Better make it count

[pehawk]

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.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

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.

 

[pehawk]

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.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

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

 

[pehawk]

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.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

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.

 

[pehawk]

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

 

[pinksheets]

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.

 

[chris98251]

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.

 

[Scottemojo]

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.

 

[sutz]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Largent80]

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

 

[BASF]

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.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

Flynn sucks

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

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.

 

[pehawk]

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.

 

[pinksheets]

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.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

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.