Wenhawk wrote:If we go with a rookie you are no likely to have to keep two back ups because if RW goes down we are SOL with a late round rookie starting.
Hawkstorian wrote:Let's at least talk from the same set of facts.
Cutting him now saves $3.25M in 2013. It would also save the $6.25M in 2014 but nobody believes he'll see that so it's not really part of this discussion.
IMO --- $3.25 on a 1 year deal for a quality backup QB is not unreasonable. He'll stay.
You only save $1.25m of pure cap in 2013. But that won't be the only argument for cutting him.
For starters, there's not an unlikely possibility that they don't feel it's necessary to carry such an expensive backup, and making savings in 2013 and 2014 on the position, however big or small, will be necessary. It doesn't seem Carroll-esque to have one of your highest earning players essentially contributing absolutely nothing to the team but for an emergency. And while having a capable backup is important, you don't necessarily have to make it one of the highest paid positions on the roster.
I think I'm right in saying Carroll and Schneider have both admitted it would be ideal to have a quarterback with a least a passing resemblance to the skill set Wilson has -- eg, point guard type with plus mobility and a good arm. That way in a worst case scenario, either mid game or mid season, you're not changing too much if Wilson gets injured. Installing Flynn -- more of a timing, pocket passer -- would include a bigger upheaval. It would require a fairly substantial sea-change to the offense. And I think they'd possibly like to avoid that.
While it is clear that Wilson wouldn't have any issue or cause for complaint given he's set to earn peanuts in comparison to Flynn's $7.25m this year, it creates an akward dynamic for a team based on competition. Flynn will be one of the highest earners on the roster this year, and yet he will have 0% chance of starting unless Wilson gets injured.
Now as fans we can sit here and say, "Oh what the hell. They just all have to get on with it." However, Carroll might not see it that way. Having a solidified starter (Wilson) and an immovable backup but only due to cost (Flynn) completely eliminates any kind of competition at that position. Plus, Carroll's forte so far... aside from signing Rice/Miller which was kind of opportunistic... is if you buy in, earn your chance, we'll look after you. Flynn's contract flies in the face of that. It preaches the opposite. He essentially lost his competition and is still getting paid more than most of the other players on the team, including vital starters.
I suspect in an ideal world, Carroll would have a rookie and a vet minimum veteran competing for the backup job in camp. Maybe a third player too, such as an UDFA. If he believes maintaining that competition is crucial... even at a position where they've uncovered a brilliant starter (Wilson), then cutting Flynn isn't such an unbelievable situation.
Just some suggestions on why it might not be such an impossible suggestion being made by Peter King.