Lavarleap56 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I think this thread title is misleading and needs some work imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I'm personally not in favor of making a move for Flynn, nor do I think the eventual compensation for Flynn will be anything close to what people are expecting. I saw 40 MIL above, I sure hope that's not guaranteed. As many of us well know the QB position is the most important position in football, however what many of us neglect is that the QB position is also the most dependent position in football. These fans that neglect the dependency of the QB, can sometimes miss the whole picture. Here's the big picture, it's easy to play QB for the GB Packers, and a hell of a lot easier than it is to be QB for the Washington Redskins. The Redskins #1 WR this year was Jabar Gaffney, he's at best the 4th target in GB behind Jennings/Finley/Nelson, and an argument could be made for Jones/Driver being as talented as Gaffney. So let's put that in perspective our leading receiver, might not even see the field with any regularity on a GB team. Playing QB on a team where targets 1-4 are getting open with relative consistency isn't nearly as difficult as it is to play QB for a team where 1 WR gets separation consistently, which can lead to the dreaded "stare down one receiver". Not only does GB have some of the best pass-catchers at their respective positions in the game, but they also run a very QB friendly scheme, which include a lot of 3-step drop and quick hitting passing plays slants/quick-outs/bubble screens/smoke routes. Anyone who has played QB can tell you just how much they love it when these simple throws getting the ball moving down the field, the throws don't require a high level of difficulty. In addition to that, much like NE, GB runs a lot more shotgun than other teams around the league, again another friend of the QB. Due to these reasons, as well as the "Flynn wasn't game-planned for" argument, I find it hard to believe that Flynn will either continue on to have some great career, or receive compensation similar to what people are expecting. Much more likely is Flynn was the "victim" of a perfect storm. Flynn played with great receivers, in great scheme, against an opponent with a poor secondary and the inability to scheme for a backup QB who lacks film. He's no different than a Cassell/Kolb, QB's who looked great on great teams with solid schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 How do we know he's a game manager? Guys that don't rely on the running game but instead throw for 480 yards and 6 TDs, if that doesn't sound game manager, I don't know what does? Just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 There is more than 4 teams that might go for QB. 49ers, Browns, Seattle, Redskins, Broncos, Chiefs, and Jags. I say let Browns have him for the 40 million dollar contract he is going to get. I rather have RG for 17 million. That other 23 million can be used for other pressing needs. 49ers? Who have Alex Smith leading them to the playoffs and a 13-3 recored and just drafted Kaepernick? Broncos? Who have Tebow and also made the playoffs? If they are replacing Tebow, it won't be with Matt Flynn... Chiefs? Would replace Matt Cassel with Matt Flynn? Really? Jags? Who just traded up last draft to get Gabbert at ten? None of those are realistic at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi6 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Pretty sure if they franchise him they will need to get atleast 1 maybe 2 1st's. And yes that is ridiculous. Pretty sure Flynn would be making more than Rodgers if that were to happen. There is no way he's staying there and there is no way they are going to franchise him. And for the record i do not want him. Agreed! I don't want any backup QBs here. We need to start with a college QB. I am willing to pay the price to get Andrew Luck. In yesterday's game, Brendan Weedon didn't look shabby either. Draft a couple of QB - 1 Franchise, and 1 Backup. Draft tall, physical, speedy WRs, and fill the OL with BEEF -- and, I mean serious beef! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 What leads you to believe that Flynn will come here for a cheap contract? Do you realize how many teams want him right now? He won't be cheap. If it gets a FT from Packers he just becomes more expensive in the form of picks. As I stated before, I'm in favor of signing him, not trading for him. And as I stated before if his price is too high I'd pass. But if he's a FA and would sign a reasonable FA contract to come here to compete for a starting position, I'm game. And again, this doesn't prevent them from drafting RGIII, Luck or any other QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Im sorry but this info and everyone jumping on Flynn to the skins are retarded. First off the people who make the qb decisions is Mike Shanahan and I think he was a little busy on Sunday when Flynn was playing. The "Buzz" is probably just water cooler talk between employees that happens in any office across America on mondays. The Redskins will be linked and discussed with every possible qb from now until April so lets not start a new thread everytime it happens. I