PokerPacker Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I have read most of the threads regarding Matt Flynn and one thing I have noticed that people fail to mention is that it could end up costing us just as much if not more to sign Flynn rather than trading up to get Luck or RG3. Green Bay is not stupid and they are not just going to let him go. They will probably use a franchise tag on him and then if we negotiated a contract with him and Green Bay doesn't end up matching it and we get him then they would receive compensation. I am not exactly sure what it would cost but it could end up costing something like 2 first round picks. not gonna happen. We're not the Patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I feel like I should just mirror my post from the other thread lol, but I wont'..I'll just ask again: who the **** is matt flynnm and why suddenly, after 2 starts, is a 7th round draft pick supposed to be a better option than robert griffin or andrew luck.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Or we could, you know, just wait until April 26 and find out. This whole thing is a conspiracy by Pfizer and your doctor to get you a Xanax prescription. You mean our 20 years of sadness is all a carefully crafted plan to get everyone on anxiety meds? Wow, they're good. Is there a similar plan involving anti-depressants around Buffalo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I feel like I should just mirror my post from the other thread lol, but I wont'..I'll just ask again: who the **** is matt flynnm and why suddenly, after 2 starts, is a 7th round draft pick supposed to be a better option than robert griffin or andrew luck.. hes not lol peoploe are going crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I feel like I should just mirror my post from the other thread lol, but I wont'..I'll just ask again: who the **** is matt flynnm and why suddenly, after 2 starts, is a 7th round draft pick supposed to be a better option than robert griffin or andrew luck.. I don't think anyone is saying that Matt Flynn is better than RGIII and Andrew Luck. The Matt Flynn clan consist of those that realize this team has way, way more holes to fill than just Quarterback and also realize that by mortgaging our future on RGIII, we also forfeit the ability to continue to build through the draft for the next year or so. I may not want Flynn, but I also don't want to reach for RGIII. That 6th pick can do a lot of good for this team and now is not the time to be trading away first rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJValleySkinz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 hes not lolpeoploe are going crazy. Who knew Matt Hasselbeck, Matt Schaub and Mark Brunell were any good before they got their shot? It's been known to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Who knew Matt Hasselbeck, Matt Schaub and Mark Brunell were any good before they got their shot? It's been known to happen. i didnt know much about hasslebeck to be honest. Matt Schaub i thought would be very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I have read most of the threads regarding Matt Flynn and one thing I have noticed that people fail to mention is that it could end up costing us just as much if not more to sign Flynn rather than trading up to get Luck or RG3. Green Bay is not stupid and they are not just going to let him go. They will probably use a franchise tag on him and then if we negotiated a contract with him and Green Bay doesn't end up matching it and we get him then they would receive compensation. I am not exactly sure what it would cost but it could end up costing something like 2 first round picks. Yeah... not going to happen. No sane franchise would give up two first round picks for Flynn. I don't even think a front office would give up as much for Flynn as the Cardinals did for Kolb. And the Packers may not even be able to use that tag on Flynn. They might have to tag Finley. I think it's more likely that he'll be on the open market. If he is tagged, he would then most likely be traded for far less value than two first round picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Flynn = Grossman 2.0 Dude has only played 2 games in the NFL. I would much rather just get a 2 round QB if we can't Luck/RG3. I don't understand why some people are inflating Flynn value's after one game. I'm not sure it's fair to assume that someone who's looked great in two NFL games won't be better than a second-round draft choice. We at least know he can play in the league as he's competed quite admirably against two playoff teams in his two starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'm not sure it's fair to assume that someone who's looked great in two NFL games won't be better than a second-round draft choice. We at least know he can play in the league as he's competed quite admirably against two playoff teams in his two starts. I agree with that. I'd take Flynn over a 2nd rounder easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I agree with that. I'd take Flynn over a 2nd rounder easily. Not only do you get a comparable QB, but you get to add another talented player via your 2nd round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Not only do you get a comparable QB, but you get to add another talented player via your 2nd round pick. I'd take Foles in the 2nd