The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Is that too low or high? Because Clayton said he's probably going time get between 4 to 6 million a year

I'm just laughing at any idiot that's going to pay that guy that type of money. Glad it's not going to be us.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm just laughing at any idiot that's going to pay that guy that type of money. Glad it's not going to be us.

How much guaranteed is the question.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm just laughing at any idiot that's going to pay that guy that type of money. Glad it's not going to be us.

Makes more sense than giving that $$ to a rookie plus the pick. Just sayin'.

If we got him plus drafted a rookie in the mid rounds to develop, would you be against that?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Makes more sense than giving that $$ to a rookie plus the pick. Just sayin'.

If we got him plus drafted a rookie in the mid rounds to develop, would you be against that?

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

I would have no problem at all with that scenario.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I would have no problem at all with that scenario.

I am thinking that is option 1B in Shanny's mind.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

Better off doing that exact thing without signing Flynn.

If we're after a non-Grossman veteran, I think there are plenty of more appealing options. If we think Flynn is going to be a top 7 or 8 QB in the NFL (and obviously then the best in the FA class), we should go after him, but I have no idea what we would be basing that on.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

I don't really want Flynn either. In my pre-combine draft rankings I have Tannehill and Foles 3rd and 4th respectively with Tannehill getting a late 1st round grade and Foles getting a mid 2nd round grade. Now last year we missed out on Andy Dalton an Colin Caepernick, (Not mad about that at all) this year is very similar to last year exception being there is no Christian Ponder reach-esque QB (YET) Although Tannehill maybe that guy, In my view you can't take Tannehill at 6. Too much reach and pressure. Now no one including me believes RGIII will last until pick six, so lets say we take Blackmon or Claiborne. Now it's pick 20, Tannehill is still on the board, do you trade up to get him or fall back and take Foles as a "consilation" prize? So basically it's Tannehill vs. Foles, do you give up a potential 1st rd pick in 2013 for Tannehill now?

[Big C]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I don't really want Flynn either. In my pre-combine draft rankings I have Tannehill and Foles 3rd and 4th respectively with Tannehill getting a late 1st round grade and Foles getting a mid 2nd round grade. Now last year we missed out on Andy Dalton an Colin Caepernick, (Not mad about that at all) this year is very similar to last year exception being there is no Christian Ponder reach-esque QB (YET) Although Tannehill maybe that guy, In my view you can't take Tannehill at 6. Too much reach and pressure. Now no one including me believes RGIII will last until pick six, so lets say we take Blackmon or Claiborne. Now it's pick 20, Tannehill is still on the board, do you trade up to get him or fall back and take Foles as a "consilation" prize? So basically it's Tannehill vs. Foles, do you give up a potential 1st rd pick in 2013 for Tannehill now?

absolutely not. i'd be happy with taking blackmon at 6 if RG3 isnt there, and trading into the late 1st to get foles or tannehill, but absolutely not for a future 1st. id give up the 2nd and maybe a 4th or something. trading into the back end of the 1st shouldnt require a future 1st.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Big C

absolutely not. i'd be happy with taking blackmon at 6 if RG3 isnt there, and trading into the late 1st to get foles or tannehill, but absolutely not for a future 1st. id give up the 2nd and maybe a 4th or something. trading into the back end of the 1st shouldnt require a future 1st.

Doesn't require it but to jump from 38-40 to 20 might. So you would sit back and hope Tannehill is there at 38-40 (Which is doubtful with Matt "Charles" Barkley and Dawan LaRon Landry Jones Drew Bledsoe returning to school.) From what I see I think Foles COULD be the 2nd best QB in this draft but also has the highest bust potential in the draft at QB too.

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No, but would you be against signing Matt Flynn then drafting Justin Blackmon in the first and taking Tannehill or Foles in the 2nd anyways?

What would we be giving up for Flynn? A 3rd?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by NM Redskin

What would we be giving up for Flynn? A 3rd?

Nothing. He is a unrestricted FA.

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Nothing. He is a unrestricted FA.

I guess a lot depends on GB getting Finley signed and GB using the franchise tag on Flynn. I just cant imagine GB letting Flynn go for nothing.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by NM Redskin

I guess a lot depends on GB getting Finley signed and GB using the franchise tag on Flynn. I just cant imagine GB letting Flynn go for nothing.

This isn't like the Matt Cassell situation. Cassell took the team to a 11-5 record that year Brady went down, and was the only reason they franchised him so they could be protected in case Tom didn't come back healthy. Green Bay isn't going to guarantee him a 14mil salary by hitting him with the franchise tag. Also, no other team is going to pay him that type of salary either.