Flynn Looks Good In Start; Rodgers Sits

Matt Flynn looked good taking over command of the offense in place of Aaron Rodgers who was held out of the game due to a coach's decision.

With starting quarterback Aaron Rodgers being held out of the preseason finale as a coach's decision, backup Matt Flynn had himself a pretty good performance as the Packers lost the Kansas City Chiefs 17-13 in the preseason finale.

In basically only three quarters of play, Flynn completed 23 out of 37 passes for 307 yards. He didn't have any touchdowns, but he also didn't throw any interceptions.

It wasn't a great showing by any means. After all, the Packers only scored 13 points the whole game and only converted 4 of 19 combined third and fourth downs, but Flynn started to ease concerns that he could adequately fill in for Rodgers if necessary over a short amount of time.

Considering Flynn only played a series or two with other players considered starters, it would be hard to blame anyone for wondering what the backup quarterback could do if he was surrounded by the "ones." At several times throughout the course of the game, Flynn was plagued by dropped passes and hit or miss protection.

Rodgers was one of three healthy scratches for the Packers in the fourth preseason game joining cornerback Charles Woodson and running back Ryan Grant. The Packers also kept several other players out of the game that have been dealing with injuries.

According to reports from other NFL games, holding starters out of the game was a common theme on this Thursday. The final preseason game has always been notorious for starters playing sparingly, but it seems to have gone a step further in 2010. Certainly this will be presented as evidence for the need of an "enhanced season" that would see the exhibition season trimmed to two games while the regular season is extended to 18.

0 points

Comments (18)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Z's picture

September 03, 2010 at 05:31 am

Do I smell a quarterback controversy brewing?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 03, 2010 at 05:50 am

I'd say the NFLPA would use this as evidence -against- an "enhanced" season, citing the fact that NFL management limits starter play time in the 4th preseason game due to concerns players just won't be able to take anymore wear-and-tear than a 16 game regular season already inflicts upon them.

All the NFLPA really has to do is point to the number of players that end up having off-season surgeries to correct medical conditions related to the physical toll the game exerts upon their bodies (much less those who suffer season ending injury or miss multiple games during the season), and I think the NFL front offices across the league will have a tough time justifying extended seasons being in the best interests of players' health- something the league claims to be of top priority.

Yes, you can "trim" off pre season games to extend the regular season, but starters play a very small amount in those games.. You're not saving much wear and tear on the people who actually play 16 games. You're just taking away play time from those who generally don't see the field much if at all during the season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
bomdad's picture

September 03, 2010 at 08:20 am

Then there is a whole re-vamping of roster sizes that will accompany the longer schedule. NFLPA will push for more players on regular rosters, and since there is are more players, the salary cap floor has to also be raised.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 03, 2010 at 07:37 pm

Bomdad,

The NFLPA will argue (and rightfully so) that expanding the rosters yet again re-affirms that an 18 game season is NOT in the player's best interests.

It clearly illustrates that a longer season will result in more injuries, hence why management needs bigger rosters.,,How can the NFL pretend to put a premium on player health, and yet go to the lengths of expanding team rosters solely for the purpose of ensuring the teams have enough players to fill in the vacancies left due to injury, which were caused by playing two extra regular season games in an already gruelingly long season?

Second, more players on the roster equals more payroll, and I'm pretty sure the NFLPA is going to say that if the owners are willing to pay out more cash, it should be going to those who already play for them, not a bunch of scrubs to take over when the starters are torn limb from limb due to an extended season to line the pockets of the owners.

Not saying this is my viewpoint, but this will be the stance of the NFLPA.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WoodyG's picture

September 03, 2010 at 08:44 am

Having lived through 12 to 14 to 16 ........ The move to 18 has always been the next step ........ The arguments 'against' have always been the same ....... "How can NFL players be expected to play 14 games in one season?" ....... The move to 18 may not happen this time around but it will happen eventually ........ It's a money thing.... (I hope to live to see the 20-game season)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WoodyG's picture

September 03, 2010 at 09:23 am

The 14-game season started in season 1961 ....... It took 17 years before the 16-game season began - 1978 .... It's now been 32+ years with the 16-game season ....... Time for a change... Look for 18 games in 2012.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sammer's picture

September 03, 2010 at 10:01 am

So the games per season must necessarily increase forever? In 100 years will we have a 30 game season?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

September 03, 2010 at 10:24 am

Yes, if the number of teams increase...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sammer's picture

September 03, 2010 at 10:31 am

What? What does the number of teams have to do with the length of the season?

I know the NFL has added games in its history... I just disagree with the notion that continuing that pattern is inevitable. I'm sure the NBA could make more money if they added games, but no one's pushing for that.

I just don't see how an 18 game schedule improves the sport. Of course it will make more money, but the NFL is already the most successful sports league in the history of the universe. If they keep messing with it to try to make more money (hey, let's play a game on Tuesday and Wednesday, too!), they risk losing that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WoodyG's picture

September 03, 2010 at 04:05 pm

I'm sure there's a limit ...... We're just not there yet ..... I always thought 20 was a good round number.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sammer's picture

September 03, 2010 at 09:20 am

The trouble is that more games -> more injuries -> a worse product. It makes absolutely no sense that the NFL is pretending to care about head injuries on one hand while advocating for an "enhanced" schedule on the other. More games necessarily means more concussions, period.

If you really care about players' health, get rid of a preseason game and add a second bye week for each team. That way you would still get more TV revenue (18 week season) and players would be healthier due to additional rest. I want to see the best players on the field, not the scrubs!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
D.D. Driver's picture

September 03, 2010 at 09:49 am

I propose the NFL go down to a 4 regular season. That way there are almost no injuries and that would be an amazing product.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
D.D. Driver's picture

September 03, 2010 at 09:50 am

What happened to the edit button?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sammer's picture

September 03, 2010 at 10:00 am

I didn't suggest cutting games.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Brian Carriveau's picture

September 03, 2010 at 10:03 am

Will never happen because you elminated one entire game of local revenue where teams get to keep the money from filling a stadium and keeping all the money that goes along with it - concessions, parking, merch., etc.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sammer's picture

September 03, 2010 at 10:37 am

That's probably true, unfortunately. In that case, I'd say just add the extra bye week without cutting any of the preseason.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fhornplayer83's picture

September 03, 2010 at 02:38 pm

As with most things, there is an equilibrium that can be reached to obtain maximum profit for the NFL.

Too few games, or too many meaningless preseason games, and there won't be enough income to sustain costs.

But too many games, and they start to become meaningless. In ice hockey, basketball, and baseball, there are so many games that each one only has a very small value. So only the teams that do really well actually generate consistent attendance from fans.

I don't claim to know what that balance point may be with regard to the number of games per season, but I do know that the chances of going past it increase with each game added on. I can only trust that the NFL knows when to stop.

Because if I'm going to take almost 4 hours out of my day to watch a football game, then it had better be worth something.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Robert Greenfield's picture

September 03, 2010 at 02:59 pm

Color me impressed with Flynn. That was the first time I've really watched him and he did not disappoint with the PT given. He's got a gun, has that young mobile quickness and made some good decisions/throws. He could compete for a starting job on more than a few teams I think and flourish (if Brett Swain was in the deal too!)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.