Matt Flynn expected to be cut?

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:26 pm
  • Hawkfan77 wrote:he's better than you're giving him credit for.


    Why is he? Nobody wanted him last year except us.

    pehawk wrote:Think of it this way; would JS tell ANYONE he's interested in trading for Flynn if he was on the other end? Or, would he say no, so he doesn't have to compete wsith others to get the lowest cost?


    Speaking only from my own experience... coaches are happy to be very open to reporters if the relationship is good enough.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:27 pm
  • Or, assume you are Schneider. And, you think the Jets or Bills are interested, and you can RAPE them. Put this out there so they'd have to leap over teams further down in the waiver wire chain.

    This may indeed end up being true. But, the timing is a total work. Most likely by Flynn's agent or JS.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:28 pm
  • therealjohncarlson wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.


    well... he probably would have though. Anyway you cant say for sure he wouldnt have been


    I can say for sure he wouldn't have been cut, because he wasn't cut. There was a market for T-Jack, there's gotta be a market for Flynn


    As for the argument being made that he makes too much and teams would have to take on his salary, no team has to pay him his contract amount. Deals are done all the team with restructured contracts. Nothing says he won't restructure and stay, or he won't be re-structured and leave.

    Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13923
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:32 pm
  • I would surprised if he is cut.
    Image
    User avatar
    MANUNITED23
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1877
    Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:27 pm
    Location: Bay Area, CA


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:33 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.


    I certainly hope so because it's going to roll over into the next year and that's when we're gonna need it!
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14712
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:36 pm
  • Zebulon Dak wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.


    I certainly hope so because it's going to roll over into the next year and that's when we're gonna need it!


    How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?

    Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13923
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:38 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.



    There's no myth. The new CBA allows teams to push forward a specified amount of unused cap each year. The more cap room you have, the more you can push forward.

    The reason Seattle has as much cap room this off-season as it does is because they specified quite a large amount to move forward. Saving as much cap room as possible every season is crucial now for teams with a young roster. If you want to be able to keep Okung, Thomas, Kam, Sherman etc... then you need to keep pushing forward as much as possible each year.

    Spending $7.25m on a backup QB this year is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use... if not this year, then next year. It's not about having pure cap anymore. The new CBA is making it possible to reward teams who draft well. We need to take advantage. And our front office will be fully aware of that. A $3m saving should not be sniffed at.

    kidhawk wrote:How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?

    Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?


    We've checked and there was no specification that roll over ended this year. It appears to be possible until the deal runs out in 2021.

    And yes you have to minimum spend - that won't be an issue when we try to re-sign Okung, Thomas, Sherman etc.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:41 pm
  • FlyingGreg wrote:^ Agreed. Cutting him doesn't make sense. You trade him for picks or you hold on to him for depth.

    Those teams "expecting him to be cut" - that's wishful thinking.

    My thoughts exactly.
    Some fools figguring on picking up a quality Quarterback on the cheap...It's almost comical...ALMOST.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3635
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:43 pm
  • Cole's report may end up being true, but it's just work at this point. No teams have talked to each other. No teams have really started devising draft strategies, understanding the QB's they want or the QB's other teams want. My guess is Cole floated this as a favor to an agent. Just a guess.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:49 pm
  • Meh, even if we can't find a trading partner cut him loose. The team needs literally every hundredth thousand dollar they can get for re-signing the majority core of this team over the next 3 years. Everyone wants a dynasty over going all in 1 or 2 years for the Super Bowl, well re-signing those core players can help with that and saving a couple million by cutting a backup quarterback who may never even see the field can go a long ways towards keeping the players here.
    User avatar
    GCrow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 679
    Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:05 am
    Location: Canada


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:49 pm
  • Jason Cole‏@JasonColeYahoo "While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut'

    The key word here is problematic: it doesn't say he won't be traded. Obviously, the market is thin as few teams are in a position of need, but it is not a foregone conclusion that a team won't trade for Flynn, so that they can opt to draft a non-QB player with their top pick, and pick up a QB later in the draft.

    Maybe Jason never spoke to reps with teams that have "some" interest, and even if he did, as pehawk said
    you don't reduce your bargaining position by showing interest
    GoHawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:49 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:51 pm
  • GoHawks wrote:The key word here is problematic: it doesn't say he won't be traded.


    Absolutely. This doesn't mean a trade won't happen, rather that it'll be difficult to generate any kind of value.

    But I do think it should prepare us for Flynn being cut as a possibility. I suspect this place will go into meltdown if it happens, even though it's perhaps more likely than some anticipated.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:52 pm
  • GCrow wrote:Meh, even if we can't find a trading partner cut him loose.


