What is Matt Flynn Worth to the Redskins

I think you should care about their system and their talent because its the context in which Flynn is being evaluated.
If you're saying you like Flynn because of his physical skillset then by all means dismiss the context.
But, if you like Flynn because of his production you'd better play close attention to the system and the talent where he amassed that production.
Because rest assured you're signing/trading Flynn's physical skillset not his production.
And imo Flynn skillset suggest that he's more of the quintessential 'system' QB then he is a scheme diverse physically gifted QB.
And if you're signing a system QB you'd better be able to replicate the the pieces of that system (caoching/gameplanning/playcalling/talent (receiving corps/OL etc) if you want similar results.

I love all those things and value them higher then just one guy who happens to be an awesome qb. System QB's mean a lot more flexibility.

I think something overlooked is what changes are the coaches willing to make for whatever QB we get. If we get Bradford should we try and force him in a scheme that doesnt fit for him like McDainels did? If RGIII isnt ideal for our offense should we adjust it for him? If were stuck with Rex for another year should we continue doing what we did?

This thread keeps making me think about the Cowboys punter.

Speaking of which, why can no one hit that scoreboard anymore? If the Cowboys are going to consistently fail to qualify for the playoffs, I don't want them to go quietly. I want a blooper reel.

Cowgirl Don't Cry Official Video - YouTube

*there is some original artwork in that video, fyi

In what way is he similar to Matt Cassel? These guys are not similar.

I'll basically type what I said in my post but more explanation and maybe since it's an answer to your question it will land this time... College backup drafted late, becomes a pro backup on a team with a ton of talent and a highly productive offense. In limited time they show flashes of ability and production while surrounded by said talent in said system. Similar.

Again, it's very hard to project how they will respond as a starter and with heightened responsibility and scrutiny.

By the way, thanks to whoever fixed Matt Flynn's name in the thread title. That was starting to bug me a bit.

By the way, thanks to whoever fixed Matt Flynn's name in the thread title. That was starting to bug me a bit.

I'll 2nd that.

I have to admit. This pic has me worried.
http://drunkathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/matt_flynn21.jpg
I knew between RG3 and Flynn that RG3 would have the uncontested edge in intangibles but it's hard to take an athlete seriously when they smoke cigarettes. Especially when they're unproven. Maybe he's quit since then but still. Not a good sign.

I think you should care about their system and their talent because its the context in which Flynn is being evaluated.
If you're saying you like Flynn because of his physical skillset then by all means dismiss the context.
But, if you like Flynn because of his production you'd better play close attention to the system and the talent where he amassed that production.
Because rest assured you're signing/trading Flynn's physical skillset not his production.
And imo Flynn skillset suggest that he's more of the quintessential 'system' QB then he is a scheme diverse physically gifted QB.
And if you're signing a system QB you'd better be able to replicate the the pieces of that system (caoching/gameplanning/playcalling/talent (receiving corps/OL etc) if you want similar results.

I better? Or else what? By the way, I said deal's off if GB franchises him, and we have to trade to get him. Other than WR I don't think they have better talent and there are plenty of options to upgrade at WR. Our TEs and running backs are just as good, and I'd even put our O-line up against theirs. System is very similar to Kyle's. People still call Brady a system QB. Well, he systemed his way to 3 Super Bowls.

And I don't get carried away with physical talents or "gifts". Brady looked like a dufus at the combine, Brees is short, Rivers throws like a girl and there's a long list of dudes with "physical gifts" who sucked ass in the NFL (see Ryan Leaf and Heath Schuler). Who knows, he could suck somewhere else, but if we don't have to give up picks to get him I think he's worth a shot. Hell, if they can get Flynn and RGIII drops to 6, I'd be OK with taking them both.

I'll basically type what I said in my post but more explanation and maybe since it's an answer to your question it will land this time... College backup drafted late, becomes a pro backup on a team with a ton of talent and a highly productive offense. In limited time they show flashes of ability and production while surrounded by said talent in said system. Similar.

Again, it's very hard to project how they will respond as a starter and with heightened responsibility and scrutiny.

Cassel hasn't been terrible in KC, and even though NE won 11 games with Cassel, he wasn't putting up the same numbers as Brady. He is what he is. I think the year before Brady threw for over 50 TDs. I would have taken Cassel here over the train wreck we've had over the last 2 years.

flynn does have the all time packers single game TD touchdown record in only 2 attempts. funny.

I better? Or else what?Or risk a serious case of buyers remorse when the QBs production with your team doesn't match his production with his old team.

Other than WR I don't think they have better talent and there are plenty of options to upgrade at WR. Our TEs and running backs are just as good, and I'd even put our O-line up against theirs.So we agree that there talent level at WR is better.
Where we disagree is by what margin.
Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, James Jones, Donald Driver are significantly better then our WRs to the extent that counting on a 1 FA WR to stem the gap won't be enough.
2sDYZYmn7tE
For the sake of not quibbling I agree that ours TEs and RBs are a push.

But.
Apart from talent there's a continuity gap that is as much a factor in scheme success as talent.

What if Flynn's productivity is derived only from being in the Green Bay's superior offensive system/weapons and developing chemistry and comfort in the system over time?

Ala Kevin Kolb and Donovan McNabb with the Eagles?

System is very similar to Kyle's.In what way?
In a sense all NFL systems are similar.
For me a similar scheme is one where the core concepts and verbiage are the same to the point where the name of the play in one system is either the same or very close to the name of the same play in the other system.
For example David Anderson came from Houston and was able to play right away because he spoke the language of our offense.
I don't think Green Bay and our offense share the same language.
Conceptually I see Green Bay's offense as 5-7 step drop vertical rhythm passing game heavy shotgun w/a focus that attacks sideline to sideline with downflied instride especially with crossers and posts that gain RAC yardage for the WRs; with a sprinkle under center offense with 3 TEs and muliple RBs.

I see our offense as a mix of boot-swap playaction passing and 3-5-7 step rhythm passing with a focus on zone beating in-breaking or stop routes that attacks down the center of the field.

And I don't get carried away with physical talents or "gifts". Um okay? No one is asking you to get carried away.
But throughout your advocacy for Flynn you haven't mentioned anything about his skillset.
My point is that when you sign a QB you get their skillset not their production.

there's a long list of dudes with "physical gifts" who sucked ass in the NFLOkay.
There's an even longer list of QBs that didn't have the physical skillset to have more then a cup of coffee in the NFL.
Who knows, he could suck somewhere else, but if we don't have to give up picks to get him I think he's worth a shot.I'm not predicting whether Flynn will be good/not good.
My point is that Flynn is no different then any other journeyman/second chance QB available (Jimmy Clausen, Chad Henne, Josh Johnson, Matt Moore, etc) and they all should be judged on their skillset not their production.