What is Matt Flynn Worth to the Redskins

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I think you should care about their system and their talent because its the context in which Flynn is being evaluated.
If you're saying you like Flynn because of his physical skillset then by all means dismiss the context.
But, if you like Flynn because of his production you'd better play close attention to the system and the talent where he amassed that production.
Because rest assured you're signing/trading Flynn's physical skillset not his production.
And imo Flynn skillset suggest that he's more of the quintessential 'system' QB then he is a scheme diverse physically gifted QB.
And if you're signing a system QB you'd better be able to replicate the the pieces of that system (caoching/gameplanning/playcalling/talent (receiving corps/OL etc) if you want similar results.

I love all those things and value them higher then just one guy who happens to be an awesome qb. System QB's mean a lot more flexibility.

I think something overlooked is what changes are the coaches willing to make for whatever QB we get. If we get Bradford should we try and force him in a scheme that doesnt fit for him like McDainels did? If RGIII isnt ideal for our offense should we adjust it for him? If were stuck with Rex for another year should we continue doing what we did?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I love all those things and value them higher then just one guy who happens to be an awesome qb. System QB's mean a lot more flexibility.

Well you can trade/sign for 1 guy.
You cannot trade/sign an entire offense that creates a 'system' QB.

I think you have it backwards.
A system QB forces the team to re-create that system to have success.
A scheme diverse i.e. physically talented QB means more flexibility.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Well you can trade/sign for 1 guy.
You cannot trade/sign an entire offense that creates a 'system' QB.

I think you have it backwards.
A system QB forces the team to re-create that system to have success.
A scheme diverse i.e. physically talented QB means more flexibility.

I guess my comment is more of a digg at Kyle Shanahan.

And I don’t think we should design a system around a guy that pundits have deemed a “system qb”, its more that we should design a system where not just once in a generation talent can operate it.

My thought is that to call Flynn a system quarterback is to imply Rodgers is one too. Weve all heard people call Tom Brady a system QB, particularly when Cassel stepped in and threw for almost 4k yards. And we hear it at the college level all day long. It just seems to me if Aaron Rodgers can have arguably the best season ever for a QB and his back up can step in and set multiple all time GB records then whats so bad about having a system that allows guys like Rodgers, Brady or Flynn to be successful?

Really great QB’s that can do it all are so rare. So sure a guy like Luck may be able to step into any offense and have great success but the odds of landing someone as highly touted as him are seldom to none. Drafting a guys like Rodgers or Flynn that arnt as highly touted but still have the necessary abilities to be very successful when constrained to a particular system, to me, make teams much more flexible. If your schemes are designed for only the very best, then the team’s overall success has a ceiling that’s directly determined by team’s personal, just look at the Colts.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I guess my comment is more of a digg at Kyle Shanahan.

And I don’t think we should design a system around a guy that pundits have deemed a “system qb”, its more that we should design a system where not just once in a generation talent can operate it.

My thought is that to call Flynn a system quarterback is to imply Rodgers is one too. Weve all heard people call Tom Brady a system QB, particularly when Cassel stepped in and threw for almost 4k yards. And we hear it at the college level all day long. It just seems to me if Aaron Rodgers can have arguably the best season ever for a QB and his back up can step in and set multiple all time GB records then whats so bad about having a system that allows guys like Rodgers, Brady or Flynn to be successful?

Really great QB’s that can do it all are so rare. So sure a guy like Luck may be able to step into any offense and have great success but the odds of landing someone as highly touted as him are seldom to none. Drafting a guys like Rodgers or Flynn that arnt as highly touted but still have the necessary abilities to be very successful when constrained to a particular system, to me, make teams much more flexible. If your schemes are designed for only the very best, then the team’s overall success has a ceiling that’s directly determined by team’s personal, just look at the Colts.

We run a very similar system and if we add a bonafied #1 Receiver, and Hankserson proves to be a competent #2, we'll have plenty of talent around him. Moss #3, our young RB rotation, Davis and Cooley and 9 draft picks and free agency to fill other needs. Top 15 Defense that is young. Flynn wouldn't be walking into a terrible situation.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

We run a very similar system and if we add a bonafied #1 Receiver, and Hankserson proves to be a competent #2, we'll have plenty of talent around him. Moss #3, our young RB rotation, Davis and Cooley and 9 draft picks and free agency to fill other needs. Top 15 Defense that is young. Flynn wouldn't be walking into a terrible situation.

Please explain to me the similarities to me in a way that refutes 30gut's very cogent and detailed argument that we don't so that I can weigh the credibility of each statement. Right now all you have done is make the general, unsupported statement that GB runs a similar system to us.

