That makes no sense.

He's more proven than any rookie on the NFL level, including Luck. He also won the National Championship in college. How exactly is that not proven at any level?

He may suck as a starter or he may not, but nothing you said points that out either way.

 

Agreed. ^

Over and over and over.

Edit: I have to say.... (If we don't get Manning... and with Luck/RG3 gone)...with what we have left at choices for a QB I don't understand the negativity toward picking up Flynn if our HC says its a smart move......The guy was in the system our HC ran for 4 years.....a system he is trying to install here...... I just don't get all this "unproven bull" bs... really makes no sense to me.... idk..

a college national championship, and setting a doorblowing GB franchise record on your 2nd start in the NFL means he must be mediocre and nothing less because he was a backup to QBs like Arod and a 7th round pick or w/e.......no exceptions.....must be a bad choice...

what?

 

1. Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game Team Game. You win with a team. I don't care how good you are. It's very rare you see extra special circumstances with heavy carry appearances. I'm talking about HEAVY carrying. Still doesn't mean much.

2. Draft "gurus" hit and miss all the time. ALL. THE. TIME. not relevant. ( Again. ref Brady. Marino. for a partial)

3. 2 NFL starts are 2 more than an "unproven bull" rookie we could draft. and thats a lot, when considering. ALSO he could have started and bombed, instead he started and had better QB ratings than we have seen in a stupid amount of time on this team, IDRC about the team he was on, i've watched both starts multiple times, both games against the pats and lions, he showed ALOT of good skillsets. nothing amazing or godlike, but he moved well, had good presence in the pocket, got rid of it in a smart way in some tight situations.. I saw a lot of good things, more than i'd expect from 2 rookie starts... ALOT more. I'm quite aware their secondaries are not the best..... regardless He could have been so much worse.......

4) just seems pretty idk.... dumb to say I guess... not sure. Tom brady and Marino "COULD" have been a garbage "unproven" bull. picked in low rounds. Its called a gamble, thats how acquiring new talents in drafts and FA works. I know you like your WR/ QB hybrid in Tannehill, but what you're saying doesnt make sense to me

Also, He is not going to be demanding a huge amount of money, I have said for a long time now he wont be getting kolb like money, I stay by that firmly and they are starting to report it as such... gives and even bigger reason to sign him. Green bay didnt TAG him because if they did they would be paying their back up more than Aaron rodgers..........good idea right?

tl;dr. Our HC worked with him for 4 years in our new system, considering the current QBs that are "tangible" to us, if Philbin says get him, YOU DO.
the end

 

Flynn, IMO, is as unproven as any rookie QB. However, our head coach has coached him the entire time he's been in the NFL. I'm not really worried about the Flynn situation. If we pick him up, then our HC is confident enough in him to rest his job on his shoulders. If we don't get him, then out HC doesn't think Flynn is capable of being a franchise QB.

I don't understand the controversy over him ATM...

 

I attribute Matt Flynn's success to 2 things:

1) only one game tape of him in action and that was against the Pats in 2010(I'll call this the Brady/Cassell effect, success found them early due to no film)
2) playing against a pedestrian secondary in Detroit. They were the 22nd ranked Pass D in the regular season, giving up 238/game.

I realize that acquiring FA is all about risk management, and there is some familiarity with Flynn, but even with that, this is quite a risk to take. If a deal with Flynn doesn't work out, even with drafting Tannehill(another familiar guy), the club runs the risk of being exactly back where it started, no real serviceable QB, festering in mediocrity. We already have a Matt Flynn IMO in Matt Moore. Save the cap space and build from within.

Let's take a look at successful teams, they don't overspend in FA. Do the Packers make a splash in FA? Not really. Do the Pats? That is debatable, they pick up guys with a little tread left on the tires and pay them a fair salary, but aren't afraid to move on. There are templates to follow for success, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the FO and ownership will NOT follow them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I highly disagree with your opinion. Flynn is more proven as any rookie QB. We have tape of him playing NFL games against NFL players. Even preseason he is playing against college superstars.

