How is Ryan Mallett a less attractive option than this QB Class?

[The King]

I know the knocks on Mallett coming in, he's a bit of a prima donna, and his mobility is an issue. We know he has a cannon, and he's spent two years on one of the best teams in the league.

In a draft class with so much doubt surrounding the top QB's how is it not worth taking a chance on Mallett, are the Patriots asking for some kind of ridiculous value? He's young, even if he doesnt pan out as a starter he's sound QB depth. I would think he'd be worth a package of mid round picks.

He would need less grooming than anyone in this class, and I would consider his upside to be comparable.

I don't want to hear Bledsoe 2.0 comparisons either because I don't think the compensation is remotely the same. Nor are the players in terms of age.

I just don't understand how this isn't a more popular option, am I missing something?

[k-oneputt]

I liked Mallett coming out, and still do.
I would take him today over Fitz and Jax.

[Night Train]

The knock on him was in big games that were close in the 4th quarter, he consistently choked.

Landry Jones probably idolizes him.

[k-oneputt]

Lot of qb's choked against the Bama, Florida, and LSU defenses.

We haven't seen yet what he will do in the NFL, we know what we will get from Fitz and Jax.

[MTBillsFan]

Trade Fitz straight up for him. It can't be any worse at QB than we already are.

[mjt328]

I really liked Mallett coming out. The talent was clearly there, and I always thought it was suspicious how people always brought up "character concerns" but nothing substantial ever developed. I was hoping for him in the 2nd round, and was furious when we passed on him again in the 3rd round.

With that said, I would be hesitant to pull the trigger on a trade.


The Patriots have now had 2 full years to train and develop him. With Tom Brady aging, there is no reason for them to trade away Mallett if they felt he could eventually take over the franchise. The fact that he's on the trading block makes me wonder. Even more suspicious is the fact that - despite several blowouts last year - they never made an attempt to showcase him for the league. With all the times New England has ripped people off in trades over the last decade, that should raise a big red flag.

Back then, I think Mallett was worth the risk. He was a productive college prospect with a rocket arm and lots of upside.
Now, he's a two-year NFL backup, who doesn't appear (at least from the outside) to be developing into a starter.


If it wasn't the Patriots, I might still consider the trade. But in division, that's not worth a 2nd-3rd round pick.

[Extremebillsfan247]

I know the knocks on Mallett coming in, he's a bit of a prima donna, and his mobility is an issue. We know he has a cannon, and he's spent two years on one of the best teams in the league.

In a draft class with so much doubt surrounding the top QB's how is it not worth taking a chance on Mallett, are the Patriots asking for some kind of ridiculous value? He's young, even if he doesnt pan out as a starter he's sound QB depth. I would think he'd be worth a package of mid round picks.

He would need less grooming than anyone in this class, and I would consider his upside to be comparable.

I don't want to hear Bledsoe 2.0 comparisons either because I don't think the compensation is remotely the same. Nor are the players in terms of age.

I just don't understand how this isn't a more popular option, am I missing something?
I liked Mallet coming out of the draft. But if you want him as your starting QB, you better have a really good O'line. He's kind of a statue with a good arm. lol That's where I think the Bledsoe comparison comes in most with the most relevance.

[OpIv37]

1. No trades within the division. No exceptions.
2. If Bellicheck is letting him go, there is a reason.

I don't like any of the QB's in this draft either, but that's why Mallett is a less attractive option.

[Yasgur's Farm]

1. No trades within the division. No exceptions.
2. If Bellicheck is letting him go, there is a reason.

I don't like any of the QB's in this draft either, but that's why Mallett is a less attractive option.100% agree!!

I know it was done before with Bledsoe... But no way in hell do the Bills deal with the Pats.

Nice thing about this though... Another QB starved team will take the shot. That'll decrease demand on the draft class and perhaps drop good value to us in the 2nd.

[The King]

I'm hearing the value is a 3rd and a late pick... which is why I brought this up.

[Bill Cody]

I don't want to hear Bledsoe 2.0 comparisons either because I don't think the compensation is remotely the same. Nor are the players in terms of age.



I don't want to hear them either. Mallet won't be as good. Drew Bledsoe was a statue but the man would take a helmet in the chest to make a play. Every time I've watched Mallet he looks like a cat visiting the dog pound whenever the team he's playing brings pressure. Pass.

[Night Train]

Why not sign UFA Drew Stanton from the Colts, who played better at Michigan State then Mallet ever did at Arkansas. He should have been taking over for Sanchez last year, before Woody Johnson lost his mind and aquired Tebow. Stanton then demanded a trade from the Jets and backed up Luck in Indy.

Stanton won games at Michigan State by delivering in the clutch with a very average team around him. Can throw on the run. 6-3 225. Would seem to actually fit the Marrone idea of a mobile QB over a stone footed stiff like Mallet. Let him and TJax battle it out and hold the fort until an actual talent comes along.

[OpIv37]

That's the best idea I've heard yet about the QB situation.

And by "best," I really mean "least bad" because we don't have a good option.

[PTI]

I would take Bledsoe 2.0, he went to a Super Bowl and was a very good QB.

[Bill Cody]

Why not sign UFA Drew Stanton from the Colts, who played better at Michigan State then Mallet ever did at Arkansas. He should have been taking over for Sanchez last year, before Woody Johnson lost his mind and aquired Tebow. Stanton then demanded a trade from the Jets and backed up Luck in Indy.

Stanton won games at Michigan State by delivering in the clutch with a very average team around him. Can throw on the run. 6-3 225. Would seem to actually fit the Marrone idea of a mobile QB over a stone footed stiff like Mallet. Let him and TJax battle it out and hold the fort until an actual talent comes along.

I like this idea. Stanton had a rough senior year at Michigan State which is why he wasn't a 1st round pick but he's a born leader and he has the size and arm to make it.

[Bill Cody]

I would take Bledsoe 2.0, he went to a Super Bowl and was a very good QB.

Drew Bledsoe hasn't played in like 6 years but if you gave him a month to get in shape I'd take him now ahead of Mallett.

[ublinkwescore]

I dont care what they do as long as they get us a f***ing quarterback - a legit one - even if they use 3 picks in this draft to find one before day 3...

- - - Updated - - -

I dont care what they do as long as they get us a f***ing quarterback - a legit one - even if they use 3 picks in this draft to find one before day 3...

[better days]

I know the knocks on Mallett coming in, he's a bit of a prima donna, and his mobility is an issue. We know he has a cannon, and he's spent two years on one of the best teams in the league.

In a draft class with so much doubt surrounding the top QB's how is it not worth taking a chance on Mallett, are the Patriots asking for some kind of ridiculous value? He's young, even if he doesnt pan out as a starter he's sound QB depth. I would think he'd be worth a package of mid round picks.

He would need less grooming than anyone in this class, and I would consider his upside to be comparable.

I don't want to hear Bledsoe 2.0 comparisons either because I don't think the compensation is remotely the same. Nor are the players in terms of age.

I just don't understand how this isn't a more popular option, am I missing something?

I think trading for Mallett would be more like trading for Cassel than Bledsoe. Bledsoe was a much better older QB. Both Mallett & Cassel are younger mediocre QBs. Hell we could probably get Cassel cheaper if you want to trade for a mediocre QB.

[fluteflakes]

Cassel isn't a mediocre QB, Cassel is a BAD QB.

With Mallet you've got that unknown factor, that little big of dangling potential that he's flashed to be a good NFL QB. If the price is right I wouldn't be opposed at all. I thought he was the best QB prospect 2 years ago, the talent IS THERE to be a great QB.

[better days]

I'm hearing the value is a 3rd and a late pick... which is why I brought this up.

Why would you want to trade with the PATRIOTS of all teams for a mediocre QB? And if Mallett was not Mediocre, the Pats* would sit Brady & start him like the Packers did with Rodgers & Favre. Or the Pats* did with Brady & Bledsoe.

[better days]

Cassel isn't a mediocre QB, Cassel is a BAD QB.

With Mallet you've got that unknown factor, that little big of dangling potential that he's flashed to be a good NFL QB. If the price is right I wouldn't be opposed at all. I thought he was the best QB prospect 2 years ago, the talent IS THERE to be a great QB.

If the talent was there to be a great QB, he would have been drafted higher. And if Belicheat & the Pats* think the talent IS there, the Pats* would bench Brady & start him like the Packers did with Rodgers & Favre.

[The King]

Right, this would be trading for that elusive word. Potential.

I don't know if Mallett would succeed but he's the back-up on a very dominant team. I find it hard to believe that the Patriots would keep him as the only other option if he was terrible.

[better days]

Right, this would be trading for that elusive word. Potential.

I don't know if Mallett would succeed but he's the back-up on a very dominant team. I find it hard to believe that the Patriots would keep him as the only other option if he was terrible.

I would find it hard to believe that the Pats* would trade him if they thought he had any potential to be GOOD.

[PromoTheRobot]

I know the knocks on Mallett coming in, he's a bit of a prima donna, and his mobility is an issue. We know he has a cannon, and he's spent two years on one of the best teams in the league.

In a draft class with so much doubt surrounding the top QB's how is it not worth taking a chance on Mallett, are the Patriots asking for some kind of ridiculous value? He's young, even if he doesnt pan out as a starter he's sound QB depth. I would think he'd be worth a package of mid round picks.

He would need less grooming than anyone in this class, and I would consider his upside to be comparable.

I don't want to hear Bledsoe 2.0 comparisons either because I don't think the compensation is remotely the same. Nor are the players in terms of age.

I just don't understand how this isn't a more popular option, am I missing something?

You are correct about Bledsoe. He actually proved he was an NFL QB before the Bills traded for him.

PTR

[fluteflakes]

I would find it hard to believe that the Pats* would trade him if they thought he had any potential to be GOOD.

Yes they would, it's called appropriating value. The entire reason they were seen to have drafted him in 10' is because most people thought he'd grow behind Brady for a few seasons, then, as their doing this off season, shop the product of 2 years of NFL coaching around to the league and try to get a good return on that 3rd round investment. What value does Mallett do for the Pats* now other than wasting a roster spot they could fill on the cheap with another NFL vet? They want to get some value out of a guy they hope and are assuming will never see the field.

He was never drafted to be anything more than trade bait and an emergency guy behind Brady. The Pats can think he's the next great QB, but Brady playing for the next 5 seasons would mean Mallett never sees the field. The Pats felt a team would, and believe me a team will, take a chance on his potential.

And if we did, and the price was right, I'd be okay with that.

[PromoTheRobot]

Right, this would be trading for that elusive word. Potential.

I don't know if Mallett would succeed but he's the back-up on a very dominant team. I find it hard to believe that the Patriots would keep him as the only other option if he was terrible.

Mallett may or may not be an NFL. But trading our picks to New England will definitely help the Pats wheel-n-deal on draft day. How do they get so many high picks? Because chump teams hand them over.

PTR

[fluteflakes]

The Pats have 5 picks this year, they don't have the ammo to wheel and deal. Even adding another 3rd wouldn't do much.

[PromoTheRobot]

The Pats have 5 picks this year, they don't have the ammo to wheel and deal. Even adding another 3rd wouldn't do much.

So why help them? If Bellicheat is willing to trade Mallett to the Bills he must not think he's any good.

PTR

[fluteflakes]

*sighs* Again.

It's about VALUE. Not about TALENT.

Mallett isn't seeing the field there as long as Tom Brady has a pulse. They want to get SOME FORM of value out of him, in this case a draft pick, so they can make other moves and free up a roster spot for a position of real need, not a back-up QB. It's not a matter of the Pats thinking he's not talented, because it doesn't MATTER how talented he is because he's going to be sitting behind Tom Brady until he leaves as a FA. They're trying to trade him, now, to get SOME VALUE from him before he leaves on his own.

[k-oneputt]

Why not sign UFA Drew Stanton from the Colts, who played better at Michigan State then Mallet ever did at Arkansas. He should have been taking over for Sanchez last year, before Woody Johnson lost his mind and aquired Tebow. Stanton then demanded a trade from the Jets and backed up Luck in Indy.

Stanton won games at Michigan State by delivering in the clutch with a very average team around him. Can throw on the run. 6-3 225. Would seem to actually fit the Marrone idea of a mobile QB over a stone footed stiff like Mallet. Let him and TJax battle it out and hold the fort until an actual talent comes along.

That's BIG-10 football.
Teams and defenses are a different story in the SEC.

[TigerJ]

I would take Mallett over several QBs in this class, including Mike Glennon, (no brainer) Tyler Wilson, Tyler Bray, and Landry Jones. I would take Geno Smith over Mallett. Tough choice between Barkley and Mallett. I think I'd lean toward EJ Manuel though it wouldn't be an easy pick.

[Ginger Vitis]

That's BIG-10 football.


Yeah good thing the Bills didnt draft that Big 10 QB Russell Wilson

[Night Train]

That's BIG-10 football.
Teams and defenses are a different story in the SEC.

Mallett choked in the Sugar Bowl with the game on the line against Ohio St. to finish his college career. Threw an INT right to a DB in the red zone. Speaks volumes.

[k-oneputt]

Maybe you forgot the two passes dropped at the start of that game by Ark wr's. ???

R. Wilson is more ACC then BIG-10. I guess you forgot his previous years at NC St. also.
That's right I forgot, Wilson wasn't "good value" for the Bills in last years draft. That "good value" is the stupidest thing I hear every year at draft time.
I bet Maybin was "good value" though.

[k-oneputt]

Mallett choked in the Sugar Bowl with the game on the line against Ohio St. to finish his college career. Threw an INT right to a DB in the red zone. Speaks volumes.

Fitz did that every other week with the game on the line.

[better days]

Yes they would, it's called appropriating value. The entire reason they were seen to have drafted him in 10' is because most people thought he'd grow behind Brady for a few seasons, then, as their doing this off season, shop the product of 2 years of NFL coaching around to the league and try to get a good return on that 3rd round investment. What value does Mallett do for the Pats* now other than wasting a roster spot they could fill on the cheap with another NFL vet? They want to get some value out of a guy they hope and are assuming will never see the field.

He was never drafted to be anything more than trade bait and an emergency guy behind Brady. The Pats can think he's the next great QB, but Brady playing for the next 5 seasons would mean Mallett never sees the field. The Pats felt a team would, and believe me a team will, take a chance on his potential.

And if we did, and the price was right, I'd be okay with that.

If he was drafted as nothing more than trade BAIT, then he is not any good & not worth trading for. You know who takes bate? FISH. I don't want to see the Bills take the bate & get eaten for lunch.

Like I said IF Mallett were any good, the Pats* would start him next year & trade Brady. Now that would be appropriating value. & the Pats* did that before with Bledsoe & the Packers did it with Favre.

[better days]

*sighs* Again.

It's about VALUE. Not about TALENT.

Mallett isn't seeing the field there as long as Tom Brady has a pulse. They want to get SOME FORM of value out of him, in this case a draft pick, so they can make other moves and free up a roster spot for a position of real need, not a back-up QB. It's not a matter of the Pats thinking he's not talented, because it doesn't MATTER how talented he is because he's going to be sitting behind Tom Brady until he leaves as a FA. They're trying to trade him, now, to get SOME VALUE from him before he leaves on his own.

TALENT wins games, NOT VALUE.

[Goobylal]

*sighs* Again.

It's about VALUE. Not about TALENT.

Mallett isn't seeing the field there as long as Tom Brady has a pulse. They want to get SOME FORM of value out of him, in this case a draft pick, so they can make other moves and free up a roster spot for a position of real need, not a back-up QB. It's not a matter of the Pats thinking he's not talented, because it doesn't MATTER how talented he is because he's going to be sitting behind Tom Brady until he leaves as a FA. They're trying to trade him, now, to get SOME VALUE from him before he leaves on his own.
What value does a guy whose NFL stat-line reads: 1-4 for 17 yards and an INT, in his 2nd season? The answer is: none. I don't know of any QB who was traded with no starts and so few/such lousy stats after his 2nd season. And again, the point about him not being played much, despite the Pats being in numerous blowouts, and that Belichick would be willing to trade him within the division, should raise major red flags.

If the Pats can get anything for him at this point, they should jump on it. Because again at this point, Mallett has done more to prove he can't hack it, while rookies still have potential to succeed.

[ServoBillieves]

Let's send them Sam Aiken, our playbook, and a conditional 6th for him.

[better days]

Let's send them Sam Aiken, our playbook, and a conditional 6th for him.

I would throw in Fitz as well.

[BillsFever21]

If he was drafted as nothing more than trade BAIT, then he is not any good & not worth trading for. You know who takes bate? FISH. I don't want to see the Bills take the bate & get eaten for lunch.

Like I said IF Mallett were any good, the Pats* would start him next year & trade Brady. Now that would be appropriating value. & the Pats* did that before with Bledsoe & the Packers did it with Favre.

I'm not speculating on whether Mallett would be any good or not but them comparisons aren't even close to the Bledsoe/Brady and Rodgers/Favre situations.

Bledsoe's production had been going down for years and the team wasn't winning with him. He wasn't even sent packing for an unknown Brady. It wasn't until Bledsoe got injured that Brady was inserted and played great and lead a 1-4 Patriots team going nowhere fast to a SB title that season. That was the obvious decision to trade Bledsoe and keep Brady. Unfortunately we were the only team desperate and stupid enough to give them a 1st round pick for him. Mallett still hasn't even seen the field outside of a few passes and although Brady is 36 years old his production is still at one of the highest levels of his career.

In the case with Rodgers and Favre, Rodgers was a 1st round pick that had been sitting on the bench for three years. They had a relatively new front office and coaching staff and the Favre era was starting to run it's course in Green Bay along with his future production. Looking at it from what's best for the future the Packers made the smart choice and didn't have much of an alternative then to see what they had in Rodgers who they had been grooming for three years before it turned into a wasted pick. He was also a very highly rated QB coming out of college that happened to fall in the draft. He wasn't a 5th round pick like Mallett. They also wouldn't have spent a 1st round pick on Rodgers as their guy when they took over if they didn't have intentions of making the transition sooner rather then later. That's what smart teams do.

Now if Brady had been showing signs of slowing down and Mallett showing good potential in practice and/or there was a new front office and coaching staff who wanted to play their own guy they had been grooming then you could maybe draw some type of comparison. Bledsoe was nowhere near the QB he previously was and the team wasn't winning and competing for championships unlike they still are with Brady.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Patriots draft a QB fairly high in the draft a couple years from now especially if the right one fell to them as a succession plan to Brady like the Packers did with Favre. After a couple years of grooming him he should be ready to step in when Brady's new contract is running out and he is 39-40 years old. Good teams plan ahead for that type of stuff. Mallett would be a FA before then and would never sign an extension with them even if they did want to if he knew his chances of starting wasn't until up to 4 years from now. By then he would be almost 30 years old and been in the league for 6 years without at least competing for a chance for playing time.

[BillsFever21]

Correction to the above post. Mallett was drafted in the 3rd round and not the 5th.

[Goobylal]

I'm not speculating on whether Mallett would be any good or not but them comparisons aren't even close to the Bledsoe/Brady and Rodgers/Favre situations.

Bledsoe's production had been going down for years and the team wasn't winning with him. He wasn't even sent packing for an unknown Brady. It wasn't until Bledsoe got injured that Brady was inserted and played great and lead a 1-4 Patriots team going nowhere fast to a SB title that season. That was the obvious decision to trade Bledsoe and keep Brady. Unfortunately we were the only team desperate and stupid enough to give them a 1st round pick for him. Mallett still hasn't even seen the field outside of a few passes and although Brady is 36 years old his production is still at one of the highest levels of his career.

In the case with Rodgers and Favre, Rodgers was a 1st round pick that had been sitting on the bench for three years. They had a relatively new front office and coaching staff and the Favre era was starting to run it's course in Green Bay along with his future production. Looking at it from what's best for the future the Packers made the smart choice and didn't have much of an alternative then to see what they had in Rodgers who they had been grooming for three years before it turned into a wasted pick. He was also a very highly rated QB coming out of college that happened to fall in the draft. He wasn't a 5th round pick like Mallett. They also wouldn't have spent a 1st round pick on Rodgers as their guy when they took over if they didn't have intentions of making the transition sooner rather then later. That's what smart teams do.

Now if Brady had been showing signs of slowing down and Mallett showing good potential in practice and/or there was a new front office and coaching staff who wanted to play their own guy they had been grooming then you could maybe draw some type of comparison. Bledsoe was nowhere near the QB he previously was and the team wasn't winning and competing for championships unlike they still are with Brady.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Patriots draft a QB fairly high in the draft a couple years from now especially if the right one fell to them as a succession plan to Brady like the Packers did with Favre. After a couple years of grooming him he should be ready to step in when Brady's new contract is running out and he is 39-40 years old. Good teams plan ahead for that type of stuff. Mallett would be a FA before then and would never sign an extension with them even if they did want to if he knew his chances of starting wasn't until up to 4 years from now. By then he would be almost 30 years old and been in the league for 6 years without at least competing for a chance for playing time.
You make it sound like it's as easy as merely drafting a QB. The Patriots took a flyer with a throwaway 6th round pick in 2000 and lucked-into Brady. Since that time, they've drafted 6 QB's, several of them taken higher than Brady, and none of them have panned-out. If Mallett is any good, you keep him, period, and push-out Brady like Brady did to Bledsoe.

[The Jokeman]

*sighs* Again.

It's about VALUE. Not about TALENT.

Mallett isn't seeing the field there as long as Tom Brady has a pulse. They want to get SOME FORM of value out of him, in this case a draft pick, so they can make other moves and free up a roster spot for a position of real need, not a back-up QB. It's not a matter of the Pats thinking he's not talented, because it doesn't MATTER how talented he is because he's going to be sitting behind Tom Brady until he leaves as a FA. They're trying to trade him, now, to get SOME VALUE from him before he leaves on his own.

Exactly get something now so he doesn't leave next year and they get nothing. Toss in they can re-sign Matt Cassell when the Chiefs dump him and have a backup QB who's already familiar with their offensive playbook etc. and with the way they manipulate the draft maybe turn the picks they get for Mallett into another two or three picks to help them in the fourthcoming years.

Yet as a Bills fan I want now part of him. I wasn't a big fan the year he came out and still not. As he's just unproven and call me foolish but in seeing Cassell and Brian Hoyer struggle since leaving NE I have a feeling Mallett is nothing. If I'm wrong so be it but rather not help the Patriots for a gamble at something great. Instead I'll gamble with something great in the draft.

[better days]

I'm not speculating on whether Mallett would be any good or not but them comparisons aren't even close to the Bledsoe/Brady and Rodgers/Favre situations.

Bledsoe's production had been going down for years and the team wasn't winning with him. He wasn't even sent packing for an unknown Brady. It wasn't until Bledsoe got injured that Brady was inserted and played great and lead a 1-4 Patriots team going nowhere fast to a SB title that season. That was the obvious decision to trade Bledsoe and keep Brady. Unfortunately we were the only team desperate and stupid enough to give them a 1st round pick for him. Mallett still hasn't even seen the field outside of a few passes and although Brady is 36 years old his production is still at one of the highest levels of his career.

In the case with Rodgers and Favre, Rodgers was a 1st round pick that had been sitting on the bench for three years. They had a relatively new front office and coaching staff and the Favre era was starting to run it's course in Green Bay along with his future production. Looking at it from what's best for the future the Packers made the smart choice and didn't have much of an alternative then to see what they had in Rodgers who they had been grooming for three years before it turned into a wasted pick. He was also a very highly rated QB coming out of college that happened to fall in the draft. He wasn't a 5th round pick like Mallett. They also wouldn't have spent a 1st round pick on Rodgers as their guy when they took over if they didn't have intentions of making the transition sooner rather then later. That's what smart teams do.

Now if Brady had been showing signs of slowing down and Mallett showing good potential in practice and/or there was a new front office and coaching staff who wanted to play their own guy they had been grooming then you could maybe draw some type of comparison. Bledsoe was nowhere near the QB he previously was and the team wasn't winning and competing for championships unlike they still are with Brady.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Patriots draft a QB fairly high in the draft a couple years from now especially if the right one fell to them as a succession plan to Brady like the Packers did with Favre. After a couple years of grooming him he should be ready to step in when Brady's new contract is running out and he is 39-40 years old. Good teams plan ahead for that type of stuff. Mallett would be a FA before then and would never sign an extension with them even if they did want to if he knew his chances of starting wasn't until up to 4 years from now. By then he would be almost 30 years old and been in the league for 6 years without at least competing for a chance for playing time.

The Pats* would not have made it to the Super Bowl if not for Bledsoe. He won the playoff game that put them in the Super Bowl.

As I said if Mallett showed potential to be GOOD, there is no way the Pats* would trade him.

[fluteflakes]

Yes... they would. Because he's a FA at the end of next season and they're trying to get value for him before he leaves to go somewhere else.

It's really not rocket science here, teams trade quality players all the time because they know they're going to leave the next off-season anyway. It's about getting value, Matt Cassel had value and yes, talent in NE, but instead of keep him they traded him because, surprise surprise they wanted to get value for him.

It's not the same situation, but they are defiantly comparable. Sample size or not.

[Goobylal]

Yes... they would. Because he's a FA at the end of next season and they're trying to get value for him before he leaves to go somewhere else.

It's really not rocket science here, teams trade quality players all the time because they know they're going to leave the next off-season anyway. It's about getting value, Matt Cassel had value and yes, talent in NE, but instead of keep him they traded him because, surprise surprise they wanted to get value for him.

It's not the same situation, but they are defiantly comparable. Sample size or not.
Mallett hasn't proven to be a quality player. If anything, going 1-4 for 17 yards and an INT in his 2nd season says more that he sucks than that he's a quality player, nevermind that the Pats refused to play him much last year despite all their blowout wins and that they signed Brady, who's in the twilight of his career, to a 3-year extension.

As for Cassell, he showed far better than Mallett has prior to being traded. Sure it was spurious given the talent around him, but the point is he actually looked decent. Not to mention it was 5 years ago and Brady was still in his prime.

[justasportsfan]

I'm hearing the value is a 3rd and a late pick... which is why I brought this up.

doesn't that make you wonder even more that the Pats are letting him go for less? If the think he's their next franchise qb, they won't let him go for that. We need no LESS than a franchise qb.

[The King]

We know he isnt going to replace Brady, but that's all we know. We know just as much about the current class.

[BillsFever21]

You make it sound like it's as easy as merely drafting a QB. The Patriots took a flyer with a throwaway 6th round pick in 2000 and lucked-into Brady. Since that time, they've drafted 6 QB's, several of them taken higher than Brady, and none of them have panned-out. If Mallett is any good, you keep him, period, and push-out Brady like Brady did to Bledsoe.

I'm glad you guys aren't the GM of the Bills. Too bad not the Patriots wouldn't hire you though. There isn't any chance they would get rid of Brady for an unproven Mallet. Brady had already proved himself that season when he took over AFTER Bledsoe got injured. The way Bledsoe was playing it might have happened without the injury. Bledsoe was playing well for a while leading up to that season. His best years were behind him as we saw in Buffalo. He had one good season the first year and was junk again after that.

Now if Brady got injured in the next year or two and wasn't playing very well anymore and Mallett came in and played great and lead them deep into the playoffs they might think about that. They just aren't going to dump him for no reason.

Yeah they have drafted other QB's as investments that paid huge dividends. That's what good teams do. Their system and coaching is good enough that they were able to get a good year out of Matt Cassell and end up with the #34 pick in the draft.

I could just see the headlines of the Patriots dumping Brady who just came off one of the best seasons of his career and giving him 3 years of guaranteed money for Ryan Mallett who has never played a game in the NFL. Now if a couple of years from now the same scenario happened then they might think about it.

Then to even compare Bledsoe to one of the best QB's in NFL history is just foolish. Brady has 3 SB victories, 5 SB appearance and every season they are fighting for a SB berth. Bledsoe had a good start to his career and started to fade away shortly before 30. He was playing like crap and there was any coincidence that it was only until after he was injured the Patriots started playing great.

[BillsFever21]

The Pats* would not have made it to the Super Bowl if not for Bledsoe. He won the playoff game that put them in the Super Bowl.

As I said if Mallett showed potential to be GOOD, there is no way the Pats* would trade him.

At the start of my post I never said whether Mallett is good or terrible. The entire opinion is there is no way you can compare them situations along with the Rodgers/Favre situation. Them comparisons are apples to oranges.

Yeah Bledsoe came in during a close game in the AFC Championship game and threw a TD pass that helped them win. He did his job. Had he been the starter all season they would have never been to that point or never won the SB.

That's like saying that Tampa Bay might not have won the SB without Rob Johnson since he won two games as a starter while Brad Johnson was injured during the season which lead them to a 1st round bye and giving Johnson credit for it. Sure he was a horrible QB but without them regular season wins they wouldn't have had a first round bye without him.

Comparing Johnson to Bledsoe is just as foolish as comparing Bledsoe to Brady. Brady is one of the best in the history of the NFL while Bledsoe will go down as a QB with pretty stats to start his career but outside of one SB loss couldn't win games. His production even went down at an early age. We got the washed up version of Bledsoe.

[better days]

I'm glad you guys aren't the GM of the Bills. Too bad not the Patriots wouldn't hire you though. There isn't any chance they would get rid of Brady for an unproven Mallet. Brady had already proved himself that season when he took over AFTER Bledsoe got injured. The way Bledsoe was playing it might have happened without the injury. Bledsoe was playing well for a while leading up to that season. His best years were behind him as we saw in Buffalo. He had one good season the first year and was junk again after that.

Now if Brady got injured in the next year or two and wasn't playing very well anymore and Mallett came in and played great and lead them deep into the playoffs they might think about that. They just aren't going to dump him for no reason.

Yeah they have drafted other QB's as investments that paid huge dividends. That's what good teams do. Their system and coaching is good enough that they were able to get a good year out of Matt Cassell and end up with the #34 pick in the draft.

I could just see the headlines of the Patriots dumping Brady who just came off one of the best seasons of his career and giving him 3 years of guaranteed money for Ryan Mallett who has never played a game in the NFL. Now if a couple of years from now the same scenario happened then they might think about it.

Then to even compare Bledsoe to one of the best QB's in NFL history is just foolish. Brady has 3 SB victories, 5 SB appearance and every season they are fighting for a SB berth. Bledsoe had a good start to his career and started to fade away shortly before 30. He was playing like crap and there was any coincidence that it was only until after he was injured the Patriots started playing great.

Well, the question you should ask yourself is why has Mallett never seen the field with all the blowouts the Pats* have played in the last two years. Wouldn't you think they would want to get him some experience in case Brady got injured? Or wouldn't you think the Pats* would want to showcase him if they thought he had anything to show?

The Chiefs have already made the bonehead trade of the offseason.

[Goobylal]

I'm glad you guys aren't the GM of the Bills. Too bad not the Patriots wouldn't hire you though. There isn't any chance they would get rid of Brady for an unproven Mallet. Brady had already proved himself that season when he took over AFTER Bledsoe got injured. The way Bledsoe was playing it might have happened without the injury. Bledsoe was playing well for a while leading up to that season. His best years were behind him as we saw in Buffalo. He had one good season the first year and was junk again after that.

Now if Brady got injured in the next year or two and wasn't playing very well anymore and Mallett came in and played great and lead them deep into the playoffs they might think about that. They just aren't going to dump him for no reason.

Yeah they have drafted other QB's as investments that paid huge dividends. That's what good teams do. Their system and coaching is good enough that they were able to get a good year out of Matt Cassell and end up with the #34 pick in the draft.

I could just see the headlines of the Patriots dumping Brady who just came off one of the best seasons of his career and giving him 3 years of guaranteed money for Ryan Mallett who has never played a game in the NFL. Now if a couple of years from now the same scenario happened then they might think about it.

Then to even compare Bledsoe to one of the best QB's in NFL history is just foolish. Brady has 3 SB victories, 5 SB appearance and every season they are fighting for a SB berth. Bledsoe had a good start to his career and started to fade away shortly before 30. He was playing like crap and there was any coincidence that it was only until after he was injured the Patriots started playing great.
I never said anything about dumping Brady now. I'm talking a year or so. He's not going to play for more than a couple years, and seeing what Mallett has is the smartest thing to do. That he didn't see the field much last year despite all those blowouts, and played poorly when he did, should tell you everything you need to know. Should.

The Pats haven't drafted a QB worth a damn since they got lucky with Brady. So saying "well, they drafted him so he must be good" is dumb. And what a player did in college means jack squat in the NFL. What he did (or more precisely didn't do) last year tells me more.

As for Brady versus Bledsoe, Bledsoe didn't benefit from cheating, a great defense, and one of the greatest kickers in NFL history. And if not for a fluke injury, we'd probably never have heard of Brady, given the Pats had just signed Bledsoe to a 10-year $100M contract prior to the start of that season.

[Mike]

If the talent was there to be a great QB, he would have been drafted higher. And if Belicheat & the Pats* think the talent IS there, the Pats* would bench Brady & start him like the Packers did with Rodgers & Favre.

That's a pretty Ridiculous notion. If Mallott was good or even very good there's no chance in hell that they would bench Brady -one of the best quarterbacks of all Time- for an unknown unproven quarterback. I even did a poll on this And most zoners would not even Bench or release Brady for Mallet.