    I think this is exactly the point Cole is making. He's not saying he will be cut or he won't be traded. He's saying that if they can't find a suitor for a trade that they'll probably just cut him. And I believe that's probably a very accurate and reasonable statement. And I happen to agree that it is what we should do.

    Would we love to get something for him? Of course. And I think we probably will but you never know.
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14712
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:53 pm
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    Hawkfan77 wrote:he's better than you're giving him credit for.


    Why is he? Nobody wanted him last year except us.


    This is slight exaggeration to make your point. The Dolphins also wanted him.

    And to say that just because only 2 teams wanted him last year that NO teams will want him this year makes no sense. There are at least 7 teams that have had a complete turnover at the GM spot and/or the HC spot that may be looking for a QB that were not last year.

    Just because a situation was something last offseason does not mean it is the same this year. Your argument is very flawed.
    Image
    Radish and Cheinhill — Gone, but not forgotten
    User avatar
    HawkFan72
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11723
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Antioch, CA


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:00 pm
  • HawkFan72 wrote:This is slight exaggeration to make your point. The Dolphins also wanted him.

    And to say that just because only 2 teams wanted him last year that NO teams will want him this year makes no sense. There are at least 7 teams that have had a complete turnover at the GM spot and/or the HC spot that may be looking for a QB that were not last year.

    Just because a situation was something last offseason does not mean it is the same this year. Your argument is very flawed.


    Were the Dolphins that interested? I mean, they knew all about the guy through Philbin. That visit wreaked of a token gesture. And he agreed to sign for Seattle (may be mistaken here) before he even got back on the plane to the PNW.

    I never made any comment on no teams wanting him this year. I merely commented that interest was extremely light last year.

    And it's not that flawed really, is it? I mean, you could argue it's more flawed to believe things will be different 12 months on for a 28-year-old with his physical qualities? And two career starts? I could be wrong, but my point is far from flawed. When they guy was a free agent and cost no compensation but his salary, there was minimal interest apart from the team that eventually signed him (us). Adam Schefter - not a bad source for info - is predicting it'll be the same again this year. It's not a major stretch to side with him.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:01 pm
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.



    There's no myth. The new CBA allows teams to push forward a specified amount of unused cap each year. The more cap room you have, the more you can push forward.

    The reason Seattle has as much cap room this off-season as it does is because they specified quite a large amount to move forward. Saving as much cap room as possible every season is crucial now for teams with a young roster. If you want to be able to keep Okung, Thomas, Kam, Sherman etc... then you need to keep pushing forward as much as possible each year.

    Spending $7.25m on a backup QB this year is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use... if not this year, then next year. It's not about having pure cap anymore. The new CBA is making it possible to reward teams who draft well. We need to take advantage. And our front office will be fully aware of that. A $3m saving should not be sniffed at.

    kidhawk wrote:How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?

    Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?


    We've checked and there was no specification that roll over ended this year. It appears to be possible until the deal runs out in 2021.

    And yes you have to minimum spend - that won't be an issue when we try to re-sign Okung, Thomas, Sherman etc.



    Reading through the CBA, yes you can push leftover cap forward, and there is a minimum spend amount. The amount is currently at 89% according to the CBA. Using last year's cap number of 120.6 million, that means a team could push forward, as much as 13.266 million if they maxed out. We are currently sitting at over $18 million, and that doesn't figure in the salaries of veterans that will likely be swapped out for rookies we draft this year, so that number should offset the slight increase in salary cap (if there is any) from last year to this year. This means that we currently have over $5 million in money we absolutely HAVE to spend, above and beyond what we are currently spending. So when you look at players being replaced and figure in their salary vs. free agent replacements, we must spend at a minimum, $5 million more this year. This still should not become an issue to where we have to cut Flynn because of his contract. Now, we may find a trade partner for him, and that scenario seems much more plausible, but given the math, I just still don't see cutting him as a necessity, unless it's something that Flynn has pushed for or perhaps something they may have agreed to if he played his role well this season.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13923
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:01 pm
  • What a half ass tweet. I don't buy it. We trade him or hold onto him.
    User avatar
    Coug_Hawk08
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2957
    Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:26 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:04 pm
  • Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.
    User avatar
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3626
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:06 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Reading through the CBA, yes you can push leftover cap forward, and there is a minimum spend amount. The amount is currently at 89% according to the CBA. Using last year's cap number of 120.6 million, that means a team could push forward, as much as 13.266 million if they maxed out. We are currently sitting at over $18 million, and that doesn't figure in the salaries of veterans that will likely be swapped out for rookies we draft this year, so that number should offset the slight increase in salary cap (if there is any) from last year to this year. This means that we currently have over $5 million in money we absolutely HAVE to spend, above and beyond what we are currently spending. So when you look at players being replaced and figure in their salary vs. free agent replacements, we must spend at a minimum, $5 million more this year. This still should not become an issue to where we have to cut Flynn because of his contract. Now, we may find a trade partner for him, and that scenario seems much more plausible, but given the math, I just still don't see cutting him as a necessity, unless it's something that Flynn has pushed for or perhaps something they may have agreed to if he played his role well this season.


    It's not a necessity in that we have to do it 'or else'. But if we want to make some free agent moves - modest or otherwise - then an extra injection of cash would be helpful. That and the rookie class gets you beyond the minimum spend. There's a chance -- like Clemons last year -- they try to extend the contract of (for example) a Kam Chancellor this off-season rather than next. Schneider's already referenced that.

    The figures we're talking about here ($17-18m) are existing if we don't do anything in FA or re-sign our own players to new deals. Given that I think we'll do both (and maybe even go after a FA like Henry Melton or Randy Starks) the extra money would be useful in enabling us to push the maximum forward into next year to get other key prospective free agents re-signed to longer term deals.

    Not a necessity to save money on Flynn, but there's a pretty clear incentive to not be paying a guy who hopefully won't ever see the field and yet earns one of the more expensive contracts on the roster.

    Coug_Hawk08 wrote:What a half ass tweet. I don't buy it. We trade him or hold onto him.


    If you were expecting a diatribe there's a 140 character limit...

    Jville wrote:Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.


    $4m is guaranteed but they're paying him $7.25m in total. Cutting him saves $3.25m.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:11 pm
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:And it's not that flawed really, is it? I mean, you could argue it's more flawed to believe things will be different 12 months on for a 28-year-old with his physical qualities? And two career starts? I could be wrong, but my point is far from flawed. When they guy was a free agent and cost no compensation but his salary, there was minimal interest apart from the team that eventually signed him (us). Adam Schefter - not a bad source for info - is predicting it'll be the same again this year. It's not a major stretch to side with him.


    The timing is the stretch. No one knows a thing yet, period. No one's talked to anyone else.

    And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.

    Okay, the below is funny.

    If you were expecting a diatribe there's a 140 character limit...
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:14 pm
  • Flynn knows our system, were going for it this next year, Wilsons salary low versus Flynns salary still ranks us as a low cost team for QB's. English has stated you can't win a Super Bowl unless you have a top 10 pick at QB in this leage, now he is saying a qualified back up isn't necessary. Dolphins would say shame on you, 49ers had Monatan and Young, I guess that was a waste of cap money also and never paid off. Jeez what would have heppened if Pittsburgh would have had a actual legitimate QB to fill in for Ben when he got hurt this year. A tem in a serious contention position doesn't need a grooming QB, they need someone that can manage and not lose games and have the tools to win if necessary.

    English has a lot of good information, I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's and a over confidence on the media declaring others sure fire.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11202
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:16 pm
  • pehawk wrote:And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.


    It's hardly irrelevant. You can call it the strongest class since whenever in hindsight. Nobody was saying that beyond Luck/RGIII pre-draft and only two teams had a shot at those two players. Teams like Cleveland preferred to spend a R1 pick on a 29-year-old despite running a WCO that would appear to suit Flynn. No interest at all. His old coach in Miami didn't sign him and was rolling with Matt Moore it seems had Tannehill not made it to their pick at #8. These points are not irrelevant. People keep preaching the importance of the position. Here was a big name free agent and his market was cold.

    So yeah... it could be red hot this year. We'll see in two months. But last year is not irrelevant as we ponder whether he'll get a shot somewhere else via trade.

    chris98251 wrote:I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's


    I appreciate the position completely. Nobody was happier that RW worked out than me. I hated having to watch QB tape over and over again.

    But I think Flynn is wildly overrated. I know others don't agree. JMHO.
    Last edited by theENGLISHseahawk on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:16 pm
  • Teams are going to wait for the SB to be over with before making any moves. It gives something to talk about right now, but not worth getting all worked up over.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24199
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:18 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:Flynn knows our system, were going for it this next year, Wilsons salary low versus Flynns salary still ranks us as a low cost team for QB's. English has stated you can't win a Super Bowl unless you have a top 10 pick at QB in this leage, now he is saying a qualified back up isn't necessary. Dolphins would say shame on you, 49ers had Monatan and Young, I guess that was a waste of cap money also and never paid off. Jeez what would have heppened if Pittsburgh would have had a actual legitimate QB to fill in for Ben when he got hurt this year. A tem in a serious contention position doesn't need a grooming QB, they need someone that can manage and not lose games and have the tools to win if necessary.

    English has a lot of good information, I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's and a over confidence on the media declaring others sure fire.

    I don't believe, even slightly, that we're still a Super Bowl team if Matt Flynn is our QB. So why keep him? A top QB being essential has nothing to do with having an above average backup. If your starter goes down, your season is in trouble, and that'd be the same whether or not we're rolling out Flynn or Tarvaris Jackson next year.

