Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Per Rotoworld (1/19/12): Redskins very interested in signing Matt Flynn

Alaskins

By Alaskins
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

issapunk

issapunk

Posted
Posted

Everyone says that Shanny is all 'smoke and mirrors' before the draft, which I agree with to an extent, but didn't he say last year that the number 1 priority was getting a pass rusher opposite Orakpo? Then we went ahead and traded down and got Kerrigan.

Maybe he said this because he wanted Locker and also really did need the pass rusher, which was obvious. I know he only says what he needs to and picks his words very carefully so it can be mulled over exactly as he likes, but just some food for thought.

Also, it's crazy people would rather have a 2nd round, low graded QB to Matt Flynn. I am not very high on Flynn and would rather have Griffin or Luck and maybe Tannehil, but the guy has actually played in 2 NFL games and completed many passes and many touchdowns. None of which any single one of these qb's in the draft have done. Not saying he's better than Luck, but he's shown he is capable, where the chance of even finding a capable qb in the 2nd round is so low. This guy is my 3rd choice, maybe 4th after Manning. I feel like Manning would be here for a quick run and our offense would be so different, not worth it in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skins3000

Skins3000

Posted
Posted
I kinda found this mock interesting over on Walterfootball

Washington 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.

---------- Post added January-20th-2012 at 09:23 AM ----------

Highly unlikely, one Peyton is older than Schaub and Schaub is under contract at a reasonable price. Two, Peyton will be a free agent because the Colts cannot franchise Peyton the Colts only have two options either pay the bonus on March 8 or release him because no team is going to trade for him with those obscene numbers not knowing if Peyton can last a year with that neck problem. Peyton has made that clear that he is not moving back any option dates and a decision would have to be made. I really do not know much about Tannehill based on what I have read from some of the fan base here though Ryan is not worthy of a first round grade according to most of the fans here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinC

MartinC

Posted
Posted
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?

Your correct - its expicitly forbidden under the CBA. Proving it is not going to be easy, though a case of tagging your second string QB with a one year tender way more than you are paying your ALL Pro starter would seem like an open and shut case to me.

The Packers will not tag Flynn and I doubt we will be players for him anyway.

---------- Post added January-20th-2012 at 07:20 AM ----------

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..

If Flynn is a free agent (which he will be) why is it either Flynn or RGIII? Signing Flynn would not stop us drafting RGIII.

For the record I dont think we will sign Flynn, all smoke signals are that if we are looking at a free agent to be the starter we are interested in Peyton Manning if he released and if he is healthy (two big ifs there). However whatever we do in the draft we need to sign at least one free agent QB who is a credible starting option in case we either dont get RGIII in the draft and/or in case whatever rookie we do draft is not ready to start on day 1.

So in summary its not (insert name of man crush free agent QB) or (insert name of man crush 1st round prospect) - its both IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hooper

Hooper

Posted
Posted
Why are the Texans so quick to give up on Shuabb? Thought he has played well enough for them to win any game.

They aren't. I'm not sure where anyone is getting this from. Yates played okay for a 6th round rookie -- he's better than Leinart by a mile -- but that team is stacked and would have whipped the Ravens IMO with Schaub under center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins4ever

Redskins4ever

Posted
Posted
From Rotoworld:

Citing sources inside the organization, ESPN 980 Washington's Chris Russell reports the Redskins are "very interested" in free agent QB Matt Flynn.

Please, no free agent QB signings. They hardly ever work out. The truth revealed is you have to draft your own QB. Flynn, while playing great in relief of Aaron Rodgers, is not a starting quarterback and can't be evaluated fairly on just two games played as a backup. He's a back up QB. If he were a starter, I would probably be all for it. Flynn is overrated. He hasn't done squat on a regular basis. So, he's impossible to evaluate. If Mike Shanahan and Kyle Shanahan are naive to believe that Matt Flynn, who has only played in two games the last two years, is the long term answer at QB for the Redskins, then neither of them know quarterbacks as much as they claim.

