Matt Flynn's future

[theENGLISHseahawk]

The above is just my opinion, it is possible I am over-rating Flynn, but we brought him in to start...now he's not even worthy of back up status?

Wrong. We brought him to compete. Pete has never once stated anything other than Flynn was signed to compete for the starting job.

 

[ImTheScientist]

The above is just my opinion, it is possible I am over-rating Flynn, but we brought him in to start...now he's not even worthy of back up status?

Wrong. We brought him to compete. Pete has never once stated anything other than Flynn was signed to compete for the starting job.

:13:

 

[HawkWow]

Do you believe everything Pete sells...er, I mean says? Do you seriously think Flynn was NOT brought in to start over TJack? Dayum. The "ditto" dude's post below your's was only marginally dumber.

 

[pinksheets]

Do you believe everything Pete sells...er, I mean says? Do you seriously think Flynn was NOT brought in to start over TJack? Dayum. The "ditto" dude's post below your's was only marginally dumber.

This is just semantics though. When they signed Flynn do you think they were giddy and thought they had found their QB for the future? Sure, I guess technically at the time that Flynn was signed they probably technically assumed Flynn would beat Tarvaris so Flynn was technically the presumed starter, if that means anything at all (I don't think it does). It leaves out their intentions in the draft entirely.

Yes, there was a period of time where based on the make up of the roster, I would be willing to bet that Pete and John thought Matt Flynn was likely to win the starting job if competing against only the pre-draft candidates. Exciting stuff.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Do you believe everything Pete sells...er, I mean says? Do you seriously think Flynn was NOT brought in to start over TJack? Dayum. The "ditto" dude's post below your's was only marginally dumber.

Unfortunately the mistake you are making here is to look at this in such a one dimensional way. Guess what dude, a NFL front office doesn't wake up one morning and decide, "Hey! Let's sign Matt Flynn to be a starter! Then that's the position sorted!". They actually spend a lot of time studying this thing called the draft too. Which happens after free agency. I firmly believe they were pushing for Wilson all along. Had they not been able to draft Wilson (or another - let's say Kirk Cousins), then Flynn probably would've competed with Jackson and won the job. But they did get their guy in the draft. And the moment that happened, the competition was very much on. If you don't believe there was some forward thinking in the draft, a vision to get Wilson and give him a fighting chance to win the job - EVEN after they signed Flynn - then why the hell do you think we're sat here now watching Russell Wilson as the teams starting QB?

The idea with Flynn - based on what we as humble fans can only project - is that they sensed an opportunity. This was a guy expected to earn mega bucks - a Kevin Kolb type deal. When the market opened.... nothing. No offers. No visits. Nothing. Seattle had some links to Flynn via Schneider and brought him in, seeing this as a possible opportunity to add to the competition. His market never developed beyond the Seahawks (he had a token visit to Miami, but they appeared to have minimal interest). He signed in Seattle. And immediately Pete Carroll declared he wouldn't be handed the job. That he'd have to compete.

Now YOU might see that as 'selling a fib' to the fans. I believe him. And you should too. Because I fully expect that with or without Flynn they would've signed a veteran QB in free agency and then would've drafted Russell Wilson in that R3-4 range or one possible another QB (eg Cousins). And it would've been an open competition. Being able to add Flynn to the puzzle and then grabbing Wilson made it less likely Jackson would remain on the roster - but supposing they hadn't signed Flynn, I fully expect the competition would've been between Jackson-Wilson-A.N. Other.

So you can come up with all these theories to try and explain why Pete was lying to the fanbase all along, but you have nothing to back it up. This has always been an open competition. Flynn was never 'signed to start'. He was signed to compete. And he lost the job fair and square to Russell Wilson.

See - I didn't even have to call your position 'dumb'. Merely provided evidence to back up my opinion. Fancy that!

 

[ImTheScientist]

Do you believe everything Pete sells...er, I mean says? Do you seriously think Flynn was NOT brought in to start over TJack? Dayum. The "ditto" dude's post below your's was only marginally dumber.

What is "dayum"? And why the personal attacks?

Anyways, they didn't name him the starter despite the media clamoring for him to name a starter. If he was brought in to be the starter he would be starting. They held a legit competition and he lost.

 

[HawkWow]

Do you believe everything Pete sells...er, I mean says? Do you seriously think Flynn was NOT brought in to start over TJack? Dayum. The "ditto" dude's post below your's was only marginally dumber.

This is just semantics though. When they signed Flynn do you think they were giddy and thought they had found their QB for the future? Sure, I guess technically at the time that Flynn was signed they probably technically assumed Flynn would beat Tarvaris so Flynn was technically the presumed starter, if that means anything at all (I don't think it does). It leaves out their intentions in the draft entirely.

Yes, there was a period of time where based on the make up of the roster, I would be willing to bet that Pete and John thought Matt Flynn was likely to win the starting job if competing against only the pre-draft candidates. Exciting stuff.

It blew me away when they went with Wilson in the 3rd. I actually posted moments after, that apparently, Flynn is not as good as we'd hoped. I say this because I was fine with Flynn starting and keeping TJack as our 2 (I think Pete also said TJack wasn't going anywhere).

But to your question, I initially thought P&S were in fact happy with securing the services of Matt Flynn. Today I feel much differently, and considering some of the posts in this thread, if un-biased, I have to think I may have totally over-estimated Flynn's value.

 

[HawkWow]

Do you believe everything Pete sells...er, I mean says? Do you seriously think Flynn was NOT brought in to start over TJack? Dayum. The "ditto" dude's post below your's was only marginally dumber.

What is "dayum"? And why the personal attacks?

Anyways, they didn't name him the starter despite the media clamoring for him to name a starter. If he was brought in to be the starter he would be starting. They held a legit competition and he lost.

Nothing personal. But your point confuses me: If you recall, and I assume you do because you threw up the little "ditto" sign, Flynn was not brought in to compete against Wilson. He was brought in to (supposedly) compete against TJack.

He ultimately lost the starting job to Wilson. This is why he is not the starter, not because he wasn't brought into start over TJack. And if Flynn lost the competition to Wilson, he lost it at our practice facility, not on the field. Because IF he lost to Wilson on the field...the competition was not fair at all.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Wilson was barely even in the competition when it started. T-Jack was getting first-team reps in minicamp when PC announced in a tone of mild surprise that Wilson had wedged his foot into the door. From there on, it was just a straight-up trajectory for Wilson, but the competition did indeed start out as being Flynn vs. T-Jack.

And I do believe that was a legitimate competition. The key lies in dropping the tired assumption that Tarvaris Jackson was the worst quarterback to ever play the sport. He may not have been good, but he did put up .500 stats that surpassed his primitive play, largely because PC didn't ask him to do all that much. And when you factor in Flynn's signs of turnover-proneness and his preference for a short passing game that PC has no interest in, it becomes much easier to believe that Flynn was never a lock to win the competition.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Do you believe everything Pete sells...er, I mean says? Do you seriously think Flynn was NOT brought in to start over TJack? Dayum. The "ditto" dude's post below your's was only marginally dumber.

What is "dayum"? And why the personal attacks?

Anyways, they didn't name him the starter despite the media clamoring for him to name a starter. If he was brought in to be the starter he would be starting. They held a legit competition and he lost.

Nothing personal. But your point confuses me: If you recall, and I assume you do because you threw up the little "ditto" sign, Flynn was not brought in to compete against Wilson. He was brought in to (supposedly) compete against TJack.

He ultimately lost the starting job to Wilson. This is why he is not the starter, not because he wasn't brought into start over TJack. And if Flynn lost the competition to Wilson, he lost it at our practice facility, not on the field. Because IF he lost to Wilson on the field...the competition was not fair at all.

He was brought in to compete for "THE JOB". For all we know had RW not been drafted Tjax could still be here and he may have beat him out. Post draft he lost it on the field (preseason), lost it at the practice facility, and lost it due to the work ethic of RW. Obviously you want to see one thing .... so you are going to see it. I just tend to trust the eye of the front office and coaches more than the average fan. After all... their jobs are on the line...not ours.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

You bring in a proven veteran starter to start - a guy like Peyton Manning. You bring in an unproven backup with a couple games under his belt to compete - a guy like Matt Flynn. No matter what anyone in the front office said, might have said, or will say, this is the case. Unless you're one of the completely inept front offices who makes decisions based on price paid instead of actual value to the team. This front office is not one of those.

And yes, I think a lot of folks are somehow forgetting that Wilson wasn't even in the conversation for the longest time. It was an open competition between Flynn and Jackson. Wilson played his way into first being talked about as part of the competition, then in solid competition, and then he won it.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You bring in a proven veteran starter to start - a guy like Peyton Manning. You bring in an unproven backup with a couple games under his belt to compete - a guy like Matt Flynn. No matter what anyone in the front office said, might have said, or will say, this is the case. Unless you're one of the completely inept front offices who makes decisions based on price paid instead of actual value to the team. This front office is not one of those.

And yes, I think a lot of folks are somehow forgetting that Wilson wasn't even in the conversation for the longest time. It was an open competition between Flynn and Jackson. Wilson played his way into first being talked about as part of the competition, then in solid competition, and then he won it.

This doesn't mean that Wilson > Flynn for 2012. This means that Carroll sees Wilson as the QB of the future, and wanted to start his progression now in hopes that our defense could keep up close enough until Wilson was up to speed to compete for the playoffs.

I hope Carroll's right, but if we miss the playoffs this year there's no one to blame but Carroll for leaving games on the table because we have a rookie passing for 120 yards and pick just about every road game.

