Matt Flynn Has Been Named the Starter

36 15
Matt Flynn

Matt Flynn

This was pretty much a formality, but the Green Bay Packers have officially named Matt Flynn the starting quarterback for Thursday’s game against the Detroit Lions.

They also officially ruled the injured Aaron Rodgers out. Rodgers practiced for the first time since breaking his collarbone yesterday. On his radio show, Rodgers said he was optimistic about playing, but obviously the Packers didn’t want to take the chance.

“We’re 22 days out from the injury today. Expectations have been high, and I’ve obviously been trying to push it as much as has been reasonable, but it’s a waiting game with broken bones and obviously it doesn’t just affect the bone, it affects the muscles around it and range of motion and the strength you have on that left side and in that shoulder. Obviously I know I’m a right-handed quarterback, but I still need to be able to have strength in that arm.”

After replacing Scott Tolzien on Sunday, Flynn had been taking the reps with the starters in practice. However, coach Mike McCarthy didn’t immediately name him the starter, instead saying he was preparing both quarterbacks to play.

Earlier this week, Flynn said he had a total of eight practice reps last week and he still came in and threw for over 200 yards in a little more than two quarters of football.

With a little more preparation, the Packers should be able to open up the offense with Flynn against Detroit. Hopefully Flynn will be able to duplicate that 480 yard performance he had against the Lions in 2011.

About The Author

Monty McMahon is one of the founders of Total Packers. He is probably the most famous graduate of UW-Oshkosh next to Jim Gantner.

15 Comments on "Matt Flynn Has Been Named the Starter"

  1. Brian W

    Matt Flynn needs to be locked up with a nice contract to be a long term backup to Rodgers. In a few years we can draft a project qb. This year is a disaster because of the lack of a serviceable backup.

  2. kluck a luck

    “Dear Football Gods: Please let us win in Detroit and keep us in this thing until A-Rod gets back. I mean, come one..you still owe us for that BS in Seattle last year and that 4th and 26 in Philly. We would like to cash in one of our Karma pieces, please.”

    – Every Packer Fan

  3. Tucson Packer

    I do not think anybody besides Aaron has pointed that out.

    That being this injury happened to his non-throwing shoulder

    Count your blessings cheese heads.

    Go Flynn Go Pack

  4. K.L.

    Ah, Flynn. I never get tired of watching his highlights against the Lions. I’m predicting 600 passing yards and 8 touchdowns.

  5. PF4L

    All in all, J. Franklin has been basically useless this season sanz the 103 yards in the Bengals game. Not so sure why they used a 4th round pick for someone they don’t want to play.

  6. PF4L

    But then again. For all the brutal yards that the beast Lacy gains, it’s a wonder why Starks doesnt have more carries. Starks has rushed for an average of 5.8 yards a carry, the last time i looked at NFL rushing averages/carry, that’s pretty god damn good.

    • Phatgzus

      As much I like Starks, a) Lacy has been (for the most part) so damn effective, he’s also young and keeping RBs on a run count, especially when they’re effective is silly, not as ridiculous as pitchers on pitch counts, but not far off; and b) many of Starks’ yards have come on long runs inside the tackle-he just doesn’t seem quick enough (lack of speed or hesitation) to bounce outside with constant success.

  7. PF4L

    I don’t recall anyone asking for a run “count”.
    Starks has those long runs because he’s quick, and because he can hit the hole quick. Does he have the power Lacy has? Absolutely not. Nor does Lacy have Starks speed.

    Most of the Packers runs are designed to run inside. They rarely try running outside.

    In the Vikings game, Starks had 3 rushes for 37 yards. Yes, 1 run was for 34 yards. I guess we could pick n choose which runs we should count with lacy too, but I’d rather just appreciate what Lacy does, just as I appreciate a back who gives us 5.8 ypc. No matter how he gets it. Call me crazy, but I’d call 5,8 yards a carry “effective”.

    • Phatgzus

      You didn’t, numerous others (on sundry sites) have. Just sayin’ if he’s beastin’ as he is wont to do, why sub him out for more than a play here and there for a short respite as they’ve been doing?

      Fuck yeah I’ll take 5.8 ypc all day. Where did I call Starks ineffective or slow overall? I didn’t, I’ve thought he’s been great ever since the SB run. What I said is he is not quick to the edge, whether designed or a bounce out, he hesitates that’s likely a lack of confidence in his judgement or an
      inability to see the hole, the game tape bears this out. I enjoy watching both of them run, both are hard runners with a burt who seek contact and can bowl you over no problem. Only Lacy is more capable bouncing outside or pounding inside, whereas Starks is a slasher, I.e. at his best when he gets
      north and south early and explodes through the hole and second level.

  8. ay hombre

    We keep pounding Lacy like we are and he’ll be retired in less than three years. Playing Starks more is preserving Lacy, as well as a change of pace. If we run the ball 30+ times, then Starks should be getting close to ten touches a game.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *