LINK: https://twitter.com/JasonColeYahoo/stat ... 2142918656

"While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut."

Not that surprising.

I think it would be foolish to cut him. I know we could save some money, but if we hang on to him some team will get desperate enough to give up something for him. Besides that, he's a solid backup. To cut him would mean downgrading the team and losing any chance at compensation to save some room in the budget (which at this point, is not needed).

^ Agreed. Cutting him doesn't make sense. You trade him for picks or you hold on to him for depth.

Those teams "expecting him to be cut" - that's wishful thinking.

Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.

HawkFan72 wrote:but if we hang on to him some team will get desperate enough to give up something for him. Besides that, he's a solid backup. To cut him would mean downgrading the team and losing any chance at compensation to save some room in the budget (which at this point, is not needed).

Well... it often gets said that some desperate team will offer something. I think John Schneider has earned a level of respect now where if Flynn gets cut, it's because there wasn't a deal to be done.

I generally think we way overrate this guy as a fan base. He's going to be a 28-year-old career back-up earning over seven times more than our dynamic pro-bowl quarterback next year. That makes absolutely zero sense. We simply do not need Matt Flynn that badly. We can find a back-up. No other teams in the NFL are really wringing their hands over the backup QB situation.

And if we can save $3m or whatever that is IDEAL. Remember - any unused cap this year can be thrown forward to NEXT YEAR. Meaning a better opportunity to start re-signing our young talent as contracts get close to completion. That is why cap room every year is KING for this front office.

kidhawk wrote:Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.

T-Jack wasn't due $5.25m and even more the following year.

Or it could be the agent tryng to get a team to bite? A team higher up on the waiver-wire order.

The timing of this doesn't even make sense.

Yeah I don't see this happening, he will more than likely be traded.

Can't imagine any scenario whereby Flynn is simply let go. After the acceleration of the prorated portion of his signing bonus, the cap savings wouldn't be overly significant, and certainly not enough to offset the lost value of having him as a top tier backup QB. And the Hawks aren't hurting for cap space in the first place. Not even close, actually.

I think people need to be more prepared than they think for this happening.

There are obvious benefits to having extra cap room as discussed, plus he's due $5.25m this year and $6.25m the next. And any team that trades for Flynn will be stuck paying that salary to a 28-year-old with two career starts.

NorthDallas40oz wrote:And the Hawks aren't hurting for cap space in the first place. Not even close, actually.

That doesn't matter. Any unused cap in the new CBA can be thrown forward to the next year. Thus, making it a damn site easier to re-sign Okung, Thomas, Sherman or whoever when those rookie contracts expire.

Or, yeah know, Matt's agent could be floating this out there so he has more say in where he goes.

The timing of the statement smells all sorts of fishy. Yeah, he's overvalued by some. But, the same way he's undervalued by others because of last years once in a lifetime QB market.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

HawkFan72 wrote:but if we hang on to him some team will get desperate enough to give up something for him. Besides that, he's a solid backup. To cut him would mean downgrading the team and losing any chance at compensation to save some room in the budget (which at this point, is not needed).

Well... it often gets said that some desperate team will offer something. I think John Schneider has earned a level of respect now where if Flynn gets cut, it's because there wasn't a deal to be done.

I generally think we way overrate this guy as a fan base. He's going to be a 28-year-old career back-up earning over seven times more than our dynamic pro-bowl quarterback next year. That makes absolutely zero sense. We simply do not need Matt Flynn that badly. We can find a back-up. No other teams in the NFL are really wringing their hands over the backup QB situation.

And if we can save $3m or whatever that is IDEAL. Remember - any unused cap this year can be thrown forward to NEXT YEAR. Meaning a better opportunity to start re-signing our young talent as contracts get close to completion. That is why cap room every year is KING for this front office.

If it were any other position, I would agree with you.

But this is a QB we're talking about, and that is the most difficult position to find players for, and we have seen what even mediocre QBs can drive desperate teams to do on the trade market. And there are a bunch of teams this year who are looking for a QB to at least come in and compete for a starting job.

Flynn's contract is not trade-prohibitive. I am expecting at least a 6th rounder for him.

Doesn't make sense to me.

We might re-structure or something, but to just cut him loose with no compensation would be silly IMHO.

Oh, and show me where in the rule book or the CBA it says your backup must make less than a starter.

pehawk wrote:The timing of the statement smells all sorts of fishy.

I think it's more just a reporter having spoken to some teams, possibly at the Senior Bowl, and he's reported what he found out.

HawkFan72 wrote:If it were any other position, I would agree with you.

But this is a QB we're talking about, and that is the most difficult position to find players for, and we have seen what even mediocre QBs can drive desperate teams to do on the trade market. And there are a bunch of teams this year who are looking for a QB to at least come in and compete for a starting job.

Flynn's contract is not trade-prohibitive. I am expecting at least a 6th rounder for him.

There's also a bunch of rookie's to draft (this is a MUCH better class than most are reporting) and Flynn had no market last year when he was a free agent. This is the second high profile reporter (after Adam Schefter) reporting he might have no takers.

I just think a few people might be in for a surprise when they see how limited his market is.

And I would argue $5.25m in 2013 and $6.25m is pretty substantial for a guy pushing 30 with two career starts.

kidhawk wrote:Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.

well... he probably would have though. Anyway you cant say for sure he wouldnt have been

sutz wrote:Oh, and show me where in the rule book or the CBA it says your backup must make less than a starter.

It doesn't, but when the back-up earns over ten (???) times more than your Pro-Bowl starter then it's time to consider that situation. We don't need to spend that much money on a guy who wears a cap and a big coat on game day.

But, how would Seattle know there's no takers? And, what are other teams suppose to say "yes, I want him, please reduce my negotiating positioning and increase the cost by reporting that".

pehawk wrote:But, how would Seattle know there's no takers? And, what are other teams suppose to say "yes, I want him, please reduce my negotiating positioning and increase the cost by reporting that".

I don't get where you're coming from?

This to me seems like Jason Cole has polled some teams -- probably in Mobile this week -- and they've told him they think Flynn will be cut negating the need to trade. There are a lot of situations like that in the league every year.

And love or loathe Jason Cole, he's got some sources. Same with Adam Schefter, who uttered something similar in a mailbag last week basically saying his market will be cold.

I would be absolutely shocked if he got cut. I was never on his bandwagon, so don't count me in your "we as a fanbase overrate our own players" but he's better than you're giving him credit for.

If Flynn is not a Hawk next year, I'm almost certain it's because he was traded, not cut.

Yes, he's got sources. But, he doesn't get those sources unless he also floats crap too. That's the give and take, c'mon, you know that.

Think of it this way; would JS tell ANYONE he's interested in trading for Flynn if he was on the other end? Or, would he say no, so he doesn't have to compete wsith others to get the lowest cost?

Hawkfan77 wrote:he's better than you're giving him credit for.

Why is he? Nobody wanted him last year except us.

pehawk wrote:Think of it this way; would JS tell ANYONE he's interested in trading for Flynn if he was on the other end? Or, would he say no, so he doesn't have to compete wsith others to get the lowest cost?

Speaking only from my own experience... coaches are happy to be very open to reporters if the relationship is good enough.

Or, assume you are Schneider. And, you think the Jets or Bills are interested, and you can RAPE them. Put this out there so they'd have to leap over teams further down in the waiver wire chain.

This may indeed end up being true. But, the timing is a total work. Most likely by Flynn's agent or JS.

therealjohncarlson wrote:

kidhawk wrote:Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.

well... he probably would have though. Anyway you cant say for sure he wouldnt have been

I can say for sure he wouldn't have been cut, because he wasn't cut. There was a market for T-Jack, there's gotta be a market for Flynn


As for the argument being made that he makes too much and teams would have to take on his salary, no team has to pay him his contract amount. Deals are done all the team with restructured contracts. Nothing says he won't restructure and stay, or he won't be re-structured and leave.

Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.

I would surprised if he is cut.

kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.

I certainly hope so because it's going to roll over into the next year and that's when we're gonna need it!

Zebulon Dak wrote:

kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.

I certainly hope so because it's going to roll over into the next year and that's when we're gonna need it!

How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?

Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?

kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.

There's no myth. The new CBA allows teams to push forward a specified amount of unused cap each year. The more cap room you have, the more you can push forward.

The reason Seattle has as much cap room this off-season as it does is because they specified quite a large amount to move forward. Saving as much cap room as possible every season is crucial now for teams with a young roster. If you want to be able to keep Okung, Thomas, Kam, Sherman etc... then you need to keep pushing forward as much as possible each year.

Spending $7.25m on a backup QB this year is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use... if not this year, then next year. It's not about having pure cap anymore. The new CBA is making it possible to reward teams who draft well. We need to take advantage. And our front office will be fully aware of that. A $3m saving should not be sniffed at.

kidhawk wrote:How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?

Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?

We've checked and there was no specification that roll over ended this year. It appears to be possible until the deal runs out in 2021.

And yes you have to minimum spend - that won't be an issue when we try to re-sign Okung, Thomas, Sherman etc.

FlyingGreg wrote:^ Agreed. Cutting him doesn't make sense. You trade him for picks or you hold on to him for depth.

Those teams "expecting him to be cut" - that's wishful thinking.

My thoughts exactly.
Some fools figguring on picking up a quality Quarterback on the cheap...It's almost comical...ALMOST.

Cole's report may end up being true, but it's just work at this point. No teams have talked to each other. No teams have really started devising draft strategies, understanding the QB's they want or the QB's other teams want. My guess is Cole floated this as a favor to an agent. Just a guess.

Meh, even if we can't find a trading partner cut him loose. The team needs literally every hundredth thousand dollar they can get for re-signing the majority core of this team over the next 3 years. Everyone wants a dynasty over going all in 1 or 2 years for the Super Bowl, well re-signing those core players can help with that and saving a couple million by cutting a backup quarterback who may never even see the field can go a long ways towards keeping the players here.

Jason Cole‏@JasonColeYahoo "While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut'

The key word here is problematic: it doesn't say he won't be traded. Obviously, the market is thin as few teams are in a position of need, but it is not a foregone conclusion that a team won't trade for Flynn, so that they can opt to draft a non-QB player with their top pick, and pick up a QB later in the draft.

Maybe Jason never spoke to reps with teams that have "some" interest, and even if he did, as pehawk said
you don't reduce your bargaining position by showing interest

GoHawks wrote:The key word here is problematic: it doesn't say he won't be traded.

Absolutely. This doesn't mean a trade won't happen, rather that it'll be difficult to generate any kind of value.

But I do think it should prepare us for Flynn being cut as a possibility. I suspect this place will go into meltdown if it happens, even though it's perhaps more likely than some anticipated.

GCrow wrote:Meh, even if we can't find a trading partner cut him loose.

I think this is exactly the point Cole is making. He's not saying he will be cut or he won't be traded. He's saying that if they can't find a suitor for a trade that they'll probably just cut him. And I believe that's probably a very accurate and reasonable statement. And I happen to agree that it is what we should do.

Would we love to get something for him? Of course. And I think we probably will but you never know.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

Hawkfan77 wrote:he's better than you're giving him credit for.

Why is he? Nobody wanted him last year except us.

This is slight exaggeration to make your point. The Dolphins also wanted him.

And to say that just because only 2 teams wanted him last year that NO teams will want him this year makes no sense. There are at least 7 teams that have had a complete turnover at the GM spot and/or the HC spot that may be looking for a QB that were not last year.

Just because a situation was something last offseason does not mean it is the same this year. Your argument is very flawed.

HawkFan72 wrote:This is slight exaggeration to make your point. The Dolphins also wanted him.

And to say that just because only 2 teams wanted him last year that NO teams will want him this year makes no sense. There are at least 7 teams that have had a complete turnover at the GM spot and/or the HC spot that may be looking for a QB that were not last year.

Just because a situation was something last offseason does not mean it is the same this year. Your argument is very flawed.

Were the Dolphins that interested? I mean, they knew all about the guy through Philbin. That visit wreaked of a token gesture. And he agreed to sign for Seattle (may be mistaken here) before he even got back on the plane to the PNW.

I never made any comment on no teams wanting him this year. I merely commented that interest was extremely light last year.

And it's not that flawed really, is it? I mean, you could argue it's more flawed to believe things will be different 12 months on for a 28-year-old with his physical qualities? And two career starts? I could be wrong, but my point is far from flawed. When they guy was a free agent and cost no compensation but his salary, there was minimal interest apart from the team that eventually signed him (us). Adam Schefter - not a bad source for info - is predicting it'll be the same again this year. It's not a major stretch to side with him.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.

There's no myth. The new CBA allows teams to push forward a specified amount of unused cap each year. The more cap room you have, the more you can push forward.

The reason Seattle has as much cap room this off-season as it does is because they specified quite a large amount to move forward. Saving as much cap room as possible every season is crucial now for teams with a young roster. If you want to be able to keep Okung, Thomas, Kam, Sherman etc... then you need to keep pushing forward as much as possible each year.

Spending $7.25m on a backup QB this year is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use... if not this year, then next year. It's not about having pure cap anymore. The new CBA is making it possible to reward teams who draft well. We need to take advantage. And our front office will be fully aware of that. A $3m saving should not be sniffed at.

kidhawk wrote:How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?

Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?

We've checked and there was no specification that roll over ended this year. It appears to be possible until the deal runs out in 2021.

And yes you have to minimum spend - that won't be an issue when we try to re-sign Okung, Thomas, Sherman etc.

Reading through the CBA, yes you can push leftover cap forward, and there is a minimum spend amount. The amount is currently at 89% according to the CBA. Using last year's cap number of 120.6 million, that means a team could push forward, as much as 13.266 million if they maxed out. We are currently sitting at over $18 million, and that doesn't figure in the salaries of veterans that will likely be swapped out for rookies we draft this year, so that number should offset the slight increase in salary cap (if there is any) from last year to this year. This means that we currently have over $5 million in money we absolutely HAVE to spend, above and beyond what we are currently spending. So when you look at players being replaced and figure in their salary vs. free agent replacements, we must spend at a minimum, $5 million more this year. This still should not become an issue to where we have to cut Flynn because of his contract. Now, we may find a trade partner for him, and that scenario seems much more plausible, but given the math, I just still don't see cutting him as a necessity, unless it's something that Flynn has pushed for or perhaps something they may have agreed to if he played his role well this season.

What a half ass tweet. I don't buy it. We trade him or hold onto him.

Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.

kidhawk wrote:Reading through the CBA, yes you can push leftover cap forward, and there is a minimum spend amount. The amount is currently at 89% according to the CBA. Using last year's cap number of 120.6 million, that means a team could push forward, as much as 13.266 million if they maxed out. We are currently sitting at over $18 million, and that doesn't figure in the salaries of veterans that will likely be swapped out for rookies we draft this year, so that number should offset the slight increase in salary cap (if there is any) from last year to this year. This means that we currently have over $5 million in money we absolutely HAVE to spend, above and beyond what we are currently spending. So when you look at players being replaced and figure in their salary vs. free agent replacements, we must spend at a minimum, $5 million more this year. This still should not become an issue to where we have to cut Flynn because of his contract. Now, we may find a trade partner for him, and that scenario seems much more plausible, but given the math, I just still don't see cutting him as a necessity, unless it's something that Flynn has pushed for or perhaps something they may have agreed to if he played his role well this season.

It's not a necessity in that we have to do it 'or else'. But if we want to make some free agent moves - modest or otherwise - then an extra injection of cash would be helpful. That and the rookie class gets you beyond the minimum spend. There's a chance -- like Clemons last year -- they try to extend the contract of (for example) a Kam Chancellor this off-season rather than next. Schneider's already referenced that.

The figures we're talking about here ($17-18m) are existing if we don't do anything in FA or re-sign our own players to new deals. Given that I think we'll do both (and maybe even go after a FA like Henry Melton or Randy Starks) the extra money would be useful in enabling us to push the maximum forward into next year to get other key prospective free agents re-signed to longer term deals.

Not a necessity to save money on Flynn, but there's a pretty clear incentive to not be paying a guy who hopefully won't ever see the field and yet earns one of the more expensive contracts on the roster.

Coug_Hawk08 wrote:What a half ass tweet. I don't buy it. We trade him or hold onto him.

If you were expecting a diatribe there's a 140 character limit...

Jville wrote:Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.

$4m is guaranteed but they're paying him $7.25m in total. Cutting him saves $3.25m.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:And it's not that flawed really, is it? I mean, you could argue it's more flawed to believe things will be different 12 months on for a 28-year-old with his physical qualities? And two career starts? I could be wrong, but my point is far from flawed. When they guy was a free agent and cost no compensation but his salary, there was minimal interest apart from the team that eventually signed him (us). Adam Schefter - not a bad source for info - is predicting it'll be the same again this year. It's not a major stretch to side with him.

The timing is the stretch. No one knows a thing yet, period. No one's talked to anyone else.

And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.

Okay, the below is funny.

If you were expecting a diatribe there's a 140 character limit...

Flynn knows our system, were going for it this next year, Wilsons salary low versus Flynns salary still ranks us as a low cost team for QB's. English has stated you can't win a Super Bowl unless you have a top 10 pick at QB in this leage, now he is saying a qualified back up isn't necessary. Dolphins would say shame on you, 49ers had Monatan and Young, I guess that was a waste of cap money also and never paid off. Jeez what would have heppened if Pittsburgh would have had a actual legitimate QB to fill in for Ben when he got hurt this year. A tem in a serious contention position doesn't need a grooming QB, they need someone that can manage and not lose games and have the tools to win if necessary.

English has a lot of good information, I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's and a over confidence on the media declaring others sure fire.

pehawk wrote:And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.

It's hardly irrelevant. You can call it the strongest class since whenever in hindsight. Nobody was saying that beyond Luck/RGIII pre-draft and only two teams had a shot at those two players. Teams like Cleveland preferred to spend a R1 pick on a 29-year-old despite running a WCO that would appear to suit Flynn. No interest at all. His old coach in Miami didn't sign him and was rolling with Matt Moore it seems had Tannehill not made it to their pick at #8. These points are not irrelevant. People keep preaching the importance of the position. Here was a big name free agent and his market was cold.

So yeah... it could be red hot this year. We'll see in two months. But last year is not irrelevant as we ponder whether he'll get a shot somewhere else via trade.

chris98251 wrote:I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's

I appreciate the position completely. Nobody was happier that RW worked out than me. I hated having to watch QB tape over and over again.

But I think Flynn is wildly overrated. I know others don't agree. JMHO.

Teams are going to wait for the SB to be over with before making any moves. It gives something to talk about right now, but not worth getting all worked up over.

chris98251 wrote:Flynn knows our system, were going for it this next year, Wilsons salary low versus Flynns salary still ranks us as a low cost team for QB's. English has stated you can't win a Super Bowl unless you have a top 10 pick at QB in this leage, now he is saying a qualified back up isn't necessary. Dolphins would say shame on you, 49ers had Monatan and Young, I guess that was a waste of cap money also and never paid off. Jeez what would have heppened if Pittsburgh would have had a actual legitimate QB to fill in for Ben when he got hurt this year. A tem in a serious contention position doesn't need a grooming QB, they need someone that can manage and not lose games and have the tools to win if necessary.

English has a lot of good information, I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's and a over confidence on the media declaring others sure fire.

I don't believe, even slightly, that we're still a Super Bowl team if Matt Flynn is our QB. So why keep him? A top QB being essential has nothing to do with having an above average backup. If your starter goes down, your season is in trouble, and that'd be the same whether or not we're rolling out Flynn or Tarvaris Jackson next year.

I'm 100% in the cut him if you can't trade him camp. We can find someone for cheap to backup Russ and better use that money. Flynn and Russell are very different players, so it's not like we're looking at some sort of smooth transition if we need to call Matt in.

There is another dynamic here that hasn't been mentioned, not having anything to do with other teams interest. But having everything to do with our own interest in keeping him on the roster, aside from the cap$ cost.

It has to do with team dynamics, and how Flynn is handling being in a back-up role going foward, and how that dynamic
effects the team as a whole. Sure, PC/JS have put a positive spin on Flynn, so as not to detract from whatever value may exist in a trade.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

pehawk wrote:And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.

It's hardly irrelevant. You can call it the strongest class since whenever in hindsight. Nobody was saying that beyond Luck/RGIII pre-draft and only two teams had a shot at those two players. Teams like Cleveland preferred to spend a R1 pick on a 29-year-old despite running a WCO that would appear to suit Flynn. No interest at all. His old coach in Miami didn't sign him and was rolling with Matt Moore it seems had Tannehill not made it to their pick at #8. These points are not irrelevant. People keep preaching the importance of the position. Here was a big name free agent and his market was cold.

So yeah... it could be red hot this year. We'll see in two months. But last year is not irrelevant as we ponder whether he'll get a shot somewhere else via trade.

Signing Matt Flynn wasn't going to save Holmgren's job. He no longer had the leeway to bring in FA QB's, because, his misses there already had the wagons circling.

Last I checked Philbin had Tannehill's HC as OC. They we're in a rebuilding year. The new CBA actually made it a smarter move to draft Tannehill. I knew before all this that the Dolphins were never going to sign Matt Flynn. I guess Jason Cole never reported it, so you wouldn't have known, but it was obvious to ANYONE reading between the lines it wasn't going to happen, it was never going to happen in Miami. They needed. their TJack, non-threatening bridge type...ya know...Moore. It would've been FLAT DUMB.

The Miami argument is just ignorant or the real world.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:LINK: https://twitter.com/JasonColeYahoo/stat ... 2142918656

"While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut."

Not that surprising.

Not that surprising? I think you and I live on two different planets, not in two different countries.

Surprises the hell out of me when you could get an awesome trade value out of him.

Hold on to Flynn till some team starts panicking that they haven't found the right QB yet, then get some good value.

Cutting him? Nope. That makes no sense to me and would be a huge surprise.

People call Flynn "a career back-up" like he went from team to team, never able to secure a starting slot no matter how badly those teams expected him to start. How many QBs in this league would beat out Rodgers? After Brady's most recent performance, I'd say the answer to that question is... zero.

Now, how many QBs in this league could beat out Wilson? I'm sure he's better today than he was when named the starter, but how much better? Obviously JS and PC saw something in Wilson....and they were obviously correct.

The majority of posters in here have proclaimed there is not one QB in the league they would trade RW for. I am probably in that camp as well.

So, what we know about Flynn is that he has excelled when called upon (vs. NE and Detroit) and got beat out in Seattle's camp by what many apparently believe to be the best QB in the world. I'm not saying Flynn's worthy of a 1st rounder, but I do believe an asterisk belongs next to the description of "career back-up". YMMV.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

Jville wrote:Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.

$4m is guaranteed but they're paying him $7.25m in total. Cutting him saves $3.25m.

$7.25m is Flynn's scheduled cap cost for 2013. $2m of that is the prorated signing bonus cap hit for 2013 which is charged against the cap regardless of Flynn's roster status. The actual 2013 cap saving available thru cutting Flynn out right would be only $5.25m salary - $4m guarantee = $1.25 million savings. That would get eaten up by a backups contract. Also, there would be an additional $2 million in dead cap money charge against the 2014 cap.

With this team young, hungry and relatively cheap our Super Bowl push is NEXT YEAR, and unless Flynn sucked in 2012 (all points indicate he did not and that Russell just took the job that should have been his), I do not see us going into next year without him, no matter what we are paying him.

Having a starter QB on the bench and still paying less than most teams for our QB platoon (especially when we cannot get Wilson more money anyway thanks to the CBA) all but guarantees it for me unless we get a very nice trade offer--player or a 3rd round draft pick, minimum.

Besides, who would be our backup?