Per Chris Russell on Twitter: Redskins excited about Matt Flynn

[Epochalypse]

I think Flynn will be swayed as much by his realistic chance at starting as he will any money that's thrown at him...GMs are definitely gonna make it seem as if it's his job to lose, if for no other reason than to hopefully get him to sign.

See above about Moore...

As for Jackson:

Tarvaris Jackson had games with QB ratings of 69, 69, 60, 55 and 40...they were 2-3 in those games.

He had games where his yards per attempt average was 6.3, 6.2, 5.8, 5.5, 5.5, 5.3, and 4.8...they were 2-5 in those games.

Both of those stats have been a consistent part of Jackson's season each year of his career. It's a pattern.

The Seahawks had the 9th ranked defense but the 22nd ranked passing offense...and Jackson's TD% was an enemic 3.1%. Even Moore's was significantly better at 4.6%.

No way any GM or coach worth his salt would not be thinking they need an upgrade over Tarvaris Jackson and what a real upgrade would mean. Giving Flynn the definite impression that it's his job to lose would hardly be a shock.

Giving Flynn the impression that he's automatically the starter over Jackson and actually doing it would cause a lot of bad blood. They brought Jackson in and even brought his WR Sidney Rice in because they wanted to give Jackson a chance. It's Jackson's former OC from Minnesota that brought him in. To say after one year when his top WR was hurt for most of it that he's lost his job to Matt Flynn, you know the guy with 2 starts, after winning 7 games this year sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If it's a chance to start we offer a better chance than either the Dolphins or Seattle. Grossman is a FA and TO machine. Beck did nothing. All he has to do is beat out a rookie that we MIGHT draft high. If we miss out on Luck or RGIII, he's probably assured the job.

[1972FAN]

"According to ESPN 980 Washington's Chris Russell, impending free agent Matt Flynn's six-touchdown Week 17 game "generated a lot of buzz and positive chatter" in the Redskins' organization.

Source: Chris Russell on Twitter"

the packers franchise tagging their backup QB may be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard

Agreed, its laughable, than the Cheeseheads are stuck paying TWO BIG $$$ QB's and one would be riding the pine BIG GAMBLE for the Cheeseheads Because nobody is going to pay him 10 million a year because of one game and now he's franchised. Its probably actually more than that if they franchise him and if nobody bites than there stuck paying him. I would love for that to blow up in there face for being greedy.

[Water Boy]

i have no idea if flynn is great or not. but here we are nit picking a game tape in which he outperformed the likes of favre and rodgers (and starr). the man had an awesome game in his third start as a pro.

i think thats impressive no matter how we dissect it.

If I am about to pay a guy Millions of Dollars and hand him the keys to my franchise you can bet I am going to be nip picking were nip picking is warranted. Dude has started 2 games and maybe he is the real deal even though history points that at best he will only be good and not great and just got lucky. Backups in this league moving into starting jobs has not proved to be fruitful more times then not and I think that the gamble is to great on a former 7th rounder. If the Skins do sign Flynn they better use every draft pick over the next 2 years to build the next 85 Bears or 01 Ravens defense because the chances of Flynn being among one of the top 10 QB's in QB Rating is real slim and the Skins will need true dominate defense.

[grego]

If I am about to pay a guy Millions of Dollars and hand him the keys to my franchise you can bet I am going to be nip picking were nip picking is warranted. Dude has started 2 games and maybe he is the real deal even though history points that at best he will only be good and not great and just got lucky. Backups in this league moving into starting jobs has not proved to be fruitful more times then not and I think that the gamble is to great on a former 7th rounder. If the Skins do sign Flynn they better use every draft pick over the next 2 years to build the next 85 Bears or 01 Ravens defense because the chances of Flynn being among one of the top 10 QB's in QB Rating is real slim and the Skins will need true dominate defense.

i actually agree with you.

what i'm saying is that the guy, by all accounts, had a phenomenal game. it may be a fluke, but it might not be. i like football outsiders piece on his game. the cost for a franchise in desperate- beyond desperate- need of a legit QB, may be nothing more than money we have to spend.

we absolutely need to do our homework and nit pick everything we can about him from a scouting standpoint.

luck is, maybe, a once in a lifetime player, RG3 may be too. we may not be able to get either one even if we wanted to. fllynn plays in a system that is said to be a carbon copy of our own, and he's a FA we cant afford to not take advantage of this.

[Epochalypse]

If I am about to pay a guy Millions of Dollars and hand him the keys to my franchise you can bet I am going to be nip picking were nip picking is warranted. Dude has started 2 games and maybe he is the real deal even though history points that at best he will only be good and not great and just got lucky. Backups in this league moving into starting jobs has not proved to be fruitful more times then not and I think that the gamble is to great on a former 7th rounder. If the Skins do sign Flynn they better use every draft pick over the next 2 years to build the next 85 Bears or 01 Ravens defense because the chances of Flynn being among one of the top 10 QB's in QB Rating is real slim and the Skins will need true dominate defense.

Signing Flynn is not the same thing as handing him the keys to the franchise. It does offer the possibility of removing them from Grossman however.

"History points that at best he will only be good and not great and just got lucky"? Really? How does history show that at all?

Backups moving into starting jobs not being fruitful? You mean like Brady going from backup to starter, Rodgers going from backup to starter? Philip Rivers going from backup to starter? Steve Young? Some of the best QBs in the league didn't start immediately.

Wow

[1972FAN]

Signing Flynn is not the same thing as handing him the keys to the franchise. It does offer the possibility of removing them from Grossman however.

"History points that at best he will only be good and not great and just got lucky"? Really? How does history show that at all?

Backups moving into starting jobs not being fruitful? You mean like Brady going from backup to starter, Rodgers going from backup to starter? Philip Rivers going from backup to starter? Steve Young? Some of the best QBs in the league didn't start immediately.

Wow

Now to be fare lets look at ALL the Weapons THOSE teams have or had. Coming to the Redskins is not even on the table in camparison to those teams. Rodgers would be running for his life and out with concussions again.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Giving Flynn the impression that he's automatically the starter over Jackson and actually doing it would cause a lot of bad blood.

That's why they give the impression of "it's yours to lose"...it doesn't mean he can't lose it to another QB on the roster, and it means he still has to deliver in OTAs, training camp and preseason. They don't give him the starting job if he ****s the bed, and how that could cause bad blood is beyond me. But if he does a good job they make him starter. "You perform the way we believe you can perform and you're our starting QB" is different than "We liked how (fill in the blank) performed for us last year,. but if you beat him out in training camp we'll make you the starter".

They brought Jackson in and even brought his WR Sidney Rice in because they wanted to give Jackson a chance. It's Jackson's former OC from Minnesota that brought him in. To say after one year when his top WR was hurt for most of it that he's lost his job to Matt Flynn, you know the guy with 2 starts, after winning 7 games this year sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I doubt the OC is gonna have last say on who is their starting QB lol...And to me, sticking with hot and extremely cold Tarvaris Jackson simply because you have his old OC on staff and he eeked out 7 wins in between some seriously putrid games is a recipe for an even larger disaster. It would be like us passing on Flynn if Rex won 2 more games this season lol..and he very well may have if Haslett doesn't call a zero blitz in the first Cowboys game and Gano connects on that OT field goal in the 2nd Dallas game.

If it's a chance to start we offer a better chance than either the Dolphins or Seattle. Grossman is a FA and TO machine. Beck did nothing. All he has to do is beat out a rookie that we MIGHT draft high. If we miss out on Luck or RGIII, he's probably assured the job.

But if we draft RG3 Flynn's chance of starting might drop drastically, especially if we move up to get him. Now THAT would cause bad blood I would think, because you know Flynn will be asking about the realistic chance of being a team's long-term answer at QB.

[1972FAN]

TWO "once in a lifetime players"?? lol ...

Agreed, Peyton Mannig did not look like a once in a lifetime player coming out. But according to the so called analysts Ryan leaf did?? Luck and Griff III They both definetly looked good in college weather its transitions will see.

[grego]

TWO "once in a lifetime players"?? lol ...

good point. how about 2 really good prospects?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

luck is, maybe, a once in a lifetime player, RG3 may be too.

TWO "once in a lifetime players"?? lol ...

[grego]

TWO "once in a lifetime players"?? lol ...

good point. how about 2 really good prospects?

[Epochalypse]

That's why they give the impression of "it's yours to lose"...it doesn't mean he can't lose it to another QB on the roster, and it means he still has to deliver in OTAs, training camp and preseason. They don't give him the starting job if he ****s the bed, and how that could cause bad blood is beyond me. But if he does a good job they make him starter. "You perform the way we believe you can perform and you're our starting QB" is different than "We liked how (fill in the blank) performed for us last year,. but if you beat him out in training camp we'll make you the starter".

I doubt the OC is gonna have last say on who is their starting QB lol...And to me, sticking with hot and extremely cold Tarvaris Jackson simply because you have his old OC on staff and he eeked out 7 wins in between some seriously putrid games is a recipe for an even larger disaster. It would be like us passing on Flynn if Rex won 2 more games this season lol..and he very well may have if Haslett doesn't call a zero blitz in the first Cowboys game and Gano connects on that OT field goal in the 2nd Dallas game.

But if we draft RG3 Flynn's chance of starting might drop drastically, especially if we move up to get him. Now THAT would cause bad blood I would think, because you know Flynn will be asking about the realistic chance of being a team's long-term answer at QB.

Telling a guy with 2 starts the job is his to lose will most likely upset your incumbent, who by the way played most of the year with a pectoral injury. Might have affected his throwing a bit...earned the respect of teammates...all that jazz...

And if you doubt an OC has any say about the QB...Kyle would like a word...and again, Tavaris dealt with a pectoral injury and was without his top WR most of the year.

As for Flynn not liking the idea of competing against a rookie, people are pegging him to go to CLE, who has a better chance of taking RGIII than we do. We offer hands down the best shot at starting in the entire league. Our previous starter had 30 TOs and is now a FA. Our backup did nothing and is expendable. We might have to trade up to get one of the two top available QBs in the draft who could start right away. If he wants to start, we offer the best shot.

[Water Boy]

Signing Flynn is not the same thing as handing him the keys to the franchise. It does offer the possibility of removing them from Grossman however.

"History points that at best he will only be good and not great and just got lucky"? Really? How does history show that at all?

Backups moving into starting jobs not being fruitful? You mean like Brady going from backup to starter, Rodgers going from backup to starter? Philip Rivers going from backup to starter? Steve Young? Some of the best QBs in the league didn't start immediately.

Wow

I guess I should have said backups from other teams starting for a different teams. Examples: Kolb, Rosenfeles,C. Whitehurst,Trent Green, T. Jackson ext. Some have been good but not great. Also you are comparing Rodgers and Rivers who were 1st round picks to Flynn that is a bit unreasonable. And if people want to use Brady that is just being delusional to think that just maybe Flynn is the next T. Brady. S. Young was a good example of a QB that did go from back up on 1 team to starter on another and don't forget Farve as well. But for every Farve and Young I can give you 10 that did not play great they may have played just good.

[grego]

As for Flynn not liking the idea of competing against a rookie, people are pegging him to go to CLE, who has a better chance of taking RGIII than we do. We offer hands down the best shot at starting in the entire league. Our previous starter had 30 TOs and is now a FA. Our backup did nothing and is expendable. We might have to trade up to get one of the two top available QBs in the draft who could start right away. If he wants to start, we offer the best shot.

interesting point. hypothetically, all money being equal, where would flynn prefer to go? as much as i criticize our offensive talent, cleveland is easily worse. and i'm not sure they give up on mccoy anyway. seattle could make a run at him. maybe miami. they do have marshall.

i would say all those teams have better QB's in place than we do, yet all may be looking to upgrade. sad as it is to admit.

[Epochalypse]

I guess I should have said backups from other teams starting for a different teams. Examples: Kolb, Rosenfeles,C. Whitehurst,Trent Green, T. Jackson ext. Some have been good but not great. Also you are comparing Rodgers and Rivers who were 1st round picks to Flynn that is a bit unreasonable. And if people want to use Brady that is just being delusional to think that just maybe Flynn is the next T. Brady. S. Young was a good example of a QB that did go from back up on 1 team to starter on another and don't forget Farve as well. But for every Farve and Young I can give you 10 that did not play great they may have played just good.

To be fair Trent Green did really well after leaving the Skins for the Rams, and then you have Favre and Matt Schaub. So it does happen.

[KCClybun]

luck is, maybe, a once in a lifetime player, RG3 may be too. we may not be able to get either one even if we wanted to. fllynn plays in a system that is said to be a carbon copy of our own, and he's a FA we cant afford to not take advantage of this.

1.) "Said to be a carbon copy of ours" by who? There are elements of our offense that are similiar to Green Bay's, maybe some of the terminology is similiar-ish, but when I look at the Green Bay offense, our offense, and an offense like the Houston Texans (which is legitimately the same as our offense), I see a lot of differences. From an idealogical standpoint their similiar (they're both basically the Vertical West Coast Offense), but I think the systems themselves, just giving the eyeball test, are a lot different. Just one difference is our reliance on the run game; our whole scheme works a lot better when we're running the ball, and that goes for the Texans too. Green Bay..not so much. They run play action and boot, but they all do a lot more spread sets and operating out of shotgun. There's a difference.