never thought I would see the board react so quick based off ONE football game and be all in on the win with Flynn bus. Skins are going to evaluate their roster over the next few weeks then evaluate other teams and possible Fas. I would stay away from tmz aka 980 beat reporter or atleast take the info with a grain of salt. Chris is a good dude but he is a mule that that does what the organization wants, you really think Cyrus would have a job if he was actually breaking and putting real redskins business out there from a team owned station? no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Agreed! I don't want any backup QBs here. We need to start with a college QB. I am willing to pay the price to get Andrew Luck. In yesterday's game, Brendan Weedon didn't look shabby either. Draft a couple of QB - 1 Franchise, and 1 Backup. Draft tall, physical, speedy WRs, and fill the OL with BEEF -- and, I mean serious beef! You don't want a backup 26 yr old QB who shredded a playoff bound team, but you want a rookie who'll turn 29 his rookie year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 As many of us well know the QB position is the most important position in football, however what many of us neglect is that the QB position is also the most dependent position in football. These fans that neglect the dependency of the QB, can sometimes miss the whole picture. This is true. Personally, I am neutral on Flynn. I'd love it if he were the answer because you can likely get him without giving up a draft pick. But I trust Shanny to figure it out, you got 2 games and tape of Flynn in college. For us to have a major opinion here, I don't see how we could based on 2 games one way or another. Shanahan could delve much deeper. Whatever they do, i hope they think big when it comes to QB, I don't want a project. Luck or RG 3 if its the draft and if they love Flynn as a FA, I'll trust it. ---------- Post added January-3rd-2012 at 07:33 PM ---------- Agreed! I don't want any backup QBs here. We need to start with a college QB. I am willing to pay the price to get Andrew Luck. Assuming Luck is for sale, the Colts seem to have been saying he isn't. If so, looks like we have to look at pick #2, RG 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Im sorry but this info and everyone jumping on Flynn to the skins are retarded. First off the people who make the qb decisions is Mike Shanahan and I think he was a little busy on Sunday when Flynn was playing. The "Buzz" is probably just water cooler talk between employees that happens in any office across America on mondays. The Redskins will be linked and discussed with every possible qb from now until April so lets not start a new thread everytime it happens. I never thought I would see the board react so quick based off ONE football game and be all in on the win with Flynn bus. Skins are going to evaluate their roster over the next few weeks then evaluate other teams and possible Fas. I would stay away from tmz aka 980 beat reporter or atleast take the info with a grain of salt. Chris is a good dude but he is a mule that that does what the organization wants, you really think Cyrus would have a job if he was actually breaking and putting real redskins business out there from a team owned station? no. To be fair this is a message board for Skins fans to talk Skins football. I think discussion on whether the team should sign, trade or draft any player whether mentioned in a media rumor or not seems fair game. I agree that getting worked up as if it's a done deal is a bit excessive, however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 To be fair this is a message board for Skins fans to talk Skins football. I think discussion on whether the team should sign, trade or draft any player whether mentioned in a media rumor or not seems fair game. I agree that getting worked up as if it's a done deal is a bit excessive, however... a sign Mary Flynn thread was already going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Everyone seems to want to focus on the lions game but what about the Patriots? Flynn had a good game last week with help but his other Start he played OK but cost the packers the game with back to back turnovers ( bad int, fumble). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Everyone seems to want to focus on the lions game but what about the Patriots? Flynn had a good game last week with help but his other Start he played OK but cost the packers the game with back to back turnovers ( bad int, fumble). Good Matt, Bad Matt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jivelikenice Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 As I stated before, I'm in favor of signing him, not trading for him. And as I stated before if his price is too high I'd pass. But if he's a FA and would sign a reasonable FA contract to come here to compete for a starting position, I'm game.And again, this doesn't prevent them from drafting RGIII, Luck or any other QB. I agree with you that the only way I'd bring in Flynn is w/o any compensation. If they franchise him then that's the end of that. In an ideal world I think 99% of us would take RGIII over Flynn, but looking at the compensation is important. If we get Flynn w/o using any picks we still have a full allotment of picks plus an extra 4th rounder from Oakland in addition to a good amount of cap space and all of our future #1s. RGIII will cost us at least two #1's and a #2 this year. Would you rather have Flynn, the 6th pick in this draft, a 2nd rounder this year, and a 1st rounder next year or RGIII Its a fair debate For me the positives are that Flynn comes from a system that seems very similar to what we run. They run a lot of play action, roll-outs, & bootlegs and they work the intermediate passing game. GB obviously has a lot more weapons then we do but with out picks and cap space we might be able to begin putting together a deep roster and get some playmakers. I also think if you draft Flynn you hedge your bet and take a QB in the Rd 3-5 range. But if you take RGIII you have a chance to get a playmaker who can bring up the performance of the entire team around him. While Flynn may function very well if he has good parts around him, RGIII might be able to do more with less. My preference if the price doesn't go higher than 2 #1's and a #2 is still RGIII, but I am concerned that we will lose depth. Most of the teams still playing are still playing because they have deep rosters that are able to withstand injuries. Now some of that is based on their QB play, but some is based on having starting caliber players on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 a sign Mary Flynn thread was already going. You've said before you think the Browns will target him. If so the Flynn debate actually means something to the QB derby regardless if we are the team that signs him. If the Browns sign Flynn it takes away the one competitor for Qb who can EASILY outbid us for the #1 or #2 pick. Arguably, we are in the drivers seat in a bidding war against the Dolphins, Seattle, etc because we got the higher pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jivelikenice Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 You've said before you think the Browns will target him. If so the Flynn debate actually means something to the QB derby regardless if we are the team that signs him. If the Browns sign Flynn it takes away the one competitor for Qb who can EASILY outbid us for the #1 or #2 pick. Arguably, we are in the drivers seat in a bidding war against the Dolphins, Seattle, etc because we got the higher pick. Its gives us an advantage but if the Dolphins decide they need RGIII and are willing to trade their entire draft, they can drive up the price on us. Considering they need to sell tickets its possible a team like them does something like that. The other thing is timing. Because FA is before the draft, if we pass on Flynn or he signs elsewhere we lose some leverage because St Louis will know that we don't have any other options and we have to come out of the draft with RGIII. If we pass on Flynn, the FO must be sure that they can live with potentially losing out on RGIII and being comfortable with the next best QB available (tannehill?). or they have to have a contingency plan on other backup qbs they can target in draft day trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 You've said before you think the Browns will target him. If so the Flynn debate actually means something to the QB derby regardless if we are the team that signs him. If the Browns sign Flynn it takes away the one competitor for Qb who can EASILY outbid us for the #1 or #2 pick. Arguably, we are in the drivers seat in a bidding war against the Dolphins, Seattle, etc because we got the higher pick. Yeah I think Flynn ends up going to Cleveland and yes that helps out draft situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jivelikenice Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yeah I think Flynn ends up going to Cleveland and yes that helps out draft situation. You don't think it might hurt us in that St Louis will know we have limited options? The only way around that would be if we sign a decent bridge type QB in free agency prior to the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichmondRedskin88 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 This thread reminds me of the Greg McElroy and Ryan Mallet threads months back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I agree with you that the only way I'd bring in Flynn is w/o any compensation. If they franchise him then that's the end of that. In an ideal world I think 99% of us would take RGIII over Flynn, but looking at the compensation is important. If we get Flynn w/o using any picks we still have a full allotment of picks plus an extra 4th rounder from Oakland in addition to a good amount of cap space and all of our future #1s. RGIII will cost us at least two #1's and a #2 this year. Would you rather have Flynn, the 6th pick in this draft, a 2nd rounder this year, and a 1st rounder next year or RGIII Its a fair debate For me the positives are that Flynn comes from a system that seems very similar to what we run. They run a lot of play action, roll-outs, & bootlegs and they work the intermediate passing game. GB obviously has a lot more weapons then we do but with out picks and cap space we might be able to begin putting together a deep roster and get some