Flynn As a Starter Full Time. Could He Win?

[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.