round over signing Flynn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I have read most of the threads regarding Matt Flynn and one thing I have noticed that people fail to mention is that it could end up costing us just as much if not more to sign Flynn rather than trading up to get Luck or RG3. Green Bay is not stupid and they are not just going to let him go. They will probably use a franchise tag on him and then if we negotiated a contract with him and Green Bay doesn't end up matching it and we get him then they would receive compensation. I am not exactly sure what it would cost but it could end up costing something like 2 first round picks. Yeah... not going to happen. No sane franchise would give up two first round picks for Flynn. I don't even think a front office would give up as much for Flynn as the Cardinals did for Kolb. And the Packers may not even be able to use that tag on Flynn. They might have to tag Finley. I think it's more likely that he'll be on the open market. If he is tagged, he would then most likely be traded for far less value than two first round picks. Packers will most likely tag their TE. Tagging Flynn is beyond stupid because then they're paying him more then Rogers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Packers will most likely tag their TE.Tagging Flynn is beyond stupid because then they're paying him more then Rogers. I thought tagging to get value in trade wasn't going to be allowed under the new CBA, wasn't it a big sticking point from the NFLPA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I thought tagging to get value in trade wasn't going to be allowed under the new CBA, wasn't it a big sticking point from the NFLPA? ive heard that you are correct. i've also heart that the nfl may be lax on this rule. i am betting that tagging flynn would not be allowed, since he would be tagged only for trade value with no real possiblity of keeping him at that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 ive heard that you are correct. i've also heart that the nfl may be lax on this rule. i am betting that tagging flynn would not be allowed, since he would be tagged only for trade value with no real possiblity of keeping him at that price. I guess it's hard to enforce but this one is a bit obvious. He's not even a starter and there's a strong market for his services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I kinda found this mock interesting over on Walterfootball Washington Redskins: Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M Ryan Tannehill at No. 6!?!?! Am I completely insane!? I might be insane, but I don't think Tannehill will be drafted this high. Hear me out: The Redskins will use this selection to acquire a quarterback. I have no doubt about that. They could deal this pick to the Colts for Peyton Manning. They could also move up for Robert Griffin. In the event that those two things can't happen, they may decide to move down to grab Tannehill in the middle of the first round. So, who's a potential trading partner? How about the Bengals? They have two first-round picks, and I'm sure they would love to obtain Trent Richardson. Washington could move down to No. 17 and secure Tannehill at that spot. If Washington doesn't move out of this spot, what can it possibly do anyway? None of the top prospects available make sense here. I considered Dre Kirkpatrick earlier in the week, but he predictably was arrested for pot possession on Tuesday. There's no way he goes in the top 10 now. I don't see us giving up anything for Manning, the Colts have a quandary on their hands, if they commit to Luck they will release Peyton, and if they commit to Peyton they will have a problem getting Luck on board with the potential of having to sit for 3-4 years behind Peyton, the Colts also have to decide pretty quick because of the 28mil due Peyton [i believe by next month] I doubt they can carry both even if luck was OK with it, and I don't see Peyton coming to DC for no amount of money he wants more for his legacy and either the Texans, or 9'ers both have far more to offer as SB contenders right now than us. I think RG3 will be gone before 6, it boils down to how much the Browns want him? And if they do want him they will get him, we can't compete with them for RG3 without really decimating the rest of the team talent wise in which we cannot afford to do considering our talent level So were does that leave us? Well I like the trade down with Cincci scenario and drafting Tannehill it does make sense for us, we get a QB and more picks and we need as many picks as we can get. I would also keep an eye on Peyton if he has his health and becomes a free agent I could see the Texans trying to deal Schaub to us and clear things out for Peyton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJValleySkinz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I kinda found this mock interesting over on WalterfootballWashington Redskins: Ryan Tannehill' date=' QB, Texas A&M Ryan Tannehill at No. 6!?!?! Am I completely insane!? I might be insane, but I don't think Tannehill will be drafted this high. Hear me out: The Redskins will use this selection to acquire a quarterback. I have no doubt about that. They could deal this pick to the Colts for Peyton Manning. They could also move up for Robert Griffin. In the event that those two things can't happen, they may decide