2.) We can't afford for Mike to completely whiff on Flynn either. Give him a 4-year, $38 million deal or something like that, and then Flynn comes in and plays like butt, and it's the third straight year where Mike Shanahan has signed/traded for another teams quarterback that they didn't want and put in the starting role. And I'm not saying Flynn will be bad. I'm just saying we need to put everything in the proper perspective.

Mike whiffing on his fourth quarterback in three years would shorten his leash a lot more that developing a quarterback that's not Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Again, not saying he's gonna whiff if he decides Flynn's worth it, but again...perspective. If the fear is that Mike doesn't have time to develop a quarterback before his contract is over or before he gets fired, then you have to also accept the fear that missing on another team's quarterback for the third straight year would make his seat considerably warmer.

The idea needs to be modified; we may not be able to afford missing on another quarterback, but we must do our due dilligence and examine all possible options as much as possible, and not get caught up in one guy to be the savior. We have to keep our options as open as possible.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Telling a guy with 2 starts the job is his to lose will most likely upset your incumbent, who by the way played most of the year with a pectoral injury. Might have affected his throwing a bit...earned the respect of teammates...all that jazz...

Yes, by all means keep the QB position mediocre because you didn't want to upset the incumbent lol...as for the "respect of teammates" aspect, you think Shanahan worried about what Santana Moss might think when he benched Rex? Moss was going public in favor of Rex at the time. Good coaches and good GMs do what they can to improve the most important position on the team and don't give two ****s about players momentary emotional responses. If/when their move is proven to be the right one, it's all water under the bridge anyway.

And if you doubt an OC has any say about the QB...Kyle would like a word...and again, Tavaris dealt with a pectoral injury and was without his top WR most of the year.

I didn't say the OC didn't have ANY say...I said the OC won't have the last word on who the starting QB will be. And if YOU think Shanahan is gonna let ANYONE take that call away from him, even his son lol...really, now.

And Rex was without his starting LT, RT, Center, starting and back-up TEs, and starting WR for 4 games...you really think Shanahan is letting ANY of that dictate his actions? There's a reason coaches and GMs watch tape. Tarvaris' weaknesses will be more than evident to them and will play a MUCH larger role in whether or not they go after another QB than what the record is or any injury excuses.

As for Flynn not liking the idea of competing against a rookie

Jeebus lol :doh:...

I didn't say anything about not Flynn liking competing against a rookie...I said that trading UP to draft RG3 would definitely send a message to Flynn that he's not in their long-range plans, and could cause bad blood if they made it seem as if he were. Drafting Jason Campbell sent that message to Ramsey, drafting Rivers sent that message to Brees...and it should have, in both cases. We just had a long-ass thread where everyone constantly talked about how "this" team or "that" team would not give up on a QB they just drafted last year and draft another one high. Drafting RG3 high--and giving up extra draft picks to get him--would indeed be giving up on Flynn before he's even given a chance to make it to training camp lol...

...people are pegging him to go to CLE, who has a better chance of taking RGIII than we do.

That's because Holmgren has a history of taking other team's promising backups and winning with them (Favre, Hasslebeck).

We offer hands down the best shot at starting in the entire league. Our previous starter had 30 TOs and is now a FA. Our backup did nothing and is expendable. We might have to trade up to get one of the two top available QBs in the draft who could start right away. If he wants to start, we offer the best shot.

So are you saying that we wouldn't even have to say anything to Flynn about his chances of being a starter other than "Welp, we'll see"? Players pay more attention to coach's and GM's words during interviews and visits than they do their own outside assumptions about teams situations. If all of the teams he visits say the same thing, then you're right, he'll assess each situation and determine which one offers the best chance to start. But not every team is gonna say the same thing.

[Epochalypse]

interesting point. hypothetically, all money being equal, where would flynn prefer to go? as much as i criticize our offensive talent, cleveland is easily worse. and i'm not sure they give up on mccoy anyway. seattle could make a run at him. maybe miami. they do have marshall.

i would say all those teams have better QB's in place than we do, yet all may be looking to upgrade. sad as it is to admit.

Right now all we have in place is Beck and Crompton. Grossman is a FA.

[Lavarleap56]

Telling a guy with 2 starts the job is his to lose will most likely upset your incumbent, who by the way played most of the year with a pectoral injury. Might have affected his throwing a bit...earned the respect of teammates...all that jazz...

And if you doubt an OC has any say about the QB...Kyle would like a word...and again, Tavaris dealt with a pectoral injury and was without his top WR most of the year.

As for Flynn not liking the idea of competing against a rookie, people are pegging him to go to CLE, who has a better chance of taking RGIII than we do. We offer hands down the best shot at starting in the entire league. Our previous starter had 30 TOs and is now a FA. Our backup did nothing and is expendable. We might have to trade up to get one of the two top available QBs in the draft who could start right away. If he wants to start, we offer the best shot.

