kidhawk wrote:We're not trading our only serviceable backup qb while we still have a shot at the playoffs, this is simply ridiculous to even contemplate.
Snohomie wrote:kidhawk wrote:We're not trading our only serviceable backup qb while we still have a shot at the playoffs, this is simply ridiculous to even contemplate.
Are you joking?
Hmm. 9 games missing a good backup QB vs 9 games missing a #1 WR + solid chance of keeping a #1 WR for years.
It's not that tough a question. There are "solid" backup QBs on the market right now (which is why I don't think KC would do this), not Flynn's caliber (else they'd have teams), but guys who can go out there and not lose you the game.
Yes, Wilson could get hurt and you miss the playoffs. We're already teetering on the edge of missing the playoffs because our passing game is so anemic - Bowe would be a big part of the solution. So either way you're at risk of missing the playoffs, but only one option gives you a starter, and only one option gives you a starter for several seasons.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Of course you make this trade! In fact, you'd probably carry Flynn on your back all the way to KC to get it complete. A legit #1 starting WR for a guy who doesn't even start? What's there to consider?
Just go and find a veteran backup (there are plenty around) and hope Wilson stays healthy. A complete no brainer. Not that KC would make the deal - a QB completely unfamiliar with the playbook and you're bringing him to a roster that just lost it's #1 receiver? You might as well just roll with Cassel or Quinn and keep Bowe. I'd argue Cassel > Flynn anyway - and they've benched Cassel.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Of course it's harder to bring a quarterback into a new scheme mid season than a wide out. Are you seriously arguing otherwise? Especially given part of the plan is to trade the teams clear best receiver as part of the deal.
And I'm not undervaluing anything. If you think keeping a guy who doesn't start on the bench on the off chance RW gets injured is more important than adding one of the best receivers in the league... man I cannot have that debate. That would be insane. The Seahawks would hold Matt Flynn's hand and walk him to KC to do that deal. But it's not happening, so it's a moot point.
kidhawk wrote:Have you watched our offensive scheme? Do you really think that the passing game is diminished because of the receivers on the field....or is it because Pete is taking his time to get RW up to full speed? If it's the receivers, than bringing in a receiver will help fix the problem. If it's the latter, and it is most definitely the latter....then bringing in a receiver just puts another body on the field NOT to throw the ball to and leaves us vulnerable to an injury at the QB position. Would this be a great pickup if we traded some future picks for him or even picks and one of our current receivers? You bet. Trading Flynn is a BAD idea!!!
Zebulon Dak wrote:I would make the right deal for Flynn in a nanosecond. This would be one of those deals (not gonna happen anyway, why are we talking about this?).
In our situation right now it's a slim chance that Flynn sees the field this year anyway and just as slim a chance IMHO that he's any good when he does. You name just about any WR in this league that's under 30 and better than Tate, Baldwin or Obo, I'd make that trade for him straight up without a second thought.
m0ng0 wrote:What if he says he will not re sign here?
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:m0ng0 wrote:What if he says he will not re sign here?
What if he grows a third arm and becomes the most unique receiver ever to play the game?
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Bowe wants a big contract - it's the reason he wants out of Kansas City in the first place. Why the hell would he force a trade and then announce 'actually, I don't want to sign the deal I've been fighting for'?
And for what it's worth, the Seahawks would STILL snatch Kansas City's hands off in that situation. Flynn isn't playing here. He got beat about by Russell Wilson. As noted before when I was 'babbling on', you don't pass up the chance EVER to trade a backup taking zero snaps on a decent contract for a guy who is among the best in the league at his position. There isn't a single team in the league that wouldn't make that deal. End of.
kidhawk wrote:Understandably that is your opinion, but realistically speaking, how often has a team traded their only other qb on the roster mid season with a winning record? I mean if ANY team would do it, it should have happened by now. There are many times over the years where teams have serious qb needs pop up before the trade deadline.
m0ng0 wrote:Maybe Kansas City realized he wont re sign so THEY trade HIM instead? Not out of the realm of possibility now is it? Just because he gets traded to us does not mean he has to commit to sign with us now does it?
And if he accepts the trade but does not commit to (or show signs that will sign elsewhere after FA) would you still make the deal?
This really is not a hard question....
theENGLISHseahawk wrote: And the worst case scenario is half a season out of Bowe for a player who barring grave misfortune is going to be sat on the bench for the rest of the year.