Why Not Ryan Mallet??? | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Why Not Ryan Mallet???

Mr. Magoo said:
It's a basic truth that the more deeply something speaks to you, the greater chance it has to be completely lost on someone else. More often than not, those things go hand in hand.

The examples of things considered to have "artistic worth" that also speak to the masses are few and far between: The Beatles, Casablanca, Frank Lloyd Wright, Monet. It's just not very often that the Billboard #1 album and the top rated album on Pitchfork.com are one and the same. That site is driven so much on exclusivity and cultural elitism it wouldn't be able to function in a world in which that was possible anyway.

Case in point: as a fan of jazz and blues (which I gather from your interest in Mingus, James and co), what's today considered "indie rock" probably doesn't interest you all that much, yet it means a lot to some people. Thirty years from now, guys like me will wonder why no one remembers Wilco, the Dandy Warhols, Elliott Smith or The Mars Volta... just as you probably wonder how anyone could have gone through life without hearing "Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground."
Click to expand...

I think there's a fine line between cultural elitism and seeking out the best and taking necessary steps to appreciate good or great things when you find them. On the surface that can look very similar. Honesty is probably the primary sticking point. Cultural elitists prop up stuff that makes them feel smart and, well, elite. When pressed, they can't properly defend their values or interests. The point of finding the best is pretty simple: you can derive more pleasure from things of high quality.

Seems obvious, but when you're your speaking of subjective interests, people tend to want to say (especially when pressed), 'You can't say that something is good or bad - only that you do or do not like it.' So, say person A's favorite song is 'Smell Like Teen Spirit' (to pick an easy target), and person B's favorite song is 'Coney Island Baby' (to keep this football-ish related) by Lou Reed. Person A can genuinely like the song and connect to it on some emotional level of angst, but beyond that, the song doesn't offer any nuance or opportunity for growth. It's angst in a bucket. 'Coney Island Baby' is crafted in such a way that you can experience it in different lights depending on where you're at in life. There are layers that work together to form a cohesive whole that is genuine, accessible, and difficult. 'Good' and 'bad' doesn't really have a lot of meaning in the world of art (in my opinion). How fully can someone enjoy the given piece of art? That's what matters.

This isn't to say that everyone should enjoy the same things. Each person - whether he/she knows it or not - has his/her own aesthetics and experiences that shape his/her receptiveness to a given piece. I used to be unable to comprehend how anyone could place Lou Reed anywhere near Bob Dylan's level. Now, my feeling is the inverse - except I do understand, having been there. If you're seeking out the best, though, instead of what someone has shoved down your throat, or instead of something that just makes you feel hip, intellectual, etc., you're going to find works of art, aspects of life, etc. that you enjoy much more than you'd be able to enjoy something commonplace, pretentious, etc.

For whatever reason, most people don't want to put effort into enjoying life.
 
Let the media and pundits roast the guy. He has the Marino - like arm.
Hopefully he will be there for the taking at 15
 
j-off-her-doll said:
To Slimm's point, though, I agree. Mallett's media interview sounded fine. I wasn't aware he cut it short. That's not good, but it's not a huge deal. Mallett's body worries me a bit. He obviously doesn't work on it much at all - if at all. I'm more worried about him coming in and training like a professional than I am Newton. I'd still take him if he's there at 15. Also, with the assumption that he isn't putting the necessary work in on his body, there's some upside with his quickness is the pocket (not that he's atrocious now) and maybe even a little breaking the pocket (not that he'll ever be Newton.
Click to expand...

Mallet > Newton
 
I was just showing what some people are writing. I know its fun to just ignore what the media has to say. I for one can't stand them most of the time but some of these guys actually know people in the right places. So to just say it doesn't matter what these geeks say is wrong. If they are hearing whispers about his ability to deal with the media how is he ever going to be the face of the franchise. Do you believe these rumors are just going to go away? The teams don't, he will be asked this until he gives a clear cut answer or squashes these rumors. I think he's played well in a very tough conference and has all the tools. I think he would be very good but a wekk ago before the combine nobody was saying or at least very few, that we should take him at 15. Now he throws the ball in shorts and is now worthy of that spot.

Slimm I haven't seen you write how you feel about Mallet? Does he pass your study when on the field? or do you feel he is someone who locks in on receivers ala Henne? That is the only knock I've heard about him.
 
Canadi-Phin said:
Slimm I haven't seen you write how you feel about Mallet? Does he pass your study when on the field?
Click to expand...


Yep he does...

I've actually discussed him at length in several instances... just try to find them if you can..

I'll see if I can find a few threads on it for you when I get a chance..
 
LANGER72 said:
Mallet > Newton
Click to expand...

Interesting argument can enusue on this I think Newton has a higher potential ceiling and Mallet has a bigger bust capability because Newton can be a middle of the road type (less chance of being a total bust) just because of the physical tools. However, Mallet in most ways projects as a safer pick because he is more refined at this point. If you take Newton its an all in type bet with long odds but huge payoff. The Mallet pick is less risky from a development standpoint but will require Mallet to completely "get it" to payoff.
 
madmic21 said:
Interesting argument can enusue on this I think Newton has a higher potential ceiling and Mallet has a bigger bust capability
Click to expand...

There is no argument. That's your opinion based on nothing. It's like, I like raisins and you like pecans. There is no argument. Some people like mobile quarterbacks and some like pure passers. There is nothing wrong with wanting Newton over Mallett. I prefer Mallett, and who can argue with that?
 
madmic21 said:
Interesting argument can enusue on this I think Newton has a higher potential ceiling and Mallet has a bigger bust capability because Newton can be a middle of the road type (less chance of being a total bust) just because of the physical tools. However, Mallet in most ways projects as a safer pick because he is more refined at this point. If you take Newton its an all in type bet with long odds but huge payoff. The Mallet pick is less risky from a development standpoint but will require Mallet to completely "get it" to payoff.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this at all. Newton only has a bigger ceiling because he has a longer way to go to become a pure pocket passer. Yes he can run but his ability to read defenses, make changes on the line and to go through his progressions have a long way to go. By no means does that mean if he even comes close to reaching this potetial does that mean he'd be a better QB then Mallett. So only because he has a much greater size gap of where he is now to his potential makes him look better long term. Mallett is the ceiling in terms of a pure pocket passer that Newton would want to be. Mallett has a greater chance to become a franchise QB because he has a lot less area to improve to be a franchise player and therefore in my eyes has a lot less chance of becoming a bust.

Mallett all the way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom