Why are people so infatuated with Matt Flynn as an option at QB?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Let's look at the facts, shall we:

- Career backup for 3 seasons in college, only started senior year

- Wasn't very *good* when he did start, completing 56% of his passes on a fairly stacked team

- Has exactly ONE standout game to his credit, when he started for Rodgers, again being surrounded by loads of offensive talent

- The game before that he lost 7-3 to the Detroit Lions

- Poor overall skillset; average arm, mediocre release, not very mobile - doesn't sound like a Shanny QB.

Now, Mike McCarthy is one of the best QB developers in the NFL, and you can't count a MMC guy because of his track record with prospects like Flynn (Rich Gannon, Matt Hasselbeck, Jake Delhomme) but Flynn could just as easily be Charlie Whitehurst, Kevin Kolb or Rob Johnson. I do not believe signing or trading for Matt Flynn is an acceptable "Plan A" solution to our QB needs. It smacks of trying to trying to outsource the risk of scouting and developing a quarterback to another team, and it doesn't work very often (for every Favre or Gannon you get about 6 or 7 Rob Johnsons or Kevin Kolbs).

[pjfootballer]

I've been asking the same godamn thing in all the other QB threads as if he will magically become the next Matt Schaub or Mark Brunell (when he went to the Jags)

[Bacon]

He's a passable plan C. Considering the remarkable draft class this year, the only QB I would consider trading for is Rivers. That would be an acceptable plan B.

I someone (Longshot?) mention Campbell as a potential FA option and I nearly wept.

[Darth Tater]

I have found no one infatuated. Well, the answer to what I think your question is in your question. He has been a backup for 4 years in the NFL which is better than any of the other guys mentioned but is still young enough that he could be expected to play at a high level for almost as long as those other options. He has a standout game in the NFL and has taken several other snaps in regular season PRO games which is more than any of the other options. He will be a true FA so he costs nothing but money and would allow you to use your picks to fill other holes.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I thought he showed quite a bit of potential in preseason games I've seen him in. That is, of course, potential to be a "good" QB, not a great one.

I think he's an OK option if we just aren't in position to get the QB we want in the draft. In that case, I would like to see us do three things: Sign Flynn, trade down in the draft multiple times to acquire picks for 2013 and pick another sleeper QB after the first round. Again, this is way down the list of things I'd like to see happen, but it's feasible if all else fails. And with that, I would much rather acquire Brian Hoyer than Flynn, but that depends on the cost.

[wysknz1]

I'd take Kellen Moore over Flynn

[Rufus T Firefly]

He's a passable plan C. Considering the remarkable draft class this year, the only QB I would consider trading for is Rivers. That would be an acceptable plan B.

Please stop trying to spread this "trade for Rivers" stuff. He ain't being traded, and if he is, it's because he is damaged goods. He doesn't need to be discussed.

[Command The 414]

what you didn't realize that Flynn was a All Pro (2nd string QB) on a great Packers teams.....wow throw 2 passes thus far in the season and your a Diamond in the rough....have we really fallen off as Fans to where we feel this guy (unproven) is our answer at QB? if so that's simply pathetic imho...he hasn't shown me anything accept he's a good back-up QB...

[The Tris]

He had a really good game versus one of the worse secondaries in the NFL surrounded by offensive weaponry. What's not to love?

[Bacon]

Please stop trying to spread this "trade for Rivers" stuff. He ain't being traded, and if he is, it's because he is damaged goods. He doesn't need to be discussed.

Hey, it's all fantasy. We shouldn't even be discussing FA or a draft determined by workouts and life decisions that won't be determined for months, yet we have posters here pining for QBs who might not even want to play in the NFL come April...posters who are encouraging season suicide as a viable means of moving up in the draft order. Comparatively speaking, it isn't crazy to think that a bloated Chargers team would want to start fresh without Norv and perhaps an overpaid franchise QB in a slump. Rivers is far more talented than any Redskins QB we've seen in decades, damaged or otherwise.

Also, I never suggested it as plan A. I'm a RG3 guy, with Grossman backing him up. Not sure Rex's pride would allow him to back up a rookie, but again, what else is this forum for at this point in the season than fantasy?

[jflow78]

Let's look at the facts, shall we:

- Career backup for 3 seasons in college, only started senior year

- Wasn't very *good* when he did start, completing 56% of his passes on a fairly stacked team

- Has exactly ONE standout game to his credit, when he started for Rodgers, again being surrounded by loads of offensive talent

- The game before that he lost 7-3 to the Detroit Lions

- Poor overall skillset; average arm, mediocre release, not very mobile - doesn't sound like a Shanny QB.

Now, Mike McCarthy is one of the best QB developers in the NFL, and you can't count a MMC guy because of his track record with prospects like Flynn (Rich Gannon, Matt Hasselbeck, Jake Delhomme) but Flynn could just as easily be Charlie Whitehurst, Kevin Kolb or Rob Johnson. I do not believe signing or trading for Matt Flynn is an acceptable "Plan A" solution to our QB needs. It smacks of trying to trying to outsource the risk of scouting and developing a quarterback to another team, and it doesn't work very often (for every Favre or Gannon you get about 6 or 7 Rob Johnsons or Kevin Kolbs).

I'm not infatuated with him, but I do think he'll be a good QB.

- Who cares, college was college and a he was behind JaMarcus Russell who apparently was good enough in college to earn the #1 draft pick. Matt Cassel hadn't started since high school.

- He was also starting his first couple of games, so what exactly do you expect from a player who's playing in his first 2 games? I thought he did pretty well against a Pats team that went 14-2. He was 24/37 251 yards - 65% completion percentage, 3 TDs and 1 INT. Not bad for a player in his second game when getting sacked 5 times and hit 13 total. This was also with Green Bay's 3rd string RB starting due to injuries. The Pats entire game plan was to stop the pass and Flynn still did a great job, completing passes to 10 different players.

- It's true he's on a very good team, but when he started for them, they were on the verge of playoff elimination at 8-5 (Rodgers got injured in the Detroit game and Flynn came in after the injury), and they struggled to run all year (until against the Giants when they figured out that they were better off abandoning the run altogether.

- Like I said, he came into the Lions game without any snaps as the 2nd string guy, and I'm sure playing in an NFL game with a very good Lions' pass rush on the opposite side would have been difficult to handle for any QB seeing his first extensive action. We saw that once he had time to prepare and take the snaps, he was able to do a much better job against a much better team (the Pats).

- I doubt you watched Flynn play since he's been in the NFL much. If we were judging him based on his college play, I'd agree with everything you said, which is also why he wasn't drafted until the last few rounds, but he's improved in all of those areas, and he's had time to sit on the bench behind a QB and with a QB coach who are excellent and helpful (unlike the way Favre was with Rodgers, Rodgers has been great with Flynn).

I'm not saying I want to get this guy no matter what, I'm not even saying I think he's going to be great, but judging him off of what we've seen, he definitely has shown he has the potential to be a starter in the league. I want to draft someone, but I won't be shocked if I see a team sign Flynn next season and he does great things.

I just think you're too hard on the guy because you want a college QB too much. I don't care who QBs this team if they can be here for 10 years and be consistent.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I've read a few calls for him (which I personally don't see, but each to their own); but certainly no 'infatuation.'

Colt Brennan. That was an infatuation. This is more a few admiring glances.

Hail.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Hey, it's all fantasy. We shouldn't even be discussing FA or a draft determined by workouts and life decisions that won't be determined for months, yet we have posters here pining for QBs who might not even want to play in the NFL come April...posters who are encouraging season suicide as a viable means of moving up in the draft order. Comparatively speaking, it isn't crazy to think that a bloated Chargers team would want to start fresh without Norv and perhaps an overpaid franchise QB in a slump. Rivers is far more talented than any Redskins QB we've seen in decades, damaged or otherwise.

Also, I never suggested it as plan A. I'm a RG3 guy, with Grossman backing him up. Not sure Rex's pride would allow him to back up a rookie, but again, what else is this forum for at this point in the season than fantasy?

I'm all for speculation, but it needs to make sense, especially if you're going to keep bringing it up in multiple threads. Rivers is one of the definite legit Franchise QBs in the NFL. New coach or not, you don't just give up on a guy like that. Unless, again, the rumors that he is playing with an injury that will end his career are true. And, let's throw all that out for the sake of argument. It still makes no sense for the Redskins to be trading the king's ransom it would take to get a QB in his 30s while in need of rebuilding.

Once more, this is something that doesn't need to be discussed at all. Not happening.

[KCClybun]

Ah, the wonders of not paying attention to any other team but the one you root for.

Flynn has had exactly one okay game. He's 0-2 as a starter. He didn't look great in preseason (rookie Graham Harrell out of Texas Tech actually looked better).

It's another case of wanting what we can't have. Matt Flynn is not Matt Schaub, but that's what some people want to see him as. That we found this unknown little gem on another team and all the sudden he rocks and is awesome and blah blah blah...

I don't get it either. But he's not going to be a Redskin anyway. If they don't get their QB, they'll just resign Rex, promote Crompton, and try to find some guy in the later rounds somehow.

[HigSkin]

Hope Miami signs him in the offseason. It'll get them out of the market for college QB or at least a high pick.

[jflow78]

Ah, the wonders of not paying attention to any other team but the one you root for.

I was going to say the same thing, but with the opposite intent. Flynn played well against the Pats, a 14-2 team with a bad pass defense, but a great pass rush, and in his first start as a 2nd year player. I'm not sure that can be a bad thing. There were other starting QBs who had MUCH worse performances than Flynn in his first start (Rivers, Peyton, Cutler, and one of Sanchez' 3 games against them).

I agree he's not Matt Schaub, but you guys are acting like he's the worst option available. Personally, I think he's probably a better option than Beck or Grossman, but I'd still rather have Barkley or RGIII.

We actually DON'T have to take sides on this one. Flynn can have starting potential, and still not be the guy you hope your team gets.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I

- He was also starting his first couple of games, so what exactly do you expect from a player who's playing in his first 2 games? I thought he did pretty well against a Pats team that went 14-2. He was 24/37 251 yards - 65% completion percentage, 3 TDs and 1 INT. Not bad for a player in his second game when getting sacked 5 times and hit 13 total. This was also with Green Bay's 3rd string RB starting due to injuries. The Pats entire game plan was to stop the pass and Flynn still did a great job, completing passes to 10 different players.

The Pats were 14-2 because Brady had a season that was nearly as good as the 18-1 season. Not their defense.

-

It's true he's on a very good team, but when he started for them, they were on the verge of playoff elimination at 8-5 (Rodgers got injured in the Detroit game and Flynn came in after the injury), and they struggled to run all year (until against the Giants when they figured out that they were better off abandoning the run altogether.

Still had a good to great defense and a lot of offensive weapons. And uh, that team was getting racked with injuries all year that they were JUST starting to recover from. If the Packers had stayed healthy that year, they'd quite possibly look like they do this year.

- Like I said, he came into the Lions game without any snaps as the 2nd string guy, and I'm sure playing in an NFL game with a very good Lions' pass rush on the opposite side would have been difficult to handle for any QB seeing his first extensive action. We saw that once he had time to prepare and take the snaps, he was able to do a much better job against a much better team (the Pats).

The Lions had 27 sacks that year so not sure what you mean by "great pass rush". And guys like Rob Johnson and Kevin Kolb have had good debuts. Just sounds like the typical excuse-making that occurs with every marginal prospect.

- I doubt you watched Flynn play since he's been in the NFL much. If we were judging him based on his college play, I'd agree with everything you said, which is also why he wasn't drafted until the last few rounds, but he's improved in all of those areas, and he's had time to sit on the bench behind a QB and with a QB coach who are excellent and helpful (unlike the way Favre was with Rodgers, Rodgers has been great with Flynn).

John Beck looked like a marginal starting QB in the preseason. Rex Grossman looked like the greatest reclamation project since Gannon in the preseason. Watching him do good against vanilla defenses shouldn't tell you much.

I'm not saying I want to get this guy no matter what, I'm not even saying I think he's going to be great, but judging him off of what we've seen, he definitely has shown he has the potential to be a starter in the league. I want to draft someone, but I won't be shocked if I see a team sign Flynn next season and he does great things.

We've seen teams over-commit to the hyped backup time and time again, and it doesn't work. It's one thing when it's Schaub, who got a 1st round grade from a lot of teams and had a great skillset, or Favre who was a fringe first rounder who had a rocket arm even then, but when it's Mr. Near Irrelevant who has 1 good game against a bad defense to his credit, then you can't see it the same way.

Even the teams that find success this way often find they hit a ceiling - Mike Shanahan knows this first hand when he realized he couldn't get farther than the AFCCG with a dominant run game, a great defense and a journeyman QB>

Even Cassel can be said to have busted, and he looked pretty good filling in for Brady (with everything going right - a healthy Charles, a good line, etc, he can be above-average).

I just think you're too hard on the guy because you want a college QB too much. I don't care who QBs this team if they can be here for 10 years and be consistent.

I think you're trying to make him into the next Delhomme or Schaub because you don't want to commit to the risk of scouting,drafting and developing a college QB. See I can play the "you have a hidden agenda" game too!

[jflow78]

Hope Miami signs him in the offseason. It'll get them out of the market for college QB or at least a high pick.

I'm hoping the Browns sign him. I think Miami might be tempted enough with Moore to improve other parts of their team, and I think Seattle will end up winning more games than we will.

---------- Post added November-28th-2011 at 07:23 PM ----------

The Pats were 14-2 because Brady had a season that was nearly as good as the 18-1 season. Not their defense.

The Lions had 27 sacks that year so not sure what you mean by "great pass rush". And guys like Rob Johnson and Kevin Kolb have had good debuts. Just sounds like the typical excuse-making that occurs with every marginal prospect.

I meant what I said, they sacked the kid 5 times and hit him 13. That's what I meant.

Beck looked like a marginal starting QB in the preseason. Rex Grossman looked like the greatest reclamation project since Gannon in the preseason. Watching him do good against vanilla defenses shouldn't tell you much.

I never mentioned the preseason once, so this is invalid. I agree that no one should be judged based on preseason, so we agree there, but you were the one who pointed out that McCarthy is a QB making machine, I was just taking that one step further in applying the possibility of Flynn being one of his projects.

We've seen teams over-commit to the hyped backup time and time again, and it doesn't work. It's one thing when it's Schaub, who got a 1st round grade from a lot of teams and had a great skillset, or Favre who was a fringe first rounder who had a rocket arm even then, but when it's Mr. Near Irrelevant who has 1 good game against a bad defense to his credit, then you can't see it the same way.

Even the teams that find success this way often find they hit a ceiling - Mike Shanahan knows this first hand when he realized he couldn't get farther than the AFCCG with a dominant run game, a great defense and a journeyman QB>

Even Cassel can be said to have busted, and he looked pretty good filling in for Brady (with everything going right - a healthy Charles, a good line, etc, he can be above-average).

I'm not suggesting the Skins sign Flynn as their QB of the future, all I'm suggesting is the guy might not be the overhyped disaster that you believe him to be. The honest truth to it is that no one will know until he gets a chance, I hope he gets it, not here, but with some team.

As for hyped backups not working out, you already argued against yourself. There have been probably as many hyped backups who have failed as there have been that have succeeded. Matt Cassel was voted to a pro-bowl because he had a great season last year. So, I'm not sure why you might be labeling him a bust. I don't know what he's done right or wrong, because I haven't watched him play, I just know he's probably not the issue in KC.

I think you're trying to make him into the next Delhomme or Schaub because you don't want to commit to the risk of scouting,drafting and developing a college QB. See I can play the "you have a hidden agenda" game too!

That' funny because you actually quoted me saying the opposite. No where have I said he's "the next Delhomme or Schaub", I've repeatedly said I think he has the potential to be good. So, anything you're reading into it is on you.

As far as hidden agendas, I didn't start a thread about why I'm sick of people saying Matt Flynn is an option at QB, I just happen to watch the Packers a lot, and I think he's got potential. If I had an agenda I would be trying to argue that we should get him, instead, I've said over and over that I want Barkley or RGIII. That would be my only agenda, that and answering your questions. You asked why people like the QB, I gave you a reasonable, well-thought out answer. If you don't like it, don't ask the question.

[Cpt.Chaos47]

I'd rather look to the draft than sign Flynn. I know people think its the end of the world and we won't get a QB because we won yesterday but lets not get ridiculous. Alot of the teams at the top of the draft won't be taking a QB this year. Panthers, Vikings, Cardinals,Rams,Bucs,Eagles,Jags none of those teams will be taking a QB most likely.Not to mention no one can predict what will happen in the draft. Aaron Rodgers was supposed to be a possible 1st overall pick but Alex Smith went 1st Rodgers fell to 24th. Hell if Rodgers would have fell one more spot QB wouldn't even be a converstation, 24 Packers got Rodgers 25 we got Jason Campbell.

[MrJL]

I'd guess because the guys who've warmed the Pack's bench for anytime recently have turned out pretty good. Brunell, Hasselbeck, Rodgers.

[skinsfanindallas88]

A lot of fans on here tend to underrate and crap on our best players and overrate and make other teams worst players out to be amazing

[KCClybun]

I was going to say the same thing, but with the opposite intent. Flynn played well against the Pats, a 14-2 team with a bad pass defense, but a great pass rush, and in his first start as a 2nd year player. I'm not sure that can be a bad thing. There were other starting QBs who had MUCH worse performances than Flynn in his first start (Rivers, Peyton, Cutler, and one of Sanchez' 3 games against them).

I agree he's not Matt Schaub, but you guys are acting like he's the worst option available. Personally, I think he's probably a better option than Beck or Grossman, but I'd still rather have Barkley or RGIII.

We actually DON'T have to take sides on this one. Flynn can have starting potential, and still not be the guy you hope your team gets.

I don't think he DOES have starting potential though. Like I said, I thought Graham Farrell looked a lot better than Flynn in preseason. I'm always weary of quarterbacks that another team thinks isn't worth having, especially back-ups. The league is so thin on quarterbacks that can legitimately start a game, it's worrisome when a team is willing to let a guy like that walk in free agency. It should serve as a red flag. If a guy does really well in a back-up capacity, he's always worth keeping. Every once in a while you get a Rich Gannon or a Matt Schaub or that kind of player that has a lot of success, but those things are far from the norm.

[jflow78]

I don't think he DOES have starting potential though. Like I said, I thought Graham Farrell looked a lot better than Flynn in preseason. I'm always weary of quarterbacks that another team thinks isn't worth having, especially back-ups. The league is so thin on quarterbacks that can legitimately start a game, it's worrisome when a team is willing to let a guy like that walk in free agency. It should serve as a red flag. If a guy does really well in a back-up capacity, he's always worth keeping. Every once in a while you get a Rich Gannon or a Matt Schaub or that kind of player that has a lot of success, but those things are far from the norm.

And I know it's hard to tell, but the difference being Flynn played well in a game that counted when there was some pressure, Farrell played in the preseason where we thought Beck vs Grossman looked like a pretty good race. I'll also admit, Todd Collins was AWFUL in the preseason, and I dreaded him coming in to play for us, then he took us on a 4 game winning streak and to the playoffs.

The thing is, Flynn will probably get his chance, and most Green Bay fans think he'd be foolish not to leave and start for someone else, but they're used to seeing this kind of thing happen. Mark Brunell and Matt Hasselbeck were both unheralded backups for Favre and became Pro-Bowlers. Now I don't believe Flynn will be a Pro-Bowler, but I don't think it would be foolish of some team, that's more solid on offense than we are, to give him a chance.