    I'm 100% in the cut him if you can't trade him camp. We can find someone for cheap to backup Russ and better use that money. Flynn and Russell are very different players, so it's not like we're looking at some sort of smooth transition if we need to call Matt in.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:19 pm
  • There is another dynamic here that hasn't been mentioned, not having anything to do with other teams interest. But having everything to do with our own interest in keeping him on the roster, aside from the cap$ cost.

    It has to do with team dynamics, and how Flynn is handling being in a back-up role going foward, and how that dynamic
    effects the team as a whole. Sure, PC/JS have put a positive spin on Flynn, so as not to detract from whatever value may exist in a trade.
    GoHawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:49 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:25 pm
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    pehawk wrote:And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.


    It's hardly irrelevant. You can call it the strongest class since whenever in hindsight. Nobody was saying that beyond Luck/RGIII pre-draft and only two teams had a shot at those two players. Teams like Cleveland preferred to spend a R1 pick on a 29-year-old despite running a WCO that would appear to suit Flynn. No interest at all. His old coach in Miami didn't sign him and was rolling with Matt Moore it seems had Tannehill not made it to their pick at #8. These points are not irrelevant. People keep preaching the importance of the position. Here was a big name free agent and his market was cold.

    So yeah... it could be red hot this year. We'll see in two months. But last year is not irrelevant as we ponder whether he'll get a shot somewhere else via trade.


    Signing Matt Flynn wasn't going to save Holmgren's job. He no longer had the leeway to bring in FA QB's, because, his misses there already had the wagons circling.

    Last I checked Philbin had Tannehill's HC as OC. They we're in a rebuilding year. The new CBA actually made it a smarter move to draft Tannehill. I knew before all this that the Dolphins were never going to sign Matt Flynn. I guess Jason Cole never reported it, so you wouldn't have known, but it was obvious to ANYONE reading between the lines it wasn't going to happen, it was never going to happen in Miami. They needed. their TJack, non-threatening bridge type...ya know...Moore. It would've been FLAT DUMB.

    The Miami argument is just ignorant or the real world.
    Last edited by pehawk on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:26 pm
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:LINK: https://twitter.com/JasonColeYahoo/stat ... 2142918656

    "While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut."


    Not that surprising.


    Not that surprising? I think you and I live on two different planets, not in two different countries.

    Surprises the hell out of me when you could get an awesome trade value out of him.

    Hold on to Flynn till some team starts panicking that they haven't found the right QB yet, then get some good value.

    Cutting him? Nope. That makes no sense to me and would be a huge surprise.
    User avatar
    bellingerga
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5313
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:28 pm
    Location: Beaverton, Oregon


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:35 pm
  • People call Flynn "a career back-up" like he went from team to team, never able to secure a starting slot no matter how badly those teams expected him to start. How many QBs in this league would beat out Rodgers? After Brady's most recent performance, I'd say the answer to that question is... zero.

    Now, how many QBs in this league could beat out Wilson? I'm sure he's better today than he was when named the starter, but how much better? Obviously JS and PC saw something in Wilson....and they were obviously correct.

    The majority of posters in here have proclaimed there is not one QB in the league they would trade RW for. I am probably in that camp as well.

    So, what we know about Flynn is that he has excelled when called upon (vs. NE and Detroit) and got beat out in Seattle's camp by what many apparently believe to be the best QB in the world. I'm not saying Flynn's worthy of a 1st rounder, but I do believe an asterisk belongs next to the description of "career back-up". YMMV.
    User avatar
    HawkWow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5655
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
    Location: The 5-0


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:37 pm
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    Jville wrote:Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.


    $4m is guaranteed but they're paying him $7.25m in total. Cutting him saves $3.25m.

    $7.25m is Flynn's scheduled cap cost for 2013. $2m of that is the prorated signing bonus cap hit for 2013 which is charged against the cap regardless of Flynn's roster status. The actual 2013 cap saving available thru cutting Flynn out right would be only $5.25m salary - $4m guarantee = $1.25 million savings. That would get eaten up by a backups contract. Also, there would be an additional $2 million in dead cap money charge against the 2014 cap.
    Last edited by Jville on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3626
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:38 pm
  • With this team young, hungry and relatively cheap our Super Bowl push is NEXT YEAR, and unless Flynn sucked in 2012 (all points indicate he did not and that Russell just took the job that should have been his), I do not see us going into next year without him, no matter what we are paying him.

    Having a starter QB on the bench and still paying less than most teams for our QB platoon (especially when we cannot get Wilson more money anyway thanks to the CBA) all but guarantees it for me unless we get a very nice trade offer--player or a 3rd round draft pick, minimum.

    Besides, who would be our backup?
    _________________
    "I can deal with Kap looking/acting like a douchebag so long as he wins. You can't be a douche AND a loser, Kap. Get your ---- together, a-hole."

    .....................................................................................-Webzone Niner fan GhostOfJimmyDean
    User avatar
    Trenchbroom
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1917
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:47 am
    Location: Spokangeles


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:40 pm
  • And the "if Tannehill wasn't available they'd go with Moore arguement...." is MADDENING. Ireland and Philbin had a pretty good idea who was going where..it's their job to do that. It's the chance you take, you know, kinda how PC had to calm JS down so he wouldn't take Wilson in round 2.

    FFS...
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:43 pm
  • pinksheets wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Flynn knows our system, were going for it this next year, Wilsons salary low versus Flynns salary still ranks us as a low cost team for QB's. English has stated you can't win a Super Bowl unless you have a top 10 pick at QB in this leage, now he is saying a qualified back up isn't necessary. Dolphins would say shame on you, 49ers had Monatan and Young, I guess that was a waste of cap money also and never paid off. Jeez what would have heppened if Pittsburgh would have had a actual legitimate QB to fill in for Ben when he got hurt this year. A tem in a serious contention position doesn't need a grooming QB, they need someone that can manage and not lose games and have the tools to win if necessary.

    English has a lot of good information, I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's and a over confidence on the media declaring others sure fire.

    I don't believe, even slightly, that we're still a Super Bowl team if Matt Flynn is our QB. So why keep him? A top QB being essential has nothing to do with having an above average backup. If your starter goes down, your season is in trouble, and that'd be the same whether or not we're rolling out Flynn or Tarvaris Jackson next year.

    I'm 100% in the cut him if you can't trade him camp. We can find someone for cheap to backup Russ and better use that money. Flynn and Russell are very different players, so it's not like we're looking at some sort of smooth transition if we need to call Matt in.


    Well how well did Green Bay do after Majik man was down, Schieder I'm sure is aware of that situation.

    Brunell was there in the event of a injury till the heir was established and the market was ready for him, I see Flynn as the same way. Flynn has shown flashes of being able to win games, has the respect of his team mates and can manage games.

    This isn't MADDEN, value in depth is what got us to where we were this year on defense, just as value at WR, RB, and the O- Line, QB is no different. Going cheap at the most important position is asking for trouble, a season ending injury may put us out of the playoffs, or may give Flynn the opportunity he has been waiting for. A couple game injury at an important time with Flynn holding down the fort may be the difference maker of us getting in or getting home field advantage. Being to only 1 Super Bowl in our history I take the value in the event of something happening. Especially with a QB that runs and takes hits on occation. he could pull a hammy, land wrong, take an extra shot etc, thats in addition to any clean or cheap shots running the ball.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11202
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:45 pm
  • pehawk wrote:
    theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    pehawk wrote:And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.


    It's hardly irrelevant. You can call it the strongest class since whenever in hindsight. Nobody was saying that beyond Luck/RGIII pre-draft and only two teams had a shot at those two players. Teams like Cleveland preferred to spend a R1 pick on a 29-year-old despite running a WCO that would appear to suit Flynn. No interest at all. His old coach in Miami didn't sign him and was rolling with Matt Moore it seems had Tannehill not made it to their pick at #8. These points are not irrelevant. People keep preaching the importance of the position. Here was a big name free agent and his market was cold.

    So yeah... it could be red hot this year. We'll see in two months. But last year is not irrelevant as we ponder whether he'll get a shot somewhere else via trade.


    Signing Matt Flynn wasn't going to save Holmgren's job. He no longer had the leeway to bring in FA QB's, because, his misses there already had the wagons circling.

    Last I checked Philbin had Tannehill's HC as OC. They we're in a rebuilding year. The new CBA actually made it a smarter move to draft Tannehill. I knew before all this that the Dolphins were never going to sign Matt Flynn. I guess Jason Cole never reported it, so you wouldn't have known, but it was obvious to ANYONE reading between the lines it wasn't going to happen, it was never going to happen in Miami. They needed. their TJack, non-threatening bridge type...ya know...Moore. It would've been FLAT DUMB.

    The Miami argument is just ignorant or the real world.


    Not to start a fight here, but I have 2 things to rebuttal here;

    1) Miami was not guaranteed to draft Tannehill. A) there was nothing set in stone saying they would draft him (mere speculation). B) There was no guarantee he'd be available at their pick.

    2) Now debating everybody knew Miami had no real interest, that leaves SEA as the only team to show even mild interest in Flynn, including letting him walk without an offer. So, I'm not sure how this strengthens an argument for how valuable Flynn is.

