraft wanting him around as a back-up/injured presence in '16 or '17.

Two assumptions I dont really agree with here. First, I think you cant say that Brady will be unproductive by '16. In fact I would be willing to wager on the contrary; its quite likely he is at least an upper echelon (top 10-15?) QB at that age. Maybe the next QB is better at that point but I think thats a huge reach, and even at best but from your POV, far from a sure thing. Secondly is that Brady will be so highly paid that we cant afford to have him on the team. Sure, Bradys always been paid well, but he has also shown a willingness to take pay cuts at selective points in his career to make sure the roster is balanced in other places.

Sure, but with teams like SF, WSH, SEA, etc. enamored of the other type, and more teams seeing a quicker path to success with that type than the pocket QB I see an opportunity over the next 2-4 years for more pocket guys and a bit less demand (if the supply is there, this draft looks pretty poor for QB's from what I have seen).

Those teams you mentioned obviously wont need another QB for some time. Eventually though, the league will see that these types of QBs do not remain healthy/ play in a sustainable fashion and sour on them. RG3 is already tearing knee ligaments left and right. How long until others do the same and either lose effectiveness due to injury or adapt their play style and lose effectiveness there? While I agree there should be a short window in which teams are higher on these types than average, I think we have discussed this hasnt reflected devaluation on pocket Qbs. Additonally I will maintain high picks should not be used on a QB this soon, even to draft and develop, as the Pats have glaring needs to fill that could help win another championship (pass rusher, replacement RT when Vollmer leaves and secondary help come to mind).

Sure thing, but your model is a straight jacket for picking up a QB in a certain way that will be costly in draft resources. My method is trusting BB and co. to choose the best cost/benefit QB they can get, not just the most costly.

You get what you pay for. Im not married to a 1st round QB, merely acknowledging that it is the most likely "hit" scenario for a good QB. You must have a good QB to win, and all of the surplus picks and roster depth built up over the years surely allow to splurge when you nee to, no?

Not all 31 other teams want a QB every year. Not all 1st round QB's succeed, but all 1st round picks are costly in terms of draft resources and salary.

Salary not prohibitive anymore since the new CBA and as mentioned above, you have the ammo to gamble move up IF necessary.


Say the next Aaron Rodgers at #24, Favre at #33, Montana at #84, Staubach at #122, Warner as an UDFA OR Vick (1), Couch (1), Carr (1), JaMarcus (1), Leaf (2), Akili Smith (2), Harrington (3), Vince Young (3), Leinhart (10), Ponder (12), Leftwich (7)Yeah, drafting is a certain science....[/QUOTE]

Aside from obvious cherrypicking, the reason most of these guys failed has nothing to do with talent. 99% of them were in pretty terrible situations which I would trust BB to not replicate. These teams were picking high for a reason: they sucked. The Pats likely wont by the time the new QB takes the field. While you could argue this would allow you to plug in more of an "average joe" QB, I thik we both know that is not workable with the modern passing league. I am sure you loved some of the above "bust" prospects when they came out, everyone did. But recognize that they all had loads of talent and I would gladly take a guy with more talent than one with less. Sure you have obvious headcases that are pretty indefensible like Carr, JmR, etc. but I think we both trust BB to not pick that type of player. To borrow a terrible metaphor from art, I'd rather give a master painter the best tools money can buy as this is more likely to produce a masterpiece that reflects his true genius, while inferior paints might just muddle the picture.

[captmike]

Given the success of the Pats offense and the stability throughout would you be opposed to the idea of a retread?
What about Cassel he did well here. I don't care about the Chiefs stint he could be available and if he is he is not going have a big market. That being said he could be great insurance as he already proved. It would be a great stop gap while your looking for THAT guy. There could be others out there that might flourish with the Pats that flounder or not quite enough in there current situations. Just an idea.

[subroc]

Given the success of the Pats offense and the stability throughout would you be opposed to the idea of a retread?
What about Cassel he did well here. I don't care about the Chiefs stint he could be available and if he is he is not going have a big market. That being said he could be great insurance as he already proved. It would be a great stop gap while your looking for THAT guy. There could be others out there that might flourish with the Pats that flounder or not quite enough in there current situations. Just an idea.

I would be shocked if the Patriots had an opportunity to sign Cassel for some minimum amount to money. He is on the books for $2+ mil of bonus in each of the next 2 years plus $7.5 mil salary in 2013 and $9 mil salary in 2014. Assuming he gets cut, this is a player that completes 59% of his passes and doesn't throw an obscene amount of INTs although he did in 2012. If he gets cut, he will get signed for $5-8 mil a year easily. Is he worth it? I don't know, but QBs don't give their services away.

[bagwell368]

Two assumptions I dont really agree with here. First, I think you cant say that Brady will be unproductive by '16. In fact I would be willing to wager on the contrary; its quite likely he is at least an upper echelon (top 10-15?) QB at that age.

NFL history says it's easy money for me. Of all the long lived QB's I've studied only two or three of them were good in more than 2 of their last 5 years (including injury riddled seasons and poor results compared to a normal peak year - about the level you are invoking). I hope I'm wrong, but, history says otherwise.

Sure, Bradys always been paid well, but he has also shown a willingness to take pay cuts at selective points in his career to make sure the roster is balanced in other places.

Guys like Unitas hung on a long time because he didn't cost a lot relatively speaking. The SF 49'ers traded Montana because of his salary/age. Few QB's stick around in older years unless they are a back-up, or are still near the top of their game.

[QIOTE]Those teams you mentioned obviously wont need another QB for some time. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't go that far, but they won't need any in the time frame I'm talking about.

Eventually though, the league will see that these types of QBs do not remain healthy/ play in a sustainable fashion and sour on them. RG3 is already tearing knee ligaments left and right. How long until others do the same and either lose effectiveness due to injury or adapt their play style and lose effectiveness there? While I agree there should be a short window in which teams are higher on these types than average, I think we have discussed this hasnt reflected devaluation on pocket Qbs.

We don't need the league to decide one way or the other in the time frame needed. The best outcome for the Pats is that it's still being batted around, meaning the draft pool will be bigger in '13-'15.

You get what you pay for.

100% undetermined by historical results.

Im not married to a 1st round QB, merely acknowledging that it is the most likely "hit" scenario for a good QB. You must have a good QB to win, and all of the surplus picks and roster depth built up over the years surely allow to splurge when you nee to, no?

There are no longer surplus picks.

Not all 31 other teams want a QB every year. Not all 1st round QB's succeed, but all 1st round picks are costly in terms of draft resources and salary.

Aside from obvious cherrypicking, the reason most of these guys failed has nothing to do with talent. 99% of them were in pretty terrible situations which I would trust BB to not replicate. These teams were picking high for a reason: they sucked. The Pats likely wont by the time the new QB takes the field. While you could argue this would allow you to plug in more of an "average joe" QB, I thik we both know that is not workable with the modern passing league. I am sure you loved some of the above "bust" prospects when they came out, everyone did. But recognize that they all had loads of talent and I would gladly take a guy with more talent than one with less. Sure you have obvious headcases that are pretty indefensible like Carr, JmR, etc. but I think we both trust BB to not pick that type of player. To borrow a terrible metaphor from art, I'd rather give a master painter the best tools money can buy as this is more likely to produce a masterpiece that reflects his true genius, while inferior paints might just muddle the picture.

Disagree. Most of these top picks that washed out were mentally or emotionally unfit for the job - the situation was secondary.

Actually I was way down on most of those guys truth be told.

[rollins94]

NFL history says it's easy money for me. Of all the long lived QB's I've studied only two or three of them were good in more than 2 of their last 5 years (including injury riddled seasons and poor results compared to a normal peak year - about the level you are invoking). I hope I'm wrong, but, history says otherwise.

Looking up the average QBR for starters this year, the exact median of NFL starters was 58.9. This is he realm of guys like Schaub, Newton, Stafford, etc. In contrast, this year Brady posted a Brady 77.1. While I agree it realistic to expect regression, I doubt it is to the level of guys who make serial-level mistakes or frankly, a never-been in the form of Schaub. As we discussed upthread, there are a lot of reasons to expect that Brady ages better than pretty much most QBs in nfl history, and all of those are not relient on him totally preserving his current skillset. Different usage, coaching and scheme adjustments all work dramatically more in his favor than most NFL QBs in history and encourage longer productivity. And while its great you frame it in historical context, as you have also mentioned upthread, Brady has been better for the vast majority of his career compared to other QBs. Therefore comparing him to league history overall probably isnt the best comp IMO.

