Better make it count

Lynch Mob

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
555
Reaction score
0
If the Seahawks trade Flynn to the raiders today for whatever draft pick(s) they need to make it count. In a year where the Hawks are primed for a superbowl run more than ever they need reassurance at the QB position in case of injury and to give it up for anything less than a third would be risky. But if they do get a an early third round pick for Flynn they need to make it count I wonder who would be around when the Hawks are on the clock.
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
They won't get an early third round pick. Oakland want Flynn to take a pay cut from $5.25m. That speaks volumes on how they see this deal.

And we need to get over this whole, "must have a brilliant backup." Green Bay had Graham Harrell last year, who replaced 7th round pick Matt Flynn. New Orleans had UDFA Chase Daniels. New England have backed Brady up with a 7th rounder (Cassel), an UDFA (Hoyer) and now a third rounder (Mallett). Manning had 6th rounder Jim Sorgi as his backup in Indy. Last year's Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco had 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor backing him up. Luke McCown backed up Matt Ryan. A pattern is emerging here...

We might not have a Super Bowl, but we're world champs at worrying about the backup QB and right tackle.
 

FlyingGreg

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
theENGLISHseahawk":1qcfglhf said:
They won't get an early third round pick. Oakland want Flynn to take a pay cut from $5.25m. That speaks volumes on how they see this deal.

And we need to get over this whole, "must have a brilliant backup." Green Bay had Graham Harrell last year, who replaced 7th round pick Matt Flynn. New Orleans had UDFA Chase Daniels. New England have backed Brady up with a 7th rounder (Cassel), an UDFA (Hoyer) and now a third rounder (Mallett). Manning had 6th rounder Jim Sorgi as his backup in Indy. Last year's Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco had 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor backing him up. Luke McCown backed up Matt Ryan. A pattern is emerging here...

We might not have a Super Bowl, but we're world champs at worrying about the backup QB and right tackle.

...and none of those starting QB's got hurt, and if they would have those teams would have suffered.

The point is, what happens if Wilson does?

A brilliant back-up won't happen. A competent back-up is a whole different story. The debate is truly about whether the cap space cleared + draft compensation acquired is on the level of giving up a veteran who knows this offense in exchange for either another veteran who is less than desirable (which is why they would be on the market) or a rookie who needs to learn from scratch.

For a Super Bowl contender, it's a little bit of a tightrope.
 

JSeahawks

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
24,093
Reaction score
1
Location
Milwaukie, Oregon
I couldnt care less who our backup QB is, its about as important to me as our practice squad guard.. We arent winning a Super Bowl if Wilson misses extended time. Regardless of who our back up is.
 

FlyingGreg

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
JSeahawks":cqudsafx said:
I couldnt care less who our backup QB is, its about as important to me as our practice squad guard.. We arent winning a Super Bowl if Wilson misses extended time. Regardless of who our back up is.

Truth.

But it's going to be hilarious in here if Wilson does get hurt and all the "we should have kept Flynn!" madness begins.
 

cheese22

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
448
Reaction score
50
Location
Oregon
The only way one of the above teams wins a superbowl the same year their starting QB goes down is if the injury happens early in the year and doesn't last very long. An injury just before or during the playoffs and you can pretty much kiss that season good-bye. Obviously a backup has come off the bench to lead his team to a ring (Brady), but that guy off the bench just happened to be one of the best QB's-in-waiting, ever. The ideal backup could hold the course for a short time and not 'lose' any games but keep the team in position to win when they should. And this ideal backup shouldn't come at a high price, maybe not at a medium price.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,524
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Roy Wa.
English your aspect of what a QB whether it's a starter of a back is so skewed. You can't win without a top 10 pick franchise QB argument is proven wrong, just as your belief that you just stick a camp body or 7th round pick in for a back will be sound as well.

You need someone that can keep the shipped steered in the right direction if necessary, The Dolphins had Morral and Strock, they would have never won a super bowl with out Earl. Kubiak filled in for Elway on their trips to a Super bowl a few times. Flushing a season if your starter gets injured is a defeatist attitude, there is a reason GB had guys behind the starters that could play the game, Brunell, Hass, Brooks, to name a couple, they don't have to be elite but they need to have the respect of a defense. Dallas had good back up depth as well much of the time they made runs both in the 70's and in the 90's, Oh and lets not forget the Bill's having Frank Rheich backing up Kelly and winning the largest comback game in NFL history to get to the playoffs over Warren Moon and the Oilers. Also you think the 49ers were worried much with Steve Young behind Montana, or Garcia behind Young?

Yes it seems like a luxury if you don't use them, but have a QB go down and a guy step in and keep the wheels spinning if you can till he gets back is priceless in the short window of NFL success that most teams get.

Granted it's not impossible to find a guy overlooked as a 7th or a camp fodder guy, just gets noticeably more difficult, the flaws many have if not someone that had doubts cast on them because of off field issues or recovery from a injury are much bigger in their game.
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
FlyingGreg":2rj0ueen said:
theENGLISHseahawk":2rj0ueen said:
They won't get an early third round pick. Oakland want Flynn to take a pay cut from $5.25m. That speaks volumes on how they see this deal.

And we need to get over this whole, "must have a brilliant backup." Green Bay had Graham Harrell last year, who replaced 7th round pick Matt Flynn. New Orleans had UDFA Chase Daniels. New England have backed Brady up with a 7th rounder (Cassel), an UDFA (Hoyer) and now a third rounder (Mallett). Manning had 6th rounder Jim Sorgi as his backup in Indy. Last year's Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco had 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor backing him up. Luke McCown backed up Matt Ryan. A pattern is emerging here...

We might not have a Super Bowl, but we're world champs at worrying about the backup QB and right tackle.

...and none of those starting QB's got hurt, and if they would have those teams would have suffered.

The point is, what happens if Wilson does?

A brilliant back-up won't happen. A competent back-up is a whole different story. The debate is truly about whether the cap space cleared + draft compensation acquired is on the level of giving up a veteran who knows this offense in exchange for either another veteran who is less than desirable (which is why they would be on the market) or a rookie who needs to learn from scratch.

For a Super Bowl contender, it's a little bit of a tightrope.


And yet all the Super Bowl contenders I listed felt it wasn't a tightrope.

That's the point here. Whether they got injured or not, none of those teams felt like they had to do much more than bring a guy in who moderately fit the system they used, and then they coached him up.

And yet we're getting our panties in a bunch.

I'll trust us to do what all the great teams did for their superstar QB's. Namely spend more money improving the starters and not worrying if the QB might get injured. We aren't winning a Super Bowl without Russell Wilson under center, whether there's a $7.25m quarterback backing him up or a rookie on the same money as Russell.
 

Throwdown

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
24,042
Reaction score
1,325
Location
Tacoma, WA
Lynch Mob":h77ad2rc said:
If the Seahawks trade Flynn to the raiders today for whatever draft pick(s) they need to make it count. In a year where the Hawks are primed for a superbowl run more than ever they need reassurance at the QB position in case of injury and to give it up for anything less than a third would be risky. But if they do get a an early third round pick for Flynn they need to make it count I wonder who would be around when the Hawks are on the clock.

Wilson goes down we're not going to the superbowl anyway, why the hell would it matter who the back up is at that point?
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
chris98251":1omox12w said:
English your aspect of what a QB whether it's a starter of a back is so skewed. You can't win without a top 10 pick franchise QB argument is proven wrong, just as your belief that you just stick a camp body or 7th round pick in for a back will be sound as well.

You need someone that can keep the shipped steered in the right direction if necessary, The Dolphins had Morral and Strock, they would have never won a super bowl with out Earl. Kubiak filled in for Elway on their trips to a Super bowl a few times. Flushing a season if your starter gets injured is a defeatist attitude, there is a reason GB had guys behind the starters that could play the game, Brunell, Hass, Brooks, to name a couple, they don't have to be elite but they need to have the respect of a defense. Dallas had good back up depth as well much of the time they made runs both in the 70's and in the 90's, Oh and lets not forget the Bill's having Frank Rheich backing up Kelly and winning the largest comback game in NFL history to get to the playoffs over Warren Moon and the Oilers. Also you think the 49ers were worried much with Steve Young behind Montana, or Garcia behind Young?

Yes it seems like a luxury if you don't use them, but have a QB go down and a guy step in and keep the wheels spinning if you can till he gets back is priceless in the short window of NFL success that most teams get.

Granted it's not impossible to find a guy overlooked as a 7th or a camp fodder guy, just gets noticeably more difficult, the flaws many have if not someone that had doubts cast on them because of off field issues or recovery from a injury are much bigger in their game.

The only thing that is skewed is this idea that somehow Seattle can remain a legit Super Bowl contender if they lose Russell Wilson. The chances are they cannot. It's hard enough to find a franchise QB capable of claiming a title, let alone two.

We don't half waste time debating backup QB's on this forum. Good grief.

If. If. If. If.

What if Russell Wilson stays healthy for ten years?

If he doesn't and he picks up a season ending injury, good night Vienna.
 

FlyingGreg

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
theENGLISHseahawk":36ambtgq said:
FlyingGreg":36ambtgq said:
theENGLISHseahawk":36ambtgq said:
They won't get an early third round pick. Oakland want Flynn to take a pay cut from $5.25m. That speaks volumes on how they see this deal.

And we need to get over this whole, "must have a brilliant backup." Green Bay had Graham Harrell last year, who replaced 7th round pick Matt Flynn. New Orleans had UDFA Chase Daniels. New England have backed Brady up with a 7th rounder (Cassel), an UDFA (Hoyer) and now a third rounder (Mallett). Manning had 6th rounder Jim Sorgi as his backup in Indy. Last year's Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco had 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor backing him up. Luke McCown backed up Matt Ryan. A pattern is emerging here...

We might not have a Super Bowl, but we're world champs at worrying about the backup QB and right tackle.

...and none of those starting QB's got hurt, and if they would have those teams would have suffered.

The point is, what happens if Wilson does?

A brilliant back-up won't happen. A competent back-up is a whole different story. The debate is truly about whether the cap space cleared + draft compensation acquired is on the level of giving up a veteran who knows this offense in exchange for either another veteran who is less than desirable (which is why they would be on the market) or a rookie who needs to learn from scratch.

For a Super Bowl contender, it's a little bit of a tightrope.

And yet all the Super Bowl contenders I listed felt it wasn't a tightrope.

That's the point here. Whether they got injured or not, none of those teams felt like they had to do much more than bring a guy in who moderately fit the system they used, and then they coached him up.

And yet we're getting our panties in a bunch.

I'll trust us to do what all the great teams did for their superstar QB's. Namely spend more money improving the starters and not worrying if the QB might get injured. We aren't winning a Super Bowl without Russell Wilson under center, whether there's a $7.25m quarterback backing him up or a rookie on the same money as Russell.

Says who? You don't know what those contenders debated with regards to the back-up QB. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's a calculated risk.

But yes, more importantly ... if we lose Wilson, it's really not going to matter who the back-up is.

That being the case, you trade Flynn.
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
FlyingGreg":3f86qw0x said:
Says who? You don't know what those contenders debated with regards to the back-up QB. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's a calculated risk.

But yes, more importantly ... if we lose Wilson, it's really not going to matter who the back-up is.

That being the case, you trade Flynn.


Says the fact that they did what I listed! You have to prove otherwise that New Orleans didn't feel comfortable just going with Chase Daniels as an UDFA as the backup to Brees, because that's what they did. Same with Manning/Sorgi, Rodgers/Harrell, Brady/Cassel, Hoyer, Mallett, Ryan/McCown, Flacco/Taylor.

We don't know what they debated. We do know what they actually did. And what they actually did is what I'm using here in my argument. If you want to say all of those teams were taking a 'calculated risk', go ahead. But they all did it. And had any of their stars got injured, the chances of them winning a title would immediately become almost none-existent.

And had any of those teams spent $7.25m on Matt Flynn instead, I'd argue the chances would still be almost non-existent.

It's time the Seahawks had a backup who is just the guy who holds the clipboard. We've spent way too much time talking about Whitehurst and Flynn. If this deal goes through with Oakland, we're probably going to have a guy on a veteran minimum-type deal (Thigpen?) or a rookie drafted in the mid/late round. I'll drink to that.
 

FlyingGreg

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
theENGLISHseahawk":3tiyqxpr said:
FlyingGreg":3tiyqxpr said:
Says who? You don't know what those contenders debated with regards to the back-up QB. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's a calculated risk.

But yes, more importantly ... if we lose Wilson, it's really not going to matter who the back-up is.

That being the case, you trade Flynn.


Says the fact that they did what I listed! You have to prove otherwise that New Orleans didn't feel comfortable just going with Chase Daniels as an UDFA as the backup to Brees, because that's what they did. Same with Manning/Sorgi, Rodgers/Harrell, Brady/Cassel, Hoyer, Mallett, Ryan/McCown, Flacco/Taylor.

We don't know what they debated. We do know what they actually did. And what they actually did is what I'm using here in my argument. If you want to say all of those teams were taking a 'calculated risk', go ahead. But they all did it. And had any of their stars got injured, the chances of them winning a title would immediately become almost none-existent.

And had any of those teams spent $7.25m on Matt Flynn instead, I'd argue the chances would still be almost non-existent.

It's time the Seahawks had a backup who is just the guy who holds the clipboard. We've spent way too much time talking about Whitehurst and Flynn. If this deal goes through with Oakland, we're probably going to have a guy on a veteran minimum-type deal (Thigpen?) or a rookie drafted in the mid/late round. I'll drink to that.

Speaking of panties in a bunch. :p Just kidding. :thirishdrinkers:

The reality is very few teams had the luxury of a Flynn-like back-up like we did last season. It's just not feasible with a salary cap. It almost forces teams to put all their eggs in the #1 QB basket. Think about it...what team, off the top of your head, has a back-up right now that you would say, "I'm REALLY confident in that guy if he has to come in"...?

I agree...I hope we never visit a Whitehurst like scenario again. We gave up WAY too much for him.

I think you mentioned in another thread grabbing Thigpen and bringing in a rookie to compete with him. No harm in that.
 
OP
OP
L

Lynch Mob

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
555
Reaction score
0
theENGLISHseahawk":2tah7xc7 said:
They won't get an early third round pick. Oakland want Flynn to take a pay cut from $5.25m. That speaks volumes on how they see this deal.

And we need to get over this whole, "must have a brilliant backup." Green Bay had Graham Harrell last year, who replaced 7th round pick Matt Flynn. New Orleans had UDFA Chase Daniels. New England have backed Brady up with a 7th rounder (Cassel), an UDFA (Hoyer) and now a third rounder (Mallett). Manning had 6th rounder Jim Sorgi as his backup in Indy. Last year's Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco had 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor backing him up. Luke McCown backed up Matt Ryan. A pattern is emerging here...

We might not have a Super Bowl, but we're world champs at worrying about the backup QB and right tackle.


And what would happen to all those teams with UDFA or low round rookie QB's if their starter went down. the season is over just like that this year is the best chance to win with our core together and with our new players they signed so i think it would'nt be good to just give Flynn up for a 6th or 7th. In a year we could be like the Raven's losing core guys becuase we can't afford everyone the time to win is now not in a year or two.
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
Lynch Mob":37pxq7la said:
theENGLISHseahawk":37pxq7la said:
They won't get an early third round pick. Oakland want Flynn to take a pay cut from $5.25m. That speaks volumes on how they see this deal.