As to Flynn, the talent drop-off from GB to us is significant at the WR position. Maybe Flynn can compensate for that, maybe not. As I said earlier, if it's just money at issue, sure, grab him BUT be sure to add a solid rookie in the first or 2nd round. Right now, I believe that, though holes still exist, there is enough in place to draft and develop the "QB of the Future". Not sure if Flynn is that guy so I think we need to draft at least one QB who we think may be the guy.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

We run a very similar system and if we add a bonafied #1 Receiver, and Hankserson proves to be a competent #2, we'll have plenty of talent around him. Moss #3, our young RB rotation, Davis and Cooley and 9 draft picks and free agency to fill other needs. Top 15 Defense that is young. Flynn wouldn't be walking into a terrible situation.

Our passing game is almost nothing like GB's at all.

[T.O.Killa]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Our passing game is almost nothing like GB's at all.

Our passing game is very similar to theirs. The biggest difference is QB. They do pretty much what we do. I have heard several NFL analysts say that he would fit our system perfectly. From my amatuer eye, I feel the same way.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Our passing game is very similar to theirs. The biggest difference is QB. They do pretty much what we do. I have heard several NFL analysts say that he would fit our system perfectly. From my amatuer eye, I feel the same way.

In what ways?

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Our passing game is very similar to theirs. The biggest difference is QB. They do pretty much what we do. I have heard several NFL analysts say that he would fit our system perfectly. From my amatuer eye, I feel the same way.

Same here. I've heard the same thing from several sources, and even Kyle tried to dispell the mystique surrounding his "system". I think people get too carried away with the "system", and how long it takes to learn. All the crap about Al Saunder's 700 page playbook was ridiculous. It's not like they're running the run and shoot or wildcat or triple option Offense. They run the ball, they pass the ball, they utilize the TE, the QB lines up over center and in shotgun. When Kyle had capable talent in Houston, their Offense didn't look worlds apart from green Bays.

“You don’t need a guy that’s experienced with your system,” said Shanahan, who is in his second season with the Redskins after directing the Houston Texans’ offense in 2008 and 2009. “When [Matt] Schaub came into Houston in his first year, he played at a very high level. I don’t think it’s a system that takes a long time to learn. You can get better at it, but everyone in the league runs similar plays.”

That said, I'm not saying they should put all their eggs in the Mat Flynn basket. If they didn't have to trade for him, I'd be open to them grabbing him and still drafting a QB in the early rounds. We need 2-3 new QBs on opening day.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

My thought is that to call Flynn a system quarterback is to imply Rodgers is one too.

That might be your thought but its far from any implication I'm making.
Aaron Rodgers because of his skillset is scheme diverse.
To put it simply Aaron Rodgers is a fast, quick release and a strong arm, above average deep ball thrower and a playmaker who over the past couple season rushes for 300+ yards a season.
Aaron Rodgers is not a system QB.
Being a system QB is about skillset or lack thereof.

whats so bad about having a system that allows guys like Rodgers, Brady or Flynn to be successful?

Nothing and no one is saying there is anything wrong with having such a system.

Drafting a guys like Rodgers or Flynn that arnt as highly touted but still have the necessary abilities to be very successful when constrained to a particular system, to me, make teams much more flexible.

Huh?
Rodgers (a 1st round pick) has elite physical skillset Flynn does not.

If your schemes are designed for only the very best, then the team’s overall success has a ceiling that’s directly determined by team’s personal, just look at the Colts.

A team designs there scheme around their players.
The Colts had Peyton Manning and built there scheme around him.

But lets not mix issues here.
The Colts lacked a competent back-up QB this point is highlighted by the fact that when Dan Orlovsky was plugged into the line-up there was a significant uptick in the offense from Curtis Painter.

My point is this:
Matt Flynn is not Aaron Rodgers because of his physical skillset.
Judging Matt Flynn or any FA/draftable prospect QB based on their production is a false/innaccurate assessment of their individual ability because their production is part of a system that includes the OL, WRs, RB, scheme, coaching, chemistry, playcalling and continuity.
When you draft/trade or sign a player you only get their physical skillset not their system.
Therefore Flynn despite his production is still only as good or as valueable as his skillset.
Therefore any QB with Flynn's physical skillset could be as productive as Flynn.
Therefore there is no need to pay Flynn any more then it would cost to bring in a prospect with a similar skillset.
And prospects with Flynn skillset can be found later in the later rounds of the draft or through FA Brian Hoyer, Josh Johnson heck there are some even more tested/talented QBs available via FA like Matt Moore or Chad Henne.