If the Bengals and Colts lose would you showcase Mallett?

[supafly]

And not to sound argumentative in the least, but I also disagree with the notion that CLE would be interested. Those rumors were based on the premise of Mike Lombardi stating that "either one of Hoyer or Mallett have the potential to be starters in this league" one night as a broadcaster on the NFL Thursday night game.

As we know, Lombardi then became GM of CLE and they went out and pried Hoyer from the ARZ Cardinals/waiver wire. In my opinion Lombardi fulfilled exactly what he wanted to do by taking one of the options, and even then I'd highly doubt it was tops on his list in attempting to build a football team. When he saw that Hoyer was available, he jumped on the opportunity, but I highly doubt he'd have given up a high round draft pick for him either.

On top of that, CLE looked just fine with Hoyer/Campbell (not "good," but they proved that they could compete without a franchise QB). Brian Hoyer will be coming back to compete as a starter, with whatever moves they make with those multiple high draft picks and/or journeyman vets they decide to acquire. Either way, I just doubt that they'll be looking to part with a high round pick for the opportunity to take Mallett. A guy like Mike Vick or Kirk Cousins would likely pique their interests much more in my opinion, although you may be right in the long run.

 

[supafly]

Only if he signed a deal for ~$8M/yr.

But if he were to get a deal for, say, $5M/yr, that'd be a comp 4 or 5.

What are the specific parameters used to decide again, ct? And also, have they changed at all since the 2011 signing of the new CBA?

Thanks in advance, and if you don't feel like explaining it I could simply look it up myself instead.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

We saw a ton of journeyman backups this past offseason, and GMs all around the league decided that they'd much rather have a guy like Bruce Gradkowki, Jason Campbell etc (or roll the dice like Green Bay and Cincinnati did with no real backup whatsoever), then give up a mid round draft pick for Ryan Mallett.

We don't know what the Patriots considered acceptable compensation for Mallett. I suspect that since it would have left them without any backup at all, it would have taken more than "a mid-round pick."

 

[supafly]

We don't know what the Patriots considered acceptable compensation for Mallett. I suspect that since it would have left them without any backup at all, it would have taken more than "a mid-round pick."

Sure, that's one theory--but it also could be argued as even more proof of overvaluing Mallett's talent too.

I think we could all agree that Mallett is worth more to us, and I find it reasonable to think that they were looking for a 3rd rounder or so, so I'd agree with you there. I also find it reasonable to believe that there wasn't much interest, although that's just my opinion. I just don't understand why so many would feel that Mallett would warrant so much attention from teams looking to part with a 3rd round pick. It doesn't make much sense to me, aside from the Charlie Whitehurst/Kevin Kolb fiascoes that are always used as examples (which actually make me believe that teams are even more leery after witnessing these horrid decisions).

Again--like I say every offseason, we'll have to see what happens, but I personally doubt that all of the pieces would line up to reel in a 2nd/3rd round pick for Ryan Mallett. Just my opinion.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What are the specific parameters used to decide again, ct? And also, have they changed at all since the 2011 signing of the new CBA?

Thanks in advance, and if you don't feel like explaining it I could simply look it up myself instead.

The tl;dr version:

1. It's based on "qualifying" unrestricted FAs lost and gained; players don't qualify if any of the following are true:

• they aren't unrestricted free agents.
• they are acquired by their new team via offer sheet or trade.
• they don't reach FA via an expiring contract/declined option.
• they don't make the new team's 53-man roster.
• they don't earn enough (anyone eligible for the vet minimum benefit does NOT qualify).

2. The specific picks gained are based predominantly, though not exclusively, on average annual contract value. Games played and postseason honors can occasionally make a difference if a player is right near a cutoff (e.g., a player who is just below the cutoff for comp 4s could become a 4 if he were a Pro Bowler; a player who is just above the cutoff could fall to a 5 if he went on IR in the pre-season).

3. Players who have 10+ years of service cannot earn more than a fifth-rounder.

4. AFAIK, the only changes that happen each year are that the cutoffs change as a result of calculations based on minimum salaries and/or the cap.

If you want the gory details, google AdamJT13 and "compensatory picks."

 

[supafly]

The tl;dr version:

1. It's based on "qualifying" unrestricted FAs lost and gained; players don't qualify if any of the following are true:

• they aren't unrestricted free agents.
• they are acquired by their new team via offer sheet or trade.
• they don't reach FA via an expiring contract/declined option.
• they don't make the new team's 53-man roster.
• they don't earn enough (anyone eligible for the vet minimum benefit does NOT qualify).

2. The specific picks gained are based predominantly, though not exclusively, on average annual contract value.

3. Players who have 10+ years of service cannot earn more than a fifth-rounder.

4. AFAIK, the only changes that happen each year are that the cutoffs change as a result of calculations based on minimum salaries and/or the cap.

If you want the gory details, google AdamJT13 and "compensatory picks."

Thanks buddy.

I was definitely curious myself, particularly about the details with the monetary amounts of the new pacts, but I would assume that many posters will find this information valuable moving forward.

 

[Kdo5]

You never know which Andy Dalton will show up, the Red Rifle from TCU or the soulless ginger Bungle.

If the Bengals defense in any way resembles the one we lost to then I'm almost certain they can destroy a hobbled Flacco and a pathetic run game. It is any given Sunday but I would be surprised if the Ravens come out on top. Their running game is shockingly bad, and Flacco's injury is further worsening the situation.

Dalton would have to screw things up pretty bad for the Ravens to win.

