quote:
I believe if Trask was outplaying Franks in every practice / scrimmage ect like you claim, a switch wouldve been made and a player or players wouldve said something to that effect after he had a bad game. It never happened.

In my defense, Trask broke his foot when he would have probably played for the position last year.

However, Franks is better than Trask in several different ways:

1. He is a much better leader.

2. He is obviously less prone to injury (Trask broke his foot twice).

3. He has more live experience.

My contention is: Franks isn't a true running Quarterback, so what do we lose by adding in a better pure passer?

I 100% think Trask should have been given the lion's share of attention and development because he excels in different areas than Franks and well, our RB room is outstanding. Trask also isn't afraid to run.

1. Trask isn't a head case.

“They say every job is open right now,” Trask said. “I’m just focusing on what I can do to help the team, working to the best of my ability."

He has always been a team player, always stayed out of trouble and you never hear anyone say anything bad about the guy. Never fights, only shares positive things on Social Media in spite of having considerably worse luck than Franks.

2. He is a much better passer downfield than Franks.

3. He is very, very good in the Red Zone. Both of his passing touchdowns came in the Red Zone.

So for the moment, I think Mullen prefers leadership and running capability over downfield threat. However, if Trask takes over for Franks, we'll never go back to Franks unless Trask injures himself again.

As an addendum: I don't know more than Mullen, but I do know that Trask throws better than Franks and is far more selfless.

Those, to me, matter more in the short-term. We'll get our actual dual-threat Quarterback next year (one way or another), so why not give a career back up the chance to shine?