The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

It looked like the guys had the Staples "Easy Button" implanted in their chest...what did they claim the purpose was?

what did they claim the purpose was?

A instrument was inside that measured heart rate and other things.

spooky

Ok so with Flynn being such a bad QB and the Packers deciding to possibly tag such a bad, unknown, 2nd rate QB I wonder what Miami is going to do and how that will effect the Skins? Why do I ask? because a lot of people figured Miami would make a big play for Flynn. Now that he might be off the table and they are not re-signing Henne then who do they bring in and who do they draft? Miami was a team I heard that was interested in Weeden also, which is why I ask because if they are and the Skins are high on Weeden then no way should the Skins trade back to late 1st round and let Miami take him. We either make a trade to a position prior to Miami or just take Weeden at #6.

i doubt the pack plan to keep him on the roster with a number like $14.4M. any team that wanted him can still have him

Are you sure? W/out looking it up, it seems to me many a player has been franchised with the intent of getting a trade. How would you prove that the "intent to trade" (barring something idiotic like the GM saying "Oh, we don't want him, we just tagged him to trade him")?

Flynn departure may not aid Packers - JSOnline (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)



So once the Packers tag Flynn, that $14 million counts against their salary cap. Flynn would automatically become the highest-paid player on the team in terms of annual salary.

NFL teams are prohibited from trading franchise players. In fact, the rules say you may not franchise a player with the intent to sign him to a contract and then trade him. However, this rule has been broken before and the NFL tends to look the other way.

This is where I got this from. Like you said, how could you really prove that?

^^ Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Flynn departure may not aid Packers - JSOnline (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)





This is where I got this from. Like you said, how could you really prove that?

They sure looked the other way when the Pats traded Cassel...if my memory is correct.

Green Bay Packers: Risk in Franchise Tagging QB Matt Flynn? (http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/green_bay_packers_risk_in_franchise_tagging_qb_mat t_flynn/10074415)

If the Packers did tag Flynn, he would almost certainly sign the offer sheet—putting the Packers on the hook for the $14.4 million and forcing them to find a trade partner. If no team bit on Flynn, the Packers would be stuck with a backup quarterback making considerably more than their NFL MVP starter, Aaron Rodgers. Re-signing center Scott Wells and special teamer Jarrett Bush would also become tricky under the cap.

But here’s the kicker in the whole deal: The Packers won’t even ponder franchise tagging Flynn unless they have a handshake deal in place with another team on both the parameters of a trade and a re-structrured deal for Flynn—the two necessary components for a tag-and-trade scenario to successfully play out.

Yes, NFL rules are supposed to avoid tampering, which seemingly would become a problem considering the Packers have to tag Flynn by March 5 and that a trade cannot happen between teams until the new league year starts on March 13. Talks about moving players such as Flynn would be considered tampering until that date.


I forgot this part:

But let’s be honest here. The next week at the NFL Scouting Combine is a tampering fest, and there are plenty of ways to get a handshake deal in place without actually tampering. Depending on the language used in the dialogue, the Packers and team X can skirt the boundaries of tampering without actually breaking any NFL rules.

They sure looked the other way when the Pats traded Cassel...if my memory is correct.

I think he fell under the old CBA which I thought team were getting away with doing that and under the new CBA they added a claus that says they can't tag a player with the intention of trading him for value later.