Flynn As a Starter Full Time. Could He Win?

[SnakeLH2006]

Snake likes Flynn...He's a good guy. He studies hard, etc. But hey, he sucks running the team as the QB. MM loves raving about Flynn over the past few years in minicamp, but hey....enough is enough.

Let's critique Matt Flynn.

1) He's been a winner. I like winners.

He won at LSU and won the BCS championship......That means nothing, though. Look at past Heisman winners or QB's for BCS champs. Most don't do much in the NFL. I liked when he got drafted in the 7th round....deece pick for the Emergency QB....but hey he's fucking terrible. I cringe EVERY time I see a snap. Either he fumbles or throws a weak-ass pass that barely gets caught. He's effing bad...Read bad...Hassleback, Brunell, the dude from the Saints, etc. could play NFL QB. Flynn is so far out his league I cringe watching him. There is no chance of him playing well (not getting sacked or dropping a weak pass to a WR, or 80% of the time to the RB for 2 yards). He's SO terrible.

2) Accuracy/Awareness....Arguably, the Packers have a top-5 WR core in the NFL. Guys that can snare an errant pass and make some yards. I'm not as high on our WR core as some (Jordy can't make plays, Jones is erratic, DD is old and hurt, GJenn is awesome, Swain should be the #3....I like Swain as the next Wes Welker, but hey....Flynn has not impressed me at all. He isn't accurate at all.

3) Arm Strength: Hahhahahahahaha. None. Bring back Ty Detmer.

4) Look downs. ISO (In Snake's Opinion) this is one of the most important attributes to a good NFL QB if there is one. Favre was great at it.......so is Rodgers.....Flynn looks at his 1st option...if that, and get scrambled running around and is lucky to find his dump off RB. He's so terrible here. Arod is elite cuz he looks up and down the field and finds the 3rd option, etc. Flynn is VERY bad here.

5) Running the team. I don't give an eff what Jordy or others say in media reports, cuz NOONE has confidence in Flynn running the team. It's all media-speak. He has no idea what's going on.

Flynn is not the next good backup QB from GB. His arm-strength is Sooooooooooooooo weak I almost didn't stop with the oooooooooooooooooo's. He can't look down at an option after #1 (look at his eyes on TV) without dumping it off or scrambling.

He is Drew Stanton (who has proven to suck in the NFL, but beat the Pack last week). The difference being Stanton has a cannon for an arm. But that got him drafted higher......in the very early 2nd round.

Flynn sucks and we can't score 10 points a game with that weak armed Ty Detmer clone at QB, no matter what media spin MM or that underachiever named Jordy spin. We might as be the Bills. Eff that....I'd take Fitzpatrick over Flynn any fucking day.

So, technically, but hell, WTF, Flynn is way BELOW avg. for a starting QB. ARod is elite. When's the last time Flynn (preseason, etc). has done shit to make ANYONE think this guy has a chance to win a game? Really, Snake is so down on Flynn, that honestly, I don't think we could beat ANY NFL team with Flynn at QB. He might have the weakest arm I've EVER seen this side of Ty Detmer.......and this is going back 18 years. Just damn sad. Name a starting QB this week you WOULDN'T start over Flynn? Yeah he sucks.

If Arod was healthy, we'd stand a chance vs. the Patriots. Flynn couldn't beat.................ANYONE...He's TERRIBLE.

Patriots 42, Packers 6.

[Gunakor]

Flynn, statistically, had a better day in Detroit than Rodgers did in just about equal playing time. From a performance standpoint, Flynn's interception was on Flynn while Rodgers' pick was on Jennings, yet the offense was more productive moving down the field with Flynn under center.

As it pertains to this upcoming game, I'm not sure it mattered who starts at QB for us. This is a game I expected us to lose from the day the schedule was released. Which will make a victory that much more satisfying. Can Flynn win? Sure, he's not unfamiliar with our offense. And he's being mentored by the same coaching staff that turned Rodgers from a draft day question mark into a Pro Bowler. But given the competition this week I'd say it's very unlikely.

Your poll asks us to evaluate Flynn as a full time starter, and we haven't seen nearly enough of him to make that evaluation. We could try, but we'd likely be dead wrong. If someone asked you to evaluate Aaron Rodgers the week after he came in to play the second half against New England when Favre had gone down, odds are you'd say that Aaron Rodgers was garbage and couldn't beat anyone as well. Remember, Rodgers was way below average for a BACKUP quarterback. I'm glad those who make decisions up there were patient enough to let Rodgers develop, and I'm certain that's where we're at with Flynn right now too.

But, we have to remember something here. Flynn is a backup QB. Not a projected starter for us like Rodgers was. So IMO this poll is unfair because nobody expects Flynn to be our starting QB to begin with. He's not Aaron Rodgers, that's a given. Rodgers started several seasons and set all kinds of school passing records for a pac-10 school, then was invited to New York for the draft and was drafted in the first round by the Packers with the complete understanding by all that he was our future franchise QB. Flynn started just one season at LSU and was drafted in the seventh round as a project QB - who immediately outplayed a 2nd round QB to EARN his spot as the #2 QB. But the #2 QB is still not #1. So you can't fairly compare the two, given the respective roles of the two players, and the incredibly small sample size from which to evaluate Flynn.

Who knows, given a full week of preparation with the #1's, he might even surprise you Snake.

[Gunakor]

Also, in this poll are we assuming Flynn to be the starter in 2011, or somewhere further down the line? My uneducated guess in the matter is that Flynn could win at least 5-7 games in 2011, but that number goes up as he gets more coaching and experience. If he were named the starter heading into 2011, my guess is he'd have us back in the playoffs by 2013 assuming he has the same elite QB coaching AR has benefited from since being drafted.

[Tarlam!]

I'm a fan of the GB QB's. I think Flynn will do just fine in this league; similar to Rodgers. We all remember the knocks on the latter coming out, don't we? Tedford QB, cocks his throwing arm to high, bad athlete, arrogant etc etc etc.

Flynn hasn't had quite the grooming in seasons on the bench, but he beat out a 2nd round pick to a) become 2nd string, b) stay on the roster when TT went with only one backup.

Given that this coaching staff decided for Rodgers over Favre so energetically, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt with their handling of the backup position. I expext the argument that Rodgers had a whole training camp and then some to get ready. Sure, no question, but he also had a freakin' circus tent environment to practice in and, when it finally came time to pull the trigger, had some enormous shoes to fill.

[MJZiggy]

I
I'm a fan of the GB QB's. I think Flynn will do just fine in this league; similar to Rodgers. We all remember the knocks on the latter coming out, don't we? Tedford QB, cocks his throwing arm to high, bad athlete, arrogant etc etc etc.

Flynn hasn't had quite the grooming in seasons on the bench, but he beat out a 2nd round pick to a) become 2nd string, b) stay on the roster when TT went with only one backup.

Given that this coaching staff decided for Rodgers over Favre so energetically, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt with their handling of the backup position. I expext the argument that Rodgers had a whole training camp and then some to get ready. Sure, no question, but he also had a freakin' circus tent environment to practice in and, when it finally came time to pull the trigger, had some enormous shoes to fill.

I don't think it's a comparison, really. Rodgers is Rodgers; Flynn is Flynn. The kid has no playing experience and it's simply too soon to tie him to the train tracks based on half a game (ok, fine. Just like it was for Rodgers when he came in for Favre the first time). And you're right. Our coaches know what they're doing with their QBs.

[packrulz]

I look at Matt's poise, leadership, footwork, release, and accuracy, he has all the tangibles you look for, his timing was off last week, but after a week of practice with the starters I won't be surprised if he throws for 3 TD's this week, if he has time to throw.

[Freak Out]

You will see just what he can today my friend. Prepare to be surprised. The Packers have the talent on offense to win with Flynn....if M3 uses them correctly.

[Bretsky]

You will see just what he can today my friend. Prepare to be surprised. The Packers have the talent on offense to win with Flynn....if M3 uses them correctly.


You'd have better odds of buying me a caramel gift today than watching Hoody lose to Matt Flynn to win

[Pugger]

I don't think we have enough evidence at this level to say how Flynn would do as a starter full time. He isn't Rodgers but not many in the league today are. Ask us again after tonight. I'm not anticipating a W tonight by any stretch but I want to see how he performs under these conditions.

[MJZiggy]

You'd have better odds of buying me a caramel gift today than watching Hoody lose to Matt Flynn to win

This is a bet waiting to happen..

[rbaloha1]

Expect improved performance but needs more reps with the 1st team.

[Guiness]

I'm a fan of the GB QB's. I think Flynn will do just fine in this league; similar to Rodgers. We all remember the knocks on the latter coming out, don't we? Tedford QB, cocks his throwing arm to high, bad athlete, arrogant etc etc etc.

