I don't really see how Manning could generate much interest. It makes me think of the Nick Collins situation, except Manning has had much more difficulty than Collins has, at least thus far. I'm not sure I would go after an aging QB that may never play again. A young healthy alternative seems more promising to me. I suppose if he does truly return and plays at his normal level, the risk would be well worth it, but I'm skeptical.

Here is the big difference in the scenario... the QB position is so ridiculous in the tag numbers verses most other positions and the fact that the Packers don't have a ton of cap space currently.

Even cutting loose a player like Clifton would still not give the Packers the flexibility in FA that one would like. Not the Ted will use it, but it basically cuts down the options.

Can they create more space.. sure they can, but creating space now comes at a cost later, it always does.. so basically you are pushing off problems onto tomorrow, that Ted doesn't do frequently.


Quarterbacks - 2012 projected tag numbers 








An the "naive" part... you seriously don't think Flynn would sign a one year deal for 12 to 14 million if the numbers offered by other teams don't come remotely close to that number?

What does he have to really lose by doing so? One year of starting?

He is a backup that barring a major injury puts himself at little risk of being injured or hurting his market value.

Do I think Flynn is going to garner a 10 million per season offer? Maybe someone pulls an Arizona and overpays.. but I think history tells us that it doesn't pay off often to overpay in FA. The odds probably are worse than drafting in the top 10 before the new CBA was put into place.

To me.. the risk outweighs the reward in tagging Flynn and hoping a market is there. Unless we have an illegal wink nod agreement in place already, which I don't think Ted does much of.

The other factor in this game is what would be the return on trading Flynn. Sure we might find a team desperate enough to overpay as well in trade chips. But reality is that Flynn doesn't have enough proven game experience under his belt to garner that can't miss type of gamble from another team. Kolb is a lesson there.. If someone steps up and pays Flynn we win in compensatory pick. If he goes on and starts for another team we win in terms of a compensatory pick. Sure we are limited in the windfall we may gain.. but the risk is very low.

Some are pointing to Cassel.. major difference.. Cassel played an entire season and was consistent, not great by any means, over the course of that season. Sure you can argue that he was a product of that system in NE.. and probably correctly, but he still performed and won over the course of a season.

But at the end of the day, really I think if no one comes knocking on the door with a competitive offer in terms of salary, does one really think Flynn loses much if he takes a one year high dollar contract that the tag would afford him. To me.. that is the definition of "naive".

Oh.. and the other factor I didn't even touch on, is that Harrell has been in MM system now a couple of seasons and as well has shown in limited action that he can perform. So again.. if Flynn inks that tag tender.. was it a risk we had to take?

---

I still say, no way Matt Flynn gets the franchise tag. The only POSSIBLE scenario I see is if Seahawks, Browns or Dolphins have said illegal wink-nod agreement. I mention those three teams because they need QB's and they have prior working relationships with Ted Thompson whom I feel would be willing to break from his ... straight an narrow approach to handling business.

---

Based on our current cap situation I don't see the tag happening anymore anyways. Looked at the current numbers and like manuevering last night. Would be really tough to fit

---

I think history tells us even more conclusive that teams dont look much to history in FA. Teams have blown it several times in FA, and I dont see much of a trend to conclude that teams have learned anything from it....

In the end I dont believe packers will tag Flynn, unless as pointed out by others in this thread there is an agreement made with a team for a tag 'n trade. I do however consider that just as likely as just letting him walk.

---

We could tag Flynn and trade Rogers.
























Just kidding.LOL

---

What other options are there?

I suppose we could sign Flynn to a deal, pay him similar money as he might obtain on the open market and then we could dictate his future for him by trading him to the team that would give us the most in return. But I don't see why Matt would be inclined to do so. Plus there is that pesky little thing about cap hit the we would have to take in any bonus money paid to Flynn.

The point is Matt is an unrestricted Free Agent.. he has put in his time and is free to go where he would like, depending on what is most important to him.

Most players play the game to actually play.. Green Bay, unless something unforeseen happens, doesn't afford Matt that opportunity.

And if his motivation is money, Green Bay is not in a position in which it has to over invest in Flynn.

So that leaves the only realistic and "legal" scenario in order for Green Bay to control his rights as tagging him. See my previous post as why I don't think that is realistic.

Our window to trade Flynn was last preseason/season when we still controlled his rights.. today, the risks outweigh the rewards to tag him with the hopes of trading him unless we break the rules.

---

I agree there is only 2 options, he either walks or we tag him, there is no way he signs any kind of deal with the packers other than the tag tender, but I do believe either secnario is just as likely as the other.



Exactly the players play to play the game, which is why Flynn would prefer to walk, but faced with the risk of spending another year as a backup, i think he, like all the others who have been in this situation plays along with the tag'n trade as long as the contract he would have to sign doesnt falls significantly below his free market value.




Of course we will break the rules if there is a market for a tag'n trade. This kind of rule breaking is like the tampering that goes on all the time.

---

I think you guys seriously overestimate the idealism of these players. No matter how much they love the game, they still play fundamentally for the money. (If salaries were slashed across the board to six figures or less, how many of them do you think would stick around?) Even if they personally are not good businessmen, they have agents who are. It might be convenient to think Matt Flynn wouldn't sign a franchise tender for over $14 million, but he would be essentially insane not to. Consider his options: Sign with a team desperate for a quarterback (meaning it sucks) for $7-$10 million a year, probably not make much of a difference in the team's record, get blamed for its every failure, and risk career-ending injury as a starter -- or stick around a winning team, making twice as much, risking almost nothing, and maintaining the illusion of deep wells of untapped potential? It's a no-brainer really. One could even make the argument that a player would be foolish and irresponsible for not taking an offer like that.

Tag-and-trade is and always has been a pipe dream. If anyone is getting tagged, it's Wells, and I am not convinced that will happen either.

---

I'd go with 91.6% if not more. I also think back on the article about the player who did not want his team to get into the playoffs because the playoff money wasn't "worth it".

---