    I am of the mindset that actions speak louder than words, and so far the NFL's actions have shown that Flynn was a 7th rounder and has had minimal interest in the trade market as well as FA. That's based off the reality of what has happened, so far. Does this mean Flynn sucks? Of course not. He could be a successful QB for all we know. But, as of right now, nobody is banging the table for him, which speaks volumes about his perceived value amongst those who get paid to make these types of decisions.
    Mtjhoyas
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 315
    Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:03 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:47 pm
  • I disagree, Chris, I think Flynn's going to be gone. The Seahawks have built a VERY nice reputation with players by doing right by them. Flynn wants to start, they'll do right by him. This tweet was a lure fished out by either JS or Flynn's representation, to do right by him.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:49 pm
  • Has anyone (Jason Cole) thought about the possibilty of Flynn restructuring? Im in the thinking that Flynn's contract isnt backbreaking and so what if he makes more than #3? R Wilson CAN'T get paid until his rookie deal is over and thats not anyone's fault. During a 16 game season there's a great chance your backup will see playing time. Would you want a rookie or Matt Flynn?
    User avatar
    morgulon1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3521
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:07 am
    Location: Spokane, Wa


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:50 pm
  • Lets see, Irvin was a reach by all the experts, Russell a career back up and could not play at the NFL level, Sherman to big, Lynch a problem, Clemons a throw in player, Brock over the hill, I'm pretty sure all those experts could take a few lessons in evaluations from Schineider and Pete.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11202
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:50 pm
  • Mtjhoyas wrote:Not to start a fight here, but I have 2 things to rebuttal here;

    1) Miami was not guaranteed to draft Tannehill. A) there was nothing set in stone saying they would draft him (mere speculation). B) There was no guarantee he'd be available at their pick.


    Hmm, how did Pete know Russell Wilson would be available in round 3, when JS wanted him in round 2?
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:51 pm
  • This is all just a bunch of hubbaballu.

    No reason to cut flynn at this point in time
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9712
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:53 pm
  • pehawk wrote:Signing Matt Flynn wasn't going to save Holmgren's job. He no longer had the leeway to bring in FA QB's, because, his misses there already had the wagons circling.

    Last I checked Philbin had Tannehill's HC as OC. They we're in a rebuilding year. The new CBA actually made it a smarter move to draft Tannehill. I knew before all this that the Dolphins were never going to sign Matt Flynn. I guess Jason Cole never reported it, so you wouldn't have known, but it was obvious to ANYONE reading between the lines it wasn't going to happen, it was never going to happen in Miami. They needed. their TJack, non-threatening bridge type...ya know...Moore. It would've been FLAT DUMB.

    The Miami argument is just ignorant or the real world.



    Just excuses.

    "They didn't sign him because it was a crescent moon that night"

    But I'm pleased for you that you knew Miami's plans last off-season.


    bellingerga wrote:Not that surprising? I think you and I live on two different planets, not in two different countries.

    Surprises the hell out of me when you could get an awesome trade value out of him.

    Hold on to Flynn till some team starts panicking that they haven't found the right QB yet, then get some good value.

    Cutting him? Nope. That makes no sense to me and would be a huge surprise.


    Awesome trade value? You might be in for a shock unfortunately. Just my take. Same planet.

    HawkWow wrote:People call Flynn "a career back-up" like he went from team to team, never able to secure a starting slot no matter how badly those teams expected him to start. How many QBs in this league would beat out Rodgers? After Brady's most recent performance, I'd say the answer to that question is... zero.

    Now, how many QBs in this league could beat out Wilson? I'm sure he's better today than he was when named the starter, but how much better? Obviously JS and PC saw something in Wilson....and they were obviously correct.

    The majority of posters in here have proclaimed there is not one QB in the league they would trade RW for. I am probably in that camp as well.

    So, what we know about Flynn is that he has excelled when called upon (vs. NE and Detroit) and got beat out in Seattle's camp by what many apparently believe to be the best QB in the world. I'm not saying Flynn's worthy of a 1st rounder, but I do believe an asterisk belongs next to the description of "career back-up". YMMV.


    We can use an asterisk if you want, but he is a career back-up. It's not an unfair description given he's been a back-up for his whole NFL career so far.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:56 pm
  • pehawk wrote:
    Mtjhoyas wrote:Not to start a fight here, but I have 2 things to rebuttal here;

    1) Miami was not guaranteed to draft Tannehill. A) there was nothing set in stone saying they would draft him (mere speculation). B) There was no guarantee he'd be available at their pick.


    Hmm, how did Pete know Russell Wilson would be available in round 3, when JS wanted him in round 2?