I actually think Miami would be an ideal place for him to go, with some potential weapons like Marshall and Bush. I don't think we would be the best destination for him, and really looking forward to seeing who we draft, but I still think Flynn will be a good QB somewhere. It's only hard to see why a team would let go of a FA if they: A. don't even make the guy an offer (which I'm positive Green Bay will), or B. don't already have a great QB (which Green Bay does).

I'm just having difficulty understanding the animosity people have toward Flynn, and my only reason for it is that they really want to draft a QB and not go through this cycle of signing FAs to solve all our problems, and I don't blame them because I'm one of them. But, it doesn't stop me from saying, "Hey, that guy could be a pretty good signing for the Dolphins, Seahawks, Raiders, or some other team that just seems to desperately need nothing else but a QB on offense.

Granted, all of this is rampant speculation on either side, so it's not like anything any of us says can be taken with any gravity, it's just my little opinion.

And just so everyone knows, I might sound confrontational, but until I drop a couple ****s I'm just having fun discussion the issue. I respect most of the people on this board too much to try and offend them or "one-up" them.

You guys are awesome. Go Skins!

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I never mentioned the preseason once, so this is invalid. I agree that no one should be judged based on preseason, so we agree there, but you were the one who pointed out that McCarthy is a QB making machine, I was just taking that one step further in applying the possibility of Flynn being one of his projects.

You know who else is a QB guru? Andy Reid. What happens to Reid QBs once they leave Philly? A.J Feeley? Kevin Kolb? Donovan McNabb? (granted I think if he had really wanted to he could have thrived in this system).

I'm not suggesting the Skins sign Flynn as their QB of the future, all I'm suggesting is the guy might not be the overhyped disaster that you believe him to be. The honest truth to it is that no one will know until he gets a chance, I hope he gets it, not here, but with some team.

If he's not the QB of the future then why on earth would you sign him? And while you may not say to sign him, we've had plenty of people say "Draft Blackmon/Coples/Kalil and sign Flynn to be our franchise QB".

As for hyped backups not working out, you already argued against yourself. There have been probably as many hyped backups who have failed as there have been that have succeeded. Matt Cassel was voted to a pro-bowl because he had a great season last year. So, I'm not sure why you might be labeling him a bust. I don't know what he's done right or wrong, because I haven't watched him play, I just know he's probably not the issue in KC.

Since 1998: (with guys who have changed teams):

Hits:

Gannon

Hasselbeck

Delhomme

Schaub

Borderline:

Matt Moore

Aaron Brooks

Kevin Kolb (looks more like a miss, but will get 1-2 more years to disprove this)

Misses:

Jackson

Whitehurst

John Beck

A.J Feeley

John Lewis

Brian Brohm (actually a McCarthy product, can't win em all)

Even the borderline hits like Brooks aren't the type of QB you want to build your franchise around. And even the big hits like Delhomme really only had a 3 year run where he was Pro Bowl caliber, and those Panthers teams weren't about the offense. Same with Gannon, he had a 4 year run then fell off a cliff.

The point is that there are many people who think that signing some guy's backup QB is a great option (because you don't have to worry about missing with a prospect) when it's really not. And that's the thing about these debates - people point out instances where a given non-ideal situation led to success, but the fact is, certain moves result in success more than certain other moves, even if they can both work or fail in a given instance.

"Hey, that guy could be a pretty good signing for the Dolphins, Seahawks, Raiders, or some other team that just seems to desperately need nothing else but a QB on offense.

Maybe as someone who can come in and compete for the job, but is he a legitimate upgrade over Matt Moore? Or Tavaris Jackson? Or Carson Palmer? If not then why go for him?

[jflow78]

You know who else is a QB guru? Andy Reid. What happens to Reid QBs once they leave Philly? A.J Feeley? Kevin Kolb? Donovan McNabb? (granted I think if he had really wanted to he could have thrived in this system).

I didn't say McCarthy was a QB guru, you did. I'm enjoying this discussion though, and I agree with you, McCarthy is a QB guru, I never thought Reid was, I think Reid runs a very QB friendly offense (a very old-school WCO where throwing the the RB is 1st priority). I agree, if McNabb had been willing to fix his footwork, I think he could have been very successful. Oh well.