 

[Deus Irae]

If the Bengals defense in any way resembles the one we lost to then I'm almost certain they can destroy a hobbled Flacco and a pathetic run game. It is any given Sunday but I would be surprised if the Ravens come out on top. Their running game is shockingly bad, and Flacco's injury is further worsening the situation.

Dalton would have to screw things up pretty bad for the Ravens to win.

The Ravens have already beaten the Bengals once this season.

 

[everlong]

The Ravens have already beaten the Bengals once this season.

In Baltimore by only 3. Bengals are 7-0 at home and the Ravens 2-5 on the road this season. Baltimore is 2-7 there last 9 trips to Cincinnati and Baltimore has had the superior team more often than not. Conversely Baltimore is 6-3 their last 9 at home vs the Bengals. It's one of those divisional matchups where it's been home dominated and the teams matchup well with each other.

 

[Deus Irae]

In Baltimore by only 3. Bengals are 7-0 at home and the Ravens 2-5 on the road this season. Baltimore is 2-7 there last 9 trips to Cincinnati and Baltimore has had the superior team more often than not. Conversely Baltimore is 6-3 their last 9 at home vs the Bengals. It's one of those divisional matchups where it's been home dominated and the teams matchup well with each other.

The Ravens have won 5 of the last 6 meetings between the two teams, including 1 earlier this season. Does that mean they are guaranteed to win this time? Of course not. Does that mean that Kdo5's post overestimates the likelihood of a Bengals win, and sells the Ravens short?

I think it does. This site has been far too dismissive of the Ravens all season long. They're 5-2 in their last 7 games, with their only losses being an OT loss to the Bears the week following their win against the Bengals, and their loss to the Patriots when Flacco shouldn't have been playing because of his knee. They're not some chump team that's an easy beat. They're a team that took time to get it together after major offseason turnover.

 

[everlong]

The Ravens have won 5 of the last 6 meetings between the two teams, including 1 earlier this season. Does that mean they are guaranteed to win this time? Of course not. Does that mean that Kdo5's post overestimates the likelihood of a Bengals win, and sells the Ravens short?

I think it does. This site has been far too dismissive of the Ravens all season long. They're 5-2 in their last 7 games, with their only losses being an OT loss to the Bears the week following their win against the Bengals, and their loss to the Patriots when Flacco shouldn't have been playing because of his knee. They're not some chump team that's an easy beat. They're a team that took time to get it together after major offseason turnover.

I was just offering a counterpoint to your statement that they already beat the Bengals this year. I'm not dismissing them at all but merely pointing out historically this series has been won by the home team and this season both of these teams have been much better at home. In regards to being 5-2 in their last 7 that's because 5 of the 7 were at home. The anomalies were losing at home to the Pats with a banged up Flacco on a short week and beating the dysfunctional Lions on the road and still needing a 61 yard FG to pull that off. If this game was in Baltimore I would 100% be picking the Ravens. Because it's in Cincy I'm about 80% for the home team. Because Baltimore absolutely needs this game I think they'll play a great game win or lose. I'm not certain the Bengals haven't conceded the bye mentally.

 

[Brady6]

No

But assuming that Mallet would be worth a high pick which is the unstated premise of the showcase (I disagree) that means as an FA a GM would sign him to a big $$$ contract which would mean a 3rd round comp pick.
Nevah. Gonna. Happen.

Ok thank buddy!! I am not sure if I have said this before but you’re one of my favorite posters and I always enjoy reading what you have to say!

I hope you had a nice Christmas and I wish you a Happy New Year :rocker:

 

[lurker1965]

We may have a shot at the one seed if the Broncos lose,not sure if BB would rest the starters for this one. But then again one wouldnt want any more injuries on this team.

Peyton will puke on his shoes in his first playoff round, so #2 is good.

If Bengals and Colts lose, rest Talib, McCourty, Vareen and any one else at less than 100% - and yes, Tom, that's your baloony hand.

Start Mallet if that is the case.

 

[lurker1965]

History says resting players the last week when you have a bye is not a good idea.

What does history say about guys playing through pain?

 

[lurker1965]

I don't see them resting anyone. These reps will be important for the playoffs. The rooks are gonna need the last minute preparation for these huge games coming up.

I agree. Leave any non-questionable rookies in. Take out Talib, Dennard, McCourty, Vareen, Amendola - did I forget anybody we know of? I'm sure I did.

 

[Bhelmet]

After a little more thought - if the Bengals and Colts lose - I allow the Bills to score 100 points and break EVERY NFL record on the books when I put jerseys on the tackling dummies and introduce them as my team.

 

[supafly]

Peyton will puke on his shoes in his first playoff round, so #2 is good.

If Bengals and Colts lose, rest Talib, McCourty, Vareen and any one else at less than 100% - and yes, Tom, that's your baloony hand.

Start Mallet if that is the case.

Not sure why we'd even consider starting Mallett when the possibility of having the #1 seed still exists should Oakland upset Denver on Sunday.

Is it likely? No..but Bill Belichick won't roll over under this scenario. He's going to play tough to win this game no matter what.

As far as Manning "puking on his shoes" in yrs past---I'm not sure if that's going to happen every single year. The odds are that DEN and Manning are going to win their one playoff game at home with 2 weeks to rest and prepare, which would then force us to go to Denver for a very tough AFCCG appearance.

Assuming that Manning is going to choke in every single playoff appearance in the first home game is kind of strange to me, although I understand why you may think that at the same time, based off of past history. I just don't think that we can continue to bank on that happening. It's not like the guy is cursed. Baltimore was damn lucky to walk out of there with a victory last season in my opinion.