A case for Matt Flynn

I think Tannehill will shoot up the draft boards, dude is very smart and he'll impress in interviews, workouts/combine etc.

"Jimmy James wrote:

Tannehill sounds like Kyle Boller to me. I don't want to draft one of these guys who have the tools but haven't demonstrated the ability to use them. They fail too often.

IMO Boller was a strong arm and not much else. I think he completed under 50% of his passes and was just north of even on his TD/INT ratio. Tannehill is raw but he has played well. He completes over 60% of his passes in a pro style offense and was 29/15 on his TD/INTs. His main problem is consistency. He doesn't have that deep accuracy despite a strong arm and he sometimes makes some odd throws in the middle of the field. But other times he clearly scans the field and makes the right read. I don't think he shows consistent eye discipline. But I love how he can throw on the run to either side. He extends the play well and can get the ball out in a timing offense. He's no Vick, but he can hurt you when he runs. I expect he'll be a mid 4.5 guy. He shows instinctive pocket awareness. He has prototypical size and the arm to make all the throws. No character red flags. Seems like a team guy as he started at WR for A&M while being their back-up QB. Basically I see franchise potential. Not enough that I would trade up for him but enough that I would have no problem taking him at 8/9.

Weeden could still very well be the BEST VALUE of the draft for QB....the hardest thing to predict, is where is the proper spot to get him and how can you figure a way to get him where you need to be.

Sorry, but I cannot fall for a Qb that has only started 2 games...

What many may not see is that even though Detroit has an intimidating Defense, they have given up at least 23 points in the last 6 out of 7 games before they played Flynn...

Guys I don't know if Flynn will a good or back up QB, but I do know that this Detroit team has given a lot of points to quite a few teams the 2nd half of the Season...

I don't know much about Matt Flynn.
I saw where he's drawing the Kevin Kolb comparisons along with Scott Mitchell and others.

What about where Rams QB Trent Green went down in 1999 and Kurt Warner (same size, similar game to Flynn) came in a won a super bowl?

1995 Packers backup QB Mark Brunell moves on to Jacksonville and becomes a star.

1997 49ers QB Steve Young gets hurt, Elvis Grbac come in relief for him and goes on to have a nice career in KC.

2000 Packers backup QB's Aaron Brooks and Matt Hasslebeck go on to become starters in the NFL. Hasslebeck goes to a superbowl and takes his team to the playoffs seven times over the next ten years.

2001 Patriots QB Drew Bledsoe gets injured, Tom Brady comes in relief of him and wins a super bowl.

2003 Former Saints backup QB Jake Delhomme signs with Carolina and takes them to a super bowl and a number of NFC playoff games.

My point is that it goes both ways. You can't just argue one side and ignore the other. The jury is clearly out on Matt Flynn right now. Yes his game was impressive and yes he's going to make a lot of money somewhere in the offseason. The same case can be made for Saints backup QB Chase Daniel. There has been rumors about him being a good QB in the future as well.
The interesting thing about Flynn is that he's earily similar to Kurt Warner while being earily similar to Matt Cassell in the same breathe. If we are thinking Flynn we should be thinking Matt Moore as well. I'm personally about as sold as Flynn as I am on Matt Moore at this time.

Look, nobody knows what Matt Flynn will turn into when given the chance to be the starter. But I've seen enough of Matt Moore to know that he is a below-average starter.
I just think Flynn - depending on the price tag - is the best option this off season. Yeah I'd love to trade up for Luck, I just don't see it happening. RG3 will probably be gone too. And nobody else, IMO is worth the #8 pick.
I believe we can sign Flynn and surround him him loads of talent - Marshall, Bess, Bush, draft Blackmon or Jeffery in the 1st and Allen in the 2nd. We would have to upgrade the O-line a bit later in the draft and in FA. Our defense is very good.
I just think it's our best option.

I think our best option is to try and trade up for RG3. The Vikings at that three spot would be an ideal target. See what they want for that pick and make them an offer.

"ExplosionsInDaSky wrote:

I think our best option is to try and trade up for RG3. The Vikings at that three spot would be an ideal target. See what they want for that pick and make them an offer.

If we are going to give away a boatload of picks I want to do it for Luck. Not RG3.

