Could cutting Mallet actually hurt Grop's development?

Hey everyone. I have been a lurker since the Butt Fumble but I made this account because I wanted to here your opinions on this question:

On my way home from the last preseason game an analysis on the radio made an argument for the Pats would keep Mallet, even if Grop outplays him for the final two games of the preseason. The analysis claimed that a developing 3rd QB often gets the majority with the practice squad against the first team defense, which helps with adjusting to the speed of the game, working on mechanics and generally getting reps. Conversely, the backup QB does not get any (many?) reps and simply learns the specific game-plan the the first team O will execute. By this logic, it would be better for Grop's development if he is QB3.

I found that argument extremely interesting, but I have no idea if it is correct. What do you think? Assuming Brady stays healthy, would you expect Grop to have better development if he was QB3? Do you think this could save Mallet's spot?

Nobody is cutting Mallet! The Pats have a history of keeping 3 QBs in transition years. No Way BB goes into a season with just Galapagos as the back-up!

Even if the long awaited trade of Mallet happens, BB would most likely still bring in another veteran QB.

Also there is a history of rookies who are not expected to play right away, coming down with a year ending injury just before the final cut downs, and yes, sadly they end up stashed on IR for the year (wink, wink).

NE-VT said:

The analysis claimed that a developing 3rd QB often gets the majority with the practice squad against the first team defense, which helps with adjusting to the speed of the game, working on mechanics and generally getting reps. Conversely, the backup QB does not get any (many?) reps and simply learns the specific game-plan the the first team O will execute. By this logic, it would be better for Grop's development if he is QB3.

I found that argument extremely interesting, but I have no idea if it is correct. What do you think? Assuming Brady stays healthy, would you expect Grop to have better development if he was QB3? Do you think this could save Mallet's spot?

Click to expand...

Think about this.
Let's assume the claimed scenario is true for the sake of discussion.
If Mallet is cut...who is going to be the alleged practice squad QB?
There is NOBODY ELSE to take the reps with Mallett gone.
Was it Joe Biden talking on the radio?

PatsWickedPissah said:

Think about this.
Let's assume the claimed scenario is true for the sake of discussion.
If Mallet is cut...who is going to be the alleged practice squad QB?
There is NOBODY ELSE to take the reps with Mallett gone.
Was it Joe Biden talking on the radio?

Click to expand...

I believe it was on the Gresh and Zolak post game show, although I am not certain. Is it not possible that the Pats could bring in a 3rd QB to run the practice reps against the first team, a QB that would not be on the roster, but hired to help with practice. I believe that was what the so called experts were alluding to. Is that super crazy. Maybe that is why the Pats have historically kept 3 QBs in transition years. It is about development of QB3.

Again this is not my idea, and I know very little about how practices are conducted after the preseason. In fact my intuitive knee jerk reaction is that Mallet gets cut.

Just in case there are newbies present, I will address this idiocy.

The patriots have NEVER stashed a rookie on IR who has ended up contributed to the team, NEVER. We did once try to stash QB Kingsbury.

Lots of rookies were put on IR last year. I don't think any are even on the team at this point.

BOTTOM LINE
Yes, a rookie could be placed on the IR and later produce (IR with right to return is a new possibility). There is always a first time. However, this is not the strategy of the team. Rookie simply miss too much being on IR for their entire first season.

FreeTedWilliams said:

Also there is a history of rookies who are not expected to play right away, coming down with a year ending injury just before the final cut downs, and yes, sadly they end up stashed on IR for the year (wink, wink).

Click to expand...

FreeTedWilliams said:

Nobody is cutting Mallet! The Pats have a history of keeping 3 QBs in transition years. No Way BB goes into a season with just Galapagos as the back-up!

Click to expand...

2009 strongly disagrees

While I do think the Pats plan to keep Mallett at this point, it's worth noting that they didn't keep a veteran in 2009 when Hoyer was the #2. OTOH, Garoppolo is, in some respects, closer to Matt Cassel than Hoyer in terms of experience.

NE-VT said:

I believe it was on the Gresh and Zolak post game show, although I am not certain. Is it not possible that the Pats could bring in a 3rd QB to run the practice reps against the first team, a QB that would not be on the roster, but hired to help with practice. I believe that was what the so called experts were alluding to. Is that super crazy. Maybe that is why the Pats have historically kept 3 QBs in transition years. It is about development of QB3.

Again this is not my idea, and I know very little about how practices are conducted after the preseason. In fact my intuitive knee jerk reaction is that Mallet gets cut.

Click to expand...

Again, think it through. There is no rule saying who takes scout team snaps. I'm sure the 2 and 3 both do, but if the team sees it as a developmental need, rather than cutting Mallett, apparently to not be tempted to misuse practice time, they can simply just give the scout team to Garapolo whether Mallet is here or not.

And no, you cannot 'hire a guy who isn't on the roster to be the scout team QB'.

ctpatsfan77 said:

While I do think the Pats plan to keep Mallett at this point, it's worth noting that they didn't keep a veteran in 2009 when Hoyer was the #2. OTOH, Garoppolo is, in some respects, closer to Matt Cassel than Hoyer in terms of experience.

Click to expand...

?

AndyJohnson said:

?

Click to expand...

In terms of # of games played against NFL-caliber defenses before they were drafted, I'm guessing it goes something like Mallett > Hoyer > Garoppolo > Cassel.

When did Hoyer play against an NFL caliber defense before he left here? Cassell actually played the most and the other 3, pretty much not at all.
Am i confused what you are saying?

AndyJohnson said:

When did Hoyer play against an NFL caliber defense before he left here? Cassell actually played the most and the other 3, pretty much not at all.
Am i confused what you are saying?

Click to expand...

I meant NFL-caliber at the college level. If I'm using the wrong terminology, I apologize; in any case, my point is that Garoppolo didn't see nearly as high a caliber of defense as Hoyer or Mallett did playing in the Big Ten and SEC.

FreeTedWilliams said:

Nobody is cutting Mallet! The Pats have a history of keeping 3 QBs in transition years. No Way BB goes into a season with just Galapagos as the back-up!

Even if the long awaited trade of Mallet happens, BB would most likely still bring in another veteran QB.

Also there is a history of rookies who are not expected to play right away, coming down with a year ending injury just before the final cut downs, and yes, sadly they end up stashed on IR for the year (wink, wink).

Click to expand...

I feel like stashing a player on IR is just terrible for their development. Sure, they can sit in on the meetings. But they can't practise.

ctpatsfan77 said:

I meant NFL-caliber at the college level. If I'm using the wrong terminology, I apologize; in any case, my point is that Garoppolo didn't see nearly as high a caliber of defense as Hoyer or Mallett did playing in the Big Ten and SEC.

Click to expand...

I understand what you mean now, but I don't think its really relevant. Garapolo played in a passing offense Hoyer and Mallet did not in the Big 10, and Mallet didn't throw nearly as much at Arkansas and Garapolo did in college, although, yes it was vs better players.

Marinlik said:

I feel like stashing a player on IR is just terrible for their development. Sure, they can sit in on the meetings. But they can't practise.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Football players who don't play football usually decline rather than improve.
Hell, we have had a poor record of keeping developmental players on the roster.

Marinlik said:

I feel like stashing a player on IR is just terrible for their development. Sure, they can sit in on the meetings. But they can't practise.

Click to expand...

Just for curiosity, how is that monitored? What if they do training indoors?

I hear a lot of thoughts on everyone about how best to develop QBs. Some say give a QB a red shirt year so he can learn so you don't throw him out there and have him get killed and hurt his confidence. Some say play him game 1 and give him live NFL experience cause that is the only way you get use to the NFL.

