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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Speaking of panties in a bunch. Just kidding.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

If anything I'd say they'd be more likely to backup their substantial investment (if they could afford to, which some teams clearly could).

I don't feel like it's a point I have to raise in this debate. I'm arguing that it's acceptable for us not to worry about the backup situation too much, using different examples of teams choosing not to prioritise the backup QB position. In many cases, those teams carefully selected role players. UDFA's or rookie's who fit the scheme, had some upside and could be coached up a bit. Minimal cost for a guy you hope never ever takes the field.

Now, whether Seattle is paying Wilson $500k a year or $15m, I think this is an acceptable plan for this team too. And I think it's an issue we've worried far too much about. The creme de la creme of the NFL were sporting McCown, Mallett, Taylor, Osweiler and Harrell as backup quarterbacks last year. And I look forward to Seattle fielding a low-cost backup QB next year too. Especially if the cap saving helps us re-sign an actual starter down the line. That to me is much more important than paying a guy like Flynn $7.25m to sit on the bench. Wilson earning a pittance shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to pay his backup more, it should be seen as an opportunity to improve the starting talent over the next three years.

Wow, I disagree 100%.

I just cant see any NFL GM ever going into a season with an unproven/distrusted back-up, unless they just HAD to. Kicking and screaming had to. Thats why the teams that to do that, have usually been good for awhile. Meaning, those teams are spending and managing their cap to maintain a window (vs trying to begin one).

Yeah, they dont win the SB without Wilson in Jan. But, they could if Wilson misses October. Seattle is the ONLY of those teams that could stomach such a loss. If they could, everyone of those teams you listed would take the gimme.

IMO, Seattle has a gift /gimme this year with Wilson's salary..and their cap.

Well, there's a fair old chance Seattle will do the exact thing you're opposing if they trade Flynn.

I think Seattle's trading Flynn because they're truly treating Seattle like a program; and doing "right" by their players.

I think this is Flynn's chance out because thats what he wants. Which is kind of why it's TOTALLY up to Flynn whether he goes to Oakland or not now. They gave him a choice...brilliant actually.

There's nothing to gain this year by trading Flynn. It doesn't really free up money of significance and doesn't factor into next year. It's all risk.

It frees up $3.25m. Which combined with the remaining cap space, puts Seattle at around $10m. That is crucial cap if you want to re-sign Kam (they're talking) plus other players in 12 months time. They need to keep throwing cap forward. Vital money.

Time for Seattle to move on. And hopefully this forum too.

What's the hit if they trade him? I thought it was a wash.

pehawk wrote:What's the hit if they trade him? I thought it was a wash.

He counts for $7.25m against the cap this year, cutting him accelerates his prorated dead money to all be against our cap this year, which is $4m. So we save $3.25m right now and he's off the books completely for next season.

I don't buy that this is some charitable move to do right by Flynn at all. They see better use for that cap space and know that they'd almost certainly be cutting him in the next offseason. Teams don't go cheap on backup QBs because they have to, they do so because it's not hugely important. Odds are you don't have a Superbowl QB at #2 on your QB depth chart, and odds are Flynn isn't that, so if you lose your QB, it's over anyways. Backup QBs are understudies, not depth, they don't come in on a regular basis to spell other guys. They sit. $3.25m to extend someone homegrown or improve elsewhere seems more valuable than unfounded peace of mind.

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.

Every QB gets hurt at some point, you completly ignored the scenerios I pointed out from teams that made RUNS of multiple years of Super Bowls and the back ups they had since it doesn't fit your Wal Mart back up QB arguement. Having a back up that can step in and give you a chance is a legitimate concern, if not why even carry one on the roster in your point of veiw, Wilson gets injured stick Robinson in to hand the ball off for the rest of the season and have a extra WR or CB and not even waste the roster spot if your going to concede a season over an injury.

I totally see this as a do right move AND a cap move, but I also don't think Flynn is all that good as a player, and I think the Hawks and most of the NFL don't see that much value in him. The rare opportunities Flynn got last year in blowouts they showcased him making all throws, getting rid of him because he wants to start was always the plan. Always. The off season was a day old when they announced they were open to trading him.

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.

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?

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.

I would feel more comfortable with Flynn backing up Wilson this year than saving 3 mill.

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?

Throw, I am not picking on you, but you are the easiest to quote in this thread.

Tony Banks was the Ravens starting QB, but Dilfer came in and took that team to a Super Bowl victory. Trent Green was the Rams starting QB, but Warner came in and took that team to a Super Bowl victory. As well as the Brady one that always get brought up. Jay Schroeder was the Redskins starting QB for 10 games, but Williams came in and took that team to a Super Bowl victory. I know there are other examples, but I am too young to remember them and I don't have time to look them up.

People are sitting here saying that we can't go to the Super Bowl without Russell Wilson, and as much as I love Wilson, this roster is ridiculously stacked. Even if we lose Wilson's excellence, I believe we have the team that can make that push. What we have been missing on offense is a receiver who can get separation in one on one's and now we have that in Harvin. Our running game is one of the best in the league. Our defense is probably the best in the league. There have been several teams throughout the years who have won Super Bowls with exactly the formula we have built here.

I am of the opinion that dealing Flynn is in our best interest and we won't miss him much, but to act like the backup QB position means nothing as some have come across as, is a little much.

Flynn sucks

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.

The money won't do a thing... Except help sign Kam to an extended contract. Which they are trying to do. And now they have $8-10m to play with instead of $4-5m (depending on cost of McDaniel). Seattle is ruthless and cap efficient. They aren't a charity.

There's where we disagree; I'm sure they're trying to resign Kam. But, if Kam has an agent worth a lick, he knows most likely he gets more on the open market. I'd rather have insurance w/Flynn and risk Kam.

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.

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.

Exactly.

Insurance against Wilson missing October only, for example.

Hawks got a freebie this year.

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.

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).

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).

Well, if they need a spare million or two to extend Kam or another player, it does free that up. It is also possible that by the time their third date with Flynn came around, they had discovered they just didn't like him as much as they had at first.

Maybe JS and PC don't think the dropoff from Flynn to the guy they'd like to bring in is that great or that there's a dropoff at all. Flynn's allure is that we don't know how good he really is, not that he's some proven quality starter in this league that we happen to be lucky enough to roster as our #2. I also think draft choices and making room to extend a guy now that will also give you more room to focus on extending other guys later, etc. is worth plenty. Or if that means we can sign another guy as quality depth, the type of depth that actually sees the field, that's good, too. The idea of there being a huge risk is based off the assumption that Matt Flynn is a high quality quarterback, and perhaps the reason that 'risk' is acceptable to Pete and John is that he just plain isn't one. Maybe he makes for a decent back-up, but maybe they like some other guys for that role just as much but the slight bit of hope and mystery surrounding Flynn means he nets you draft picks. That won't be the case next year when they almost undoubtedly would be just cutting him.

I still feel like that somewhere in all of the noise, hoopla, and excitement of Russell Wilson breaking out, what some hoped Flynn would be transformed into what people believed he definitely was.

I dont think Flynn is a quality QB, by any means. He's Kitna, McCoy, Grossman (trolling....). He is however an average QB who goes 3-1 on a strong team. I'm pretty confident in that.

I just dont believe the Hawks would entertain it unless they were giving Flynn a Valentine. Hell, the deal with the Raiders is so screwy how can you not deduce it's a simple gesture to Flynn?

Maybe the Hawks are wanting to be shed of this backup's enthusiasm?
http://www.seahawks.com/videos-photos/videos/Week-13---Carroll-Postgame-Locker-Room-Speech/5df7881d-aadf-45b5-ad7a-ba5043ef1426

That was after the best win of the year to date, on the road in Chicago. We all knew Wilson was special, but that was the game where the rest of the nation really figured out how awesome Wilson is. Flynn looked like somebody pooped in his mouth.

Cardinal sin in Seattle is not buying in. Cap hit be damned, hit the road Houshmanzadeh style. Does Flynn look bought in? From the phantom elbow injury in pre-season to stuff like this, there was a disenfranchised vibe from Flynn lots of times last year.

Agreed, Scott(e). I did get the pouty vibe at times too. Be careful though, it makes you an easy target around here.

As Pinskeets noted, the chances are they feel like there are other backups they believe can also go 3-1 but at a much lower cost for a guy who may never see the field. Plus they can also generate further picks from moving Flynn.

Scottemojo wrote:Flynn looked like somebody pooped in his mouth.

It must've been Russell 'The separation is in the defecation' Wilson.