Was it really worth it to let Matt Flynn go?

Put this one in the "Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" files.

Things aren't going the way it should have for Matt Flynn. From here he goes on to Seattle only to get the shaft there.
If we had kept him then perhaps he would have done better than Graham Harrell at the goal line and we would have had more breathing space against the Taints.
But a lot of fans on here were ready and OK with letting Flynn go. (I wasn't.)
What did we get in return?
Was it worth it?

We never had the option to keep him

This is very true. It wasn't the Packers' decision. It was Matt Flynn's decision. The guy wanted the opportunity to start AND/OR turn some coin ... it would be a ridiculous effort in futility to frame it up any other way. He didn't get screwed in Seattle, in my opinion only ... he got out-played. Truthfully, as I watched Russell Wilson last year, not just on the field, but off the field as well, I felt that young man had the intelligence to actually carve a long career out in the NFL despite his perceived "short comings".

Believe me though....Flynn immediately popped into my mind when I saw Harrell step into the huddle ... well, equal parts Flynn and TJ Rubley popped into my mind when I saw Harrell step up into the huddle and up to the line...

correct. /thread

Yup. No further discussion on this topic is required.

We did have an option, just not a practical option.

SEA is paying him $6.5 mil per year over 3 years, which could go to $8.2 mil with escalators. That's far too much for a backup to a relatively young franchise QB. And we would have had to pay more than SEA, maybe much more, to have Flynn forgo a chance to start.

I would not write him off in SEA quite yet. Wilson is hardly burning up the track...dead last in passing yards, second to last in yards per attempt, 4 TD / 4 INT...or should we say 3 and 5.

Yes we sure should, and we do.

So, we should have paid him more than Rodgers to stay as a back-up?

Ah, no.

Which means we had no option.

Just maybe, there might be a difference.

Signing a big contract and receiving a good opportunity to start is not getting "the shaft." -Matt only has himself to blame for getting beat out. He might get another look in Seattle, though.

Matt doesn't get beat. He decides the finish.

Where do I start.

First - Harrel did not trip at the goal line. Saturday got walked backwards by his opponent and tripped Harrel. Watch the replay. Flynn, Rodgers, and The Green Lantern all would have tripped. Credit Harrel for almost making the play. The one point you could make is that he should have recognized the trip and tucked the ball in for a sack.

Second - as pointed out Flynn was not let go. He left in free agency. For the money he was projected to get, whom should we forgone? Like him or not, I'd rather have Jermichael Finley instead of paying that money to the backup QB. I'm pretty sure that TT was also looking ahead to needing to sign Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, and a few others this coming off-season.

Third - was what worth it? Letting a backup the rarely saw the field leave in free agency for big money. Uhhhh, yeah. Since 1992 and through the MM era, the Packers have an incredible history of developing backup QBs. Why in the world would you pay big money for a backup?

Matt Flynn does not "lose" the competition for the starting job as you mortals seem to think. Matt only puts himself in a better position to claim the starting job halfway through the year and play hero.