What is Matt Flynn Worth to the Redskins

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

is RG3 a safe bet? no. is bradford? is flynn? is sanchez?

If I was choosing among those four, I'd try flynn, grubbs and a FA WR, draft the best available (though an OT and CB would be prefered and maybe a 2nd tier QB).

I think a clear plan of any sort always beats just winging it out there on draft day, but I wouldn't write off RG3, Bradford, and Sanchez as being basically the same thing as Flynn. Flynn played one year in college plus two games in the pros. And his college numbers at LSU don't support the illusion that are his pro stats in those two starts. Schaub's did, and that's the big difference between him. Having the college career to support the limited sample size in the pros is really important.

I really like RG3, and don't really think Bradford and Sanchez profile as no. 1 QBs at this stage of their careers, but that's different than Flynn who has been and actually still is a no. 2 guy, and is the oldest option of the bunch. If Flynn actually profiled as a number one, you'd see the Packers franchise him and then try to trade him. And that would make him by far the least appealing option of the four.

I think Griffin profiles as a no. 1 QB in the NFL as a rookie. Would you be playing a rookie? Sure. But that seems like a lot better of an option than selling the farm for Flynn just because the QB position is a weakness.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think a clear plan of any sort always beats just winging it out there on draft day, but I wouldn't write off RG3, Bradford, and Sanchez as being basically the same thing as Flynn. Flynn played one year in college plus two games in the pros. And his college numbers at LSU don't support the illusion that are his pro stats in those two starts. Schaub's did, and that's the big difference between him. Having the college career to support the limited sample size in the pros is really important.

I really like RG3, and don't really think Bradford and Sanchez profile as no. 1 QBs at this stage of their careers, but that's different than Flynn who has been and actually still is a no. 2 guy, and is the oldest option of the bunch. If Flynn actually profiled as a number one, you'd see the Packers franchise him and then try to trade him. And that would make him by far the least appealing option of the four.

I think Griffin profiles as a no. 1 QB in the NFL as a rookie. Would you be playing a rookie? Sure. But that seems like a lot better of an option than selling the farm for Flynn just because the QB position is a weakness.

I'm not saying they're all the same, just that none of those options are nearly as safe as say, signing drew brees or drafting luck would be. sanchez is the only one i'd be REALLY mad about, and i do agree that paying someone $8mill+ on the hope they work out isn't as appealing as getting RGIII from a cap/efficiency standpoint.

If we want RGIII or luck, we're going to have to trade up most likely though, and if we trade down we might miss the 2nd tier guy we'd like... we're bad enough that I'd rather not have a 2nd tier prospect. so if you can't get RGIII or bradford for sure, there better be a FA already in the fold. if they whiff on a QB in the draft, paying out the ... will pretty much be the only option beyond stinking it up again with rex next year.


btw, we should sign victor cruz :P just saying...

[Dirtbag59]

I might have an idea as to how much Flynn will cost.

On October 28 2011, Fitzpatrick signed a six year, $59 million contract extension.[11]

Probably something in the $10 million a year range. Give or take $3 million (mostly take)

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I might have an idea as to how much Flynn will cost.



Probably something in the $10 million a year range. Give or take $3 million (mostly take)

Not sure you can pay a guy that type of money and not even know he can be the starter on your squad. Hell, he may not even beat out current QBs on the teams looking at him.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I might have an idea as to how much Flynn will cost.



Probably something in the $10 million a year range. Give or take $3 million (mostly take)

If that is true, then Flynn and trying to go with a big-time rookie is an either/or. You don't pay Flynn $10 mil. to back up your developing phenom.

[redsk1]

Flynn's a unrestricted FA right?

I'm not convinced about RGIII either. It's too tough to figure out if he can make the transition to a NFL style offense.

MS does his homework. I'm sure they've studied Matt Flynn well before today.

I'm not against this route, assuming our FO thinks highly enough of him.

[tc2deuce]

If we have a chance for RGIII we better take him or we will regret it.

