Flynn has show in hos short career that not only can he perform with talent around him, but he can EXCEL (showed in New England game last year and yesterday against the Lions). However, we haven't seen him play with below average talent like we have here in Cleveland.
McCoy, on the other hand, has shown that he is underwhelming with below average talent around him, but he hasn't had a chance to be evaluated with talent like GB. However, most would agree that with talent around him, McCoy would be above average.
I'd rather have the guy that has already shown he can be good with good talent around him than wait and see if McCoy can be good with talent.
Then throw in that Flynn has been playing behind the best QB in the league, and in his limited time has shown he can make the same reads Rogers does and hit hos receivers in stride. I'm not saying that he is as good as Rogers by any means, but the offense didn't miss a beat. And as far as "they don't have film on Flynn," what would the film show? They would have to gameplan for the same QB play because that's exactly what Flynn did yesterday.
I'd rather move forward with Flynn and draft Claiborne/ Richardson/ or any other playmaker with 1a and Wright with 1b.
But if we go to the draft, I'm all for RG3/Wright combo. I'm just not sure RG3 will be there at #4 and I don't want to give up our 1b to trade up for him
Wise words spoken by sages From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
Quote: I think any QB that wants Randys money will come here. Especially with Holmgren running the show.
Holmgren might run the show, and Heckert might be doing the recruiting but the problem is, Pat Schurmur is the one who is calling the plays and freezes up like a confused newbie when the team reaches the 25 yard line OR any other unforseen game situation.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
Quote: It worries me that people compare RG3 to Mike Vick and see that as a selling point.
It worries me period that people compare RG3 and Mike Vick, because RG3 is a significantly better QB coming out of college than Vick.
They aren't even close in comparison. RG3 has the best deep ball in the class and is deadly accurate on his throws. Vick was a terrible thrower when he came out of college.
I can tell this is going to be a long build up to the draft, everyone thinks RG3 is just a running QB. People who say that have either flat out have not watched him or don't know football.
But I don't think that's enough of a body of work to pay big bucks too,, but someone will....
I'll attempt my best Overtoad impersonation and quote him by saying....."Horse-feathers".
Everyone likes to use the "body of work" as a basis for argument sake against pursuing Flynn, but they (not directed specifically) are willing to bet the farm or use a high selection on a prospect in the Draft every year and all day long with absolutely no body of work at this level.
I thought Flynn looked pretty polished this past preseason too and before some one uses the preseason is just that come back.
I've said it before and I will reiterate it now by reminding folks that Coach's and GM's a like have to use that as a basis for evaluation every year.
Having said that it's never an exact science, but they are evaluated during that process just the same.
Human nature is no different to the powers at be, there is no doubt in my mind that Flynn's performance yesterday tickled the fancy of many a FO as well.
At the risk of taking both sides of this debate ... Hyperbole? Mitchell, Kolb? There are plenty of reasons and examples to proceed with caution here and before the fire storm hits and the media and talking heads runs away with this story like we all know is coming, remember that we will be only one suitor if we so chose, that won't ensure that we will get our man, so let's not count our chickens before they hatch here.
Rodgers is not going anywhere and loyalty will only go so far. Flynn will attract starter type numbers and this much I'm sure of.
Will Flynn = Rodgers? ... Most probably not, but that's not to say that he can't go on to make his own mark in this League.
His time in the saddle at LSU is really no different then any other QB who has played there under Les Miles "The Mad Hatter". He uses his QB's like Ace's in poker and goes with different players to suite his hunch on a given Saturday and well it seems to work magic for them, so he continues to play the game that way, so I'm not surprised one iota, that his stint in the saddle was not as long as some might prefer. True, but neither was Cam Newton's time in the saddle, so where does this argument lead us?
Is Luck the next coming?
Does the youngster from Baylor = Cam Newton or Smith?
Do all of the candidates come with question marks?
My point in a nut shell on "the body of work" argument. == Moot point.
Quote: yt...since I'm the one that posted about Flynn, I'll respond to you...
...you have no idea if Flynn is the next Scott Mitchell or the next Aaron Rogers...you are simply throwing out comments without even thinking.
Neither do you.... you don't know either.
Hey,, Can't take it away from the kid, he played a hell of a game yesterday.. But I don't think that's enough of a body of work to pay big bucks too,, but someone will....,
I don't know man. What was the score??? GB had at or near 40 points against the Lions.