Flynns best chance to start is as a member of the Cleveland Browns. Mike Holmgren already tried to trade with Green Bay to bring him in as a starter but packers were not interested. Flynn will get a decent check and a guaranteed starter position from the browns the way it looks right now.

[CjSuAvE22]

RGIII and Andrew Luck are no more proven then Matt Flynn im sorry...and Flynn makes the best sense to get him we just gotta pay him we dont have to waste a pick on him also he will be familiar with NFL defenses as im sure he has viewed much more tape then Luck or Griffin on actual NFL defenses...Luck and RG3 may be good or may not be good the same goes for Flynn except to get him we have to invest much less.

[Epochalypse]

1.) "Said to be a carbon copy of ours" by who? There are elements of our offense that are similiar to Green Bay's, maybe some of the terminology is similiar-ish, but when I look at the Green Bay offense, our offense, and an offense like the Houston Texans (which is legitimately the same as our offense), I see a lot of differences. From an idealogical standpoint their similiar (they're both basically the Vertical West Coast Offense), but I think the systems themselves, just giving the eyeball test, are a lot different. Just one difference is our reliance on the run game; our whole scheme works a lot better when we're running the ball, and that goes for the Texans too. Green Bay..not so much. They run play action and boot, but they all do a lot more spread sets and operating out of shotgun. There's a difference.

2.) We can't afford for Mike to completely whiff on Flynn either. Give him a 4-year, $38 million deal or something like that, and then Flynn comes in and plays like butt, and it's the third straight year where Mike Shanahan has signed/traded for another teams quarterback that they didn't want and put in the starting role. And I'm not saying Flynn will be bad. I'm just saying we need to put everything in the proper perspective.

Mike whiffing on his fourth quarterback in three years would shorten his leash a lot more that developing a quarterback that's not Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Again, not saying he's gonna whiff if he decides Flynn's worth it, but again...perspective. If the fear is that Mike doesn't have time to develop a quarterback before his contract is over or before he gets fired, then you have to also accept the fear that missing on another team's quarterback for the third straight year would make his seat considerably warmer.

The idea needs to be modified; we may not be able to afford missing on another quarterback, but we must do our due dilligence and examine all possible options as much as possible, and not get caught up in one guy to be the savior. We have to keep our options as open as possible.

Signing Flynn doesn't guarantee he'll be the starter, just that he'll have the chance to compete for it. If I were GM, I still am trying to get Luck, RGIII, or someone else in that order. What it does is change my QB depth chart from "Grossman/Beck" to either "Flynn/draft pick" or "draft pick/Flynn" both of which I like better than "Grossman/Beck". Again if Shanny doesn't think he's a fit this is all a moot point, but if Shanny thinks he works, why not sign him to compete with the rookie? If the rookie wins, Flynn becomes possible trade bait down the road. If Flynn wins, gives the rookie a year or two to develop. Either way we win and are stronger at the position going forward.

[MrJL]

And, the Browns have two first.

I think if they're willing to do two firsts for one QB they'd probably go for a rookie. Teams negotiate hard for these things and the Pack probably can't afford to actually keep Flynn if he's franchised

[Lavarleap56]

RGIII and Andrew Luck are no more proven then Matt Flynn im sorry...and Flynn makes the best sense to get him we just gotta pay him we dont have to waste a pick on him also he will be familiar with NFL defenses as im sure he has viewed much more tape then Luck or Griffin on actual NFL defenses...Luck and RG3 may be good or may not be good the same goes for Flynn except to get him we have to invest much less.

the problem with this thinking is your not projecting what luck, RG3 will become in 4 years vs what Flynn is now.

[Epochalypse]

Flynns best chance to start is as a member of the Cleveland Browns. Mike Holmgren already tried to trade with Green Bay to bring him in as a starter but packers were not interested. Flynn will get a decent check and a guaranteed starter position from the browns the way it looks right now.

And this is still good for us because it makes it less likely they draft RGIII at 4, making it more likely we get RGIII. How can you all not like Matt Flynn?

[SlkyCaramel]

I think if they're willing to do two firsts for one QB they'd probably go for a rookie. Teams negotiate hard for these things and the Pack probably can't afford to actually keep Flynn if he's franchised

If the Browns use their two firsts, it will be in a trade with the Colts for Luck. If the Browns don't take Flynn, then I only see them trading up with the Colts to get Luck. If not, they take RG3 with the 4th pick and if we trade with the Rams or Vikings to get him first then they just take Richardson probably.