Backup QBs - Hoyer VS Mallet

[IllegalContact]

It's not contrarianism anymore than your response to Mo was contrarianism, which is a word that you probably don't even understand.



See, this is complete nonsense, which was my point about your posts. My opinion is based upon what I've seen of the kid, combined with what I've read of the kid. I'd have the same opinion of him regardless of who drafted him, just as I'd dislike Sanchez' game regardless of which team had chosen him.



The Patriot have gone seasons with just one backup. This was not your argument. You're now tossing in the famous moved goalposts to go along with the template swipes. Please, either get original, or get rational and reasoned. One or the other would be appreciated.

its a smattering of contrarianism

 

[Ivan]

It's not contrarianism anymore than your response to Mo was contrarianism, which is a word that you probably don't even understand.



.

You claimed you didn't see what Mo said.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I think Mo nailed it in an earlier post. BB tried to dump the pick, didn't see the ROI in picks and saw Mallett as a kid who if he can get under control had MAJOR upside and represented great value in either a draft day trade or down the road.

I disagree. Bill Belichick follows some simple axioms, that contribute to his success. Like, "God fights on the side of the heaviest Artillery"'. "Get there the fastus', with the mostus' ".

Drew Bledsoe was a very good QB, but he never had the heaviest artillery in his army. Do you remember the somewhat pathetic Defense that Caroll's DC had to conjure, annually? It reminds me of Wrecks Ryan manufacturing a Defense of Blitzes for lack of talented Pass Rushers. It works until all the blitzes are on tape, and the OCs study them a bit. It falls apart in the second half of the season, just like the Jesters do.

BB knows if he has the "mostus", and he gets it with his double drafts, and his willingness to carry multiple players who can excel in only one thing, and if he uses them in his "situation substitutions", he will have more; and he will win. BB believes in winning with depth, (the mostus'). It why his teams get stronger as the season rolls along. He can more easily absorb injuries, as he has the mostus'.

Brady profits from this. In addition to his big time power, Big Ten football talent, he usually had a pretty talented Pats team around him. Bledsoe spent most of his career with much less. Grogan had even less. And Parilli's supporting cast was just pathetic, as Holovak had to collect used gum bubble wrappers and string, as well as coach.

Sometimes the Coach and the team he constructs around you, is almost as important as the QB. Matt Cassell won 11 games as a inexperienced youngster who never threw a pass in college. But he was a still big time power, PAC 10, recruit, with the triangle numbers.

BB took Mallett because he could, just like he took Wilfork, who slid to him.

 

[Ivan]

But I do have an idea. It's one based upon just a smattering of data, but it' still an idea, and posting about it is what these message boards are about.

What a load of crap. You already said you thought mallett was a wasted pick and that opinion was formed because they took him, now you are trying to say your opinion is based off the pre-season and the "smattering" you sqaw of him. You don't like the pick so now you are trying to say that is fact based because of a pre-season performance where he had no offseason at all. It is pure contrarianism based off your serial hatred of their drafts.

Don't even bother trying to claim objectivity in the future, it's really obvious you have an agenda. if you even understand what that word means.

 

[IllegalContact]

I disagree. Bill Belichick follows some simple axioms, that contribute to his success. Like, "God fights on the side of the heaviest Artillery"'. "Get there the fastus', with the mostus' ".

Drew Bledsoe was a very good QB, but he never had the heaviest artillery in his army. Do you remember the somewhat pathetic Defense that Caroll's DC had to conjure, annually? It reminds me of Wrecks Ryan manufacturing a Defense of Blitzes for lack of talented Pass Rushers. It works until all the blitzes are on tape, and the OCs study them a bit. It falls apart in the second half of the season, just like the Jesters do.

BB knows if he has the "mostus", and he gets it with his double drafts, and his willingness to carry multiple players who can excel in only one thing, and if he uses them in his "situation substitutions", he will have more; and he will win. BB believes in winning with depth, (the mostus'). It why his teams get stronger as the season rolls along. He can more easily absorb injuries, as he has the mostus'.

Brady profits from this. In addition to his big time power, Big Ten football talent, he usually had a pretty talented Pats team around him. Bledsoe spent most of his career with much less. Grogan had even less. And Parilli's supporting cast was just pathetic, as Holovak had to collect used gum bubble wrappers and string, as well as coach.

Sometimes the Coach and the team he constructs around you, is almost as important as the QB. Matt Cassell won 11 games as a inexperienced youngster who never threw a pass in college. But he was a still big time power, PAC 10, recruit, with the triangle numbers.

BB took Mallett because he could, just like he took Wilfork, who slid to him.

not to mention that a few year with the patriots had jim plunkett scared of his own shadow for years

 

[RobertWeathers]

I disagree. Bill Belichick follows some simple axioms, that contribute to his success. Like, "God fights on the side of the heaviest Artillery"'. "Get there the fastus', with the mostus' ".

Drew Bledsoe was a very good QB, but he never had the heaviest artillery in his army. Do you remember the somewhat pathetic Defense that Caroll's DC had to conjure, annually? It reminds me of Wrecks Ryan manufacturing a Defense of Blitzes for lack of talented Pass Rushers. It works until all the blitzes are on tape, and the OCs study them a bit. It falls apart in the second half of the season, just like the Jesters do.

Not sure I agree. I'd hardly call Ben Coats, Terry Glenn, Shawn Jefferson, Curtis Martin, Dave Meggett cap-guns.

BB knows if he has the "mostus", and he gets it with his double drafts, and his willingness to carry multiple players who can excel in only one thing, and if he uses them in his "situation substitutions", he will have more; and he will win. BB believes in winning with depth, (the mostus'). It why his teams get stronger as the season rolls along. He can more easily absorb injuries, as he has the mostus'.

Brady profits from this. In addition to his big time power, Big Ten football talent, he usually had a pretty talented Pats team around him. Bledsoe spent most of his career with much less. Grogan had even less. And Parilli's supporting cast was just pathetic, as Holovak had to collect used gum bubble wrappers and string, as well as coach.

Sometimes the Coach and the team he constructs around you, is almost as important as the QB. Matt Cassell won 11 games as a inexperienced youngster who never threw a pass in college. But he was a still big time power, PAC 10, recruit, with the triangle numbers.

BB took Mallett because he could, just like he took Wilfork, who slid to him.

Take a good, long look the team's offensive roster in 2001-2003. It was deviod of top-end talent. They won with decent talent and great defense which is where the top-end roster talent resided.

 

[IllegalContact]

What a load of crap. You already said you thought mallett was a wasted pick and that opinion was formed because they took him, now you are trying to say your opinion is based off the pre-season and the "smattering" you sqaw of him. You don't like the pick so now you are trying to say that is fact based because of a pre-season performance where he had no offseason at all. It is pure contrarianism based off your serial hatred of their drafts.

Don't even bother trying to claim objectivity in the future, it's really obvious you have an agenda. if you even understand what that word means.

this is so simple.......it all starts with the fact that some of these guys just don't like ryan mallett the person based on the smattering of misguided data they have on that front.

none of them are actually producing a technical reason for not liking him......a smattering of data, but not even what it was about the data that they did not like.

 

[IllegalContact]

Not sure I agree. I'd hardly call Ben Coats, Terry Glenn, Shawn Jefferson, Curtis Martin, Dave Meggett cap-guns.



Take a good, long look the team's offensive roster in 2001-2003. It was deviod of top-end talent. They won with decent talent and great defense which is where the top-end roster talent resided.

the pats would have beaten green bay with the 2001,2003 defenses

 

[RobertWeathers]

the pats would have beaten green bay with the 2001,2003 defenses

Maybe. The 1996 D had very good talent. Law, Milloy, McGin, Ted Johnson (when he was a 3-down LB) Slade. GB was a superior team...

They would have absolutely beaten them with Tom Brady. 4 INTs and 3 4th Qtr sacks killed them (plus the Howard return)

 

[Ivan]

this is so simple.......it all starts with the fact that some of these guys just don't like ryan mallett the person based on the smattering of misguided data they have on that front.

none of them are actually producing a technical reason for not liking him......a smattering of data, but not even what it was about the data that they did not like.

I'm fine with anyone liking or disliking any pick, for whatever reason they want, what i take issue with is them claiming it is fact based when there aren't any facts to base it upon. In this case Deus made clear he didn't like the Mallett pick because he thought they should have used it for a different position, and that's fine, but to then try and argue that Mallett won't be a good QB and his opinion is based on his performance in the pre-season when Mallett was in the rare position of having absolutely no offseason to get ready for it and no opportunities since is pure and utter BS. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, what they aren't entiteled to is claiming it as fact when it is anything but..

 

[AzPatsFan]

The "substantive" criticism of Mallet's been done before. All the NFL stuff we have is from one preseason, so I'm not sure what else you're expecting. It's not as if the "pro" Mallet contingent have anything more on their side of the argument, because there IS nothing more.

Sometimes the media just gets in a feeding frenzy. We have all seen it.

I still don't know what all the "personal problems" are that Mallett is suppposed to have had. Most of the convential wisdom rumors have turned out to be erroneous. I'm just glad that Belichick was around to take advantage and scoop up a talent which his draft position should not have allowed him to come anywhere near getting. Just like it did, with the Brady "incompetence" and "limitations", and the platooning that Lloyd Carr supposedly "had to do" with Drew Henson.

 

[IllegalContact]

Maybe. The 1996 D had very good talent. Law, Milloy, McGin, Ted Johnson (when he was a 3-down LB) Slade. GB was a superior team...

They would have absolutely beaten them with Tom Brady. 4 INTs and 3 4th Qtr sacks killed them (plus the Howard return)

Brady would not have changed the fact that max lane had to protect him from reggie white.

the defense was mediocre that year...the offense, however, was 2nd to only green bay

 

[Deus Irae]

You claimed you didn't see what Mo said.

I didn't. You mentioned that your response was to Mo.