[GTripp0012]

I agree that Flynn would have been a legit option at this time last year. If you could get him, it would have made sense with the makeup of our roster. The burden of responsibility would have been relatively low, and the possibility of success pretty high. Even if the player wasn't a particularly good one. Flynn could have failed as badly as McNabb did, and all it would have done was reflected poorly on Shanahan, which is essentially what happened anyway with Grossman/Beck.

If he hits free agency, paying starter money for him would be a dumb mistake.

The difference of course is the difference between trading for someone elses no. 2 guy (no different than acquiring Chase Daniel or Brian Hoyer next year) and having him compete for your no. 1 job because you have a weakness, and essentially handing the starting job to an unproven player. You don't want to pay lots of money for the right to hand jobs to unproven guys, but you do want to acquire low-cost players with upside. There is a big difference.

[CultBrennan59]

I'm hoping (but deep down I know they won't do it) that the browns sign Matt Flynn, and we can get RG3.

The crowd of analysts/critics/draft-evaluators had it as 100% Luck-supporters. Then RG3 won the Heisman and got more attention and then just had a great bowl game which showed his quickness and tackle breaking ability + Cam Newton helped him out by showing that athletes from the spread are legit.
Now that crowd is 55% Luck-45% Griffin.

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I'm hoping (but deep down I know they won't do it) that the browns sign Matt Flynn, and we can get RG3.

The crowd of analysts/critics/draft-evaluators had it as 100% Luck-supporters. Then RG3 one the Heisman and got more attention and then just had a great bowl game show his quickness + Cam Newton helped him out by showing that athletes from the spread are legit.
Now that crowd is 55% Luck-45% Griffin.

This is an interesting point. Holmgren seems to prefer seasoned qbs and signing Flynn would be a similar move to when he traded for Hasselbeck from GB to Sea.

[diehardskin2982]

I think Mat Flyn would be a better pick up than resigning Grossman. But I don't think we should go after him. We need a temp starter like JC back in the mix...LOL

[mooby]

Mercy upon us if we go out and give Matt Flynn a Kevin Kolb type contract. That would set us back tremendously imo. People honestly think he can replicate the mild success he's had in GB here? That's a 15-1 team coming off a Super Bowl win. We're a 5-11 team that hasn't been to the playoffs in 4 years.

[GTripp0012]

I think the discussion needs to start with the fact that the Redskins opened the post-lockout period with Donovan McNabb on their roster, and moved him out so that they could get to Beck and Grossman.

McNabb did not use his time with Minnesota as a chance to prove that Washington made a horrible mistake by trading him, but Grossman arguably did not use the 2011 season to show he was an improvement over 2010 McNabb.

At best, we're talking about a release that allowed the Redskins to save some money and save some face by proving that they could lose games with Grossman just as easily as they could with McNabb, with mixed results at the QB position. Shanahan's assertion was that he believed in Grossman and he believed in Beck, and didn't believe in McNabb.

So, yeah, from a saving money standpoint, it worked. And the Redskins picked up a draft pick, which was nice. But when you don't replace a guy like McNabb on the roster, you're pretty clearly saying you have a better team without him there. And so the defense that the Redskins didn't have any better options ignores that this was, in every possible way, a conscious choice at the QB position to not pursue anyone else. Kellen Clemens aside.

And with Clemens and Beck both having played against San Francisco this year, that becomes even more evidence that it was Grossman and Beck, and that's how it was designed, and it had nothing to do with who was or wasn't available.

[30gut]

The whole argument he's trying to have is based in false logic.
You don't need to know the 'answer'.
Especially when he 'answer' is hypothetical and subjective.
Which only leads to the type of empty pointless back and forth:
sug1:Prospect X would have been a viable answer
repl1:No prospect X wouldn't have been a viable answer because of rationale X
then rinse-wash-repeat

If you know that part X is inferior but part X is installed in your car and your car is non-functional because part X failed you don't need to know every possible alternative to correctly state that part X failed.

[SmootSmack]

I mean I wish we had added a QB, namely Locker has he been available. But I get the impression a lot of people think that not adding a QB means the team just sat on its ass and made no improvements anywhere else on the roster. We're not there yet but we definitely added some key pieces.