GB has a rich histroy of developing backup QB's for success

[phinatic1399]

Brett Favre, Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselbeck, Aaron Rodgers were all backups in GB and turned out to be very successful, Matt Flynn is the next in line, if he comes over with Philbin it will be a smooth transition because he already knows the system.

 

[PHINSfan]

Not only that.... Our HC worked with him on a daily basis, If anyone really knows if Flynn has what it takes to be a great starting QB here that person is coach Joe.

 

[KingDolphin57]

My only problem with that is out of those Qb's the only ones to win a superbowl were selected 24th and 33rd respectfully. Not 209 th.

 

[Myles Fynch]

I think with Philbin working so close with Rogers and Flynn, that Joe would be pretty knowledgeable about how close Flynn is being good enough to take you where you want to go.

 

[broccoli rob]

Maybe this will apply to JP Losman!

 

[finsfanjay13]

My only problem with that is out of those Qb's the only ones to win a superbowl were selected 24th and 33rd respectfully. Not 209 th.

All of those QBs have been to the playoffs as a *starter* at least once (with the exception of Flynn, obviously). That's what matters. Winning a Super Bowl is hard enough, but nitpicking that ONLY 50% have won a Super Bowl in that list is just silly.

 

[Lilseb93]

All of those QBs have been to the playoffs as a *starter* at least once (with the exception of Flynn, obviously). That's what matters. Winning a Super Bowl is hard enough, but nitpicking that ONLY 50% have won a Super Bowl in that list is just silly.

This.

 

[BMM]

Only one of the quarterbacks listed (Rodgers) was a backup under the current Packers regime. So, the success of those other quarterbacks says nothing about how well the current Packers regime develops backup quarterbacks or how successful a current Packers back-up will be as a starter.

Rodgers (obviously) is a spectacular development success story and Flynn shows promise. However, the development of the other listed backups and their subsequent performance as a starter has nothing to do with the current regime.

 

[SnakeoilSeller]

I don't have a problem with the Fins going after Flynn, but I would not trade picks for him if the Packers franchise him, nor would I give him a ridiculous contract (Kevin Kolb) after only 2 NFL starts. Let him come in and compete with Moore. Pat Devlin may do well as the developmental QB in Philbin's system.

 

[KingDolphin57]

All of those QBs have been to the playoffs as a *starter* at least once (with the exception of Flynn, obviously). That's what matters. Winning a Super Bowl is hard enough, but nitpicking that ONLY 50% have won a Super Bowl in that list is just silly.

My point is pick a damn first round Qb you should see some success. Don't throw the money at a backup cuz Gb developed him. That's the problem I'm not shooting for the playoffs I'm shooting for the superbowl. Yolo

 

[finsfanjay13]

My point is pick a damn first round Qb you should see some success. Don't throw the money at a backup cuz Gb developed him. That's the problem I'm not shooting for the playoffs I'm shooting for the superbowl. Yolo

You used a very small sample size to come to the conclusion that: "A first round quarterback has a better chance at winning the Super Bowl than a backup quarterback developed in Green Bay" (nevermind the fact that Brett Favre was drafted in the second round, by the Atlanta Falcons, who, uhm, well, was developed in Green Bay). Matt Flynn will be more prepared than any first round quarterback not named Andrew Luck next year. He would walk in already prepared and already familiar with the system.

I have no issues going first round QB, but to claim that a first round QB would be a wiser choice over Matt Flynn without providing ZERO reasons as to why is, again, just silly.

 

[KingDolphin57]

I have no issues going first round QB, but to claim that a first round QB would be a wiser choice over Matt Flynn without providing ZERO reasons as to why is, again, just silly.

You can find those reasons on your own if you look at him as a prospect. I'm just going to say again Matt Flynn is a backup and I would feel safer going with luck or griffin hell I would even feel safer going with Weeden and I'm not a supporter.

 

[TX-FinFan]

Interesting fact on these QBs they develop is that they sit for 2-3-4 years before being played. Other teams draft 1st round talent and want them to start right away.

 

[finsfanjay13]

You can find those reasons on your own if you look at him as a prospect. I'm just going to say again Matt Flynn is a backup and I would feel safer going with luck or griffin hell I would even feel safer going with Weeden and I'm not a supporter.

I would definitely take Luck over Flynn. Which is why I said that I personally feel that Flynn would be better prepared than anybody not named Andrew Luck in this draft. Griffin needs either 1.) an offense suited to his style or 2.) a couple of years learning the ropes. I like Weeden, but I think Weeden vs Flynn is 50/50 when it comes to that decision.