Kyle Orton, Kevin Kolb & Matt Flynn

Here's the thing though, if he had gotten those guys at the price he wanted, they'd be here. Ask yourself this, if Flynn had taken less money to sign here, do the Dolphins draft Tannehill? If the answer is no, then Ireland got lucky.

 

Matt Flynn had nothing to do one way ro the other with drafting Tannehill. It is ludicrous to even suggest it. Had we signed Flynn, we wouldn't have signed Garrard and that would have been the only difference.

 

Tannehill would of beat him out..

Good decision by the coaching staff not to sign Flynn, good decision by the GM not to sign Kolb and Orton.

 

or they don't sign matt flynn because they don't want to overpay or give him an automatic start and instead of having garrard or moore here flynn is here. In which case thats called properly measuring risk/reward.

 

Because its already been stated by not just Ireland but by Ross.

Philbin did not think Flynn was the future. He thought he was a veteran backup that could hold the starting position for Tannehill. That's why they offered him a similar deal to what they offered Garrard who was/is considered to be a veteran backup that could hold the position for Tannehill.

This ain't rocket science. If you think you're wooing your future at QB you don't offer such a small contract.

 

The problem is that we pickup Flynn and draft Tannehill you have the HUGE problem that Seattle has right now. They just paid this guy a boat load of money and he just got beat out by a rookie. Thats not a good situation, that really makes a GM look stupid. Tannehill starting over Garrard isn't that big of a deal not that expensive. Matt Flynn is going to be one expensive backup. Something like Kevin Kolb who people around here cried to get.

 

Did the Seahawks officially name Wilson the Week 1 starter? I thought they were waiting until the outcome of game 3 of the preseason.

I wouldn't lump all three of them together as equal stiffs. Kolb is by far the worst and the deal that AZ made to get him was in a class by itself. The other two are where they are as simply free agents only. Didn't cost either team a 2nd round pick plus a good young starting corner back.
I was not impressed with Orton in how he was so quick to sign with a team where he knew for sure he'd be a backup only unless there is an injury. He seems to have no competitive fire to want to be a starter at this point. Or perhaps he just saw the handwriting on the wall. He is fine depth for Dallas as their #2 though.
The Seahawks never overpaid enough for Flynn that even if Wilson starts, they can't keep him as a backup. Also, he looked good this preseason from what I saw. Wilson to this point has just looked better. Makes me kind of envious that the Seahawks could get an explosive pass rusher in the 1st and then steal Wilson in the 3rd. Getting their opening day starter at MLB in the 2nd looks pretty good for them too.

I don't know what the Cards could be waiting for to name Skelton their starter. unless they are hoping against hope that somehow Kolb finally gets it and makes them appear less stupid for greatly overpaying for him. For all the folks who hate Ireland, we could have Rod Graves as our GM, then you would really have something to complain about.

 

I believe the dolphins knew they were targeting Tannehill and had already made the comparisons and upside against Flynn, so looking back, he already did beat him out.

 

Here's a question: If you were sold on Tannehill before the draft, as Ireland supposedly was, why flirt with ANY stop-gap when you already have Matt Moore on the roster? Why even bother bringing Flynn in? He would've made considerably more money than Garrard, so I think many of you are kidding yourselves if you think there wasn't a solid chance they don't Tannehill if they sign Flynn.

 

Because as has been shown, Moore isn't a great fit for a WC offense.

And no he wouldn't have made considerably more money. He wasn't offered starter money. Your Ireland hate is making you take that stance.

 

Hasn't been shown to my satisfaction. I just read some people here saying it, then others parrot them.

 

I don't get it. Why bring up moore and then compare the salaries of garrard and flynn?

 

I guess they were sure enough that Tannehill would be on the board at 8th overall. If they felt strongly that he could go ahead of them, then to me it would have made more sense to sign Flynn. Had Flynn accepted Miami's modest offer, then simply we do not sign Garrard.

 

Because Flynn is a better fit for the offense. The fact that they basically passed on Flynn when he was at such a low price-point should say that they felt he wasn't nearly as good as Tannehill.

 

Also, we heard reports (read: not rumor, actual reports, difference) that it was Stephen Ross who called Jeff Ireland off the Kyle Orton trade pursuit.

I give them credit for never pursuing Kevin Kolb, though.

Also I think we might be jumping the gun on the whole "Matt Flynn is just a backup in Seattle, he's such a BUST, I'm so glad we didn't get him!" sentiment.