If he is going to back up some would say carry him as the 2nd QB but some would say put him in the 3rd QB roll.

This is the conclusion I have reached: IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Not one little bit. Never has and never will.

1) If you throw a guy out there and he gets beat and loses his confidence he was too emotionally fragile and would never have made it anyway
2) If you let a guy sit for a year to try to develop him it will not change the fact that at some point he will need to prove he has the intangibles that make up a QB (field vision, poise, leadership) that you can't coach up.
3) Whatever roll you put him in as a backup (back up QB, practice squad QB, scout team QB) he will either be able to use it to make him better or he won't.

It all comes down to the player in question. Whatever method you use will work if you have a guy that is willing and able to work it. Some guys can do it and some guys can only get so good.

The only real argument for when to play a QB or not is if you see him doing something you think will get him injured and it is an easily coachable problem that the player himself is willing to learn to fix.
Other than that it is a crap shoot and you will find out one way or another if a guy has it eventually and the method you use will ultimately not matter.

Rodgers and Steve Young sat for long portions of their career. They would have been successful if played early cause they had a feel for the game.

No amount of coaching or preparation would have made Gabbert or any of the other guys who failed to make it franchise NFL QBs.

To answer your question OP, yes I think that can be a possibility. Backup QB is an interesting position. They don't get many reps with the first team throughout the year, and they only see playtime in preseason (by and large). Two backup QBs would presumably be close as they're studying together, on the sideline going over plays together, and overall working with each other to get better while competing against one another for the number two spot. I think having Mallett there (and I'm sure he will be there) will definitely help Jimmy's development. But eventually it will come down to Jimmy putting in the work, knowing the playbook, and staying in good playing shape. But I doubt that this is something the coaches even consider when they're debating on cutting their number 2 QB.

The interesting thought on the original op's question (to me) is that the scout team qb is asked to replicate a different qb every week.
- a. That is not something I think you want your #2 doing unless you have to, I would think it would disrupt his mechanics and consistency
- b. IMO that is something that is good for a rookie #3, who maybe doesn't know yet what all the styles or techniques he is capable of. Trying to copy other successful qbs seems like a good developmental technique.

As to what pats would do if mallet were traded/cut; another qb pickup (cutdown --udfa or late rounder) for the PS seems most likely. (As others alluded to active roster OR PS players can work the scout team, theoretically I think a coach probably could too, although I never heard of that). Guys off the street, I am sure the nflpa & the league would both have a problem w that!

If bb was going to go get a vet for #2 or 3 after trading mallet, I don't see the point, unless you get a REALLY good pick. With the comp pick you would get after letting mallet walk in 2015, you need to get a higher return then that base value to give up your season-insurance policy.

ctpatsfan77 said:

I meant NFL-caliber at the college level. If I'm using the wrong terminology, I apologize; in any case, my point is that Garoppolo didn't see nearly as high a caliber of defense as Hoyer or Mallett did playing in the Big Ten and SEC.

Click to expand...

I agree with your Observation. The Big 10, Pac 10, and the SEC are the pinnacle of college football. Most NFL signal callers come from those programs, where money buys the best coaching and facilities. Manning, Luck and Brady are recent examples.

It seems to me many of the better QBs suffered from some problem and learned to be tough and learned how to handle pressure and adversity.

Montana at Notre Dame was always in danger of losing his job. Brady despite his winning records, and Bowl victories was always threatened to be replaced by golden boy Henson, during his years at Michigan. Cassell always lost out to Carson Palmer and Matt whatshisname at USC,
Even Peyton, was always in the shadow of his Father, Archie. Eli was double hexed trying to live up to expectations of his Father and brother. Mallett went to Michigan in the Big 10, and had to transfer to an SEC school, Arkansas. He did so when his Michigan coach retired, and the newcomer wanted to revive and run the Single Wing, Wildcat.

That is also why I expect Garoppolo to need another year of grooming than Brady or Cassell or Mallett had.