The tag is a mechanism for owners to control player movement. That's what it has always been. N.E.'s use to me isn't at all different. They were faced with losing the guy to f /a and used the tag to ensure that they got something in return. In this instance, Flynn is either going to get a starting gig somewhere or make more money in one season as a backup than he has made in his whole career. Not too shabby.

I'm sure Flynn doesn't so much mind making that kind of money as a backup, although i think Flynn really wants a shot at starting for another team. but it could create problems with him making more than Rodgers. If i am Flynn i sign the franchise tag right away and gain all the leverage. First it guarantees him a high salary, no team in their right mind is going to pay that for a backup when the starter doesnt even make that much. It forces the Packers to trade him to a team thats gonna give him a chance to start. and since it forces the Packers to trade him, it will probably lower his trade value...atleast thats how i view it...

I think you touch on why Flynn won't do that. It will be easier to get a deal done and negotiate a new contract with a new team if the Franchise salary isn't hanging out there. If I am him, I give it until late March and if I can't get something done, I sign the tender before GB can revoke it that way they cannot leave him tagged and then revoke it in June or July when the market isn't as attractive for him to try and get a starting gig somewhere. If I am Flynn, I would definitely want my situation settled before the Draft takes place in April be it starter for a new team or GB's high-priced back-up.

I think we should go get Peyton Manning and draft Justin Blackmon. We can get Matt Barkley next year.

Welcome to the forum. I hate the idea of sucking one more year for a chance at the top QB.

I like the idea of Blackmon and Weeden though.

Speaking of Weeden here's a little info from a recent interview:

http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/2/24/2...-the-shanahans

Welcome aboard Jay and HTTR my friend!

Tarboro in the house... we finally have documentation there's more than one resident there :p

lmao...run tell that!

Getting Tannehill or Weeden is a weak Plan B. First we have to trade down as far as we can in Round 1, then draft either one. Even if we trade down below #10 picking either of these QB will look like we overpaid for them. Then we can then draft the best OT, followed by the best big WR, then another OL.

Concentrating on the OL in FA / Draft will end that excuse for the next QB. Getting a Big, X-type WR, the return of Davis and a fully recovered Cooley will get our WR/TE group into reasonable shape.

Then we will see how Tannehill and weeden do. their play will be compared to P. Manning, Flynn, Luck and RGIII. We would have to go 8-8 or better. Either of these QB would have to be average or above. Anything less will make shanahan look bad. The press and fans will howl for Shanahan's head if he doesn't do well this season with a Plan B QB. Three seasons and 4 QB failures will cause Snyder and Allen to seriously question Shanahan's ability as a HC.

really like the maturity and candor that BOTH Weedon and RGIII showed in their interviews.. a couple of very classy guys

Liked the maturity, confidence and sense of humor.

One big question is that he said he was never hit at OK State. He's going to get hit plenty unless our line turns into an unstoppable wall. How he responds to getting hammered will be telling.

You'd expect that from Weeden, since he is 28. If we went into a Plan B mode [not bidding up for RGIII, no P. Manning, nor Flynn] I could see us drafting him with our second pick. In that case we'd either take the BPA at OT or WR in the first round.

As I expected Flynn was not franchised. No one should have expected him to be.

Franchising Fred Davis on the other hand is a very smart (nearly text book) use of the tag. First of all relatively low top salaries among TE's make the money affordable. Second of all the big question mark surrounding his pot smoking and ability to not do it again before he's tested multiple times this coming season make a longer term deal prohibitive. He's clearly a very talented player that baring another weed smoking incident they would love to keep. Considering it's the only position on the team that has starter talent at both starter and backup. Also considering how the Pats have shown how much of a matchup problem two talented TE's can be, if the Skins could even manage to find one impact WR, they could do some of the same two TE sets and lead to the Skins fielding matchup problems for the first time in years. If all that isn't enough, who else were they going to tag? Laron "Muscle Head" Landry and his rubber band Achilles that he refused to get fixed even after the best Achilles guy in the country told him to? You heard Carlos Rodgers, Landry is another guy who "wants out" (and also just like Rodgers probably resents the Redskins for paying him a lot of money to be a big disappointment)...

It's very easy to wait until an event occurs and then say "I knew that would/wouldn't happen".

The logic for franchising Flynn was based on a recently established precedent concerning a back-up who performs well in limited action set to become a free agent. In recent years, such players have fetched some trade value and the team used the franchise tag to ensure they got something in return. It's very possible that the Pack had other areas of concern for which they would use the tag or didn't want to commit, even for a short period of time, the cap space to carry a QB franchise tag or they may have simply not wanted to give their back-up a higher salary than their starter. In addition, perhaps they simply didn't want to be accused of violating the recently negotiated CBA by using the franchise tag with the intention of trading someone (something I think would be hard to prove, but perhaps they didn't want the headache).

As for franchising Davis, I didn't know there was a rule that says a team HAS to use the franchise tag on any player. That sentence should sufficiently dispose of the argument I didn't make (using the tag instead on Landry, since I have advocated not re-signing him). I think it's a dumb move for a number of reasons: The Pot issue is an issue. That he was caught and continued to smoke and piss dirty says alot about his intelligence, dedication to his craft and conscientiousness. Secondly, his career year came in a contract year. There are a ton of examples (notably....Haynesworth, Albert) of players who have that breakout year in a contract year get paid and severely drop-off. For someone who already had motivation issues, who doesn't help those issues by smoking pot in-season, this is a major red-flag. Finally, while New England has shown everyone how using 2 TEs can be valuable, it's hard to argue that Fred is as good or better than either of Hernandez or Gronkowski. Moreover, finding TEs with Davis' skill-set (Decent speed, Decent hands, average to mediocre blocker) is not really that difficult to do. In the thread dedicated to the franchising Davis issue, I listed off the top of my head, 15 or so TEs that I would take over Davis, or who have out-performed Davis in every measurable way. It is for these reasons I feel that using the tag on Davis is a bad idea. A good idea is to make him a reasonable, incentive laden 2-3 year deal, with the ability to recoup bonus etc. in the event of a drug suspension and allow him to test the market and if he got a team to throw significant dollars at him, then thank him for his time in Washington, wish him luck and allow him to walk. It doesn't matter to me that the TE franchise number isn't that high, Davis doesn't deserve it and should not be rewarded for his selfish behavior.