 

According to Jeff Ireland, Matt Flynn is one of two players he's offered a contract to that did not sign, since becoming a General Manager with the Miami Dolphins. Yes, he said that.

 

Is Flynn definitely not starting in Seattle? I didn't see or hear that announced yet.

 

I have been civil to you, ftr.

Because we've been told the truth by Ross since then.

 

What you think they said and what they actually said are two different things. They didn't say they were going to draft RYAN TANNEHILL anyway. Stephen Ross said that they would have been drafting SOMEONE anyway. Big difference. That someone could easily have been Russell Wilson or Nick Foles, for example.

Philbin told you this?

 

Because Moore + Flynn is already a decent chunk of salary tied up in the QB position. Then you have roughly 2 million towards the cap per year with Tannehill's contract. So I doubt you have all three guys on the team when the season starts. Point is, if you sign Flynn it's unlikely you draft Tannehill. You do what Seattle did and draft a guy in the 3rd or 4th round.

 

I'm sorry but you're wrong on this.
There's absolutely NO WAY a guy like Flynn would keep Ireland from drafting a QB he's been enamored with for 2 years and for 2 years has thought is a 1st round talent. It especially wouldn't happen now that the rookie wage scale drops RT's cost to only $12 million.
However, there's no guarantee in life that Tannehill was going to be there at #8, and we weren't about to head into a season with just Moore & Devlin, so we did exactly what others have already suggested----- we offered Flynn top backup money, and we offered that little b/c we knew we'd be taking Tannehill if he's there.

Heck, we brought in some of his offensive coaches from TAMU and installed his TAMU offense for crying out loud. Do you think that's a coincidence?



If what you're saying is true then we wouldn't have kept Garrard after drafting Tannehill.

 

I don't see their situation as a problem nor do I think it makes their GM look dumb. I think their "problem" would be a pretty awesome "problem" to have. Matt Flynn, if anyone has cared to actually watch him play this preseason, actually looks good. And I've heard training camp practice reports that parallel what we heard about Flynn with the Packers, that he can have entire practices where he's essentially flawless. The General Manager drafted Russell Wilson because (and he stated this) he was somewhere along the lines of one of the very best college football players he saw in 2011 period. He didn't draft him in the 1st round of course, because he didn't need to draft him in the 1st round. But he had STRONG conviction on Wilson and made sure that one way or another, he's getting him.

No matter which guy starts, as long as that player plays well, they win. That's not a bad "problem" to have.

 

I'd be interested to know the numbers on the contract they offered him.

 

They didn't offer Flynn a big contract, which is why that disproves your theory.

 

It hasn't been announced because it hasn't been decided. But his fate is not in his own hands, is what people are saying. His fate is in Russell Wilson's hands.

Which is kind of insignificant thing to say, anyway. No player's fate is ever really in their own hands.

 

Who says I'm not?

Link?

 

that doesn't tie in with what you were saying though. You said why would you do it if we had moore, and then you bring up the salaries argument. Why couldn't they get then get rid of moore?

 

Garrard was signed in March, well before the draft. IMO, he was the fallback option if we didn't land Flynn, but either way we'd be drafting a QB. Had Tannehill been gone, we may have just drafted Weeden instead.

 

^Civil or mocking?

 

Bologna. We drafted Tannehill b/c we feel RT, NOT Matt Moore, is the future. Moore is an afterthought in that regard. If anyone would NOT have been on the roster if we signed Flynn, it would be Moore. It's simple logic. If money were an issue (which it isn't) it'd be Flynn & Tannehill. Period. Moore is in the last year of his contract. You could trade him, cut him, or keep him depending on how quickly RT picked things up.

Let's look at the logic of it all. Which QB is the obvious priority on the team? It's not Garrard. It's not Moore or else we wouldn't have used a 1st rounder on QB. It wasn't Flynn b/c we didn't offer him "you are our man" money. We used a #8 pick on Tannehill, so he obviously & logically sits on top. Beyond that, you can feel free to debate who the #2 & #3 priority would've been, but make no mistake, #1 has belonged to Tannehill.

 

Except that Garrard was signed before they drafted Tannehill.

 

Why bring in a stop-gap when you already have Moore, is what I'm saying. Furthermore, why pay that stop-gap a bunch of money.

 

they didn't pay that stop gap a bunch of money. At least not as much as seattle.
why can't you bring in a guy you consider a stop gap who could possibly be more? Again its risk vs reward.

 

Thanks for refreshing my memory, MC.
Signing Garrard in March for $3.0M had no impact on drafting Tannehill, which is exactly how it would've been if we had signed Flynn instead.