theENGLISHseahawk wrote: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.
JSeahawks wrote: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 wrote:theENGLISHseahawk wrote: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.
Lynch Mob wrote: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.
chris98251 wrote: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 wrote:FlyingGreg wrote:theENGLISHseahawk wrote: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.
FlyingGreg wrote: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 wrote:FlyingGreg wrote: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.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote: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.
Lynch Mob wrote:theENGLISHseahawk wrote: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 wrote: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.
Hasselbeck wrote:Matt Flynn should be our starter. Wilson is nothing more than a backup and will never amount to anything in this league.
pehawk wrote: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.
pehawk wrote:So, you DONT think the salary of their starters, current players contracts, etc factored into it?
I would exclude Chase Daniels, but thats personal. I dig the dude.
pehawk wrote:What's the hit if they trade him? I thought it was a wash.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:chris98251 wrote: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.
sutz wrote:IIRC, a few years ago, a team had its starting QB go down and they won the SB with a 6th Rd backup QB. Now who was that?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, yeah, it was the NE Patsies and the backup QB was Tom Brady.
Don't know how this factors into the debate about 'needing a competent backup QB' other than maybe showing we don't necessarily need a 1st/2d day pick QB for the position.
Throwdown wrote:sutz wrote:IIRC, a few years ago, a team had its starting QB go down and they won the SB with a 6th Rd backup QB. Now who was that?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, yeah, it was the NE Patsies and the backup QB was Tom Brady.
Don't know how this factors into the debate about 'needing a competent backup QB' other than maybe showing we don't necessarily need a 1st/2d day pick QB for the position.
How often is that REALLY going to happen?
pehawk wrote:The 3.25M number seems a little insignificant. I know we're all telling each other Kam will be resigned, and maybe he will, but I HIGHLY doubt Kam gets more here than the open market. He's the replacable component of the Seahawks corp group. Surely his agent knows this too. So, I still dont see any gain to trading Flynn...that money wont do a thing.
It's a option for Matt; "best we can do buddy" thing.
pinksheets wrote:Insurance for what, though? That's what I don't get. If Wilson goes down, Flynn maybe makes us not win a Superbowl better than another guy? I'd rather re-sign a young, productive part of our defense than overpay a guy who shouldn't ever play a snap and if he does we're screwed anyways.
Scottemojo wrote:This team was good enough to win half the games where Wilson was handcuffed by playcalling more conservative than a Saudi girl's dress. I think if forced to, we can do the same with quite a variety of backups.
pehawk wrote:Scottemojo wrote:This team was good enough to win half the games where Wilson was handcuffed by playcalling more conservative than a Saudi girl's dress. I think if forced to, we can do the same with quite a variety of backups.
Agreed.
But trading Flynn now, gains this team nothing. It risks quite a bit, but gains it zero. Yes, alot of teams have bad backup QB's, but thats because they have to. Seattle doesn't have to.
Thats why I beleive the move is all about giving Flynn a chance, nothing else. It's just a move you dont make otherwise; as I said no gain and all risk (this year).
Scottemojo wrote:Flynn looked like somebody pooped in his mouth.
It is currently Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:26 am
Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]