And we need to get over this whole, "must have a brilliant backup." Green Bay had Graham Harrell last year, who replaced 7th round pick Matt Flynn. New Orleans had UDFA Chase Daniels. New England have backed Brady up with a 7th rounder (Cassel), an UDFA (Hoyer) and now a third rounder (Mallett). Manning had 6th rounder Jim Sorgi as his backup in Indy. Last year's Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco had 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor backing him up. Luke McCown backed up Matt Ryan. A pattern is emerging here...

We might not have a Super Bowl, but we're world champs at worrying about the backup QB and right tackle.


And what would happen to all those teams with UDFA or low round rookie QB's if their starter went down. the season is over just like that this year is the best chance to win with our core together and with our new players they signed so i think it would'nt be good to just give Flynn up for a 6th or 7th. In a year we could be like the Raven's losing core guys becuase we can't afford everyone the time to win is now not in a year or two.


The fact is, none of those teams felt like they had to do more than they did. And that is as good an insight as we really need into this situation. If the winning and ready Indy Colts, New England Patriots, Green Bay Packers etc didn't feel it necessary to do more than they did, then why does Seattle?

So either all of those prime elite contenders are filled with dummies within their front offices (we know that's not true), or it's not worth us worrying about whether it's Flynn or a rook backing up Russell Wilson.
 

ImTheScientist

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
3,724
Reaction score
63
theENGLISHseahawk":1i9bnsah said:
They won't get an early third round pick. Oakland want Flynn to take a pay cut from $5.25m. That speaks volumes on how they see this deal.

And we need to get over this whole, "must have a brilliant backup." Green Bay had Graham Harrell last year, who replaced 7th round pick Matt Flynn. New Orleans had UDFA Chase Daniels. New England have backed Brady up with a 7th rounder (Cassel), an UDFA (Hoyer) and now a third rounder (Mallett). Manning had 6th rounder Jim Sorgi as his backup in Indy. Last year's Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco had 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor backing him up. Luke McCown backed up Matt Ryan. A pattern is emerging here...

We might not have a Super Bowl, but we're world champs at worrying about the backup QB and right tackle.
:13:
 

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
English, you're seriously suggesting salary cap has NOTHING to do with decisions such as; Harrell, Hoyer, Painter, etc? Really?

IMO, those teams are making calculated risks they're forced to due to; the salary their #1 QB is getting AND the cost of maintining contendership over numerous years. Scratch that, that's NOT opinion, it's fact.

You're reaching, alot here suggesting "nah, they dont need backups either". ALOT.
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
pehawk":8pken5lq said:
English, you're seriously suggesting salary cap has NOTHING to do with decisions such as; Harrell, Hoyer, Painter, etc? Really?

IMO, those teams are making calculated risks they're forced to due to; the salary their #1 QB is getting AND the cost of maintining contendership over numerous years. Scratch that, that's NOT opinion, it's fact.

You're reaching, alot here suggesting "nah, they dont need backups either". ALOT.


Please identify where I made any reference to the salary cap in this thread.
 

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
Well, I guess technically you didn't say its NOT a factor in your reasoning. But, it's not intellectually dishonest to dismiss the fact the teams and QB's you listed have been contending longer than Seattle?

C'mon, those QB's demand high salaries. Those teams have dealt with the reality Seattle will face soon enough. The reality of keeping corp guys together..while managing the cap. You’re making it sound like it’s the preference over cap management.
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
Seeing as you brought it up

Cap room going into the 2012 season (September):

Green Bay - $6.9m (former UDFA Graham Harrell as backup)

New England - $8.4m (former UDFA Hoyer and R3 pick Mallett as backups)

Denver - $12.3m (rookie Brock Osweiler as backup)

New Orleans - $4.1m (former UDFA Chase Daniels as backup)

Washington - $6.1m (Kirk Cousins - rookie - backing up RGIII - rookie)

Atlanta - $1.3m (paid Luke McCown a salary of 800k)

Ravens - $1.4m (rookie Tyrod Taylor)

It could be argued the salary cap had an impact in Baltimore's decision. In several cases the freedom was there to not have to rely on a rookie or former UDFA.
 
Top