ESPN's Mel Kiper told reporters earlier in the day that "grapevine" talk suggested the Redskins didn't have a high opinion of Flynn. Russell knows "for sure," though, that coach Mike Shanahan and OC Kyle Shanahan had a "detailed conversation" two weeks ago on Flynn's six-touchdown, 480-yard performance against the Lions in the regular season finale. Whereas Charley Casserly suggested Flynn wouldn't be a good fit for the Redskins offense, one team source tells Russell the two systems are "almost the same."

I didn't see this posted anywhere. I know we have a Matt Flynn thread going, but I thought that this qualified as new news. I wouldn't be opposed to grabbing Flynn in FA and trying to shore up some of the other areas of need for the team. What do you all think?

And yes, I goofed on the thread title. It should be "Per Rotoworld (1/19/12)..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingdaddy

kingdaddy

Posted
Posted

This just in from Redskins Park......the Redskins are reportedly somewhere in the middle of hot and cold on whether they like Packers FA QB Matt Flynn. Stay tuned throughout free agency to see if they do anything towards making a move to get Flynn. Until then, Rex Grossman is said to be the starting QB heading into 2012 and is expected to get serious competition from backup John Beck. This situation bears watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FrFan

FrFan

Posted
Posted
C Russell is coming on 980 at 1 pm to talk about it

Thanks a lot for the info.

"I know this for sure -- on the night home from Philadelphia a little over two weeks ago - Offensive Coordinator Kyle Shanahan and his father, Mike, had a detailed conversation over Flynn's performance against the Lions.

They were very impressed and pleased to see the results, despite not being able to witness the work. I am told that they have had other conversations about Flynn, and it would appear based on a few sources inside the organization that the Redskins are 'very interested' as one source described to me."

Russell's analysis about Flynn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hooper

Hooper

Posted
Posted

If you sign Flynn, you still take a QB -- one with a bigger arm -- in the draft at some point.

Which isn't the worst plan, especially after some of the stuff John Keim has been reporting lately about Flynn looking better than Rodgers in camp.

I also don't think Shanny is going to mortgage the farm to move up to 2 to take a QB that faces a massive NFL learning curve. Scouts all over the place when it comes to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKM311

AKM311

Posted
Posted
Thanks a lot for the info.

"I know this for sure -- on the night home from Philadelphia a little over two weeks ago - Offensive Coordinator Kyle Shanahan and his father, Mike, had a detailed conversation over Flynn's performance against the Lions.

They were very impressed and pleased to see the results, despite not being able to witness the work. I am told that they have had other conversations about Flynn, and it would appear based on a few sources inside the organization that the Redskins are 'very interested' as one source described to me."

Russell's analysis about Flynn

Kyle - You hear about Flynn?

Mike - Yep!

Kyle - Very happy that happened, another QB out there.

Mike - Yep, and another team off the board competing for RG3. Works out better for us.

Kyle - Yep. I am very interested in who Matt Flynn goes to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins4ever

Redskins4ever

Posted
Posted

Signing Matt Flynn would be such a naive move. For one, Flynn has only played in two games in his young career. In both of those games, Flynn played masterfully under center. But the thing is this. Flynn has been a back up quarterback his entire career and how in the hell can Mike Shanahan properly evaluate a QB that has only seen action twice in his career? At least with a Kyle Orton or a Matt Cassel the Redskins would know what they would be getting. But Flynn in my estimation is clearly overrated as hell. If he hasn't played in at least nine or ten games in his career than how can you properly evaluate the man? If Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen signed Flynn, this would be another QB debacle waiting to happen. And too add, you can rarely win with other team's QBs in today's NFL. You have to draft your own and draft your QB high in order to have success into today's league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hooper

Hooper

Posted
Posted
Kyle - You hear about Flynn?

Mike - Yep!

Kyle - Very happy that happened, another QB out there.

Mike - Yep, and another team off the board competing for RG3. Works out better for us.

Kyle - Yep. I am very interested in who Matt Flynn goes to.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The more QB options the better for all teams in the market for QB.

Then again, for the Flynn fan club, John Keim had an interesting article today where a couple GB beat reporters said Flynn looked better in training camp than Rodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
8181

8181

Posted
Posted
That's exactly what I was thinking. The more QB options the better for all teams in the market for QB.

Then again, for the Flynn fan club, John Keim had an interesting article today where a couple GB beat reporters said Flynn looked better in training camp than Rodgers.

Trade for Rodgers! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...