"ExplosionsInDaSky wrote:

I think our best option is to try and trade up for RG3. The Vikings at that three spot would be an ideal target. See what they want for that pick and make them an offer.

Gonna have to disagree with you on that. The only QB in this draft worth trading up for is Luck IMHO.

Damn shame Barkley isn't coming out. We'd be sitting pretty for him is he was.

"PSG wrote:

Look, nobody knows what Matt Flynn will turn into when given the chance to be the starter. But I've seen enough of Matt Moore to know that he is a below-average starter.
I just think Flynn - depending on the price tag - is the best option this off season. Yeah I'd love to trade up for Luck, I just don't see it happening. RG3 will probably be gone too. And nobody else, IMO is worth the #8 pick.
I believe we can sign Flynn and surround him him loads of talent - Marshall, Bess, Bush, draft Blackmon or Jeffery in the 1st and Allen in the 2nd. We would have to upgrade the O-line a bit later in the draft and in FA. Our defense is very good.
I just think it's our best option.

And what happens if we lose Lanford and soliai? We have no NT. No pass rush outside of Wake. No safties, no CB depth. Where's this very good defense then?

We have 3 major holes in our OL that has to be fixed, a hole at SOLB, a hole at FS, a hole a CB, and possibly a hole a NT. As of now our defense is not very good.

What kind of QB Flynn is going to be is any bodies guess, no one knows. While that's pretty much true with QBs through the draft, at least you have a lot of college film to go off. Flynn was not impressive in college.

"Boik14 wrote:

Much different player then Boller. Boller was completely immobile, very strong armed but poor accuracy. Tannehill is very mobile, new to the position (which is really his biggest drawback) but accurate and had good huddle command. Im a fan, just not sure I like him enough to be a top 10 pick.

I have to admit that I have been negative on Tannehill as a first round selection because of his limited experience at the QB position in college. He was a receiver at A&M for the first 30 games of his career at A&M. He has only been a starting QB for the last year and a half. He is not a QB who I think is ready to come into the league and be a starter right away. Because of his lack of experience at the QB position, I think it is going to take him two or three years, with excellent coaching before he will be ready to be a starter in the NFL.

What he has going for him is that he seems to have a good arm. He also appears to be an above average athlete,as shown by his time as a wide receiver at A&M. He also is extremely intelligent, with an excellent GPA in college. He is suppose to have an interest in going to medical school after playing in the NFL.

While I am not nearly as negative on Tanneyhill now, as I have been in the past. I still don't think he is a first round selection. The Dolphins have to select a player with their first round pick who is ready to come in and start immediately. Not a player who will have to sit on the bench and learn for a few years. I see Tanneyhill as more of a late second round pick or early third round. Because of the need by so many teams for a QB, Tanneyhill may end up going in the first round. I think the team making that selection will be making a giant mistake, unless it is a team that can give him a few years to sit behind an already established NFL QB, to learn the position.

I don't think any QB should be expected to start right away. Guys like Luck and Weedon may be able to, but even they would benefit from learning behind a starter for a bit. I would be very comfortable with Tannehill sitting a year behind Moore. My main concern is not whether a QB will start right away, but rather how good will he be eventually.

"rafael wrote:

I don't think any QB should be expected to start right away. Guys like Luck and Weedon may be able to, but even they would benefit from learning behind a starter for a bit. I would be very comfortable with Tannehill sitting a year behind Moore. My main concern is not whether a QB will start right away, but rather how good will he be eventually.

I agree that for the vast majority of QB's entering the NFL, they should sit for at least a year. Unfortunately that is not what happens to QB's who are taken in the the first round. That is also why I think that so many of these first round picks end up as first round busts. In the last three NFL drafts there have been nine QB's drafted in the first round. The only QB in this group who did not end up being the starter during his first season in the league was Jake Locker. All the other QB's eventually became starters at some point in their first season in the NFL.

Today with free agency, teams have to put first round QB's on the field immediately. Unlike years ago when it would sometimes take young QB's three to five years to develop into a reliable NFL QB. The Dolphins are not in a situation where they can use a top 10 pick on a player who can just sit behind a QB, who is really nothing but a quality backup in the NFL. If the Dolphins drafted Tanneyhill with their first pick, there would be intense pressure on the new coach to play Tanneyhill, especially if the Dolphins start slowly next season.

I think Tanneyhill is more suited for a team which has an older established QB where Tanneyhill can sit and learn for a few seasons without the pressure of having to start immediately. In fact I think if the Colts decide to trade down and get a bundle of draft picks for Luck. Tanneyhill would be a perfect choice for them with their first pick in the second round. Tanneyhill would also be a solid choice for teams like the Giants, Chargers, and Steelers, or Cowboys, who might see him as a replacement for their veteran QB's in three or four years.

As far as your belief that Weeden can step in and start on an NFL team immediately. I just don't see it. I think he will have the same success in professional football he had in professional baseball, not much. He has been a very good college QB but I don't see him as anything but a backup QB in the NFL. I also don't see him drafted until at least the third round or later because of his advanced age. I think the Dolphins already have a quality backup QB in Matt Moore, so I certainly hope they don't waste a draft pick on a soon to be 29 year old.

"Nappy Roots wrote:

And what happens if we lose Lanford and soliai? We have no NT. No pass rush outside of Wake. No safties, no CB depth. Where's this very good defense then?

We have 3 major holes in our OL that has to be fixed, a hole at SOLB, a hole at FS, a hole a CB, and possibly a hole a NT. As of now our defense is not very good.

What kind of QB Flynn is going to be is any bodies guess, no one knows. While that's pretty much true with QBs through the draft, at least you have a lot of college film to go off. Flynn was not impressive in college.

Well, we need to not lose both Soliai and Langford.
Obviously this team has many holes. We're 6-10. I'm just giving my perspective on how we can make our offense better. Under my scenario, some of the holes you speak of will have to be dealt with in FA.
We're not gonna fix everything in 1 offseason.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html

Interesting thoughts on Flynn.

I do not want to give Packers any draft compensation. 2 starts yes, he set a great record last week and is learning behind Rodgers. If they don't tag him it is a different story.

Moore, Flynn and say Weeden. Stay put at 8 or 9 and as unsexy as it is, BPA. If that's a RT, so be it. If it's Blackmon, so be it. There's holes that need to be filled and I just don't see Miami outbidding the 'Skins for RG3.

"jw3102 wrote:

I agree that for the vast majority of QB's entering the NFL, they should sit for at least a year. Unfortunately that is not what happens to QB's who are taken in the the first round. That is also why I think that so many of these first round picks end up as first round busts. In the last three NFL drafts there have been nine QB's drafted in the first round. The only QB in this group who did not end up being the starter during his first season in the league was Jake Locker. All the other QB's eventually became starters at some point in their first season in the NFL.

Today with free agency, teams have to put first round QB's on the field immediately. Unlike years ago when it would sometimes take young QB's three to five years to develop into a reliable NFL QB. The Dolphins are not in a situation where they can use a top 10 pick on a player who can just sit behind a QB, who is really nothing but a quality backup in the NFL. If the Dolphins drafted Tanneyhill with their first pick, there would be intense pressure on the new coach to play Tanneyhill, especially if the Dolphins start slowly next season.

I think Tanneyhill is more suited for a team which has an older established QB where Tanneyhill can sit and learn for a few seasons without the pressure of having to start immediately. In fact I think if the Colts decide to trade down and get a bundle of draft picks for Luck. Tanneyhill would be a perfect choice for them with their first pick in the second round. Tanneyhill would also be a solid choice for teams like the Giants, Chargers, and Steelers, or Cowboys, who might see him as a replacement for their veteran QB's in three or four years.

As far as your belief that Weeden can step in and start on an NFL team immediately. I just don't see it. I think he will have the same success in professional football he had in professional baseball, not much. He has been a very good college QB but I don't see him as anything but a backup QB in the NFL. I also don't see him drafted until at least the third round or later because of his advanced age. I think the Dolphins already have a quality backup QB in Matt Moore, so I certainly hope they don't waste a draft pick on a soon to be 29 year old.

I don't agree that Tannehill or another young QB would have to start right away. A new coach will have a couple of years of leeway. And if the defense stays close to intact they probably won't start out poorly. Most teams start the young QBs b/c they're bad teams and don't have any options. Miami will have a vet QB who has performed well enough.

As for Weedon, the age will keep him out of the top 10, but I don't see him making it to the third. I don't even see him making it to the second, but that's certainly more possible. He's just to good of a prospect. You'll see him move up as the draft process unfolds.

i would take Flynn over any QB in this draft ... for 1 reason -- he has learned from the best QB in the league and has some experience in a system.

is Flynn better than Luck or RGIII ... maybe not -- but you are getting a much safer bet, and you don't have to live through much of a 'learning curve' PROVIDED you have a coaching staff that can adapt to what he already knows; and from watching Daboll - i believe Flynn would be a match (admitting that Daboll is highly questionable with a new regime).

this is not the same as taking someone from the PHI as some (including ourselves) have tried to do unsuccessfully.

"Deus ex dolphin wrote:

What? The guy is only 1-1 as a starter!! :lol:

Seriously though, it would be worth a long look. If the Colts do kick Peyton free we need to look at him (if healthy) but in either case signing a free agent would free up that first round pick. I'd guess Ireland will take the best OT left, but a pass rusher (DE if we go to a 4-3 or OLB if we stay at 3-4) or a stud WR would be welcome.

BTW, you can say Flynn had all those weapons to use in Green Bay, but even with that said, he took FULL ADVANTAGE of them. Huge numbers in that win over a Lions team that really wanted to avoid a trip to New Orleans.

I dunno, we have our fair share of weapons. Marshall, Hartline, Bess, Gates, Bush....not too shabby.

"PHINANALYST wrote:

i would take Flynn over any QB in this draft ... for 1 reason -- he has learned from the best QB in the league and has some experience in a system.

is Flynn better than Luck or RGIII ... maybe not -- but you are getting a much safer bet, and you don't have to live through much of a 'learning curve' PROVIDED you have a coaching staff that can adapt to what he already knows; and from watching Daboll - i believe Flynn would be a match (admitting that Daboll is highly questionable with a new regime).

this is not the same as taking someone from the PHI as some (including ourselves) have tried to do unsuccessfully.

IMO Flynn is safer bet than RGIII but not necessarily safer than Luck. We have watched Luck operate in an NFL system with fewer play makers than many of his opponents. He is not you typical prospect where you have to project/guess whether he can do certain things.

"jpep13 wrote:

I do not want to give Packers any draft compensation. 2 starts yes, he set a great record last week and is learning behind Rodgers. If they don't tag him it is a different story.

I dont think they can tag him

"Frumundah Finnatic wrote:

I dont think they can tag him

I think they can but it's pricey and then they can't tag Finley. They only do it to wrangle a first out of someone. You have to figure they're going to get a third as a compensatory pick if they don't trade him. So it's basically the difference between getting a first and getting a third, but then possibly losing Finley (unless they can resign him beforehand).

"PHINANALYST wrote:

i would take Flynn over any QB in this draft ... for 1 reason -- he has learned from the best QB in the league and has some experience in a system.

is Flynn better than Luck or RGIII ... maybe not -- but you are getting a much safer bet, and you don't have to live through much of a 'learning curve' PROVIDED you have a coaching staff that can adapt to what he already knows; and from watching Daboll - i believe Flynn would be a match (admitting that Daboll is highly questionable with a new regime).

this is not the same as taking someone from the PHI as some (including ourselves) have tried to do unsuccessfully.

I would take Flynn over any QB in this draft not named Andrew Luck.

I would take Flynn over Luck in a heartbeat. All this talk of how Luck has played in an NFL system means ****. He hasn't played against NFL teams or in the NFL.

GB has to move Flynn, the Colts don't have to trade for Luck.
The cost to obtain Flynn is cheaper than to obtain Luck.
If Flynn busts the time to turn it around is less than a Luck bust.
Flynn comes from an organization that clearly knows how to groom QB's.
Flynn has spent 3 years learning from an Elite QB and staff.
Assuming Flynn is a franchise QB you're giving up 2-3 years in youth to Luck.
The arguement of a system having to be put in place for Flynn is nonsense as the same will have to be done for Luck.
Miami & GB have a history of trades and GB will not want Flynn in the NFC.