Flynn hasn't had quite the grooming in seasons on the bench, but he beat out a 2nd round pick to a) become 2nd string, b) stay on the roster when TT went with only one backup.

Given that this coaching staff decided for Rodgers over Favre so energetically, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt with their handling of the backup position. I expext the argument that Rodgers had a whole training camp and then some to get ready. Sure, no question, but he also had a freakin' circus tent environment to practice in and, when it finally came time to pull the trigger, had some enormous shoes to fill.

I don't think the fact Flynn beat out a 2nd round pick means anything going forward wrt his success.

[denverYooper]

You will see just what he can today my friend. Prepare to be surprised. The Packers have the talent on offense to win with Flynn....if M3 uses them correctly.

I'm with Freak Out. I think Flynn can have success with the right game plan if the receivers and running game do their work. I'm not so sure about him keeping pace in a shootout--I think Aaron is a cut above him there-- so the defense has to do its part.

[rbaloha1]

Forgot about BB. Thought BB was going to be a good NFL qb. This failure is still hurting unless graham harrell is the answer.

[gbgary]

Flynn As a Starter Full Time. Could He Win?



who the heck knows?! no one's seen him play at this level more than a few plays and last week doesn't count. if we had some aged veteran qb at the helm then i'd be all for seeing how he could do for a long run of games...but we have Rodgers...i hope after today we never see him play again. on the other hand...if trent dilfer can win, so can Flynn.

[rbaloha1]

Game management is not enough. One can not expect to hold the Pats to 1 td. MF is going to have to make plays.

[Tarlam!]

I don't think the fact Flynn beat out a 2nd round pick means anything going forward wrt his success.

Neither does the collective dumping on Tedford QB's, I guess. Fact is, he showed as much as Rodgers by securing the back up gig behind the starter. We fans heard less positive vibes about Rodgers when he was a backup than we did about Flynn. I'm just sayin'....

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who knows whether he can win in the NFL? HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that he'll ever be close to as good as Rodgers is right now. He just doesn't have the tools. He's not as accurate, his arm strength isn't nearly as good, and his mobility isn't as good. Kind of laughable to even make the comparison right now. I disagree with anybody who said that Rodgers didn't show as much as Flynn. By his second preseason, I thought Rodgers had a shot at being very good. By his third preseason and especially after the Dallas game, I knew he'd be very good (if he could stay healthy).

[Joemailman]

Flynn is somewhere between Ty Detmer and Jeff Garcia. Hasn't played enough yet to really tell. My guess is he'll have a long career as a valuable backup with occasional starter roles.

[RashanGary]

I like Flynn's gritty demeanor. I like his accuracy. I like his mobility. Listening to MM, they like his knowledge of the offense and of defenses.


Clearly Rodgers has the bigger arm and has developed amazing accuracy over the last couple seasons starting. Rodgers has 40 or whatever starts under his belt. He's just better right now and probably ever.

One thing I like in Flynn more than Rodgers his style. Rodgers is nit-picky and a perfectionist. I guess you could say the same of Brady. I once saw him explode at himself for an INT when he was up by something like 30 points. It was meaningless to everyone but Brady who was throwing a fit. I guess the nit-picky personality might be a good thing, but I like Flynn's, gut it out, whatever it takes, sort of tough guy approach. I think it's more inspiring to the guys than perfectionism, although if you're near perfect, that ends up being inspiring too.

[bobblehead]

I would like to change my vote now.

[gbgary]

well...very impressed. he'll make someone a very good qb. he won't be here very long.

[packerbacker1234]

He is still a tad raw and clearly needs more practice time: That was very evident in the 2 minute drill when he had to wait for calls from the sideline that he couldn't hear. Again, that is all easily correctable through practice time. Always have to remember he went into this game with just what, 4 days of practice as a starter? No TC developement for the role, no nothing.

After watching him play today with just 4 really meaningful practices... against the best team in the nfl....

Guy is a gamer. He brings a completely different style of football to this particular offense than rodgers does. Reminds me a lot of teams that do well in the playoffs. He, combined with the line, even made Brandon Jackson look good today. Made Kuhn look liek the gamer we saw in the early weeks of the year. Flynn's brand of football is refreshingly different than Rodgers, and it's hard to say which brand is better or would produce more. While rodgers has the experience and the big arm, Flynn seems to have all the intangibles.

Rodgers feels like a QB who's playstyle (at least, the way he audbiles and the way we gameplan with him) is more suited for a warm weather/dome. His style is also more indicitive of big plays rather than long drives. After watching the offense today, Flynn, and MM's play calling, I now must bring into question how many of these seemingly odd calls are on Rodgers and his audibles/decisions. Rodgers is clearly more comfortable in the shotgun - Flynn under center with occasional shotgun.

They are two different brands of ball. The real eyeopener here is that in the last two games, Flynn's style has bore more statistical fruit, anyways, than Rodgers (grant it, there was no rodgers to compare to today) - but flynn was able to move the ball better than rodgers did last week in similar play time against the same team. Flynn's style seems better suited for all weather teams - teams like the giants, packers, etc... where you have to play in cold, wind, rain, snow, domes, and all that jazz. It's a style that works no matter the climate, where as a mid range passing offense that Rodgers runs can actually be stopped by weather. Also, flynn's style CLEARLY opens the run game more. I think this has mostly to do with the fact he likes to run it from under center. Opens up SO MUCH MORE of the playbook.

We ran a lot of plays today that we simply were not running, or we were adubiling out of, with Rodgers on the field.


Long haul, there is just too small of a sample size. But considering he had one of the single best 1st game starting performances in the history of the nfl (even in getting a loss) there is clearly something there. It can only get better with practice, and having a top tier QB coach in MM right there to groom you doesn't hurt. He's coached some of the best QB's to ever play.

Are we better with Flynn over Rodgers right now? No, you just can't beat the experience Rodgers has. He's a probowl QB, Flynn is a one game starter who played well.

I think our offense does some things better with Flynn and some things better with Rodgers. Hard to say right now. All I know is this: We have two damn good QB's on this roster.

[vince]

Flynn's a heady gamer, albeit obviously inexperienced yet. I hope the Packers are able to move him and give him a shot to play somewhere. His lack of arm strength will ultimately hold him back. He just can't get the deeper ball out with enough velocity to keep it from floating. That doesn't mean he can't play, but it does mean that he's somewhat limited forever.

[packerbacker1234]

Flynn's a heady gamer, albeit obviously inexperienced yet. I hope the Packers are able to move him and give him a shot to play somewhere. His lack of arm strength will ultimately hold him back. He just can't get the deeper ball out with enough velocity to keep it from floating. That doesn't mean he can't play, but it does mean that he's somewhat limited forever.


I think he works well in offenses built like the steelers. It's not ever really about going down field. Sure, now and then you throw a 40 yarder, but it's about taking what is given and opening the run game. By all accounts - Flynn outplayed Tom Brady today in all but one situation: The hurry up offense. Of course, Tom Brady is a 3 time super bowl winner and Flynn had just 4 meaningful practices under his belt. However, how Flynn performed with just 4 practices as a starter... and what he did out there and how he slowly improved under pressure as the game went on...

Guy can play. He's a winner. He just has that aura about him right now that hey - I'm going to do what it takes.

[Tarlam!]

Who knows whether he can win in the NFL? HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that he'll ever be close to as good as Rodgers is right now. He just doesn't have the tools. He's not as accurate, his arm strength isn't nearly as good, and his mobility isn't as good. Kind of laughable to even make the comparison right now. I disagree with anybody who said that Rodgers didn't show as much as Flynn. By his second preseason, I thought Rodgers had a shot at being very good. By his third preseason and especially after the Dallas game, I knew he'd be very good (if he could stay healthy).

Thanks for not naming me outright, Harv! My memory of Rodgers' first few outings is different; he took a lot of heat from us fans and I don't remember even you brimming with confidence that the team was gonna move on without missing a beat.

Fact is, Flynn's stock was high going into this season as many unnamed sources, IIRC, were maintaining he was the best kept secret in the NFL. Nobody had Rodgers in that category when he was the backup, in fact, most pundits were still puzzling over whether or not he was too brittle to even play in the NFL (broke his foot against the Patsies). That was just one of the knocks.

Flynn proved today, to me at least, that he could be a heckuva player if he were the starter for a team, provided he received a simarly high standard of coaching as he does in GB. And your point about arm strength and mobility is bull, cause if that were so ultra important, the Bert years would have seen a few more rings than just one, wouldn't ya think?? It's a nice to have, but it's not mandatory.

[packrulz]

Flynn played well enough to win, Jones admitted the int was his fault, and special teams probably cost us the game on the 71 yard kick return by the offensive lineman. His arm strength is decent, he overthrew his receivers a couple times on deep passes, so I just think he needs more practice.