In a week draft class this is one of the best opportunities for the patriots to get high-value for mallet. The only suspicious thing about Mallette is how little he has played. When the Patriots drafted Mallett the whole intension from the get go will simply to flip the pick and trade him away a few years later before his contract expires for greater value.

[Mike]

If he was drafted as nothing more than trade BAIT, then he is not any good & not worth trading for. You know who takes bate? FISH. I don't want to see the Bills take the bate & get eaten for lunch.

Like I said IF Mallett were any good, the Pats* would start him next year & trade Brady. Now that would be appropriating value. & the Pats* did that before with Bledsoe & the Packers did it with Favre.

Brady is a not good, he's great. It mallet was good, think Rivers or Romo or any 3rd rate QB, Brady is still a world ahead of him. You don't release a great GOAT for a good player. You don't release Jerry Rice because you have a Lee Evens on your roster.

The only way Mallet starts is if Brady goes down. Mallets rookie contract will soon expire. If they don't trade him, they won't get anything.

He was simply trade bait from the beginning -never a 1st round heir-apparent to a very old QB (Farve) like Rogers (who should have been #1 overall). Mallet was a 3rd round steal that was nothing more than future trade bait....

[fluteflakes]

Brady is a not good, he's great. It mallet was good, think Rivers or Romo or any 3rd rate QB, Brady is still a world ahead of him. You don't release a great GOAT for a good player. You don't release Jerry Rice because you have a Lee Evens on your roster.

The only way Mallet starts is if Brady goes down. Mallets rookie contract will soon expire. If they don't trade him, they won't get anything.

He was simply trade bait from the beginning -never a 1st round heir-apparent to a very old QB (Farve) like Rogers (who should have been #1 overall). Mallet was a 3rd round steal that was nothing more than future trade bait....

Thank you.

Mallet was never meant to be the Heir apparent But the Pats knew that eventually they could get value out of him, and at that point in the third, I'm willing to assume, he was just so much higher than everybody else on their board that they could afford taking him, considering the glut of picks they had in 2010.

[better days]

That's a pretty Ridiculous notion. If Mallott was good or even very good there's no chance in hell that they would bench Brady -one of the best quarterbacks of all Time- for an unknown unproven quarterback. I even did a poll on this And most zoners would not even Bench or release Brady for Mallet.

In a week draft class this is one of the best opportunities for the patriots to get high-value for mallet. The only suspicious thing about Mallette is how little he has played. When the Patriots drafted Mallett the whole intension from the get go will simply to flip the pick and trade him away a few years later before his contract expires for greater value.

Well, Favre is a HOF QB. The Packers sat him in favor or Rodgers. Why? Because they knew Rodgers had the potential to be GOOD, a franchise QB for the next 10 years.
And if Mallett is unproven it is only because the Pats* refused to play him in spite of the many blowout games they have had where they could have given him some experience & let him prove himself.

Why should Mallett have high value when it is obvious he does not have the potential to be GOOD? The Pats* KNOW Mallett does NOT have that potential or they would NOT trade him period.

[better days]

Brady is a not good, he's great. It mallet was good, think Rivers or Romo or any 3rd rate QB, Brady is still a world ahead of him. You don't release a great GOAT for a good player. You don't release Jerry Rice because you have a Lee Evens on your roster.

The only way Mallet starts is if Brady goes down. Mallets rookie contract will soon expire. If they don't trade him, they won't get anything.

He was simply trade bait from the beginning -never a 1st round heir-apparent to a very old QB (Farve) like Rogers (who should have been #1 overall). Mallet was a 3rd round steal that was nothing more than future trade bait....

Well, Favre is also GREAT. A HOF QB. The Packers dumped him for Rodgers because they knew Rodgers had the potential to be a GOOD franchise QB for the next decade or more while Favre was old & only had a couple years left in him. Just as the 49ers dumped Montana who has been called the best QB of all time in favor of Young because the 49ers knew Young had the potential to be a good franchise QB for the next decade & Montana was old & only had a couple years left.

Mallet's contract does NOT expire soon, he has TWO years left on it. Brady is OLD. Like Montana & Favre when they were dumped, he only has a couple of GOOD productive years left.

It is obvious Mallett does not have the potential to be a franchise QB like Young & Rodgers or the Pats* would not consider trading him. With that being the case, why does Mallett have any potential as trade bait? Why should a team trade for a QB that is known to not have the potential to be a GOOD QB? It makes no sense to trade a 2nd rnd pick or even a 3rd rnd pick for a QB that is known to not have the potential to be a starter. It would make much more sense to draft an unknown rookie that is not known if he has the potential or not.

[Goobylal]

Thank you.

Mallet was never meant to be the Heir apparent But the Pats knew that eventually they could get value out of him, and at that point in the third, I'm willing to assume, he was just so much higher than everybody else on their board that they could afford taking him, considering the glut of picks they had in 2010.
The Pats took a chance on Mallett. Whether they thought he could be the heir-apparent to Brady, or wanted to parlay it into a higher pick, is anyone's guess. But as it stands right now, he's worthless because he's shown nothing in real NFL games. Maybe he might develop into a good/great QB down the road. But as of right now, there is no evidence of that and all one would be going off-of is faith.

[The King]

As this thread continues to kick around one thing I will say. Is to trade with a division opponent you better be pretty sure you've got a player who can win games for you.

But the thought is why waste a first and second on an unknown with potential if you can dish a third for the same thing.

[better days]

As this thread continues to kick around one thing I will say. Is to trade with a division opponent you better be pretty sure you've got a player who can win games for you.

But the thought is why waste a first and second on an unknown with potential if you can dish a third for the same thing.

Well, you can ask that to the Chiefs. As for Mallott, he has no potential to be GOOD or the Pats* would not trade him.

[justasportsfan]

But the thought is why waste a first and second on an unknown with potential if you can dish a third for the same thing. the thing is, giving a 3rd pick to a rival who desn't think the player they are trading is that good or else they would hold on to him for a 1st rd.

[Goobylal]

As this thread continues to kick around one thing I will say. Is to trade with a division opponent you better be pretty sure you've got a player who can win games for you.

But the thought is why waste a first and second on an unknown with potential if you can dish a third for the same thing.
Since he's been in the league 2 years and done nothing, Mallett has less potential than a rookie.

[Mike]

Well, Favre is a HOF QB. The Packers sat him in favor or Rodgers. Why? Because they knew Rodgers had the potential to be GOOD, a franchise QB for the next 10 years.
And if Mallett is unproven it is only because the Pats* refused to play him in spite of the many blowout games they have had where they could have given him some experience & let him prove himself.

Why should Mallett have high value when it is obvious he does not have the potential to be GOOD? The Pats* KNOW Mallett does NOT have that potential or they would NOT trade him period.