 

[ImTheScientist]

You bring in a proven veteran starter to start - a guy like Peyton Manning. You bring in an unproven backup with a couple games under his belt to compete - a guy like Matt Flynn. No matter what anyone in the front office said, might have said, or will say, this is the case. Unless you're one of the completely inept front offices who makes decisions based on price paid instead of actual value to the team. This front office is not one of those.

And yes, I think a lot of folks are somehow forgetting that Wilson wasn't even in the conversation for the longest time. It was an open competition between Flynn and Jackson. Wilson played his way into first being talked about as part of the competition, then in solid competition, and then he won it.

This doesn't mean that Wilson > Flynn for 2012. This means that Carroll sees Wilson as the QB of the future, and wanted to start his progression now in hopes that our defense could keep up close enough until Wilson was up to speed to compete for the playoffs.

I hope Carroll's right, but if we miss the playoffs this year there's no one to blame but Carroll for leaving games on the table because we have a rookie passing for 120 yards and pick just about every road game.

Your assumption is that Flynn is currently > Wilson. Thats a HUGE assumption on your part. You are also assuming a lot on the part of the coaching staff. Its also possible that Wilson is currently > Flynn and the staff knows this.

At the end of the day you have to trust the staff/front office.

 

[scutterhawk]

Pretty simple really, I'd venture a guess that nearly every single successful Quarterback down through the past 30 years and longer ,have benefited from that exact method.

You mean like Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan...

Just three off the top of my head who started very early in their careers. Eli Manning started within a few weeks of his rookie season. Ditto Drew Brees. And that's without really looking into it. Plus there's also the fact that college football is so different these days and much more user-friendly for QB's, making the transition less difficult. One of the key reasons why so many teams are prepared to start rookie quarterbacks.

Most the names you just threw out there didn't start from the get-go, and those that were inserted early on were a huge exception, AND, the QBs they replaced were inadequate to run the PRO systems, see Charlie Whitehurst, Tarvar Jackson etc., and why did they put Matt Hasselbeck back into the QB starter role in TENN.
I'll go along with the> 'SOME'< QBs that come into the NFL from college are more ready to start than they use to be, but that hasn't been the norm at all :141847_bnono:

 

[ImTheScientist]

Pretty simple really, I'd venture a guess that nearly every single successful Quarterback down through the past 30 years and longer ,have benefited from that exact method.

You mean like Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan...

Just three off the top of my head who started very early in their careers. Eli Manning started within a few weeks of his rookie season. Ditto Drew Brees. And that's without really looking into it. Plus there's also the fact that college football is so different these days and much more user-friendly for QB's, making the transition less difficult. One of the key reasons why so many teams are prepared to start rookie quarterbacks.

Most the names you just threw out there didn't start from the get-go, and those that were inserted early on were a huge exception, AND, the QBs they replaced were inadequate to run the PRO systems, see Charlie Whitehurst, Tarvar Jackson etc., and why did they put Matt Hasselbeck back into the QB starter role in TENN.
I'll go along with the> 'SOME'< QBs that come into the NFL from college are more ready to start than they use to be, but that hasn't been the norm at all :141847_bnono:

:141847_bnono: It has been the norm.....just look at the last few drafts. :141847_bnono:

Luck, RGIII, Tannehill, Weeden, Wilson, Newton, Dalton, Ponder, Gabbert, Bradford.

Over 30% of the NFL in the last 3 years drafted a QB and deemed rookie QB's NFL ready. 20 years ago you were right....the fact is now College QBs ARE more ready to start. Its a new day and age in the NFL.

 

[scutterhawk]

:141847_bnono: It has been the norm.....just look at the last few drafts. :141847_bnono:

Luck, RGIII, Tannehill, Weeden, Wilson, Newton, Dalton, Ponder, Gabbert, Bradford.

Over 30% of the NFL in the last 3 years drafted a QB and deemed rookie QB's NFL ready. 20 years ago you were right....the fact is now College QBs ARE more ready to start. Its a new day and age in the NFL.

[/quote]
You just said it yourself dude!, THE LAST THREE YEARS :177692: it has NOT been the "NORM" for the NFL to do this, not at all :141847_bnono:
You just named 10 players in three years, 3 years X 32 teams = 86 that is NOT the norm.

 

[ImTheScientist]

:141847_bnono: It has been the norm.....just look at the last few drafts. :141847_bnono:

Luck, RGIII, Tannehill, Weeden, Wilson, Newton, Dalton, Ponder, Gabbert, Bradford.

Over 30% of the NFL in the last 3 years drafted a QB and deemed rookie QB's NFL ready. 20 years ago you were right....the fact is now College QBs ARE more ready to start. Its a new day and age in the NFL.