[RashanGary]

He is still a tad raw and clearly needs more practice time: That was very evident in the 2 minute drill when he had to wait for calls from the sideline that he couldn't hear. Again, that is all easily correctable through practice time. Always have to remember he went into this game with just what, 4 days of practice as a starter? No TC developement for the role, no nothing.

After watching him play today with just 4 really meaningful practices... against the best team in the nfl....

Guy is a gamer. He brings a completely different style of football to this particular offense than rodgers does. Reminds me a lot of teams that do well in the playoffs. He, combined with the line, even made Brandon Jackson look good today. Made Kuhn look liek the gamer we saw in the early weeks of the year. Flynn's brand of football is refreshingly different than Rodgers, and it's hard to say which brand is better or would produce more. While rodgers has the experience and the big arm, Flynn seems to have all the intangibles.

Rodgers feels like a QB who's playstyle (at least, the way he audbiles and the way we gameplan with him) is more suited for a warm weather/dome. His style is also more indicitive of big plays rather than long drives. After watching the offense today, Flynn, and MM's play calling, I now must bring into question how many of these seemingly odd calls are on Rodgers and his audibles/decisions. Rodgers is clearly more comfortable in the shotgun - Flynn under center with occasional shotgun.

They are two different brands of ball. The real eyeopener here is that in the last two games, Flynn's style has bore more statistical fruit, anyways, than Rodgers (grant it, there was no rodgers to compare to today) - but flynn was able to move the ball better than rodgers did last week in similar play time against the same team. Flynn's style seems better suited for all weather teams - teams like the giants, packers, etc... where you have to play in cold, wind, rain, snow, domes, and all that jazz. It's a style that works no matter the climate, where as a mid range passing offense that Rodgers runs can actually be stopped by weather. Also, flynn's style CLEARLY opens the run game more. I think this has mostly to do with the fact he likes to run it from under center. Opens up SO MUCH MORE of the playbook.

We ran a lot of plays today that we simply were not running, or we were adubiling out of, with Rodgers on the field.


Long haul, there is just too small of a sample size. But considering he had one of the single best 1st game starting performances in the history of the nfl (even in getting a loss) there is clearly something there. It can only get better with practice, and having a top tier QB coach in MM right there to groom you doesn't hurt. He's coached some of the best QB's to ever play.

Are we better with Flynn over Rodgers right now? No, you just can't beat the experience Rodgers has. He's a probowl QB, Flynn is a one game starter who played well.

I think our offense does some things better with Flynn and some things better with Rodgers. Hard to say right now. All I know is this: We have two damn good QB's on this roster.


Good post. I like Flynn's style better too. He keeps the play at the line more. That makes the tempo much faster and keeps the defenses on their heels. Because he's not doing so much dinking at the line, I think the lineman end up in better rhythm and everything runs smoother. He's content with a first down rather than taking big play oportunities. I know that seems like a bad thing maybe, but we didn't have many, if any 3 and outs the way Rodgers does. Like Brady and Favre, Flynn is more apt to get the ball out quickly to one of his playmakers rather than throw down the field.

Rodgers is a better QB, but I like the way Flynn grinds and his style better. I don't know if you can teach Rodgers to be more like Flynn, but it would be a good start if they tried.

[Pugger]

Flynn showed us why MM and company kept only him as the back-up. I don't know if he has the arm to be a starter in this league but he does have the moxy, that's for sure. Decent back-ups are hard to find so I hope Flynn is going nowhere any time soon.

[sharpe1027]

He's biggest problem last night was throwing the deep ball where a safety was able to get in and make a play over the top. Either he needs to make better reads, or his deep passes simply float too much to ever make those throws. I tend to think that last night was more of a recognition issue, but he may still have a hard time getting the ball into the gap where a DB passes the WR off to the safety. Then again, most QBs have trouble with that pass.

[th87]

Big fan of his innate feel for the game. His "baseline" feel is better than Rodgers', but Rodg has developed it well.

[packerbacker1234]

He's biggest problem last night was throwing the deep ball where a safety was able to get in and make a play over the top. Either he needs to make better reads, or his deep passes simply float too much to ever make those throws. I tend to think that last night was more of a recognition issue, but he may still have a hard time getting the ball into the gap where a DB passes the WR off to the safety. Then again, most QBs have trouble with that pass.

hard to really say for sure on that point after one game. He had 2 amazing down field throws to jones - one that dropped right over the coverage for the long TD (and then the coverage took eachother out) and one that was thrown right on the money in a one on one where if jones even gave a little effort on trying to jump over the coverage, it would of been a completion. He also overthrew a couple guys and made a bad decision to throw into double coverage down the sideline late, but the penalty negated it.

Then again, Rodgers over throws receivers all the time. The difference is that since Rodgers tends to throw it deep much more often, so he creates more opportunities to complete the pass.

The contrasting styles are interesting. We've seemingly always had a lot of 3 and outs with Rodgers as he is always looking to make the big play, and with Flynn we ended up in a lot of 3rd and 3, 3rd and 4 situations which he converted by passing almost every single time. We know our line isn't stellar and that Jackson is at best a 3rd down back, yet yeserday you could of confused him as being Ryan Grant due to flynn's style. You just enver knew what was going to happen with Flynn out there under center. Is it a stunt? Is a straight up run, is a slant pass? Is it going to be a play action deep?

I think he has the accuracy. Remember that throw into tight coverage to quarless that he dropped? That throw was amazingly on point. He also did some subtle things with his short throws. The one pass to kuhn in the red zone that gave us a first he lead kuhn, who was backing into a defender, away from him with the throw, giving kuhn the chance to see the man and make him miss.

It's really interesting. Rodgers is close to being elite, bu our offense looked more effecient with flynn over the course of a game. 2 minute drill? I want rodgers. Course of the game? I want flynn. Our offense just looked better with that style.

[Patler]

Lets not forget that he also threw a pretty bad interception in that final drive that was nullified by the penalty on Banta-Cain for getting his hands into Clifton's face.

Flynn had a good game, but he was not asked to do a lot, either. He had some very good moments and some bad moments, as one would expect. Overall, he showed why TT and MM like him and kept him as their #2 QB.

I suspect he will get two more starts this year.

[bobblehead]

When Rodgers came in against the cowboys when burt quit on us in '07 he did exactly what flynn did today. Took the checkdowns, found the short stuff etc. He has gotten too comfortable looking deep and ignoring the releasing RB, or the safety valve in the play. I loved flynn, but Rodgers is still better without a doubt. I agree with those that think arm strength ultimately is the difference between good and great QB's. What I liked to see most was 3rd and goal, nothing developed and Flynn dumped it into the stands at about the 4 second mark. He could have tried to force something, but he was very aware of where the game was and made the smart choice. Only a couple times did he hold the ball. Our line wasn't great today either (much better vs. the run, but that was due to the way the patriots lined up), but flynn consistently got rid of the ball.

[bobblehead]

Lets not forget that he also threw a pretty bad interception in that final drive that was nullified by the penalty on Banta-Cain for getting his hands into Clifton's face.

Flynn had a good game, but he was not asked to do a lot, either. He had some very good moments and some bad moments, as one would expect. Overall, he showed why TT and MM like him and kept him as their #2 QB.

I suspect he will get two more starts this year.

If the bears win tonight I think he gets two more starts...if not, Arod will be back.

On that interception I thought there was clear interference on Jennings. He tried to fight back for the ball, but the guy covering him ran square into him and rode him out of the play....classic PI, but no flag, so as "lucky" as we got on the interception, I thought we were pretty "unlucky" to not get the flag that really would have flipped the field.

[sharpe1027]

hard to really say for sure on that point after one game. He had 2 amazing down field throws to jones - one that dropped right over the coverage for the long TD (and then the coverage took eachother out) and one that was thrown right on the money in a one on one where if jones even gave a little effort on trying to jump over the coverage, it would of been a completion. He also overthrew a couple guys and made a bad decision to throw into double coverage down the sideline late, but the penalty negated it.

Then again, Rodgers over throws receivers all the time. The difference is that since Rodgers tends to throw it deep much more often, so he creates more opportunities to complete the pass.

The contrasting styles are interesting. We've seemingly always had a lot of 3 and outs with Rodgers as he is always looking to make the big play, and with Flynn we ended up in a lot of 3rd and 3, 3rd and 4 situations which he converted by passing almost every single time. We know our line isn't stellar and that Jackson is at best a 3rd down back, yet yeserday you could of confused him as being Ryan Grant due to flynn's style. You just enver knew what was going to happen with Flynn out there under center. Is it a stunt? Is a straight up run, is a slant pass? Is it going to be a play action deep?

I think he has the accuracy. Remember that throw into tight coverage to quarless that he dropped? That throw was amazingly on point. He also did some subtle things with his short throws. The one pass to kuhn in the red zone that gave us a first he lead kuhn, who was backing into a defender, away from him with the throw, giving kuhn the chance to see the man and make him miss.

It's really interesting. Rodgers is close to being elite, bu our offense looked more effecient with flynn over the course of a game. 2 minute drill? I want rodgers. Course of the game? I want flynn. Our offense just looked better with that style.

Maybe, but IMHO the pass to Jones probably should not have been thrown. The Pats safety played a bumbling keystone cops routine and had took a terrible angle that involved a great block on the DB allowing Jones to walk into the endzone. So there were at least three different times he threw questionable deep balls.

[Scott Campbell]

He had his guy beat. But it shouldn't have gone for a TD. The over the top safety help sucked.

[Freak Out]

On the pick 6 didn't Jones give up on the route? The other two picks were just bad decisions on Flynn's part.

[Patler]

If the bears win tonight I think he gets two more starts...if not, Arod will be back.

On that interception I thought there was clear interference on Jennings. He tried to fight back for the ball, but the guy covering him ran square into him and rode him out of the play....classic PI, but no flag, so as "lucky" as we got on the interception, I thought we were pretty "unlucky" to not get the flag that really would have flipped the field.

I'm guessing Rodgers won't be cleared to play, or if he is the Packers will hold him out this week anyway, using a "lack of preparation excuse". I have a feeling that he is done for the year, especially after hearing that he experienced headaches toward the end of last week. The Packers have taken the safe route with other players, and I think they will especially for Rodgers.

I didn't see interference on the interception, just guys equally fighting for their position on the field. The defender had darn good position, and used it to keep Jennings away. Just my opinion.

[mmmdk]

Flynn is a fine backup QB and could even start for many NFL teams; I admit that now!

[Ballboy]

Its funny, I was thinking last night during the game that it was Flynn auditioning for a job. Several teams need a QB...Bills, 49ers, Raiders, Cleveland, Titans, Vikings and even possibly Panthers, Dolphins or Seattle.

Why wouldn't these teams, even if they have a higher draft pick, not ship a 3rd round pick to GB for Flynn and still be able to use the higher pick on another position? TT LOVES his 3rd round picks!!!

[OS PA]

Had hoody gone with the same game-plan against Rodgers, no points would have been left on the field. I have no reason not to believe that Rodgers would have scorched their safeties deep. Especially considering that we had our running game going, Rodgers has the experience, the arm, and the balls to have pressed the ball over the top. Flynn did an excellent job taking what he was given and even pressing at times, but he is simply not the same quality of quarterback that Rodgers has been for us.

Now, I do think that Rodgers and McCarthy have been calling too risky of game plans for us. This big risk-big reward shit that we've seen all year has to stop.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Flynn = game manager in the Brad Johnson mold. His noodle arm will keep him from ever being an elite QB, but his grit, mobility, and leadership could make him a decent starter some day. No comparison between him and Rodgers though (despite the psychological babble going on this thread), so let's not get carried away.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I suspect he will get two more starts this year.

I sure hope not. Damn you for even suspecting it.

[denverYooper]

Had hoody gone with the same game-plan against Rodgers, no points would have been left on the field. I have no reason not to believe that Rodgers would have scorched their safeties deep. Especially considering that we had our running game going, Rodgers has the experience, the arm, and the balls to have pressed the ball over the top. Flynn did an excellent job taking what he was given and even pressing at times, but he is simply not the same quality of quarterback that Rodgers has been for us.

Now, I do think that Rodgers and McCarthy have been calling too risky of game plans for us. This big risk-big reward shit that we've seen all year has to stop.

You bring up something I thought about while watching last night: what would have happened if they played that style (3 step, quick pass, more run) more with Rodgers? It seems that they've had success with it when they choose to play that way but get away from it at times -- especially when they feel like they have a perceived advantage over another team's DBs (Was, Det come to mind).

[PackerTimer]

It's really interesting. Rodgers is close to being elite, bu our offense looked more effecient with flynn over the course of a game. 2 minute drill? I want rodgers. Course of the game? I want flynn. Our offense just looked better with that style.

Are you out of your mind? I like Flynn, he's a decent backup QB but anyone who would rather have him running the offense at any time of the game has absolutely no football sense. There might be five QB's in the NFL that are better than Rodgers and Flynn isn't one of them.

Flynn left some plays out on the field that Rogers very well could have made. I've heard a lot of people say the offense moved better without Rodgers going way back to the Lions game which is complete BS. Try not to forget the fumble by Quarless and the perfectly thrown deep ball by Rodgers that was dropped by Jennings. Rodgers was doing what he needed to do to move the ball against the Lions. If Belicheck came with that game plan against Rodgers he would have eaten that defense up. Rodgers is the better QB in this offense and in any offense.

[PackerTimer]

Flynn = game manager in the Brad Johnson mold. His noodle arm will keep him from ever being an elite QB, but his grit, mobility, and leadership could make him a decent starter some day. No comparison between him and Rodgers though (despite the psychological babble going on this thread), so let's not get carried away.



Couldn't agree more. Let's not try to make up some QB controversary here.

[bobblehead]

I'm guessing Rodgers won't be cleared to play, or if he is the Packers will hold him out this week anyway, using a "lack of preparation excuse". I have a feeling that he is done for the year, especially after hearing that he experienced headaches toward the end of last week. The Packers have taken the safe route with other players, and I think they will especially for Rodgers.

I didn't see interference on the interception, just guys equally fighting for their position on the field. The defender had darn good position, and used it to keep Jennings away. Just my opinion.

I understand the guy had position, but when Jennings turned to fight back towards the ball, the defender simply ran into him and pushed him upfield. That is interference. If the defender had fought back to the ball as well and they got tangled up no problem.

[packerbacker1234]

Are you out of your mind? I like Flynn, he's a decent backup QB but anyone who would rather have him running the offense at any time of the game has absolutely no football sense. There might be five QB's in the NFL that are better than Rodgers and Flynn isn't one of them.

Flynn left some plays out on the field that Rogers very well could have made. I've heard a lot of people say the offense moved better without Rodgers going way back to the Lions game which is complete BS. Try not to forget the fumble by Quarless and the perfectly thrown deep ball by Rodgers that was dropped by Jennings. Rodgers was doing what he needed to do to move the ball against the Lions. If Belicheck came with that game plan against Rodgers he would have eaten that defense up. Rodgers is the better QB in this offense and in any offense.

Now look at the course of the season and start counting up the FREQUENT 3 and outs. Now loook at Flynn the last two game and count. We rarely had 3 and outs with the type of offense we ran with Flynn back there, in comparison to the deep throwing shotgun offense we run with Rodgers.

[MJZiggy]

You guys are hilarious. Dude plays half a game (with no prep) and you decide he will NEVER have the potential to start in the league. He preps and plays a whole game and he's suddenly better than Rodgers? That's nuts. All we know now is that he's got potential. He had a remarkably nice game. He almost pulled it out and NO one expected it. We expected to get blown out, but don't expect that the kid is instantly an elite QB. You'd prefer him to Rodgers? REALLY??? Come on now.

[packerbacker1234]

You guys are hilarious. Dude plays half a game (with no prep) and you decide he will NEVER have the potential to start in the league. He preps and plays a whole game and he's suddenly better than Rodgers? That's nuts. All we know now is that he's got potential. He had a remarkably nice game. He almost pulled it out and NO one expected it. We expected to get blown out, but don't expect that the kid is instantly an elite QB. You'd prefer him to Rodgers? REALLY??? Come on now.

I never said he was better than Rodgers, I said the style of offense he brings is prefferred to what we are doing with Rodgers. Rodgers needs to be under center just as much as FLynn was last game.. every game, as it allows us to mix it up. He also needs to not check out of runs as much, and not always be looking deep first.

Rodgers is a better QB, but the way we runt he offense with him is not as good as it was with Flynn. Rodgers needs to watch that film, take some notes, and start going under center. He'll still be throwing close to 40 times - we did that last game. But whats wrong with putting yourself in a position to throw and run on every play?

[Bossman641]

Like others have said, Flynn doesn't have the arm strength to ever be a really good QB. Rodgers has greatly improved his arm strength since being in GB so there is some hope for Flynn, but he has been here 3 years now and still doesn't have enough arm.

His deep balls float too much.

[packerbacker1234]

Like others have said, Flynn doesn't have the arm strength to ever be a really good QB. Rodgers has greatly improved his arm strength since being in GB so there is some hope for Flynn, but he has been here 3 years now and still doesn't have enough arm.

His deep balls float too much.

Well, flynn may have never worked on his arms as much as he should have either. Rodgers always knew he was going to eventually be "the guy" - Flynn never had any expectations except to run scout teams and take home a check.

[RashanGary]

I never said he was better than Rodgers, I said the style of offense he brings is prefferred to what we are doing with Rodgers. Rodgers needs to be under center just as much as FLynn was last game.. every game, as it allows us to mix it up. He also needs to not check out of runs as much, and not always be looking deep first.