 

[Deus Irae]

What a load of crap. You already said you thought mallett was a wasted pick and that opinion was formed because they took him,

This is obviously incorrect or, at least, misleading. It was a wasted pick because of

1.) What I'd gathered about Mallett

2.) The position in the draft where the pick was made

3.) The lack of need at QB in comparison to other positions

now you are trying to say your opinion is based off the pre-season and the "smattering" you sqaw of him. You don't like the pick so now you are trying to say that is fact based because of a pre-season performance where he had no offseason at all. It is pure contrarianism based off your serial hatred of their drafts.

Again, you don't seem to know what contrarianism means, and now you can't seem to grasp simple concepts such as "additional information gained post-draft".

Don't even bother trying to claim objectivity in the future, it's really obvious you have an agenda. if you even understand what that word means.

I'm as objective as possible and, when analyzing Patriots players/coaches/moves, I'm certainly far more objective than most people here, and I consistently strive to be as objective as I possibly can. Am I perfectly objective? That's not humanly possible.

 

[Ivan]

Deus you can talk yourself in circles all you want but this is simple. You didn't like Mallett when they took him in the draft and called it a wasted pick. now you are tying to defend your ridiculous claim that he "will never be a good NFL QB" as though it were based upon a pre-season he never had any opportunity to get ready for when it was already clear you didn't like him. On the other hand you claim you were a defender of Cassel when his pre-season performances sucked and there was nothing else for you to base any opinion off.

In other words don't try to bullsh.t us that your opinion is fact based when it is pure opin ion, and you far from objective, and your endless ripping of their drafts despite the proof on the field shows that.

 

[IllegalContact]

This is obviously incorrect or, at least, misleading. It was a wasted pick because of

1.) What I'd gathered about Mallett

2.) The position in the draft where the pick was made

3.) The lack of need at QB in comparison to other positions



Again, you don't seem to know what contrarianism means, and now you can't seem to grasp simple concepts such as "additional information gained post-draft".



I'm as objective as possible and, when analyzing Patriots players/coaches/moves, I'm certainly far more objective than most people here, and I consistently strive to be as objective as I possibly can. Am I perfectly objective? That's not humanly possible.

the conclusion that you drew based on the information that you have makes you any even remotely resembling anything but objective.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Brady would not have changed the fact that max lane had to protect him from reggie white.

No but he would have likely thrown the ball away, called a different protection scheme (shade over Coats, Byers, etc) and not have thrown an INT.

the defense was mediocre that year...the offense, however, was 2nd to only green bay

Actually the D was playing pretty darn well at the end of the year and in the 2nd 1/2, shut down GB offensively. With that said, GB did finish #1 in total offense AND defense. 1996 Pats D was fine. Just ran into a better team... I do think that TB would have made the difference. How much? Not sure but I'd like their chances over DB at QB.

 

[Ivan]

One thing is for sure, the QB who put up this statline his first year definitely sucks:

3/G 9/Comp 16/Att 56.3/% 65/YDS 4.06/Per 0/TD 16/Long

1/Int 2/Fum 39.8/Rating



Granted it's just a "smattering" of Aaron Rodgers career, but it was regular season and he was a wasted pick as green bay clearly needed other help at the time. He clearly sucks, he will never be a good NFL QB.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus you can talk yourself in circles all you want but this is simple.

I'm not the one talking in circles. You're the one who's moved the goalposts, gone after me personally about "contrarian" and the like.

You didn't like Mallett when they took him in the draft and called it a wasted pick.

This is correct, or at least partially correct. I didn't like the pick. I don't recall if I said it was a wasted pick at the time.

now you are tying to defend your ridiculous claim that he "will never be a good NFL QB" as though it were based upon a pre-season he never had any opportunity to get ready for when it was already clear you didn't like him.

Now you're just lying. I'm not defending my dislike of his prospects as though it were based upon the preseason. I'm defending it based upon my initial take. The preseason just served to reinforce my initial position.

On the other hand you claim you were a defender of Cassel when his pre-season performances sucked and there was nothing else for you to base any opinion off.

No, sorry, and I'm sorry that comprehension seems to be as difficult for you as vocabulary. Let me repeat and expound:

we had more than just one preseason of data on Cassel
Cassel was drafted in the 2005 draft, not the 2008 draft
We'd seen Cassel the NFL player, and heard about Cassel the NFL player, for years
Cassel had beaten out Redman and Davey as a rookie
Cassel was expected by at least some to beat out Flutie for the backup job the following year, and Flutie retired
Cassel held off Testaverde for the backup job in 2006
We had Cassel data from offseasons and preseasons from 2005-2008

In other words don't try to bullsh.t us that your opinion is fact based when it is pure opin ion, and you far from objective, and your endless ripping of their drafts despite the proof on the field shows that.

No, in other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. As for ripping their drafts, you're clueless. I used to defend BBs drafts against all comers. Depending upon context, I still defend 2006 and 2007 as, for example, the Patriots got Welker and Moss via picks in the 2007 draft. 2008 is basically one that can't be defended outside of the Mayo pick. Now, run along.

 

[IllegalContact]

No but he would have likely thrown the ball away, called a different protection scheme (shade over Coats, Byers, etc) and not have thrown an INT.

not sure how you can conclude this. brady has had several multi-int games in the playoffs.....to just say brady would not have done that is a stretch....he's cracked under pressure plenty of times.