    Huh? I'm confused what this has to do with Flynn. I don't think Pete knew, he just took a calculated risk by waiting until R3. Nobody knows exactly where guys will be drafted. They trust their evaluations and whatever info they can dig up and make calculated risks/gambles/decisions (by either drafting early or waiting as long as they are comfortable).
    Mtjhoyas
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 315
    Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:03 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:58 pm
  • No one believed Flynn was going to Miami. You're doing the same thing you ripped Kiper for in his first mock; assigning a body to fill a perceived void without understanding the totality of the situation. Its not excuses, it's reality.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:58 pm
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Signing Matt Flynn wasn't going to save Holmgren's job. He no longer had the leeway to bring in FA QB's, because, his misses there already had the wagons circling.

    Last I checked Philbin had Tannehill's HC as OC. They we're in a rebuilding year. The new CBA actually made it a smarter move to draft Tannehill. I knew before all this that the Dolphins were never going to sign Matt Flynn. I guess Jason Cole never reported it, so you wouldn't have known, but it was obvious to ANYONE reading between the lines it wasn't going to happen, it was never going to happen in Miami. They needed. their TJack, non-threatening bridge type...ya know...Moore. It would've been FLAT DUMB.

    The Miami argument is just ignorant or the real world.



    Just excuses.

    "They didn't sign him because it was a crescent moon that night"

    But I'm pleased for you that you knew Miami's plans last off-season.


    bellingerga wrote:Not that surprising? I think you and I live on two different planets, not in two different countries.

    Surprises the hell out of me when you could get an awesome trade value out of him.

    Hold on to Flynn till some team starts panicking that they haven't found the right QB yet, then get some good value.

    Cutting him? Nope. That makes no sense to me and would be a huge surprise.


    Awesome trade value? You might be in for a shock unfortunately. Just my take. Same planet.

    HawkWow wrote:People call Flynn "a career back-up" like he went from team to team, never able to secure a starting slot no matter how badly those teams expected him to start. How many QBs in this league would beat out Rodgers? After Brady's most recent performance, I'd say the answer to that question is... zero.

    Now, how many QBs in this league could beat out Wilson? I'm sure he's better today than he was when named the starter, but how much better? Obviously JS and PC saw something in Wilson....and they were obviously correct.

    The majority of posters in here have proclaimed there is not one QB in the league they would trade RW for. I am probably in that camp as well.

    So, what we know about Flynn is that he has excelled when called upon (vs. NE and Detroit) and got beat out in Seattle's camp by what many apparently believe to be the best QB in the world. I'm not saying Flynn's worthy of a 1st rounder, but I do believe an asterisk belongs next to the description of "career back-up". YMMV.


    We can use an asterisk if you want, but he is a career back-up. It's not an unfair description given he's been a back-up for his whole NFL career so far.


    Not to be argumentive, but "back up", in this context is just a bit too generic. Steve Young backed up Joe Montana. Because both Flynn and Young were back ups, can we assume Matt Flynn is probably about as good as Steve Young?
    User avatar
    HawkWow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5655
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
    Location: The 5-0


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:59 pm
  • pehawk wrote:I disagree, Chris, I think Flynn's going to be gone. The Seahawks have built a VERY nice reputation with players by doing right by them. Flynn wants to start, they'll do right by him. This tweet was a lure fished out by either JS or Flynn's representation, to do right by him.


    He very well could be, that would open the door for another Vet I am thinking that has a good understanding of what we do here, Hass, TJack, are the two off the top of my head right away. We don't go with a unknown I am pretty sure. It's too important in the 4 year plan. Besides we have seen how they have cycled thru QB's here until Wilson, stability is going to be important to a large degree even while your competing at the different positions. I can't see how the QB is an open challange anymore though. Even in a trade if Hass was to come he would know that it was as a back up out of the gate. ( Trade for Flynn not Hass) Best place for a straight trade would be Jacksonville for Henne I would think. Athletic, Vet, seems to have the support of his team mates. Depends on if Bradley is sold on him or not.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11202
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:59 pm
  • Mtjhoyas wrote:
    pehawk wrote:
    Mtjhoyas wrote:Not to start a fight here, but I have 2 things to rebuttal here;

    1) Miami was not guaranteed to draft Tannehill. A) there was nothing set in stone saying they would draft him (mere speculation). B) There was no guarantee he'd be available at their pick.


    Hmm, how did Pete know Russell Wilson would be available in round 3, when JS wanted him in round 2?


    Huh? I'm confused what this has to do with Flynn. I don't think Pete knew, he just took a calculated risk by waiting until R3. Nobody knows exactly where guys will be drafted. They trust their evaluations and whatever info they can dig up and make calculated risks/gambles/decisions (by either drafting early or waiting as long as they are comfortable).