Guys like Unitas hung on a long time because he didn't cost a lot relatively speaking. The SF 49'ers traded Montana because of his salary/age. Few QB's stick around in older years unless they are a back-up, or are still near the top of their game.

These examples arent great IMO. Unitas hung around because he was the face of the franchise and because no one in the league at that time cost anything. Montana was traded because of Steve Youngs emergence. Trust you have heard of him, and I think we can both agree that type of player is not likely to walk through the door at TBs replacement.

[QIOTE]Those teams you mentioned obviously wont need another QB for some time. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't go that far, but they won't need any in the time frame I'm talking about.

What, 5-6 Years? thats an eternity in the NFL and we both know it.

We don't need the league to decide one way or the other in the time frame needed. The best outcome for the Pats is that it's still being batted around, meaning the draft pool will be bigger in '13-'15.

Agreed to some extent, yet as well already discussed, this hasnt affected how pocket QBs are drafted at all to this point. If anything, we will see this affect in the future given the successes of guys like Kap, Rg3 and Wilson this year. Hard to make a defintive statement about league trends until they actually happen, right?

100% undetermined by historical results.

How can you possibly disagree that more talented prospects go in higher rounds? For the life of me I do not understand this.

There are no longer surplus picks.

So there will never be again? This is a prime year with a weak draft to stock up on future picks. You could say "there are no extra picks" and handful of times previously during BB's tenure, yet those seem relative outliers as he regresses towards what seems personal philosophy to stock up.


Disagree. Most of these top picks that washed out were mentally or emotionally unfit for the job - the situation was secondary.

Actually I was way down on most of those guys truth be told.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea about your personal stance of these guys, but great. You are then in the extreme minority of guys who dont like supremely talented QB prospects. As for your previous statement, I disagree about as strongly as I possibly can. Talent around you and winning makes everything better, and the fact is that most of the teams these guys went to were horrible. You cant expect a prospect to come in and succeed with nothing around him (Luck is probably the one example of this in recent memory, and by all accounts he is a once in a generation QB prospect). The NFL is a scheme based league and when others around you are not doing their job it makes it exponentially harder to do your correctly as well. Sure, you can bash these guys as they fail and look bad doing it, but that is largely revisionist history. Situation and circumstance are everything in the NFl and particularly when developing QB prospects. If these guys were so poorly regarded coming out in terms of character, that either signals that a) teams made individual failures in identifying proper characteristics or b) they were not regarded in this manner coming out of school. If thats the case, what made them into headcases? Pressure, losing and lack of talent around you would seem to do the trick.

[bagwell368]

And while its great you frame it in historical context, as you have also mentioned upthread, Brady has been better for the vast majority of his career compared to other QBs. Therefore comparing him to league history overall probably isnt the best comp IMO.

Should have mentioned that I only looked at a mix of HOF QB's and other QB's in the top 75 all time in QB Rating that played past age 34. That's quite an elite set and the results were not promising. It's true that longevity seems to get a bit better every decade, but, past age 37 the results are quite dire in all but 3 cases if I remember correctly, and even the top cases had regressions and injuries.

These examples arent great IMO. Unitas hung around because he was the face of the franchise and because no one in the league at that time cost anything.

I pointed out the cost factor already. There are not BTW that many cases of regular HOF type QB's going to the bench as back-ups because they tend to play until they are done and most are done from ages 34-37 inclusive.

Montana was traded because of Steve Youngs emergence. Trust you have heard of him, and I think we can both agree that type of player is not likely to walk through the door at TBs replacement.

Yes Young AND money. Young had done well in his years in SF once or twice taking the starting role, but usually playing in place of the injury plagued Montana. At the time, nobody expected Young to be better, just that they had to move on from Montana because of the cost and injuries. Trust you have heard all of that, although your writing fails to demonstrate it.

What, 5-6 Years? thats an eternity in the NFL and we both know it.

No, by training camp 2015 is the time frame Brady's proposed replacement needs to be found IMO. Six years from now, Brady will be retired, too late for a replacement, unless it's a replacement for a failed replacement.

We don't need the league to decide one way or the other in the time frame needed. The best outcome for the Pats is that it's still being batted around, meaning the draft pool will be bigger in '13-'15.

