While I agree with that idea in theory, trading a draft pick or a player for a new QB one week before the season start sends your team and your fanbase a terrible message about this upcoming season.
It's seems smart but I can't see it happening for political reasons.
Originally Posted by: millertime
True.. however by trading for Flynn now a team has an entire season under a reasonable contract to evaluate him in their system.. maybe not even playing but just in practice. If he is everything they think he is, they can lock him up long term. If not.. they can walk away or allow him to test the free agent waters. They then would be in line for a comp pick to regain some of what they may have invested in him.
What you have in Flynn is a young guy, that has been in a QB friendly and development system and he has shown that under the bright lights in his first start that he held his own.
IMO.. a safer option than investing a high round pick on a QB and now a four year guaranteed contract on a kid that is at ground zero. This pick might have a higher ceiling than a Flynn.. but he also may have a lower basement as well.
Flynn reminds me of Matt Hasselbeck in terms of physical talent.. and Matt helped a team to the SuperBowl with a less than cannon arm. There is more to the game and the position than having a Howitzer for a throwing arm.
To me.. for the right club without a "long" term answer on the squad, Miami and Washington come to mind, Matt may be a safer investment than a QB near the top of the draft.
And they wouldn't have to play the Free Agency market to get him, where more than likely he is overpriced.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"