I don't want to hear about the Lions D....40 is 40 against a NFL defense.
I think the game proves much. It shows the guy is capable of moving his team if he has some people around him.
My thinking is changing....go for him and use the 2 first rounders on players who will help the O. I'll leave it to other to figure out who those two might be as i am not looking to debate about this guy or that guy....add a Blackmon or Richardson to the team, add a nice right side blocker to go with what we already have and we might score some points.
There is no question in my mind Colt held the O back.....improve that and we improve.
As for the money, who cares? It's not our money.
As long as the team can take the contract and fit it inside the cap, does it really matter what we pay him??
If people are looking for safe, with upside, then Flynn is the safest because even Luck has yet to produce 1 NFL point.
Seriously, go in to the draft not needing a QB and adding two plum players.....sounds like a plan to me.
I'm not saying we Shouldn't get flynn, I'm just saying that the body of work isn't all that impressive except for yesterday. I just don't think that's a good enough body of work to judge him on. AND he's gonna want a ton of money.
Also, I'm not convinced that McCoy was the one that held this offense back. I mean, if you put a ball in a receivers hands and he drops it,, do you blame the QB?
Colt was far from perfect, but the team he's playing on has a ton of faults. to lay them at his feet seems premature to me.
Of course, look who I'm arguing with.. Peen, you and I have disagreed on every QB to be in a Browns Uni since Kosar...LOL what's new.. at least we're consistent
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Flynn will have some choices, but in Cleveland, he would walk right in as the #1 and no questions asked.
How can anyone say that? Were not talking about Ben Rothlisburger here, or ... or... or Drew Breeze,
Were talking about Matt Flynn, he's not all that and a bag of Chips of NFL Quarterbacks.\ Shoot Flyn < Cowboy quarterback, and Cowboy starter sucks ... compared to top NFL stars, like Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Ben, Tom Brady, Drew Breez and Aaron Rogers. also Flynn < Mark Sanchez of the Jets, and yesterday Sanchez proved he sucks.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
Dude, you are wasting your breath arguing with some of these folks. I have heard so much nonsense regarding yesterdays performance it is unreal.
I love the Detroit had nothing to play for so Green Bay caught a break. They make it sound like the lions were resting Stafford, Megatron, Suh andFairley. I think Detroit was trying to send a message to the Packers and also secure that #5 seed.
I also love the talk about how great the Packers OL is compared to ours. They make it sound like Suh and Fairley was playing patty cake and just were not able to get through that super duper wall of famers in Green Bay lol. They dont like to talk about the hits Flynn was taking and still finding his receivers.
The kid took some big time hits, and delivered the ball. He also moved well in the pocket and and found his targets. He may be a 2 hit wonder, but I dont like the way people are doing their best to downgrade what the kid did yesterday.
Quote: He may be a 2 hit wonder, but I dont like the way people are doing their best to downgrade what the kid did yesterday.
I agree. 480 yards passing with 6 touchdowns isn't a pedestrian day for anybody under any circumstances. I could understand poo-pooing his performance if he threw for 250 and 2 TDs or something along those lines. FWIW, Aaron Rodgers, who plays with the exact same lineup, has never thrown more than 4 TDs in a game, and only surpassed 400 yards passing twice. I'm not saying that Flynn is better than Rodgers, just saying that Flynn's performance yesterday was hardly a fluke or simply the product of the players around him.
Matt Flynn didn't just have a good game, he had the best game any Packers QB has EVER had. Of course it doesn't mean he could do it all the time, or do it with our team. But if you put Colt or Seneca on that team, they'd be better, but they would NEVER throw six TDs in a game. He is clearly better than what we have and probably less of a risk that RG3. I'd love to see us make a run at him.
I dont like the way people are doing their best to downgrade what the kid did yesterday.
I agree. Many folks are quick to point out a QB for stinking up the joint, but are not so fast in admitting when one does well.
You can't take it away no more then you can take away a stinker.
Flynn maybe soar today, but I don't think he feels a thing and he should feel pretty good about himself and take some confidence away from this going forward.
Go back and read my comments on the subject Mour,, I think I have it pegged pretty good. Flynn had a terrific day. A day that any QB in the league would love to have.
My only issue with him is that the sample size is just too small. And he was playing with a team that won the last Superbowl and went 14 wins without him this season.. what I'm saying is, he's playing for one hell of a team.
Just like I don't blame the QB when everything goes wrong, I can't give a QB all the credit when things go well. At least I'm consistent LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
And Another thing, to just a general reply to anyone on the board.
I am so sick and tired of watching the Browns get schooled by every other team in this league.
Whether it's the NY jets draft day trade down for a bunch of Jets back ups under Mangini.
Whether it's when Butch Davis brought in a bunch of Ex Miami hurricane players, some overrated like Jaquin Gonzallez.
IN the 1980;ss the Tampa Bay buccanneers were the (insert disrespect here) of the league, and there's been interviews where players recounted they were threatened to straighten up or the coach would send them (trade) to Tampa bay.
Well now the teams want somewhere to send their castoffs that aren't good enough to make it, and still have everyone feel good about the situation.
Well whether it is Kevin Kolb, who never did ANYTHING except get talked up on Espn, or Matt Cassell, from New England, or Drew Bledsoe, or this guy. It's NOT time for the Browns to START being the recepticle for other teams unwanted players.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
How is Matt Flynn Green Bay's "unwanted player?" They have Aaron Rodgers and Flynn's the backup. He looks damn good and he's a free agent. If the Packers had stuck longer with Favre, would you have thought maybe it was a good idea to try and sign his backup?
Tell me Quinn and Flynn were throwing into the same size windows.
I'm warming up to the idea of giving a veteran like Flynn the job if we don't have to pay a ridiculous guarenteed contract to get him. Under the new CBA it looks like veteran FA's are getting much bigger dollars when they sign. I mean look at what Gocong got when we extended him. But what handing the starting QB job to a vet can do is right the ship, install talent around the offense WHILE increasing our competitiveness. That way we can get our impact playmakers in the first round and install a project guy who slides to round two (think like happened with the Pats drafting Mallett and how his value is up already not even a year later) who can sit behind Flynn and McCoy. Then the project isn't rushed early into playing as Colt was and probably has a better chance to absorb the offense and be plugged in at the optimum time if Flynn proves not to be the answer. It just seems like the perfect compromise of getting a guy in the future to be our starting QB in more ways than one (veteran-yet-young FA, then 2nd round faller who needs retooling).
I'd see it as... (something like at least...)
1. Flynn 2. McCoy (where I find his ceiling to be- backup- and would love to keep him for however long necessary in that capacity) 3. Tannehill/Jones (if he declares early and slides)/Foles/Cousins/Whoever.
Upgrades QB now, gets a potential answer as insurance, and keeps our backup spot shored up. Not saying it's the best move or most ideal, but still is improvement. Just warming up to it.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
My only issue with him is that the sample size is just too small.
LOL and you have the luxury of what in the Draft?
It's a luxury not afforded to any team Drafting a QB.
That point is moot ... There is no such animal
What the hell are you talking about., What does the draft have to do with it. We were discussing Flynn,, and like I said, he had a helluva game, but it's one game. Go back and look at his college record,, not anything exciting.. OK but not exciting.
So those that want us to go out and bet the farm on him just based on one game.. well, I don't get that.
Again, if thats what happens,, cool I guess, but I think it's a risk. Now, which is the greater risk,,
A. Moving up in the draft to get either Luck or RG3 B. Take a flyer on Flynn C. Stick with Colt Mccoy
Way bigger risk to spend draft picks on guys that never played a down in the NFL. Not only do you use the pick to take a guy, you gotta trade some of the others away to get that chance. And you still don't know if either can play in the NFL...
It is way less risky taking a Flynn where you know if you surround him, he can get the job done. And you would have the picks to add some mighty fine pieces to the offense this year.
With Colt, you got a guy that has been in the offense for a year, you could stand pat and still draft the same mighty fine players to make the team way better this year.
the question then becomes,, Colt or someone else.
For my money,, Flynn did a terrific job yesterday.. but beyond that, what's his pedigree?
If the choice was mine (and I admit to not being a guru) I'd stick with Colt and build a team around him.
With a little luck and a few less dropped passes and a running game that was a little more consistent and two dawson FG's, we'd have won 2 or 3 more games.., maybe as many as 4 games this year,, we had a chance to be 8 and 8..
A leap from there to respectable isn't that far away..
but that's just me..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: I'd see it as... (something like at least...)
1. Flynn 2. McCoy (where I find his ceiling to be- backup- and would love to keep him for however long necessary in that capacity) 3. Tannehill/Jones (if he declares early and slides)/Foles/Cousins/Whoever.
Upgrades QB now, gets a potential answer as insurance, and keeps our backup spot shored up. Not saying it's the best move or most ideal, but still is improvement. Just warming up to it.
Exactly! Then we can use our first round picks for guys like Blackmon, Richardson, Mercilus, etc. Two years from now, we'll know if Flynn is the guy, and if he's not, Tannehill/Jones will be ready to step in.
Way bigger risk to spend draft picks on guys that never played a down in the NFL. Not only do you use the pick to take a guy, you gotta trade some of the others away to get that chance. And you still don't know if either can play in the NFL...
So you do get that point after all as I said "not specifically directed"
The point is... is that most teams do not have the luxury of a "body of work" to formulate any conclusions on when deciding to add a QB to their roster.
Flynn at least has been on and made a NFL roster. Not that ... that in itself will or should be a deciding factor, but a factor none the less.
Quote: so if we sign Flynn we can make the playoffs 5 years from now?
Only if you sign Andre Johnson and Arian Foster!!
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
Quote: signing flynn is a win-win for us...think Matt Schuab...i think he has a simlair impact for us..
so if we sign Flynn we can make the playoffs 5 years from now?
If Dick Jauron is as good as most people around here seem to think that he is, we shouldn't be plagued with the defensive woes that have stricken the Texans for the past several seasons. Offensive production hasn't been a weak point for Houston in recent memory.
What do the Browns have to lose by signing Flynn? One of either Mccoy,Wallace.Nothing major,as both are backup caliber QBs. Seasons lost if Flynn doesn't work out.Again not a big deal,as there's no SB in the near future anyhow. Money.Ain't mine,ain't yours. The QB position needs a major upgrade this off season.The org.needs to turn over every rock,kick all the tires to find a good one.
That's a good point (though there still are salary cap ramifications. He's not going to come here for a one year tryout).
If we bring in Flynn, it's for him to be the starter for the foreseeable future, IMO. That means we're looking at everything other than QB in the draft (which could affect the trade value for our draft spot).
And at this point it's just not even that relevant. He was stuck two years behind an (albeit busted) #1 overall pick, and won a title his senior year. His numbers were more of a game manager, but the intangibles certainly shown through there. With such a limited sample size out of college, I think being drafted at all is very solid. He then beat out the third round QB ahead of him (Brohm) and stuck on the roster to this point. What he did in college is distant. He's won the opportunities he has by excelling in their WCO. Sure, the talent is optimum and a very workable situation. You expect him to keep the ship afloat. He did more than that. In the film room, in practice, and on the field, he's shown he's a vet now. He's not a college project anymore.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Quote: That's a good point (though there still are salary cap ramifications. He's not going to come here for a one year tryout).
If we bring in Flynn, it's for him to be the starter for the foreseeable future, IMO. That means we're looking at everything other than QB in the draft (which could affect the trade value for our draft spot).
Yes BC brings up a good point and even if we sign a QB in FA like Flynn, then the 4th selection still has a lot of trade value if we don't like the value available. Washington and others still select behind us and if some team feels the need to move ahead on them ... Then they will be looking at our selection still.
Quote: Also, Mike Holmgren traded for Matt Hasselbeck when he had zero career starts.
What makes Holmgren trading for Hasselback different is that he coached him for a few years. He saw him every day, his QB coach worked with him, his O-Coordinator knew him.
Holmgren knew exactly what he was getting with Hasselback
Quote: He's started two games in the NFL. Obviously he's not an elite NFL QB right now.
I don't mean he'll be one as soon as they sign, but do you or anyone who wants Flynn really believe this is the guy to lead us to a Super Bowl?
I see no reason to think that he couldn't be the starting QB on a Super Bowl-winning team.
If you're trying to get me to say that signing Matt Flynn means that the Browns will win a Super Bowl, I'm not going to do that. Then again, I wouldn't say that about any quarterback in the NFL.
Quote: Also, Mike Holmgren traded for Matt Hasselbeck when he had zero career starts.
What makes Holmgren trading for Hasselback different is that he coached him for a few years. He saw him every day, his QB coach worked with him, his O-Coordinator knew him.
Holmgren knew exactly what he was getting with Hasselback
Sorry, I thought Hasselback was behind Favre for two or three years. Guess I was wrong. Either way, my point's the same. He had a decent idea of what he was getting with Hasselback, at least as a practice player
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