Apparently, you dont remember the Favre Story that well. First, Favre had asked for a trade and not just to any team, he wanted to be traded to the Vikings. As you can imagine, the Packers said no, and after coming off of a good season - 12-4 I think - they were a little dismayed by Favre's comments 'we are not as good as our record'. Realizing that he might not get traded, Favre flirted with retirement and was very on again off again. Here is a little summery:

Favre & the Packers
1) Favre was older than Brady at time of trade
2) Favre asked to be traded
3) Favre told Packers he would retire
4) Packers had to convince him to come back -more than once-
5) At time of trade, Favre agreed to come back and Packers traded him to Jets -which he agreed to. Later with the Jets he once again threatened to retire and left for the Vikings -the team he really wanted to be on- and took them to NCF Championship Game. He then flirted with retirement once again but returned for one final season. After he retired, he flirted multiple times with returning.
6) Rogers was on his Final Year with Packers
7) Rogers was drafted to be Favre's heir apparent
8) Rogers was a 1st Round Pick and arguably the Best QB of his draft class at that time and many saw him as a #1 Overall.

Conclusion: Favre did not want to play for the Pack and threatened to retire or be traded on multiple occasions. All the while, the Pack had a good backup who could have been great however saw little or no playing time. Further, his contract was up for expiration at years end. Finally, trading Favre took his salary off the books.

Brady & the Pats
1) Brady is younger and can play 5 more years
2) Brady is very committed to playing for Pats so much so that he took a pay cut.
3) Brady never flirted with retirement or asked to be traded.
4) Mallet is in last year of his contract
5) Mallet was a 3rd Round Pick and considered 'risky' by many experts. Never was he considered for #1 overall pick.
6) Mallet was drafted as trade bait -never was he the intended heir apparent to Brady. This was discussed during draft day by the experts and there after. Why its a surprise a few years later is beyond me.

Commonalities & Logical Consequences: Neither Mallet nor Rogers played a lot for their respective teams when Brady/Favre were starting. If the Packers made a different choice, using the same logic, you would have argued that Rogers was not worth a 3rd round pick...

[Mike]

Well, Favre is also GREAT. A HOF QB. The Packers dumped him for Rodgers because they knew Rodgers had the potential to be a GOOD franchise QB for the next decade or more while Favre was old & only had a couple years left in him.
Favre tried to dump the Pack on a number of occasions via retirement/trade. Its well documented that he wanted out of GB and got his wish. Further, Rogers was a Top QB Prospect who should have been #1 overall and the obvious heir apparent to a very old Favre.

Just as the 49ers dumped Montana who has been called the best QB of all time in favor of Young because the 49ers knew Young had the potential to be a good franchise QB for the next decade & Montana was old & only had a couple years left.
Young was also a #1 Overall Pick who was traded for by the 49ers. Further, Montana was not only aging, but he was injured. Montana was severely injured and Young went on to win League MVP. Young was the MVP of the NFL, younger and not coming off of an injure so the 49ers traded Montana.

Mallet's contract does NOT expire soon, he has TWO years left on it. Brady is OLD. Like Montana & Favre when they were dumped, he only has a couple of GOOD productive years left.
Its nothing like those other 2 situations. Montana was coming off of an injure while Young got League MVP and Favre was a very old QB who wanted out of GB. Brady is not that old, and just signed a contract to lower his cap.

It is obvious Mallett does not have the potential to be a franchise QB like Young & Rodgers or the Pats* would not consider trading him.
It was Bill Walsh who once said that you need to watch a QB play for 32 Games before knowing what you have. Well, Mallett has not played any. The Pats do not know how good he will be just by watching practice. Its an advantage for sure, however its not the deciding factor, and some players show up on game days and practice is just practice. In reference to Young and Rogers, those situations were far different.

With that being the case, why does Mallett have any potential as trade bait?
ITs a great year and opportunity for the Pats. This QB class is subpar.

Why should a team trade for a QB that is known to not have the potential to be a GOOD QB?
I dont know how you can say that. People used to say this about Steve Young! Than the 49ers traded for him, developed him, and no he is in the Hall of Fame. What is worst, is that Young played poorly for Tampa Bay, which is worst than an unknown and I believe they gave up a 2nd rounder for him. Other NFL teams thought the 49ers were crazy.

It makes no sense to trade a 2nd rnd pick or even a 3rd rnd pick for a QB that is known to not have the potential to be a starter.
Your Assumption.

It would make much more sense to draft an unknown rookie that is not known if he has the potential or not.
I dont see the logic there.
Neither is known. Either they pan out or they don't. Ryan Leaf was thought to have potential and guys like Doug Flutie were thought not to have any potential. Both Mallett or a Rookie pose the same problems. However, Mallett is far ahead in his development and has better talent than most of the rookies in this class.


In any case, you have to make a decision weather you like the SKILL SET. Mallett has the advantage of being in a Pro system for a number of years and with the Pats. Most 2nd and 3rd rounders are Busts. Look at the Bills drafts of the past 12 years and how many of those picks are still on the team or great players??? Not many. Chances are, the Bills 3rd pick this year will not pan out. I would prefer Mallett over some rookie we move up 5 spots to get who could have been had 2 rounds later. Lastly, its not like the Bills are the best draftees of anything like that...

[better days]

Apparently, you dont remember the Favre Story that well. First, Favre had asked for a trade and not just to any team, he wanted to be traded to the Vikings. As you can imagine, the Packers said no, and after coming off of a good season - 12-4 I think - they were a little dismayed by Favre's comments 'we are not as good as our record'. Realizing that he might not get traded, Favre flirted with retirement and was very on again off again. Here is a little summery:

Favre & the Packers
1) Favre was older than Brady at time of trade
2) Favre asked to be traded
3) Favre told Packers he would retire
4) Packers had to convince him to come back -more than once-
5) At time of trade, Favre agreed to come back and Packers traded him to Jets -which he agreed to. Later with the Jets he once again threatened to retire and left for the Vikings -the team he really wanted to be on- and took them to NCF Championship Game. He then flirted with retirement once again but returned for one final season. After he retired, he flirted multiple times with returning.
6) Rogers was on his Final Year with Packers
7) Rogers was drafted to be Favre's heir apparent
8) Rogers was a 1st Round Pick and arguably the Best QB of his draft class at that time and many saw him as a #1 Overall.

Conclusion: Favre did not want to play for the Pack and threatened to retire or be traded on multiple occasions. All the while, the Pack had a good backup who could have been great however saw little or no playing time. Further, his contract was up for expiration at years end. Finally, trading Favre took his salary off the books.

Brady & the Pats
1) Brady is younger and can play 5 more years
2) Brady is very committed to playing for Pats so much so that he took a pay cut.
3) Brady never flirted with retirement or asked to be traded.
4) Mallet is in last year of his contract
5) Mallet was a 3rd Round Pick and considered 'risky' by many experts. Never was he considered for #1 overall pick.
6) Mallet was drafted as trade bait -never was he the intended heir apparent to Brady. This was discussed during draft day by the experts and there after. Why its a surprise a few years later is beyond me.