You just said it yourself dude!, THE LAST THREE YEARS :177692: it has NOT been the norm for the last FIVE years, not at all :141847_bnono:

:141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono:

Ok....also add Sanchez, Stafford, Josh Freeman, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco. Almost 47% over the last 5 years. So yes dude.

15 teams / 32 teams = 47 %.

Over a 5 year period there were 15 teams of the 32 teams that drafted a QB and started him. Almost half the league said .... yes.... sitting him isn't the answer. Those players all took the majority of their teams snaps their rookie year.

Now since you are hell bent on saying its NOT THE NORM. How many QBs over that 5 year period were drafted, sat a year or two and then started the majority of their teams snaps? I await the list of QBs.

 

[scutterhawk]

:141847_bnono: It has been the norm.....just look at the last few drafts. :141847_bnono:

Luck, RGIII, Tannehill, Weeden, Wilson, Newton, Dalton, Ponder, Gabbert, Bradford.

Over 30% of the NFL in the last 3 years drafted a QB and deemed rookie QB's NFL ready. 20 years ago you were right....the fact is now College QBs ARE more ready to start. Its a new day and age in the NFL.

You just said it yourself dude!, THE LAST THREE YEARS :177692: it has NOT been the norm for the last FIVE years, not at all :141847_bnono:

:141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono:

Ok....also add Sanchez, Stafford, Josh Freeman, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco. Almost 47% over the last 5 years. So yes dude.

15 teams / 32 teams = 47 %.

Over a 5 year period there were 15 teams of the 32 teams that drafted a QB and started him. Almost half the league said .... yes.... sitting him isn't the answer. Those players all took the majority of their teams snaps their rookie year.

Now since you are hell bent on saying its NOT THE NORM. How many QBs over that 5 year period were drafted, sat a year or two and then started the majority of their teams snaps? I await the list of QBs.

You're not doing the math correctly dude :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: IF those 15 had all started the SAME Year, you're 47% would be correct, but, when you go with 15 over a 5 Year period, the number is 145 ,,that's 5 Years x 32 teams minus your 15, your percentage drops drastically, and in fact would factor down to 3 per Year and that dismisses your "NORM" :16:

 

[ImTheScientist]

You just said it yourself dude!, THE LAST THREE YEARS :177692: it has NOT been the norm for the last FIVE years, not at all :141847_bnono:

:141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono:

Ok....also add Sanchez, Stafford, Josh Freeman, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco. Almost 47% over the last 5 years. So yes dude.

15 teams / 32 teams = 47 %.

Over a 5 year period there were 15 teams of the 32 teams that drafted a QB and started him. Almost half the league said .... yes.... sitting him isn't the answer. Those players all took the majority of their teams snaps their rookie year.

Now since you are hell bent on saying its NOT THE NORM. How many QBs over that 5 year period were drafted, sat a year or two and then started the majority of their teams snaps? I await the list of QBs.

You're not doing the math correctly dude :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: IF those 15 had all started the SAME Year, you're 47% would be correct, but, when you go with 15 over a 5 Year period, the number is 145 ,,that's 5 Years x 32 teams minus your 15, your percentage drops drastically, and in fact would factor down to 3 per Year :16:

Despite our disagreement on the "math"....... if you use your same math to add up the QBs over the last 5 years that sat a year to start the next....you will see the NORM is they put the QB in season 1 and don't sit him. :141847_bnono: :141847_bnono: How many QBs over that 5 year period were drafted, sat a year or two and then started the majority of their teams snaps? I await the list of QBs. :177692: :177692:

Let me help you....... 1 if you count Jake Locker (he has been injured this year). So what is the norm? 15 out of 32 NFL teams or 1 out of 32 NFL? I can list 15 players that started the majority of their teams snaps their rookie year, while I can only name 1 QB that sat out a year or even 2 years over the last 5 years to start for their team the following year. If you still insist the math says its the norm over the last 5 years for QB's to sit a year then start .... I would REALLY like to see that. No matter how you decide to do the math.... 15QBs is a larger number than 1QB.

Pretty clear that in todays NFL teams believe QBs are ready out of college to start....it also says they have accepted that you learn by starting. Its ok to be wrong. Just don't insist you are right when clear evidence is shown that you are unable to disprove.

 

[MexHawk]

I'm going to give my 2 cents, but before, let me say that I'm behind Wilson since the day PC named him the starter, and I want to see him succeed sooner than later.

However, I feel bad about Flynn, because I don't think the competition was fair. I watched every preseason game, and I think that Wilson benefited with a totally different play calling than the one Flynn had. I saw the same kind of ridiculous (very conservative) play calling in the games where Flynn was the starter, as the one we saw in the first couple of Wilson games. Wilson looked equally terrible than Flynn did in those games because of play calling.

What´s done is done, and I totally support Russell, but I feel bad for Flynn and I blame the OC for what happened here with the QB situation.