The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by 30gut

What are the terms/cost?

Flynn for a 5 year 35 Million

RG3 - Trade picks to get him

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Flynn for a 5 year 35 Million

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Flynn for a 5 year 35 Million

RG3 - Trade picks to get him

That's more then I would be willing to pay Flynn.

How much compensation are you talking in your scenario to trade up for RGIII?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

so here's a Q

Flynn or RG3?

I guess I'd have to say Flynn for two reasons;

1- he knows the WCO
2- he's played a few games and has shown he can play in the NFL.

Flynn is supposed to be a FA so if we could get both Flynn and RGIII that would be ideal. Get a decent FA and trade up, or stay and get him, then take a 2nd round WR would be nice.

Or get Flynn, take a top WR, then get a developmental QB in the second round for the future.

[VTSkins1961]

depends if we have to trade up. i would go flynn, then don't trade up and see who is available. if rg3 is there take him, if not we would have a lot of options

[skinsfaninok]

I think RG3 would electrify this offense so I do want him but trading up and giving alot, I'd rather Sign Flynn

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Is that too low or high? Because Clayton said he's probably going time get between 4 to 6 million a year

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Is that too low or high? Because Clayton said he's probably going time get between 4 to 6 million a year

I'm just laughing at any idiot that's going to pay that guy that type of money. Glad it's not going to be us.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm just laughing at any idiot that's going to pay that guy that type of money. Glad it's not going to be us.

How much guaranteed is the question.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm just laughing at any idiot that's going to pay that guy that type of money. Glad it's not going to be us.

Makes more sense than giving that $$ to a rookie plus the pick. Just sayin'.

If we got him plus drafted a rookie in the mid rounds to develop, would you be against that?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Makes more sense than giving that $$ to a rookie plus the pick. Just sayin'.

If we got him plus drafted a rookie in the mid rounds to develop, would you be against that?

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

I would have no problem at all with that scenario.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

Better off doing that exact thing without signing Flynn.

If we're after a non-Grossman veteran, I think there are plenty of more appealing options. If we think Flynn is going to be a top 7 or 8 QB in the NFL (and obviously then the best in the FA class), we should go after him, but I have no idea what we would be basing that on.

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

What would we be giving up for Flynn? A 3rd?

[skinsfaninok]

In today's NFL u never know my man teams are desperate