What is Matt Flynn Worth to the Redskins

[IrMitchell]

I'm worried that Shanny is going to draft Landry. He's got the tools, but the guy is locked in to one receiver at all times and when it wasn't Broyles, he sucked.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Did you forget that every team in the league managed to add many new pieces despite the lockout?

At QB? Really? Which ones?

Remember, training camp opened a few days after the lockout lifted.

[WaldSkins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Um yeah, YOU need to listen to your own advice.
Rex finished 18th when sorted for yardage.
He's 28th when sorted for QB rating.

You don't need to address it because you suggested it, not me.

True, but if you consider trading up an option you can count him, I don't but since you mentioned it.

But, he was an option they just chose not draft him in the 1st or were unable or unwilling to trade up for him in the second.


Hello?

Here is the list for the last time:

Every QB that was available in FA that finished better then 28th in NFL (e.g. Matt Moore, Alex Smith etc)

Every QB in the draft after Newton and Locker (e.g. Dalton to TJ Yates etc)

Every tradeable journeymen QB (e.g. Matt Flynn, Joe Webb etc)

All the QBs that fall into those groups mentioned above would make up the list.

To sum:
Every team that has better QB play(which is roughly 29 teams) made a more successful offseason decision at the QB position.
Even the 3 teams with worse QB play (Rams, Colts and Jags) arguably still are better off.
Unless your ready to write off a QB after less then 2 seasons the Rams and Jags have their QBs of the future.
And the Colts have changed from Painter to Dan Orlovsky who has a higher rating the Rex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to not sidetrack this thread anymore we can agree to disagree.
You think choosing Rex and Beck was a good decision I don't.
Can we discuss Flynn?

Out of curiousity, which sorry franchises were worse then us at the qb position?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well like I said its my impression. Plus if I'm being totally honest I'm thinking of one person in particular who gives me this impression. But it's not you, and I won't call this person out

For some reason this popped into my head:

Oh, what you mean the sacks and stuff?

But, the QB position is kinda a big deal though.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

Out of curiousity, which sorry franchises were worse then us at the qb position?

Colts, Rams and Jags.

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Colts, Rams and Jags.

Don't forget the Browns.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Degrees of upgrade not withstanding, I think you see that were options.

Yes. If the argument is "are there options" then the answer is always yes there are options. However, when you factor in the costs and weigh the benefit of said options, they really become non-options at that point.

I would have had no problem with them bringing in Hasselbeck, but not for $21 million. Very likely he would have duplicated the same stats he had his last year in Seattle as well. Titans have more on offense than we do for sure.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

At QB? Really? Which ones?

Every team that drafted/signed or traded for a QB.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yes. If the argument is "are there options" then the answer is always yes there are options. However, when you factor in the costs and weigh the benefit of said options, they really become non-options at that point.

All that bluster for this?
Which was what I was saying in the first place about rationalization?

Wouldn't have been easier just to agree 2 pages ago?

J/K

HTTR

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I don't think we are ever going to agree with the "there were better options" part. Sure, but many of those options weren't that big of a upgrade and the cost for that minor upgrade wasn't worth it.

Which is defensible, but the fact that the Redskins really didn't even consider other options was delusional.

Understand that factually, Mike Shanahan has done both of these things in two seasons:

1) Dealt Jason Campbell for a fourth round pick and acquired Donovan McNabb for a second round pick and a fourth round pick.

OR gave up draft pick value because his evaluation of the situation here was that the QB situation wasn't adequate.

2) Traded Donovan McNabb for a sixth round pick w/a conditional sixth.

OR traded away a player he was admitting a mistake on because he evaluated his QB depth as MORE than adequate.

In the winter of 2010, he decided that the Redskins didn't have a starting caliber quarterback on their roster, and made a trade for one. In the summer of 2011, he decided that the Redskins had totally solved their QB situation, at least in the short term, if he could just get that McNabb guy out.

No matter where you believe the mistake was made on McNabb, he could not have been correct on the quality of his existing roster in both 2010 and 2011. The ONLY thing he changed was that he acquired McNabb. Nothing else changed from the roster he inherited. Either that, or his standards for what a QB were coming over from Denver dropped significantly when he got here.

Grossman was a backup QB in 2010, and was a starting QB in 2011? Really? No one could believe that could they? No, what changed re: McNabb was Beck. Beck went from a roster filler to a desired veteran. Grossman was still Grossman the whole time. Beck was the acquisition that made McNabb expendable.

John Beck was judged to be a better option at quarterback than any other option. It wasn't that the options weren't there, it was that the Redskins preferred Beck.

Grossman being named starter (first or second time, w/e) was the second admission of error at the same position in the Shanahan era. Again, not a wrong decision given what Beck showed, but it was more or less a two-strike foul tip.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Don't forget the Browns.

Actually, McCoy was ahead of Rex too.

[30gut]

Back to Flynn.
Great option last year.
This year *meh* not so much.
He would be convient in that we wouldn't need to spend a draft pick on him.

[skinster]

I didn't see him play, but I'd prefer to trade for flynn (if he is good) over reaching for a qb (if we don't believe in someone). Trust our scouting. Whoever we think is best we give the first round pick up for. I'd guess it would be flynn. Word in the preseason this year was flynn was playing even better than rodgers.

[#21Taylor4Ever]

If we strike out on RG III, Matt Flynn should be #2 on our list of priorities. All I know is, we cannot ignore QB for another second! I love the thought of us drafting RG III, but imagine signing Flynn and being able to draft Blackmon to go alongside Hankerson. Not to mention we can always draft someone like Kellen Moore or Weedon a bit later in the draft.

[SkinItup]

Originally Posted by #21Taylor4Ever

If we strike out on RG III, Matt Flynn should be #2 on our list of priorities. All I know is, we cannot ignore QB for another second! I love the thought of us drafting RG III, but imagine signing Flynn and being able to draft Blackmon to go alongside Hankerson. Not to mention we can always draft someone like Kellen Moore or Weedon a bit later in the draft.

Free agency starts before the draft. Flynn will be signed with someone not long after that.