    So, it's not possible Ireland and Philbin took a calculated risk (a much easier one consider it was the 8th pick)? Or, is Pete the only one with those abilities?
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10181
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:04 pm
  • Assuming he wants to be traded, they may well redo his contract to be more cap friendly.
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1887
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:04 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Flynn knows our system, were going for it this next year, Wilsons salary low versus Flynns salary still ranks us as a low cost team for QB's. English has stated you can't win a Super Bowl unless you have a top 10 pick at QB in this leage, now he is saying a qualified back up isn't necessary. Dolphins would say shame on you, 49ers had Monatan and Young, I guess that was a waste of cap money also and never paid off. Jeez what would have heppened if Pittsburgh would have had a actual legitimate QB to fill in for Ben when he got hurt this year. A tem in a serious contention position doesn't need a grooming QB, they need someone that can manage and not lose games and have the tools to win if necessary.

    English has a lot of good information, I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's and a over confidence on the media declaring others sure fire.

    I don't believe, even slightly, that we're still a Super Bowl team if Matt Flynn is our QB. So why keep him? A top QB being essential has nothing to do with having an above average backup. If your starter goes down, your season is in trouble, and that'd be the same whether or not we're rolling out Flynn or Tarvaris Jackson next year.

    I'm 100% in the cut him if you can't trade him camp. We can find someone for cheap to backup Russ and better use that money. Flynn and Russell are very different players, so it's not like we're looking at some sort of smooth transition if we need to call Matt in.


    Well how well did Green Bay do after Majik man was down, Schieder I'm sure is aware of that situation.

    Brunell was there in the event of a injury till the heir was established and the market was ready for him, I see Flynn as the same way. Flynn has shown flashes of being able to win games, has the respect of his team mates and can manage games.

    This isn't MADDEN, value in depth is what got us to where we were this year on defense, just as value at WR, RB, and the O- Line, QB is no different. Going cheap at the most important position is asking for trouble, a season ending injury may put us out of the playoffs, or may give Flynn the opportunity he has been waiting for. A couple game injury at an important time with Flynn holding down the fort may be the difference maker of us getting in or getting home field advantage. Being to only 1 Super Bowl in our history I take the value in the event of something happening. Especially with a QB that runs and takes hits on occation. he could pull a hammy, land wrong, take an extra shot etc, thats in addition to any clean or cheap shots running the ball.


    QB is very different in how valuable depth is. You don't rotate out QBs like you do other positions nor do injuries play as big of a role. I'm not saying just sign Josh Portis to hang back there, find somebody who can come in and not lose a game for cheaper. If you assume Matt Flynn is some franchise Super Bowl QB hampered by bad luck, fine, I don't. I think if Russell suffers a big injury, we're screwed. Flynn isn't coming in and taking us to the promised land. We wouldn't be going cheap, we'd be finding a better way to use our cap dollars on a team that needs to really be planning for hitting a huge wall when all of our cheap late round hits turn into guys who want to get paid like stars. Every dollar counts, and Flynn is poor value for what he costs in relation to what he brings to the team, which so far, has been just about nothing. What other contending team is going to overpay a backup QB "just in case"? Russell's super cheap deal might make that a luxury we can afford, but it doesn't make it a smart value move when taken in the context of the entire 53-man roster.

    Flynn comes in, we need to run a very different offense. Let's get a QB where that won't be the case and pay him significantly less.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:13 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:Assuming he wants to be traded, they may well redo his contract to be more cap friendly.


    I agree. And to those that think he should be cut...and is no better than a career back-up, why would he even want to be traded? Hell, if I were as terrible as some seem to think Matt Flynn is, I'd just shut up and call coin tosses at $4,000,000 per year.

    We need a QB that can step in should RW go down. I sincerely believe Flynn is more than capable and hopefully he will consider a reduction in pay. I won't lose sight of the fact that we are never more than 1 play away from being the Cleveland Browns.
    User avatar
    HawkWow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5655
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
    Location: The 5-0


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:21 pm
  • Dump him, money saved for Okung and Thomas later is more important than spending on a reserve and we have needs to address that should take precedent before thinking about backup QB. Any move that keeps our legit core starters is preferable to spending cap space and resources for a reserve.

    A good backup is needed, but Flynn isn't making backup money.
    NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!
    User avatar
    12th_Bob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1797
    Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:22 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:Assuming he wants to be traded, they may well redo his contract to be more cap friendly.



    :13:
    GoHawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:49 pm


Re: Matt Flynn expected to be cut?
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:24 pm
  • pehawk wrote:No one believed Flynn was going to Miami. You're doing the same thing you ripped Kiper for in his first mock; assigning a body to fill a perceived void without understanding the totality of the situation. Its not excuses, it's reality.



    "No one believed Flynn was going to Miami"

    :lol: :lol: :lol:
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8051
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Next


It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:16 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information