Commonalities & Logical Consequences: Neither Mallet nor Rogers played a lot for their respective teams when Brady/Favre were starting. If the Packers made a different choice, using the same logic, you would have argued that Rogers was not worth a 3rd round pick...


Favre asked to be traded because the Packers sat him behind Rodgers. The Packers refused to trade him to the Vikings & traded him to the Jets with the caveat that the Jets could not trade him to the Vikings either. That was the reason Favre retired unretired.

[better days]

In any case, you have to make a decision weather you like the SKILL SET. Mallett has the advantage of being in a Pro system for a number of years and with the Pats. Most 2nd and 3rd rounders are Busts. Look at the Bills drafts of the past 12 years and how many of those picks are still on the team or great players??? Not many. Chances are, the Bills 3rd pick this year will not pan out. I would prefer Mallett over some rookie we move up 5 spots to get who could have been had 2 rounds later. Lastly, its not like the Bills are the best draftees of anything like that...

The fact Mallott has not played is because the Pats* REFUSED to play him. They had plenty of opportunity to get him some playing time but they did not, they let him sit on the bench. Any team would be stupid to give up more than a 6th rnd pick on a QB that has not played at all & only has 2 years left on his Rookie contract.

It would be much better to draft a guy that you have 4 years to develop than to trade for a guy that has only two years left. And if teams thought Mallott had a GREAT skill set, he would not have lasted until the 3rd rnd when the Pats* drafted him.

[mjt328]

Apparently, you dont remember the Favre Story that well. First, Favre had asked for a trade and not just to any team, he wanted to be traded to the Vikings. As you can imagine, the Packers said no, and after coming off of a good season - 12-4 I think - they were a little dismayed by Favre's comments 'we are not as good as our record'. Realizing that he might not get traded, Favre flirted with retirement and was very on again off again. Here is a little summery:

Favre & the Packers
1) Favre was older than Brady at time of trade
2) Favre asked to be traded
3) Favre told Packers he would retire
4) Packers had to convince him to come back -more than once-
5) At time of trade, Favre agreed to come back and Packers traded him to Jets -which he agreed to. Later with the Jets he once again threatened to retire and left for the Vikings -the team he really wanted to be on- and took them to NCF Championship Game. He then flirted with retirement once again but returned for one final season. After he retired, he flirted multiple times with returning.
6) Rogers was on his Final Year with Packers
7) Rogers was drafted to be Favre's heir apparent
8) Rogers was a 1st Round Pick and arguably the Best QB of his draft class at that time and many saw him as a #1 Overall.

Conclusion: Favre did not want to play for the Pack and threatened to retire or be traded on multiple occasions. All the while, the Pack had a good backup who could have been great however saw little or no playing time. Further, his contract was up for expiration at years end. Finally, trading Favre took his salary off the books.

Brady & the Pats
1) Brady is younger and can play 5 more years
2) Brady is very committed to playing for Pats so much so that he took a pay cut.
3) Brady never flirted with retirement or asked to be traded.
4) Mallet is in last year of his contract
5) Mallet was a 3rd Round Pick and considered 'risky' by many experts. Never was he considered for #1 overall pick.
6) Mallet was drafted as trade bait -never was he the intended heir apparent to Brady. This was discussed during draft day by the experts and there after. Why its a surprise a few years later is beyond me.

Commonalities & Logical Consequences: Neither Mallet nor Rogers played a lot for their respective teams when Brady/Favre were starting. If the Packers made a different choice, using the same logic, you would have argued that Rogers was not worth a 3rd round pick...


Pretty good argument.

One still has to wonder why the Pats have neglected to "showcase" Mallett at any point, though. They have had plenty of opportunities.

[Goobylal]

Pretty good argument.

One still has to wonder why the Pats have neglected to "showcase" Mallett at any point, though. They have had plenty of opportunities.
They didn't neglect. They tried to showcase him, he sucked, and they didn't want to destroy his trade value further (not that you can destroy the no trade value he already has).

[Mike]

Pretty good argument.

One still has to wonder why the Pats have neglected to "showcase" Mallett at any point, though. They have had plenty of opportunities.

I think this is the only real knock on him. They could have showcased him, they could have ignited the imagination, etc...

[Mike]

Favre asked to be traded because the Packers sat him behind Rodgers. The Packers refused to trade him to the Vikings & traded him to the Jets with the caveat that the Jets could not trade him to the Vikings either. That was the reason Favre retired unretired.

What Happened is that Favre wanted to play for the Vikings but there was no chance that the Pack would trade him. So in 2008, at age 39, Favre retires for 5 months during which time Rogers in named QB. After 5 months, Favre, decides to un-retire and come back to the Pack who had already named Rogers QB. This possessed a problem for the Pack so the Pack tried to convince Favre that there was no way they would trade him within the division, and tried to buy him off -Godell intervened and prevented buy off. Later the Packers accused the Vikings of tampering after phone calls with Favre were confirmed. The Pack offered to trade him to TB or NYJ a trade he eventually took.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/sports/football/04favre.html?_r=0
http://www.nfl.com/videos/n-if-l/09000d5d8223e162/N-if-L-What-if-Favre-stayed-a-Packer

[better days]

What Happened is that Favre wanted to play for the Vikings but there was no chance that the Pack would trade him. So in 2008, at age 39, Favre retires for 5 months during which time Rogers in named QB. After 5 months, Favre, decides to un-retire and come back to the Pack who had already named Rogers QB. This possessed a problem for the Pack so the Pack tried to convince Favre that there was no way they would trade him within the division, and tried to buy him off -Godell intervened and prevented buy off. Later the Packers accused the Vikings of tampering after phone calls with Favre were confirmed. The Pack offered to trade him to TB or NYJ a trade he eventually took.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/sports/football/04favre.html?_r=0
http://www.nfl.com/videos/n-if-l/09000d5d8223e162/N-if-L-What-if-Favre-stayed-a-Packer

Favre was told Rodgers would be the starter before he threatened to retire/asked to be traded.
He wanted to play for the Vikings for a few reasons. The Vikings ran a similar offense. Same division so he knew it well. He wanted to stick it to the Packers for dumping him in favor of Rodgers while he felt he had plenty of football left in him.

[better days]

In any case, you have to make a decision weather you like the SKILL SET. Mallett has the advantage of being in a Pro system for a number of years and with the Pats. Most 2nd and 3rd rounders are Busts. Look at the Bills drafts of the past 12 years and how many of those picks are still on the team or great players??? Not many. Chances are, the Bills 3rd pick this year will not pan out. I would prefer Mallett over some rookie we move up 5 spots to get who could have been had 2 rounds later. Lastly, its not like the Bills are the best draftees of anything like that...

You said yourself most 2nd & 3rd rounders are busts. Mallott is a THIRD ROUNDER, he is most likely a BUST.