The has been lots of talk about Matt Flynn following his big game on sunday, but much of the talk has not soundly addressed concerns or laid out a solid/comprehensive plan for how an offseason with Flynn would look.
While I do not think bringing in Flynn is necessarily the BEST choice (I haven't made up my mind yet), I think that is absolutely a viable option. This is why I believe so, and how I think the offseason and the future could play out if coaches are high on Flynn.
This plan relies on a couple large assumptions, but if they are met/true, the plan has a lot of potential
- The front office does not want to trade up in the draft. Conventional logic would then say that they hope RG3 falls to us, or they take a developmental QB in the 2nd round.
- Based on their evaluation, the coaches decide they like Flynn.
- The price for Flynn is right
Flynn is not a proven commodity, that is true. However, he has looked very solid in the opportunities he has received. The justification for Flynn comes in comparison to Rex. Flynn can not be much worse than Rex, but he has the ceiling to be much better (if given the right tools, the right environment, the right coaching).
IF we are to choose a developmental QB, Flynn could be a better option than Rex to start for a year, because then both Flynn AND the developmental QB have a chance of developing into something very good. With Rex and a developmental QB our chances ride on only one person, because we already know Rex's ceiling.
Essentially Flynn+developmental QB > Rex+developmental QB because it doubles our chance that we get a good QB. Two chances compared to one.
If one of them turns out to be good, you stick with that person. If both of them turn out to be good, you can trade one for picks
What if RG3 does indeed fall to us?
Take him. I would think Flynn would start for a year, because I think RG3 would benefit from a year of sitting. But, it could also turn into an open competition. If by some chance they both exceed expectations, trade one of them for picks a year later.
You would have to offer him enough money to make him want to come here, but also leave us in the position to cut or trade him if he doesn't work out. Give him a lot of money the first year to win him over (because we can afford it), but after that, give him 2 years of moderate money with incentives. If he plays well and the developmental QB doesn't, the incentives keep him well paid. If he doesn't play well, or we decide to go with the younger prospect, this is a contract we can trade away.
Resign Fletcher, Davis, Carriker.
Cut Jammal Brown.
Offer Landry a mid-level, 2 year contract. If he doesn't want it, replace him with a mid-level FA target.
Sign Flynn, a stud C/G, and some secondary depth.
Assuming RG3 doesn't fall to us:
1 - trade back to a pick in the low teens, plus a 2nd rounder.
1 (mid teens) - Alshon Jefferies or Michael Floyd
2 - RT
2 - developmental QB
3 - CB
4 - C/G
4 - MLB
- We would have a line with a new RT, a stud C/G, and a new C/G depth player.
- We would have two QB's with potentially high ceilings.
- We have a great receiving core for the future (Floyd/Jefferies, Hank, Paul... plus Moss and Gaffney for another year).
- We add CB depth, add what will hopefully become another Perry Riley, and acquire a temporary solution at SS.
- RB remains the positive that it already is, as does TE with Davis and Cooley back.
- Jenkins returns and Carriker remains in the Dline rotation, with Cofeild and Neild getting a true offseason to study their position.
- The LBs remain awesome.
- The secondary doesn't get any worse... but because we haven't traded away future picks, we can get a stud CB when we ditch Hall in 2013.
That sounds like a very well rounded, and young team to me. It also leaves us with all our future picks, and very few holes on the team. Instead of having our future drafts be dictated by having to replace major holes, we would finally be able to add weapons, choose best player available, or have other sorts of freedoms.
Given the assumptions, what do you think of this plan as an OPTION (not saying it is the de-factor best solution)
Very strong option (26 votes)
Solid, Workable option (45 votes)
Not a good option (6 votes)
Terrible option (1 vote)
78 total votes