That's what I wrote, we do NOT need the league to decide, better it be split with some teams thinking one way, and other teams thinking another - spreading the demand for QB's among more choices than would be envisioned from the behavior of NFL teams say 3 years ago W.R.T. QB drafting/signing.

Agreed to some extent, yet as well already discussed, this hasnt affected how pocket QBs are drafted at all to this point. If anything, we will see this affect in the future given the successes of guys like Kap, Rg3 and Wilson this year. Hard to make a defintive statement about league trends until they actually happen, right?

It's a "me too" league with most franchises tearing after the innovative few's thinking and choices. I expect some churning over the next few years over a larger pool of candidates than each sub-pool of QB types available and in use.

How can you possibly disagree that more talented prospects go in higher rounds? For the life of me I do not understand this.

Based on results, how can you possibly say that there is not almost a fatally high degree of failures of QB choices just since Peyton Manning's draft on up. If one were to take the time and break down every college QB picked as a QB (some play WR, RB. ect), and use AV/yr average as the measuring stick - you will see:

That on balance a top 15 QB pick will do better than a 6th round QB, but that the amount of morbid failures in the top half of round 1, coupled with almost as much success from that point down, means that at most you could say the tendency of top 15 picks is to perform better than the rest of the draft exists, but, to assume such a choice will result in success while a later one won't is asinine in the extreme.

So there will never be again?

You brought up surplus picks in what appeared to be the present tense. There are none, and this teams window is shrinking, I doubt BB trades that many more picks into the future as he has in the recent past. The QB draft appears slim. Most of the rest of the draft including places of need appear to be robust.

As for your previous statement, I disagree about as strongly as I possibly can. Talent around you and winning makes everything better, and the fact is that most of the teams these guys went to were horrible.

Since the teams state was well know to the people making the choices, maybe they should have considered the mental and emotional strength of the guys they took.

Sure, you can bash these guys as they fail and look bad doing it, but that is largely revisionist history. Situation and circumstance are everything in the NFl and particularly when developing QB prospects. If these guys were so poorly regarded coming out in terms of character, that either signals that a) teams made individual failures in identifying proper characteristics or b) they were not regarded in this manner coming out of school. If thats the case, what made them into headcases? Pressure, losing and lack of talent around you would seem to do the trick.[/B]

Maybe the testing and interviewing process were not good enough. Given the bogus results of some of these guys, it would be appear to be the case.

[bagwell368]

I would be shocked if the Patriots had an opportunity to sign Cassel for some minimum amount to money. He is on the books for $2+ mil of bonus in each of the next 2 years plus $7.5 mil salary in 2013 and $9 mil salary in 2014. Assuming he gets cut, this is a player that completes 59% of his passes and doesn't throw an obscene amount of INTs although he did in 2012. If he gets cut, he will get signed for $5-8 mil a year easily. Is he worth it? I don't know, but QBs don't give their services away.

Cassel will be 31 in May, and I doubt the Pats see him as any answer, so why pay him solid money when you don't want him?

If they can manage to unload Mallett, then I could see them signing Hoyer as a min salary guy to hold the back-up fort for a year or three until they locate THE QB of the future.

[subroc]

here is one thing to consider, when you are paying Tom Brady top of the NFL money for the position, it doesn't leave much to pay the back-up.

[BradyIsTheMan12]

The Boston Globe's Greg Bedard suggests that Ryan Mallett could be targeted by the Browns via trade now that Mike Lombardi is Cleveland's VP of Player Personnel.
Lombardi was one of the few media types smitten with Mallett before the 2011 draft, stating in April of that year that he was "convinced" Mallett would be a top-20 pick. Mallett was drafted 74th by the Patriots. It's no secret Lombardi isn't high on Brandon Weeden, and big-armed Mallett would be a fit for Rob Chudzinski's vertical offense. The Pats would probably want at least a second-round pick.

Source: Rotoworld

Belichick and Lombardi have a good relationship as well. Something worth monitoring after the season is over.

[Superdude]

https://twitter.com/NFLosophy/status/292296363524378624

NFL Philosophy
‏@NFLosophy
Mallett to the Browns will probably heat up. Browns will have to give up number 6 overall pick this year, plus more. No clue what else.

Even better than a second

[Austeezy]

That's why BB hasn't been playing him. It's so others can't see how he's done under BB and Brady BWAHAHAHA gotta keep that value high