Re: Post Draft Blues
posted at 5/13/2013 11:52 PM EDT
In response to seattlepat70's comment:
They have Mallett.
RESPONSE: Mallett is not an option. He will be a restricted free agent next year, and an UFA in 2015. If the Patriots don't trade him, they'll end up losing him to another team...and will get nothing in return.
Unless you are saying he will be a bust, then there is no point in taking a back up.
RESPONSE: Do you really think that Mallett will replace Brady in a year lor two? If not, than he's gone through free agency. No way that the Pats are going to pay him big money to stay on as a back-up. Plus, even if the Pats were so willing, Mallett is going to leave anyway...to go play for a team, where he can compete for a starting role.
You want them to pick up value QB in the third round. You don't think that was a good idea yet you are saying they should have taken a QB under a similar circumstance.
RESPONSE: Mallett, taken with the 74th overall pick in the 2011 draft, was a good risk. The Pats scouting department had him rated as the top QB in that draft class. Unfortunately, Mallett has shown little in preseason games over the past two years. That's why the Pats couldn't trade him this off-season...even in a supposedly weak QB draft class year. Had Mallett shown something in preseason games, the Pats could have gotten much in return in a trade.
In the case of Barkley, he would have been another great risk to take at #91. Relatively speaking, he would have been a low risk...but very high reward, if he showed he could cut it. The Pats could have groomed Barkley behind Brady for three years, before being faced with another free agency decision. Tom Brady will need to be replaced in the next 3-4 years.
Why do you think Barkley would make a better value pick than Mallett was?
RESPONSE: Cheaper price (91st overall pick), while Mallett, as mentioned above, went 74th overall. I'm not saying that Barkley or Nassib will be stars. But, as I've stated many times before in previous posts...QB is the most important position on the field. If a team has a good one, you're likely looking at a playoff team. Don't have one...and a team usually is done. Brady must be replaced in the next 2-4 years. If the Pats had selected Barkley at #91 and he developed into, say, another Drew Brees...the Patriots would likely be looking at another decade of NFL dominance. Isn't that worth the risk of a low third round pick? Doesn't doing that make far more sense than reaching for Duron Harmon, in hopes of developing him into a decent safety? Isn't that as much of a long shot as Barkley and/or Nassib evolving into franchise QBs?