If he's not the QB of the future then why on earth would you sign him? And while you may not say to sign him, we've had plenty of people say "Draft Blackmon/Coples/Kalil and sign Flynn to be our franchise QB".

I will say, at the beginning of the season, I did see something like this as an option, but after seeing how shallow and bereft of talent our offense really is, I don't think Flynn would be the right guy for us. That doesn't mean I don't think he'd do well on another team, but I think if we can get one of the tope QBs, then that's the preferred and better option.

I know there have been several people advocating the plan you quoted, I think they're overestimating our team's overall offensive talent, and underestimating some of the guys coming out of college this year. I don't agree with them, but I can understand why they think the way they do. The Skins beat Green Bay before half their starters were injured last year (and with a defense that looked like paper mache') so the fact that the Patriots were able to beat them after all the injuries (including Rodgers) with a 1st time starting QB just isn't a knock against the kid in my book. Again, just my opinion.

Since 1998: (with guys who have changed teams):

Hits:

Gannon

Hasselbeck

Delhomme

Schaub

Misses:

Kolb (and I advocated trading for him! granted he probably will get 1-2 more years to prove me wrong)

Jackson

Whitehurst

Aaron Brooks (could go either way, he had a Pro Bowl year if I recall, but he had terrible years as well)

John Beck

A.J Feeley

John Lewis

Brian Brohm (actually a McCarthy product, can't win em all)

I'm talking about guys who were signed from their original teams with signing team clearly intending them to be their franchise QB. So, I probably didn't clarify my definition enough. In that case, Whitehurst and Brooks meet that definition. Childress had Jackson set as the starter for the Vikings and was he was already proven a failure before Seattle signed him, and the same can be said for Kolb (though losing your starting job to Mike Vick might not put him in "bust" territory alone).

So both of those are more like what Shanahan does, sign guys who've failed as starters elsewhere to be his starters. He doesn't sign FA backups and intend them to be his starters. (The Broncos drafted Griese, signed Plummer who was a starter in Arizona, drafted Cutler, traded for McNabb who was a starter, and was left with Grossman and Beck when he failed to find his guy, but he didn't sign them intending to start them over the initial starter, and I honestly think his intent in the draft was to pick Locker, but that's unprovable, so who knows).

Feeley (as far as I recall, but I could be wrong) wasn't intended to be "the man" with any team he signed with, neither were the others. (And Brohm should be ashamed of himself for even entering the draft he was AWFUL).

I'm not saying it's a high percentage success, but I'd bet if you looked at drafting a QB vs signing a FA QB, they'd have a similar bust rate. To me, having a few extra years, having a guy that OUR coaches can train-up, instead of trying to get someone else's guy to forget everything he's already learned from another pro-coach, is valuable enough that I want the rookie, (not to mention I think at least 3-5 guys in this draft have more potential than Flynn).

Even the borderline hits like Brooks aren't the type of QB you want to build your franchise around.

The borderline ones yeah, but what about the others you mentioned, (Gannon, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Schaub), all 4 of those guys had a team built around them, and saw enormous success. I'd be more than happy with it, if I thought the rookies coming out weren't going to be fantastic, and if I thought Flynn had the potential of THOSE guys. I think he has the potential to be a good QB, but not a perennial pro-bowler. I'd rather gamble and swing for the fences and pick one of the rookies. Sure it could shoot us in the foot, but we're actually going to be in a position to do something we haven't seen in this franchise for about 30 years.

The point is that there are many people who think that signing some guy's backup QB is a great option (because you don't have to worry about missing with a prospect) when it's really not. And that's the thing about these debates - people point out instances where a given non-ideal situation led to success, but the fact is, certain moves result in success more than certain other moves, even if they can both work or fail in a given instance.

I agree, though I think drafting a QB is just as risky as signing someone else's backup, BUT, like I said before I'd rather swing for the fences and miss, than try for a bunt and look like a dumb*** when you don't have anything to show for it. Especially this year.