Originally posted by vaden:
So because a few other backup QBs have had similarly (but not equally) great games, the implication is that Flynn's performance was just another fluke and had nothing to do with GB's talent and offensive system. I don't buy it. The odds are astronomical that the next backup QB to do this just so happened to be Rodgers' backup and a guy who's had four years to train in that system.
Nobody has said Green Bay doesn't have a good offensive system. I'd like you guys to show me one time anybody has ever said otherwise.
It's funny that you guys are also completely ignoring that the rest of Green Bay's offense also benefits from that same system. Green Bay's line is no more talented than ours. They have no running game to speak of and their receivers system guys too. We're not talking about Matthew Stafford throwing to Calvin Johnson.
Ultimately this is what comes down to. Yeah Green Bay's got a good system and can develop quarterbacks. Walsh, Holmgren, Reid, Mariucci, Gruden . Successful west coast offensive coaches all have that track record. Every single one of them took journeyman quarterbacks and turned them into Pro Bowlers. Does Matt Hassleback take away from Brett Favre? Does Steve Young take away from Joe Montana? Does Kevin Kolb and AJ Feely take away from Donovan McNabb?
According to some of you guys it's no unless we have to compare to Alex than it's yes.
Regarding Matt Flynn's game. It's one game and it was just 2 weeks ago when the same people making this argument was telling everyone look at Green Bay without Jennings they can't throw the ball. You need elite receivers. How's that working out right now? One game is too small of a sample size to make any definitive statement.
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Jan 5, 2012 at 16:35:06 ]