"rabidgopher04" wrote:

"dhpackr" wrote:

"rabidgopher04" wrote:

In the other thread I (sort of) defended Flynn, but another thought that keeps creeping in my mind is that he couldn't lead an 8-4 squad over a 2-10 team. Back-up or not, that's pretty effing pathetic.

"musccy" wrote:

Flynn looked like a passable NFL back-up. He can throw deep, has some mobility, and has some pocket presence.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

The Lions are a very competitive 2-10 team; this isn't a downright terrible team we're talking about.

Frankly, Flynn had little help from his o-line. Back-up QB in, you want to at least be able to run the ball to open things up for your QB. They couldn't.

Flynn looked like a passable NFL back-up. He can throw deep, has some mobility, and has some pocket presence.

What bugs me though is that his deep throws seem to have an awful lot of air under the ball. Whereas Aaron seems to throw passes that don't have as big an arch on them, Flynn seems to throw big arch pattern on his deep ball.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

Agreed on the mobility and the pocket presence, but not on the ability to throw deep. And it wasn't just that he put a lot of air under the ball. He did not throw an accurate deep pass all day, and because of that he left three TDs on the field.

There's plenty of blame to go around--all of it on the offense--so I don't want to be too harsh on the backup QB who had to come into a game with no running game and not a lot of time to throw the ball. But the fact is that you need a pretty good QB to run this offense, and Flynn was not even close to being pretty good. Our backup QB situation is much more worrisome today than it was yesterday.

"Greg C." wrote: