Flynn As a Starter Full Time. Could He Win?

[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?