 

We have 2 stinking tapes....and preseason. I wish everyone were not so desperate for success that they are willing to mortgage the long term for now. You don't build year by year, you build for a decade. Once again, look at successful teams.....Pats build through the draft and superior talent evaluation. Packers do it the same way. Steelers do it the same way. They all have identities that they stick to and build around, and not reaching in Free Agency for that "last necessary piece" that is both elusive and mythical for the most part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Unfortuantely Everything you just said got near 100% countered with simple logic and basic knowledge..... But its hard to counter when nothing you said really made sense or was beyond reason in the first place. I understand you seem sensitive, and you stress your anti Flynn over every post that has his name in it, but sometimes people are wrong about things, that is life

 

A lot of people are saying we should draft Tannehill. I just think he will be gone by the 8th pick. IMHO, Cleveland takes him with their pick or a team like Seattle moves in front of us and selects him. I think our best bet is moving back if Tannehill is gone and selecting Weedon if we can move back.

 

this doesnt say anything about how Flynn isnt anymore proven than a rookie QB. Which he really is, actually. 2 games and a preseason or so is A L O T more than what you can evalutate an incoming rookie... which is N O T H I N G......... I don't understand any of this.

You're going to bring what the packers do as a defense to your logic?? Our HC was a huge part of GBs success and game planning so lets stop for a second and do what he thinks is the best move, since what they do is a good comparison scale....... you know what common sense will point to? He wants Flynn... ALOT more likely than not.

 

Yes, 2 stinking full game tapes. He also played in other games as well. Plus he played in preseason.

It isn't so desperate for success, that is insulting. It is being rational about the situation.

 

None of us have seen enough of Flynn to know if he's going to be good or not.

However, there is more proof he can play in the NFL than there is of even Luck. You cannot deny that.

 

1) If we sign Flynn, he starts, there wouldn't be a competition, period.

2) YOU KEEP BRINGING UP THE MONEY AS AN ARGUMENT. you have NO idea what the contract would look like.... NO idea what they would ask for, and NO idea the deal he'd be willing to work out to play with his former O/C for 4 years......

3) Once again your infatuation for Tannehill seems to be overcasting any real openmindedness you COULD have on anything

You are basing your argument over your personal preference and opinion which, obviously is fine on a forum, but the argument is common sense and reason here with what our new HC probably sees

 

I dont understand how you have all that to say about Flynn but u wanna draft tannehil

 

23rd, you always have at least one statement in your posts that makes me scratch my head. You would draft another C who might develop into a PB guy to compete with Mike Pouncey, the guy we drafted last year that looks to be PB material ?? I don't get it... Draft a RT or even a G, but another C ??

 

Lets say:

Scenario 1) On one hand you have a plant that is starting to bloom in a pot, it's small but is showing some decent sprouts and from the arms and buds has a pretty good chance of blooming into something great......It has been growing in a pot that has the same soil you are planning to fill your backyard area with as and thus far has taken well to it.

Scenario 2) On the other hand you have you have just a seed, nothing else... Just pictures what what it CAN be on the package it comes in....and some speculation from others who have grown things like it...... Could be great.... Could be a total dud that never grows.....

Now, Which should be planted in your yard for a better chance of a succesful plant? Obviously side 1 could fail as easily as side 2, I'm not arguing that it can't. The point is with the realistic outlook you have.... What makes the most sense......?

Maybe I need to dumb down my argument to childrens book caliber.... Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that 2 starts and what we have of his NFL play thus far is a night and day difference over what we have for NFL experience of a rookie?

 

You're right, but is it enough to make a difference? Doubtful. Flynn may become another Aaron Rodgers or he may be another Scott Mitchell. I'm not saying he will become either. My post was just pointing out that the Dolphin's HC knows more about him than any other team does because he hasn't really played any games in the NFL sans those 2. Flynn,, by most anyone's standards is not proven. Which, IMO, puts him close to rookie status. Granted, rookie status with an upside because he has experience being in the NFL, but not really playing games in the NFL.

If I was going to attempt 100 full court shots and made the first 2 with 98 more to go, but you stopped watching me only to come back and look at some guy who was about to make those same shots would you feel confident in what you saw of me to bet millions that I made more of those 100 shots than the guy about to shoot would? I don't think those 2 shots are enough to make me a proven full court shooter. It could haev been just luck that I made those first two. What if I missed the last 98?

 

This point is so basic you don't need an analogy to explain it. The problem is, you've gotten into a "back & forth" with the King of Trolls (the 23rd). He makes outlandish statements and then any and all disagreements are met with multifont broke-dick prose. Say your peace and move on, before he drives you to drink. He's simply not worth it.

 

Flynn does not have a long resume. He does have a short successful one though and he would come here in a system he's well versed in and comfortable in with coach he knows and who knows him well. He may not be an elite QB but he may very well be a better QB than we've had in years here...and Sparano and Henne are gone...they have a long distance affair between Jax and NY right now...has nothing to do with Philbin and Flynn...

Don't think Weeden lasts to the our pick in the second...Moving up for Tannehill isn't wise either, he's not really worthy of #8, but the best option after the top two guys...

You don't see the line in bad shape...who are our RT and RG ?? Carey and Colombo are both gone...(thank you very much). Can we depend on Murtha coming back from the injury and Garner and Jerry to pick up the slack ??

Are you that comfortable with Bell (another year older) at SS ?? It was pretty obvious that Father Time was catching up with him despite him leading the team in tackles...a misleading stat since we had no production from the FS spot and JT was a shell of his former self in pass rush, putting even more pressure on the secondary...I don't see the secondary as very good, despite the addition of Marshall...we'll need more...

JT was our pass rusher opposite Wake...who is that this year ?? The talk is that this regime sees Misi as an ILB...who is that other OLB/DE to complement Wake ?? Is this mystery player even on the roster ??

Last but not least...I think it's time we gave up on Manning...We simply don't have the money to sign him now...whether or not he's the answer, we just can't afford him...

 

Sure it's a difference, but it's not night and day. The biggest factor in all of this is Philbin coached him and only he has a good idea of what Flynn will or can do. We, and the rest of the fans, only have 2 games. For me that's not enough to declare anyone anything.

 

Again, no one is saying Flynn will be a franchise player. All we're saying is we have more evidence he can play in this league than a rookie, and quite frankly I don't think a high 1st spent on rookie QB has less to lose than a FA. Its going to cost us a lot of money with both but a draft pick as well for the rook.

Not too mention, we happen to have a guy that knows Flynn pretty well and Flynn already knows our system.

Also, your analogy is not accurate.

 

We have 2 NFL games and the entirety of his college career. A rookie we only have their college career.

 

Maybe they are saying it in this thread, but a lot of people are. On the other hand there are a lot of people saying he will not be any good. I don't agree with either side. Why? Because I've only seen the guy play 2 NFL games. That proves nothing to me. My analogy wasn't meant to be some scientifically correct experiment...it was meant to convey that more proof is needed when trying to label someone as a starter in the NFL. I think it did that just fine.

I agree with you that we have a HC that knows him better than anyone and Flynn will obviously know the offense 1000x better than any rookie, but knowing the offense and executing the offense on a consistant basis are two different things.

 

He is unproven as a starter in the NFL like a rookie is unproven. However he has proven one thing that all rookies do not have, he can play in the NFL. Which makes him not a rookie. A rookie is a player that has not proven he can play in the NFL because he hasn't.

The things I do know is that he has been good to great everytime he has played in the NFL. With your analogy Flynn has a good percentage with 20 full court shots.

 

I understand that. Is 2 games enough to be proven over someone who doesn't?

 

You can argue that the limited game tape we have on Flynn is valid or not valid. You can't argue with the fact that in that limited video we have, he was successful. You can't argue the teams he played against as both were good teams at the time he played against them. You can argue that this is more than what we have on anyone in the draft. MMoore was good with the Fins last season, but he didn't set an all time franchise record against a playoff team as Flynn did. The learning curve for Flynn would be reduced because of his familiarity with the system. In fact, he'd be ahead of the curve of the rest of the O players on our roster. While you can argue the short resume, you can't argue the first hand knowledge that Philbin has with him and his ability. For every argument you can make that for MMoore or any other QB is the way to go for us, one can make an argument for Flynn.

That said, and it's been said many times, if Philbin is sold on Flynn, I'm all in for him as well. I'm not sold on Flynn particularly either. But I do think he may be the best option we have available right now. We can take the chance on the draft, but that's as big a crap shoot, this year, as any other option we have.

You talk about GB's success...the same GB that was crap for all the 70's and 80's ?? And the same crappy Pittsburgh of the 40's, 50's and 60's... The same Pats that our Fins beat 17 times in a row in the 70's and 80's...it's all relative...you have to start being successful at some point before you get to that point that you can develop your team strictly off the draft with minor FA spending...We are not to that point yet, so we'll have to use FA to augment our draft until we get the talent level of this franchise to where it needs to be, to be successful again. That may have to start with a QB that is less than elite but perhaps better than average (you know, what we've had since Marino retired)...We need something to kick start this franchise and a less than elite QB that is familiar with the system who has a better than average chance of being successful in that system might be where we need to start at....

 

I hope and pray the Browns take Tannehill with their first selection. I think he is going to be a complete bust and the Dolphins drafting him with their first round pick will do nothing but prolong the decline of this organization.

The right side of the offensive line needs to be completely rebuild. They will have only mediocre play at WR next season, because of the trade of Marshall. TE is a a weak position on offense for the Dolphins.

On defense the only quality starter in the secondary is Vontae Davis. No other starter in the Dolphins secondary would be a starter on the better teams in the NFL. Wake did not play as effectively in 2011 as he did in 2010. It is difficult to imagine that his play will improve over last year since he is getting older, and certainly not younger. Misi also need to be replaced at the LB position and I don't see Odrick ever being anything but an average DL in the NFL. I would rather the Dolphins resign Langford and get rid of Odrick.

I'm not real high on Flynn either and I hope he signs with the Seahawks sometime today.

Unlike you, I see many holes on the Dolphins and with Moore the likely starter again next season, I see the Dolphins once again finishing below 500. Hopefully they won't screw it up again by winning just enough games which will make it difficult for them to move up in the draft and select Matt Barkley. I figure they should be selecting in the top ten again next year and hopefully Ross will have fired Ireland and the new GM will actually know how to build a winning organization and how to trade UP in the draft to get a QB to build this team around.

 

In vacuum? No.

If one guy played in 2 NFL games and the other in 4 NFL games, that alone is not evidence that can point in one direction or another.

0 games at the NFL level vs 2 games at the NFL level is another story. Enough for guaranteed success in the NFL? No. More indicative of success in the NFL? Yes.

 

I mostly agree with this, but 2 games is just not that meaningful to me.

 

Its only meaningful when comparing a rookie to him.

 

Just about everyone says that Flynn isn't proven... Well how proven are these guys coming out of college? YOu may say that they started for their college teams for X amount of years, and that would be true. However, Flynn was a four year starter at LSU wasn't he? He proved himself there and has how many years under his belt in the pro style of play? Maybe not as a starter but far more advanced than even a Luck or Griffin will be when they are picked in the draft. I'm just tired of everyone saying that Flynn hasn't shown anything, he was a back up for one of the best QB's in the league the past several years, so honestly, how many starts was he going to get or anyone else who was #2 behind Rodgers? Just saying, if Philbin feels this kid can do the job then who the heck are we to question it?

 

But it is meaningful. It does have meaning.

 

**** me ...I got trolled so hard.. you and fin D shoulda warned me sooner. No one could have this much of a hard time with commonsense

 

So you and Dupree would pick Flynn over Luck? Serious question. If 2 games matter then you two would take the guy who has proven he can play in the NFL over Luck?