to move down to grab Tannehill in the middle of the first round. So, who's a potential trading partner? How about the Bengals? They have two first-round picks, and I'm sure they would love to obtain Trent Richardson. Washington could move down to No. 17 and secure Tannehill at that spot. If Washington doesn't move out of this spot, what can it possibly do anyway? None of the top prospects available make sense here. I considered Dre Kirkpatrick earlier in the week, but he predictably was arrested for pot possession on Tuesday. There's no way he goes in the top 10 now. [/color'] I don't see us giving up anything for Manning, the Colts have a quandary on their hands, if they commit to Luck they will release Peyton, and if they commit to Peyton they will have a problem getting Luck on board with the potential of having to sit for 3-4 years behind Peyton, the Colts also have to decide pretty quick because of the 28mil due Peyton [i believe by next month] I doubt they can carry both even if luck was OK with it, and I don't see Peyton coming to DC for no amount of money he wants more for his legacy and either the Texans, or 9'ers both have far more to offer as SB contenders right now than us. I think RG3 will be gone before 6, it boils down to how much the Browns want him? And if they do want him they will get him, we can't compete with them for RG3 without really decimating the rest of the team talent wise in which we cannot afford to do considering our talent level So were does that leave us? Well I like the trade down with Cincci scenario and drafting Tannehill it does make sense for us, we get a QB and more picks and we need as many picks as we can get. I would also keep an eye on Peyton if he has his health and becomes a free agent I could see the Texans trying to deal Schaub to us and clear things out for Peyton. In today's NFL do you see a team moving up 12 spots into the top 5 for a running back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCitySkin Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 In today's NFL do you see a team moving up 12 spots into the top 5 for a running back? The Chargers moved up 16 spots to draft Ryan Mathews in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJValleySkinz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The Chargers moved up 16 spots to draft Ryan Mathews in 2010. It's not impossible but I have a hard time seeing it happen, especially with the depth this class has at running back. Richardson is special, but even special running backs have gone down in value recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 For what's it worth -- and it ain't much -- the same source who told me Luck signed with Casey Wasserman's agency a week ago -- which I spilled here before it was reported anywhere else -- told me he hears the Skins will go after Manning before Flynn. Also said no one knows how healthy Manning is so it's all kinda meaningless at this point. He also flat-out guaranteed that Manning would be released by the Colts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCitySkin Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It's not impossible but I have a hard time seeing it happen, especially with the depth this class has at running back. Richardson is special, but even special running backs have gone down in value recently. Richardson is rated pretty far ahead of everyone else. I think if a team wants him bad enough they'll trade up. However you are correct in that they made not need to considering how late Ingram was drafted last year. But then again, the Bills drafted C.J. Spiller with the #9 pick in 2010 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 "Citing league sources, ESPN's Adam Schefter reports that the Packers are "unlikely" to place the franchise tag on impending free agent Matt Flynn. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and SI's Peter King had previously suggested that franchising Flynn would at least be a consideration for the Packers, in an effort to pull a sign-and-trade deal. Instead, Green Bay's franchise tag figures to be used on Jermichael Finley. This would make Flynn easier for teams like the Seahawks and Redskins to acquire. He isn't going to cost a draft pick." Link This guy is very intriguing, he had a very good game vs the cheatriots and broke a couple of impressive records vs the Lions. Less than 10 Qbs have thown over 470 yards and 5 TDs in a game. I know that doesn't make him an automatic reliable starter, but when you can put up these numbers you can't be mediocre. Could it be the result of four years of development under coach McCarthy and the tutorship of Rodgers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJValleySkinz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Richardson is rated pretty far ahead of everyone else. I think if a team wants him bad enough they'll trade up. However you are correct in that they made not need to considering how late Ingram was drafted last year. But then again, the Bills drafted C.J. Spiller with the #9 pick in 2010 as well. Perhaps another rush of blood to the head by some team isn't so far fetched. If we need to get out of our pick I'll be hoping for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilco_holland Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Januarie 1912? That's old news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.