playmakers. I also think if you draft Flynn you hedge your bet and take a QB in the Rd 3-5 range. But if you take RGIII you have a chance to get a playmaker who can bring up the performance of the entire team around him. While Flynn may function very well if he has good parts around him, RGIII might be able to do more with less. My preference if the price doesn't go higher than 2 #1's and a #2 is still RGIII, but I am concerned that we will lose depth. Most of the teams still playing are still playing because they have deep rosters that are able to withstand injuries. Now some of that is based on their QB play, but some is based on having starting caliber players on the bench. Nothing says we can't have Flynn and RGIII. If you sign Flynn as a FA, you can still make a move to get RGIII. Or Luck or anyone else Shanny wants. Flynn replaces Beck. The question is who our other QB will be, preferably a rookie. If I'm Shanny I sign Flynn to a reasonable contract with the promise he can compete for the starting gig. Last year with Grossman and Beck proves I will do that. Then come draft I am seeing what it would take to get Luck. Too expensive? I ask about RGIII. If both out of reach than I grab a QB later. Again we need more than one QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yeah I think Flynn ends up going to Cleveland and yes that helps out draft situation. It helps it a lot if he ends up there IMO. Not many teams in the QB market would be willing to spend as much as it would cost to move to #1 or 2 outside of us. Maybe nobody else. Browns are the biggest threat if they don't go with Flynn. That would dramatically lower the cost of trading to #1 if there isn't a bidding war for it. And help a ton with moving to #2 if someone else does want to play ball for #1. assuming the colts don't just sit there and take Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlkyCaramel Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Nothing says we can't have Flynn and RGIII. If you sign Flynn as a FA, you can still make a move to get RGIII. Or Luck or anyone else Shanny wants. Flynn replaces Beck. The question is who our other QB will be, preferably a rookie. If I'm Shanny I sign Flynn to a reasonable contract with the promise he can compete for the starting gig. Last year with Grossman and Beck proves I will do that. Then come draft I am seeing what it would take to get Luck. Too expensive? I ask about RGIII. If both out of reach than I grab a QB later. Again we need more than one QB. I agree with this 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yeah I think Flynn ends up going to Cleveland and yes that helps out draft situation. Hey Leap - was reading this quote from Demoff and thought it sounded kind of strange - like not throwing support to your young QB. Thoughts? http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLRams/tabid/137/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8056/Demoff-Speaks-Devaney-Releases-a-Statement.aspx I asked Demoff if the team had a direction it was leaning toward in terms of what kind of philosophy it wanted the new coach to implement, or if team officials would defer to the new coach. His answer was a bit surprising, “I think we would like to win. The philosophy is going to be what gets us close to building a consistent winner. It’s not excelling on defense, it’s not excelling on offense, it’s not building around a (QB) Sam Bradford,” Demoff said. “It’s winning football games year-in and year-out and being consistent in having a way to win in multiple forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 i'm a little surprised many posters are not liking this possible move. we've had almost entirely crap for QB's for decades- decades, folks. we probably wont be able to get luck no matter what. we might be able to get RG3. might - but would likely have to trade multiple picks to do so. this, for a guy who may be great, may not be. we could get flynn- a guy who has actually played an NFL game (one record setting game), at the moment, for nothing more than $ - which we have plenty of, and use our many picks to build around him. folks, the draft is a crapshoot anyway. always has been. here is a guy who plays in a system that is said to be a carbon copy of our own there for the taking. we think a qb that we may not even be able to get is the answer? get flynn. get RG3 if he falls to you. if not, go BPA at 6.get a tannehill or weeden later in the draft. we've had nothing at QB for too long. we need as many options as possible. there is no downside. its a no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I think we have three options. 1) Robert Griffin III 2) Matt Flynn 3) Landry Jones. You get one or the other, I don't think you get Flynn anf RGIII that doesn't make sense imo. I am fully against trading up to get anyone this year frankly, we just have too many positions where we need help in. Stockpile talent and go for a "gem in the rough" QB like Tannenhill or Keenum if necessary. I don't think we are in a very good spot really, but it all depends on the Browns. We can still snag RGIII at #6 if they bypass him. Trading up just to guarantee that we get him seems foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.