Rodgers is a better QB, but the way we runt he offense with him is not as good as it was with Flynn. Rodgers needs to watch that film, take some notes, and start going under center. He'll still be throwing close to 40 times - we did that last game. But whats wrong with putting yourself in a position to throw and run on every play?

I'm a fan of a lot of your posts. Rodgers is a magnificent passer. Flynn will never be the passer that Rodgers is. The way Flynn played though, for one game, the offense was better than it was with Rodgers, whether Flynn was as spectacular or not.

And I agree we do way to many checks at the line. It makes up predictable. Defense are constantly showing one deep safety to bait Rodgers into a pass and then pinning their ears back. That's why Manning does all of those fake checks, because they realized a long time ago that checks become predictable. To me, there seem to be two good ways to do it. The first is like Manning where you do all of the fake checks and complicate the shit out of it to trick the opponent. The 2nd is more like NE where you run your offense without most of the checks, but then use them from time to time in key situations. NE also seems to have great chemistry with the WR's and QB. They subtly destroy zone coverage by always running the right route and the QB throwing the right throw in a tight spot. We, on the other hand, with Rodgers, always seem to be trying to get a guy wide open. We ruin the tempo at the line with our checks. We make ourselves predictable because the defense knows what kind of defenses we will not run into. . . . I just think MM is vastly underperforming on offense and just seeing Flynn out there made me realize what we have the talent to do.

It's not all Rodgers. I think a huge part of it is MM and I've been saying this for a couple seasons now. It comes up more in the down times, but it's never really gone away.

[RashanGary]

Pay attention people. Early in a game, before score and time become factors. . . 1st and 10. If a team shows 1 high safety, 100% of the time Rodgers will check into a pass. Tell me that's not predictable. I think teams DL are taught to go directly at the QB in those situations.

The Vikings figured that out a couple years ago. They would show 8 in the box and then drop everyone. Rodgers, of course, would have a pass checked to and the Vikings would be rushing straight up the field on 1st and 10 with nothing on their mind but, kill Rodgers. Normally teams don't pin'em back on first and 10. That's normally a run or pass down that's played with some integrity. Against us though, they know we will not run into an 8 man box so they adjust.

We've made some adjustments to it, but the way it was run with Flynn, it just worked. If they have any brains at all, they will try the same type of game plan with Rodgers. Just see how it works, stubby.

[pbmax]

That's kind of odd Justin, since Rodgers and McCarthy have said they have seen more Cover 2 on first and second down than ever before since Grant hit the shelf.

[pbmax]

Now look at the course of the season and start counting up the FREQUENT 3 and outs. Now loook at Flynn the last two game and count. We rarely had 3 and outs with the type of offense we ran with Flynn back there, in comparison to the deep throwing shotgun offense we run with Rodgers.

The Browns went up and down the field against this defense. Its not lights out over there anymore. Flynn played great, but this Patriot defense, as McGinn wrote today, was not a bad choice for a debut.

[pbmax]

Guy is a gamer. He brings a completely different style of football to this particular offense than rodgers does. Reminds me a lot of teams that do well in the playoffs. He, combined with the line, even made Brandon Jackson look good today. Made Kuhn look liek the gamer we saw in the early weeks of the year. Flynn's brand of football is refreshingly different than Rodgers, and it's hard to say which brand is better or would produce more. While rodgers has the experience and the big arm, Flynn seems to have all the intangibles.

Rodgers feels like a QB who's playstyle (at least, the way he audbiles and the way we gameplan with him) is more suited for a warm weather/dome. His style is also more indicitive of big plays rather than long drives. After watching the offense today, Flynn, and MM's play calling, I now must bring into question how many of these seemingly odd calls are on Rodgers and his audibles/decisions. Rodgers is clearly more comfortable in the shotgun - Flynn under center with occasional shotgun.

They are two different brands of ball. The real eyeopener here is that in the last two games, Flynn's style has bore more statistical fruit, anyways, than Rodgers (grant it, there was no rodgers to compare to today) - but flynn was able to move the ball better than rodgers did last week in similar play time against the same team. Flynn's style seems better suited for all weather teams - teams like the giants, packers, etc... where you have to play in cold, wind, rain, snow, domes, and all that jazz. It's a style that works no matter the climate, where as a mid range passing offense that Rodgers runs can actually be stopped by weather. Also, flynn's style CLEARLY opens the run game more. I think this has mostly to do with the fact he likes to run it from under center. Opens up SO MUCH MORE of the playbook.

We ran a lot of plays today that we simply were not running, or we were adubiling out of, with Rodgers on the field.


Long haul, there is just too small of a sample size. But considering he had one of the single best 1st game starting performances in the history of the nfl (even in getting a loss) there is clearly something there. It can only get better with practice, and having a top tier QB coach in MM right there to groom you doesn't hurt. He's coached some of the best QB's to ever play.

Are we better with Flynn over Rodgers right now? No, you just can't beat the experience Rodgers has. He's a probowl QB, Flynn is a one game starter who played well.

I think our offense does some things better with Flynn and some things better with Rodgers. Hard to say right now. All I know is this: We have two damn good QB's on this roster.

It could be all this 1234. It could be that the biggest difference between Rodgers and Flynn is their effect on the running game.

Or it could be that while Bill Belicheck makes posters on this board drool, his defense stinks out loud this year. Football Outsiders has them rated 25th overall and 29th versus the rush. The other Packer efforts over 100 yards rushing? Eagles (14th), Redskins (24th) and San Fran (6th).

I submit to you and Justin, based on this evidence, that Flynn (despite his overwhelming lead in intangibles) supports the run game worse than Rodgers. If Rodgers could produce 100 yards against the 49ers, Flynn should have produced 200 against the Patriots, who were missing several D lineman in the game. Perhaps Flynn could pick up some more intangibles during offseason workouts.

Just for reference, the Packers had 80 snaps I believe. 44 of those came in shotgun formation. 10 of their rushes were from shotgun. It could be Flynn's intangibles, or it could have been McCarthy trying to protect a young QB with a running game that was successful against a bad defense.

[RashanGary]

That's kind of odd Justin, since Rodgers and McCarthy have said they have seen more Cover 2 on first and second down than ever before since Grant hit the shelf.

Teams mask it sometimes. They show cover 1 presnap but play cover 2 post snap. Get Rodgers in a pass (because he's predictable) and then go at him like gang busters.

I liked how up-tempo our drives were. I think it kept NE on their heels and was a great contrast to what we usually do. Rodgers can play this simple style of game. In fact, I think he would be great at it. We don't always have to run it, but sometimes, throw a beautiful dump off the way Flynn does. Hit a tight slant the way Flynn did. 10 yards is 10 yards, no matter how pretty or ugly it looks.

Flynn plays gritty, ugly football and I love it. I'll bet the players love it too.


Rodgers is better, but he's such a nitpicky perfectionist, we have way too many drived end in penalites (Rodgers having everyone out of rhythm by fucking around at the line), sacks and blown up plays.

He can keep his style, but mix in some of the simple stuff Flynn did. Harry Sydney discribed excellence as doing the ordinary things extraordinarily. If you throw into the flat, put it right on your guy so he catches it in posiition to be dangerous. If you hit little 5 yard dump in the zone, have your guy catching it and dodging a tackler at the smae time by having perfect placement.

Flynn did the ordinary extraordinarily. Rodgers is Mr. Magnificent. Fine, I'm glad he can do that, but the best game manager I've ever seen is Brady, the 2nd best is Favre and Flynn plays that style of game. Rodgers should take note. It's not about yards, highlight reels and QB rating. It's about wins.

[sharpe1027]

He had his guy beat. But it shouldn't have gone for a TD. The over the top safety help sucked.

He had the DB beat, but not necessarily the defense beat. If the safety takes a decent angle, he's close to being there right as the ball arrives. Maybe he would have been a bit late, but it would have been close. I would give Flynn more credit for that pass if he hadn't thrown almost the same pass to the safety two other times.

[pbmax]

Teams mask it sometimes. They show cover 1 presnap but play cover 2 post snap. Get Rodgers in a pass (because he's predictable) and then go at him like gang busters.

I liked how up-tempo our drives were. I think it kept NE on their heels and was a great contrast to what we usually do. Rodgers can play this simple style of game. In fact, I think he would be great at it. We don't always have to run it, but sometimes, throw a beautiful dump off the way Flynn does. Hit a tight slant the way Flynn did. 10 yards is 10 yards, no matter how pretty or ugly it looks.

Flynn plays gritty, ugly football and I love it. I'll bet the players love it too.

Possibly, but have you seen this? TV rarely shows pre-snap backfield alignment. As for the pass rush, the lack of fear of the Packer run game might cause defenses to tee off no matter the coverage. I call this the Derek Loville effect. And Steve Young's concussions would agree with me, if Steve wasn't drooling into his breakfast cereal right now.

And all that you are claiming to be the result of Flynn's intrinsic ability, could be better and more simply explained by the fact that McCarthy went beyond his normal lengths to protect a young QB against a defense that can't stop the run. We both know Brandon Jackson can be both contained and stopped. This is more a measure of the NE shortcomings than it is Flynn. Though I respect your right to disagree.

[RashanGary]

Yeah, PB, What you're saying makes total sense. I'd go so far as to say I know yours has merit and only think mine has merit.

MM called a different style of game. That's not in question. It worked in a way that we haven't seen in a long time. We did not live and die by the big play. We were a unstoppable, clock eating, back breaking, defense tiring machine that ran mostly on regular base plays (slants, dump offs, short throws, a few longer ones, runs).

Every time MM says he simplified the playbook we take off. This time, he never said it was simplified, but Flynn did almost no checks, he's first time starter. . . It was simplified.

And now that we got the offense down to it's simplest form, it was amazing and Rodgers could probably do even better at it.


I think MM is a brilliant, creative mind, but he loves it so much, he doesn't know where to stop. Rodgers is so smart, MM wants to play with his favorite toy. I think we're way to complex and dependent on the spectacular. Substitute spectacular with doing the ordinary extraordinarily and substitute complex with simplified and I think you get closer to a NE type offense. Brady perfects teh ordinary throws. Rodgers makes long, spectacular ones. Brady can do both, but his bread and butter is ordinary throws put right where his guys can be dangerous.

We've moved that way, but with Flynn in his first start, we finished the transformation I've been hoping for. I hope it stays.

[packerbacker1234]

Yeah, PB, What you're saying makes total sense. I'd go so far as to say I know yours has merit and only think mine has merit.

MM called a different style of game. That's not in question. It worked in a way that we haven't seen in a long time. We did not live and die by the big play. We were a unstoppable, clock eating, back breaking, defense tiring machine that ran mostly on regular base plays (slants, dump offs, short throws, a few longer ones, runs).

Every time MM says he simplified the playbook we take off. This time, he never said it was simplified, but Flynn did almost no checks, he's first time starter. . . It was simplified.

And now that we got the offense down to it's simplest form, it was amazing and Rodgers could probably do even better at it.


I think MM is a brilliant, creative mind, but he loves it so much, he doesn't know where to stop. Rodgers is so smart, MM wants to play with his favorite toy. I think we're way to complex and dependent on the spectacular. Substitute spectacular with doing the ordinary extraordinarily and substitute complex with simplified and I think you get closer to a NE type offense. Brady perfects teh ordinary throws. Rodgers makes long, spectacular ones. Brady can do both, but his bread and butter is ordinary throws put right where his guys can be dangerous.

We've moved that way, but with Flynn in his first start, we finished the transformation I've been hoping for. I hope it stays.

Agreed completely. I Judt don't see Rodgers being the guy that does that, or MM trying to make the offense be that with Rodgers. I do think we need to go under center more, and yes, run the ball and do some ordinary throws. Those ordinary throws is what made Favre a bit special, as he was just so deadly on that slant pass. Combine that with a good screen game in the 90's and we became killer. Run the ball some, then get Favre ont he play action? No one was more deadly with that screen/slant/pa game in the 90's than was Favre.

I don't fully understand why we go away from that stuff with Rodgers. I get that the offense is trying to be ran like the colts where they go shutgun most the game, but even in doing that... Peyton Manning runs of the offense. He calls many of hte plays. Rodgers would need to do the same, and it doesn't appear we are telling him too.

I liked the gameplan and I loved how many points it put up. Just went to show what a "true" west coast offense can really do.

[bobblehead]

What everyone (except PB touched on it) is missing here is that we ran the ball damn good. If that had been starks instead of BJack I would be reading his thread about how awesome he was....how he planted the foot and shot upfield. Flynn was good. He was very good. He can win in this league, but the biggest thing that made this game close was our ability to get positive yards in the run game, and then even on dump off passes. I liked flynn. I hope Rodgers took note of how flynn unloaded it at the 4 second mark even if it was conceding the play. I hope MM noticed the value of more running plays. I hope the OL can block for the run against better Defenses. I hope everyone here stops knee jerking and predicting anything about flynn after one game (or starks for that matter).

[sharpe1027]

Bobble makes a good point. That might have been the best I have ever seen BJ run. He ran up the gut and made cutbacks (although it looked like he probably still missed some cutback chances).

[SnakeLH2006]

Wow...Snake saw the same game you guys did (I think)....but for those to say he's better than ARod in ANYTHING....another Wow.

Flynn did better than I thought he would, but really got lucky (a few picks dropped...one called back on penalty). He's nowhere near the caliber of Brunell or Aaron Brooks....both had cannons for arms compared to Flynn.

Flynn has some moxie (his teammates like him....hell I do too), but that only gets you so far. He's a backup at best and at one point will get traded for a pick.

Is Flynn better than ARod in anything? No. Arod is more accurate, has a complete command of the O, doesn't go down for as many futile sacks (looking around and gets sandwiched like young QB's do), has far better reads and checkdowns (Flynn's go-to guy seems to be Quarless who's catch awareness is nil), and has a complete rope for an arm.

Flynn got lucky. He's a good guy and a gamer, but that's it. You don't (we didn't) win with those guys.

My biggest problem with Flynn is two-fold:

1) His arm is like a candied yam. He can't throw a spiral hard. I could throw lefthanded as hard as Flynn throws with his natural arm. Most NFL QB's in 2010 have cannons. Flynn's arm reminds me of the wannabe's from the 80's/90's....those guys don't play much. His arm is very bad....even his 60 yarder to Jones was a weak-armed toss up there.

..............This is the biggest thing................Name a QB with a weaker arm than Flynn?........Grossman can wing it better...and this is my biggest point against Flynn.

2) He doesn't follow reads well....now this may be cuz he's young at QB, but regardless he doesn't do progressions well.

2.5) Part of being young at QB, but his awareness is piss-poor...he has no ball fakes/shimmies/move up in the pocket awareness etc. He'd last 2 games as a starter till he's carted off the field.

I don't wanna be a rain on the parade, but Flynn is too weak-armed to EVER win in the NFL. For those paraders marching against ARod's flaws (Arod is elite..what are you smoking?)....well Flynn's 0-1 as a starter....and Snake stands by the original topic.

Flynn is a deece backup at best, but a garbage ass starter. Drink some more Kool-Aid and rant off some more in the future if ARod has a bad game, cuz he's back to help us win next week and for the next 10 years. Flynn is ass (as a starter)..but I always liked him as an ok backup.

Go Packers.

[RashanGary]

Snake, you'd be dilusional to think AR is better in every sense than Flynn. AR is way better overall and better in a lot more senses, but I guarantee there is at least one thing that Flynn does better, whether we've touched on it or not.

Regardless, he did a great job leading the offense. The offense looked more consistent and in Rhythm than it does iwth Rodgers who leads an offense that lives and dies by the big play.

I'm sure that's part MM. I remember one time, Joe Philbin was bragging about how his offense has zero plays where a dump off is the top read. They're always trying to push the ball. Well, sometimes you can do a lot of damage with those shorter plays. Outside the year where Brady had Moss, he's been primarily a slant and short route QB. Favre has been that type of player too. I know Rodgers is a magnificent passer, but out offensive staff seem intent on running the hardest, most complicated offense in the league. Why not just run an effective one, whether it's easy or not.

I think the whole team played better in part because NE's defense stinks, in part because we ran will, in part because they weren't prepared for that type of game plan from us, but also in part because we didn't think we were too good for the easy, effective plays. Brett Favre, one of the greatest players of our time, NEVER thought he was too good for those plays. He took two teams to the NFCC game at ages 38 and 40 by destroying teams with execution on basic plays. Nobody could stop his slant or skinny post and when he dumped it off, his guys were dangerous before they even caught it because he threw it perfectly.

Flynn brought some of that last night. It looked like the old Favre drives, including the dangerous throws. I know his arm isn't strong, but Favre wasn't Mr. Complicated. He brought Mississippi tough and I think Flynn brings a little Texas grit.


Rodgers has been the most magnificent passer I've ever seen in a Packer uniform but it pains me to say this, but I miss #4's effectiveness although I don't miss his boneheadedness.

Favre was stubborn about forcing things and it was his downfall as a player. I'm starting to see AR might have a downfall too. Him and/or McCarthy are stubborn about being a vertical offense with a thick playbook. They want to be thought of as football geniuses by running the hardest, most complicated plays and succeeding at them. And maybe they'll get there. But I think them sticking their nose up at effective, gritty football. I think it's a mistake that's costing this team. The way they played with Flynn, the simple, effective plays with roll outs, dump offs and all of that QB helper stuff. . . I know it's much more magnficent to throw it 30 yards down the field on a dime, but that just leads to a lot of 3 and outs with some huge plays. We LIVE and DIE by the big play and its' because MM and AR run that type of offense. Why can't we just end that shit? WHY???

I think our identity should be like the offense Flynn ran. They did quick dump offs and quick throws which helped the OL. They had a very fast temp, keeping hte defnese on it's heals which I think helped us run and set a tone. That was, I think in part because Flynn didn't fuck around at the line the way AR does. Then, once we have teams on their heels, we can bust out some of the AR magnificent. The way it is now, teams pin their ears back because we're always trying to run AR magnificent. That's just too hard on the OL. The tough, gritty, easy stuff is what works. Just use it. No more live and die by the big play. With our defnse, if we're a ball control offense, we're going to be nasty to beat. NE had a tough time. Our defense got off the field and our offense stayd on it. We were dominating them if not for the mistakes.

[SnakeLH2006]

Snake, you'd be dilusional to think AR is better in every sense than Flynn. AR is way better overall and better in a lot more senses, but I guarantee there is at least one thing that Flynn does better, whether we've touched on it or not.

Regardless, he did a great job leading the offense. The offense looked more consistent and in Rhythm than it does iwth Rodgers who leads an offense that lives and dies by the big play.

I'm sure that's part MM. I remember one time, Joe Philbin was bragging about how his offense has zero plays where a dump off is the top read. They're always trying to push the ball. Well, sometimes you can do a lot of damage with those shorter plays. Outside the year where Brady had Moss, he's been primarily a slant and short route QB. Favre has been that type of player too. I know Rodgers is a magnificent passer, but out offensive staff seem intent on running the hardest, most complicated offense in the league. Why not just run an effective one, whether it's easy or not.

I think the whole team played better in part because NE's defense stinks, in part because we ran will, in part because they weren't prepared for that type of game plan from us, but also in part because we didn't think we were too good for the easy, effective plays. Brett Favre, one of the greatest players of our time, NEVER thought he was too good for those plays. He took two teams to the NFCC game at ages 38 and 40 by destroying teams with execution on basic plays. Nobody could stop his slant or skinny post and when he dumped it off, his guys were dangerous before they even caught it because he threw it perfectly.

Flynn brought some of that last night. It looked like the old Favre drives, including the dangerous throws. I know his arm isn't strong, but Favre wasn't Mr. Complicated. He brought Mississippi tough and I think Flynn brings a little Texas grit.


Rodgers has been the most magnificent passer I've ever seen in a Packer uniform but it pains me to say this, but I miss #4's effectiveness although I don't miss his boneheadedness.

Favre was stubborn about forcing things and it was his downfall as a player. I'm starting to see AR might have a downfall too. Him and/or McCarthy are stubborn about being a vertical offense with a thick playbook. They want to be thought of as football geniuses by running the hardest, most complicated plays and succeeding at them. And maybe they'll get there. But I think them sticking their nose up at effective, gritty football. I think it's a mistake that's costing this team. The way they played with Flynn, the simple, effective plays with roll outs, dump offs and all of that QB helper stuff. . . I know it's much more magnficent to throw it 30 yards down the field on a dime, but that just leads to a lot of 3 and outs with some huge plays. We LIVE and DIE by the big play and its' because MM and AR run that type of offense. Why can't we just end that shit? WHY???

I think our identity should be like the offense Flynn ran. They did quick dump offs and quick throws which helped the OL. They had a very fast temp, keeping hte defnese on it's heals which I think helped us run and set a tone. That was, I think in part because Flynn didn't fuck around at the line the way AR does. Then, once we have teams on their heels, we can bust out some of the AR magnificent. The way it is now, teams pin their ears back because we're always trying to run AR magnificent. That's just too hard on the OL. The tough, gritty, easy stuff is what works. Just use it. No more live and die by the big play. With our defnse, if we're a ball control offense, we're going to be nasty to beat. NE had a tough time. Our defense got off the field and our offense stayd on it. We were dominating them if not for the mistakes.

Hey JustinHarrell...I do agree with most of what you wrote here, but really, your qualm is not against ARod or pro-Flynn, but on the type of offense being run. I agree it gets pretty nuts with how many plays, etc. getting run, and I think some guys (some of of WR's this year, even vets) got lost in the plays in early games and didn't know where to go.

Where I disagree is that fact you say this has something to do with Flynn being better than ARod in ANY aspect.

Maybe MM dumbed down the plays for Flynn (he did) but that does nothing to prove Flynn is better in ANY aspect as an NFL QB. That is coaching and play-calling...not on ARod.

I agree with what you said, but that has nothing to do with ability. It sounds like you want a simpler O, and that is cool, but don't tell me that Arod couldn't run a simpler O better than that noodle-armed sack-machine named Flynn.

Flynn did ok in his debut, but will NEVER be an NFL starter more than a handful of games. His arm is poor as all hell, and he has smarts galore, and may be a great coach/backup, but really you are talking play-calling, not ability. Arod's ability is up there with Manning, Brady, anyone.

Email MM and tell him that....as I agree, as I remember Favre saying the same thing about complexities vs. core plays. MM is getting too fancy, and needs to come back to Earth with his playcalling as ARod knows the scheme, but it seems his receivers (earlier this year) weren't on the same page. Snake played HS (won a championship) and college FB....but our schemes were vanilla. But the best gameplan in the world is moot if EVEN ONE GUY is off the same page. I agree, but that has nothing to do with Flynn, Favre, or Rodgers. Flynn ran a fraction of plays that Arod ran and did Ok.

[Gunakor]

Flynn did ok in his debut...

Flynn outplayed TOM BRADY in his debut. At least that's the general consensus, backed up by statistics.

Flynn posted a QB rating of over 100 in his first NFL start, against an opponent likely bringing home the hardware this season, in a venue where that opponent hasn't lost a game in 2 years. That doesn't happen very often.

In fact, according to Elias Sports Bureau, it's actually the first time that's happened.

I have to side with those who are of the belief that Flynn did much better than "okay" in his first NFL start. I thought he was absolutely phenomenal. It was a stellar performance. Matt Flynn nearly defeated the Brady led Patriots IN Foxboro. I think the kid just made himself millions of dollars, paid to him by a team in need of a starting QB. That's what I think.

[RashanGary]

I agree Gunakor.

Another thing I hope happened is that the Packers realize how ineffective it is to make so many checks at the line. Nobody ever trusts a perception, but my perception is that when we check into a different play it rarely works. The next game I'll chart checks and the number of yards gained on each play where AR made a check. I think the number will be disgustingly bad. It seems teams bait us into predictable checks and it messes up our tempo to boot.

The way the offense functioned against NE, it was one of the best functioning, up tempo offenses we've seen in the last three years. Whether that was Flynn, MM or whatever.

Don't be a bunch of hard-headed numb skulls. Go with what works. Effective is the goal, right? It absolutely was effective and if AR can't lead an offense that way, maybe they should consider Flynn. And I don't really think we should switch but I'm pissed that it took Flynn to see what could have been the whole time.

[MJZiggy]

Harrell, good post, but you're going off of one game. You're assuming that what worked in THIS game against THIS team will work in any circumstance and that's not really true. M3 found every one of the Pats' defensive weaknesses and exploited it--and both Flynn and Jackson played a helluva game. That doesn't mean the same strategy would work against the Bears. Doesn't mean the o-line will work the same in another game and hopefully it means that Peprah learned that just because it's a lineman does not mean you go for the strip. They have big, strong arms, those linemen.

What this game means is that this team played exceptionally well and really outplayed themselves. They were supposed to be embarrassed by the Pats. Even the announcers were left agape and stumbling because they all predicted a "definite" blowout before the game. That doesn't mean that if they do the same thing against the Giants that it will necessarily yield the same result.

[retailguy]

Harrell, good post, but you're going off of one game. You're assuming that what worked in THIS game against THIS team will work in any circumstance and that's not really true. M3 found every one of the Pats' defensive weaknesses and exploited it--and both Flynn and Jackson played a helluva game. That doesn't mean the same strategy would work against the Bears. Doesn't mean the o-line will work the same in another game and hopefully it means that Peprah learned that just because it's a lineman does not mean you go for the strip. They have big, strong arms, those linemen.

What this game means is that this team played exceptionally well and really outplayed themselves. They were supposed to be embarrassed by the Pats. Even the announcers were left agape and stumbling because they all predicted a "definite" blowout before the game. That doesn't mean that if they do the same thing against the Giants that it will necessarily yield the same result.

He does that all the time. You'll learn to ignore it.

There is a bit of truth to what he said though. What the Packers did against the Pats was to do what they do best, instead of trying to outsmart the other team. It was a refreshing change that will probably disappear this week.

[RashanGary]

Zig, I know what you're saying played a strong role in what happened in the game.


What seems beyond coincidence though, is that for the first time in the post Favre era we had long, consistent, control the clock type drives for a full game where we didn't live and die on the big play.

In almost 50 games it's been much of the same and this time it was completely different. It was like we were watching a completely different team. Maybe all of that is chalked up to the Patriots being he worst defenese we've ever faced and Flynn being mroe lucky than good, but I think it's more than that. Usually it's the simplest answer and in this case, Flynn is good and the game plan they came up with worked.

Why they have never run a similar game plan in 3 years, I don't know but if they don't at least try it again after it being so damn effective, I have to think it's a major mistake. That's the impression I get. That's the way I'm siding. I don't have to be right all of the time, but I'm going ot make my judgement and see how it pans out.

That's my judgement.They ran a gameplan that was simpler and worked. I have a lot of evidence showing they play their best football when they go simple. 2009 they did it after 8 games. 2010 they did it after 6. Both times it worked. And this time it worked again.

And the checks thing. I've been frustrated with how disgustingly poor they've worked for three years. They think they're running a manning offense and they're just going 3 and out and living and dying on the big play. I take steady effectiveness over inconsistency with big plays every fucking time and the sad thing is, we'd have the big plays too if we just looked for them more situationally instead of all the fucking time.

[mraynrand]

He does that all the time. You'll learn to ignore it.

There is a bit of truth to what he said though. What the Packers did against the Pats was to do what they do best, instead of trying to outsmart the other team. It was a refreshing change that will probably disappear this week.

I'd hate for the Packers to try and outsmart their opponent

[mraynrand]

And the checks thing. I've been frustrated with how disgustingly poor they've worked for three years. They think they're running a manning offense and they're just going 3 and out and living and dying on the big play. I take steady effectiveness over inconsistency with big plays every fucking time and the sad thing is, we'd have the big plays too if we just looked for them more situationally instead of all the fucking time.

I think Manning mostly takes what the defense gives him. But he has a ton of confidence in his ability to make the difficult deep throws too - and why not? Plus, I think Manning tries to outsmart his opponent. Doesn't everyone?

[RashanGary]

They go beyond though, MrAyn. Flynn came out there and just ran their stuff. It was our guys against theirs. Rodgers/MM go out there and try to out clever the other team. Fuck that. Football is a mans game played on a grass field. It's about beating the guy in front of you. Of course you outsmart him too, but you damn well better out play him. We've gone away from being a gritty offense. MM was great with Favre because he offset his grit with some thought. MM and AR are two thinkers. I don't like the match. Neither of htem wants to just line up and play. I guarantee the OL would. I guarantee the WR's would rather get the quick passes like they did in 07 when the lead the league in YAC. I guarantee the RB's would like getting out there with a decisive play they can commit to in their head before the snap. What they do out there, it's great to have some flexibility to take advantage of situations, but your core game should be beating the ass hole in front of you. That's been forgotten until the NE game it seems. I'd guess they've doubled the checks from 07 till now. I remember a few times a game Favre would make a check and torch single coverage. AR is making 30 checks a game and 2 of them are working. Overkill. And nobody likes to hear someone bitch about the Packers but that's what I see.

[denverYooper]

And the checks thing. I've been frustrated with how disgustingly poor they've worked for three years. They think they're running a manning offense and they're just going 3 and out and living and dying on the big play. I take steady effectiveness over inconsistency with big plays every fucking time and the sad thing is, we'd have the big plays too if we just looked for them more situationally instead of all the fucking time.

I think that his main check is that if he has a 1-1 he's free to go after it and that most of those end up being deep routes. I agree that Rodgers takes the 1 on 1 down the field too often this year at times. I think it's because they 1.) they believe big plays make a big difference and 2.) feel that some teams have matchups they can go after. My main issue is that they seem to get stuck on it even if it doesn't work (often multiple times) for whatever reason (Rodgers overthrows, receivers bobble, etc), feeling like their chance to hit the next one is better. The problem is that when it's not working and they keep chasing it, they really can't establish a good rhythm.

I also think that MAR is right that Manning is good at taking what the defense gives him. GB is trying to run more of a San Diego-type offense. They run a lot of verticals and are pretty good at it. They also have the run game to make it work better. But they're in the nearly the same spot the Packers are in wrt the playoffs and usually end up being a disappointment despite playing generally well.

[mraynrand]

but your core game should be beating the ass hole in front of you. That's been forgotten until the NE game it seems.

There's some truth of course to what you write - you want to physically outplay the dudes across from you. You want to run your best stuff. But here's the thing - when you're playing NE, which was lining up 3 DL backups, you gameplan to pound the ball at them - especially since you have a new starter at QB. In Minnesota, in 2007, when you have Fat Williams and Kevin Williams playing pro bowl level DT across from you, well, you get the ball out quick in the flats and run to the edges, even if you like your fullback dive up the middle, or other between the tackles runs. The answer is you do both: Run your best stuff, and play to the other team's weaknesses. Stubby is pretty good at gameplanning this, only he gets Stubby in games when he can't believe that his great gameplan isn't panning out and he might actually have to adjust on the fly....

[bobblehead]

What seems beyond coincidence though, is that for the first time in the post Favre era we had long, consistent, control the clock type drives for a full game where we didn't live and die on the big play.

.

This is the best thing written in this thread. Not the coincidence part, but the fact that we controlled the ball, clock, and patriots offense as a result. Everyone here knows I believe in running the football. I think you need great balance, and I think time of possession is a very telling statistic. When you make Tom sit on the sidelines and watch a 6 minute drive it messes his rhythm up. When he comes out after that long wait and has a 3 and out it really messes him up. The opposite is of course true of our offense. I KNOW Rodgers can play this way, because he has. And when he does those wonderful deep plays are WIDE open when we do try them.

[Smidgeon]

Zig, I know what you're saying played a strong role in what happened in the game.


What seems beyond coincidence though, is that for the first time in the post Favre era we had long, consistent, control the clock type drives for a full game where we didn't live and die on the big play.

In almost 50 games it's been much of the same and this time it was completely different. It was like we were watching a completely different team. Maybe all of that is chalked up to the Patriots being he worst defenese we've ever faced and Flynn being mroe lucky than good, but I think it's more than that. Usually it's the simplest answer and in this case, Flynn is good and the game plan they came up with worked.

Why they have never run a similar game plan in 3 years, I don't know but if they don't at least try it again after it being so damn effective, I have to think it's a major mistake. That's the impression I get. That's the way I'm siding. I don't have to be right all of the time, but I'm going ot make my judgement and see how it pans out.

That's my judgement.They ran a gameplan that was simpler and worked. I have a lot of evidence showing they play their best football when they go simple. 2009 they did it after 8 games. 2010 they did it after 6. Both times it worked. And this time it worked again.

And the checks thing. I've been frustrated with how disgustingly poor they've worked for three years. They think they're running a manning offense and they're just going 3 and out and living and dying on the big play. I take steady effectiveness over inconsistency with big plays every fucking time and the sad thing is, we'd have the big plays too if we just looked for them more situationally instead of all the fucking time.

Atlanta this year. Among others.

[Tarlam!]

The question Snake asked is what Flynn's winning record might look like if he were a full time starter and all of a sudden, posters are comparing him to A-Rod.

Maybe I started it, but totally unwittingly; I was merely pointing out where similarities were. It's completely obvious that Rodgers is better and it shlould be so, considering the playing time.

A lot has been made of arm strength and boy, it is exciting to watch Bert, Rodgers, Brady et al squeeze the pigskin into fractions of and inch worth of daylight or connect on a 50 yard bomb.

Winning championships is pretty exciting, too. I think a team could win with either Rodgers or Flynn and that's why I think it's just semantics comparing them.

[vince]

Controlling the clock is not a problem McCarthy's offenses have had in his tenure, including this year.

[SnakeLH2006]

The question Snake asked is what Flynn's winning record might look like if he were a full time starter and all of a sudden, posters are comparing him to A-Rod.

Maybe I started it, but totally unwittingly; I was merely pointing out where similarities were. It's completely obvious that Rodgers is better and it shlould be so, considering the playing time.

A lot has been made of arm strength and boy, it is exciting to watch Bert, Rodgers, Brady et al squeeze the pigskin into fractions of and inch worth of daylight or connect on a 50 yard bomb.


Well put, Tarlam. I really am not anti-Flynn so much as I'm pro-Arod. Arod is as good as it gets. His arm/savvy is up there with ANY NFL QB. Flynn has a long ways to go. He's fidgety, but really that is being a young QB, but his arm is so noodled that he has no chance to be a good regular starter. It's all about cannons (whether that be Bert in his prime firing it on ropes or Brady being pinpoint)...as Flynn will NEVER have either aspect in his throwing arsenal. He's a savvy dude, but Hasselbeck, the Saints QB we traded, and Brunell (younger) all had the ability to rope a pass. Flynn doesn't. He's a good backup, but will NEVER be a starting QB very long.