What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Shark move to pick up Flynn (1 Viewer)

boots11234

Footballguy
Guy who is in first placing my league has Rogers. Is it worth a roster spot to pick up his backup to block him? I'm thinking green bay may sit Rogers once they lock it all up.

Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy who is in first placing my league has Rogers. Is it worth a roster spot to pick up his backup to block him? I'm thinking green bay may sit Rogers once they lock it all up. Thoughts?
Thoughts:1-Finley is a TE, not a QB.2-McCarthy has a history of NOT sitting players early.3-Unless you have a week 17 championship game, this won't be an issue anyway (even then, it probably won't).
 
I'm thinking green bay may sit Rogers once they lock it all up.
I doubt they will outright sit him and start Flynn for the entire game.They might insert Flynn late if they are up 40 points or something like that.And surely the other owner has a QB #2 on his roster as well?
 
I am a Rodgers owner; I think if GB is still undefeated, that he will be playing up to and in the final regular season game. If dynasty or keeper, Flynn is a FA next season

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am a Rodgers owner; I think if GB is still undefeated, that he will be playing up to and in the final regular season game. If dynasty or keeper, Flynn is a FA next season
Read that last sentence again, and you're spot on! Flynn would be starting right now in Seattle, Washington, Cleveland, Miami or Indy, KC, Chicago or Houston with their QB injuries (all of which shouldn't be an issue next year). It could be like picking up Kolb late last year....but actually working out in the end.
 
I am a Rodgers owner; I think if GB is still undefeated, that he will be playing up to and in the final regular season game. If dynasty or keeper, Flynn is a FA next season
Read that last sentence again, and you're spot on! Flynn would be starting right now in Seattle, Washington, Cleveland, Miami or Indy, KC, Chicago or Houston with their QB injuries (all of which shouldn't be an issue next year). It could be like picking up Kolb late last year....but actually working out in the end.
How do you know this? Based on Flynn's one good game? Kolb had several good games when he was in Philly, but he hasn't done squat this year. Flynn could do exactly the same thing if he signed somewhere else.
 
I said it "could " by like......but working out.

Actually it would be exactly like picking up Kolb last year. That much of it is true, working out or not is a different story. It's worth dropping my #3 DB in a 31 man roster IDP league to find out, though.

 
If people have the roster space, Flynn is worth rostering moreso as a decent QB option if Rodgers got hurt. I don't see how the Packers sit Rodgers unless they have already lost a game and clinched homefield. Also, if Rodgers is in the hunt for passing records (yardage, TD passes) they may leave him in altogether. As others have said, maybe Flynn gets some snaps in the second half of a few games, but I don't see Rodgers sitting altogether.

(Personally, I think their offense is better suited to play on the road and getting homefie'd may actually hurt them, but that's another story.)

 
Did the Pats sit TB12 in 2007?
Did the Pats win the Super Bowl in 2007?In a redraft, depending on what you got backing him up, I can think of a whole lot of WORSE people to have than Flynn. He will do fine if needed. Just hopefully, you will be able to know you need him (Like the Packers say Rodgers is resting this week, not pulled in 1st quarter after he takes a blind side hit and they start thinking "we better not get too cute here").In dynasty, Flynn has been on a roster for over a year at least now in my leagues; he is no secret and someone above said it best; he is generally viewed in my leagues as the Kolb of this year that will actually work out". My gut says he goes to Miami next year and life is good.
 
Flynn is a guy I've been holding in dynasty leagues for a while now. I saw enough good signs in his performance against New England last season to convince me of his talent. It will be interesting to see where he ends up.

 
I think Flynn ends up in Tennessee.

Good set of wide.receivers and a nice target for a tight end.

Flynn and Kolb comparisons are not close. McCarthy's. QB school is the difference. If you are looking for dynasty guys for next year and can get him, do it. I have been holding him since last year in two leagues.

 
I think Flynn ends up in Tennessee.

Good set of wide.receivers and a nice target for a tight end.

Flynn and Kolb comparisons are not close. McCarthy's. QB school is the difference. If you are looking for dynasty guys for next year and can get him, do it. I have been holding him since last year in two leagues.
I don't see that happening.Locker, right or wrong, is their future.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
McCarthy doesn't like to sit guys for whole games like that. Rodgers will start week 17 for sure, unless of course he's banged up.

 
Tennessee or Seattle are the places I expect he would end up due to the connections to Green Bay the general managers have. Cleveland is a wild card because of Holmgren. But he isn't connected to any of the Green Bay staff anymore. Unless he was still the coach when Thompsoj was there. I'm not sure.

Anyway all 3 places have the offenses that would allow Flynn to step into a very nice situation immediately. Not saying top 10 but not saying he can't do it either.

 
Forgot about Locker. Depends on his contract though. Flynm will get $60 million so we will see.

Another wild card is if the Packer coaching staff is raided and someone there gets a head coaching job. Plus, Gruden called the New England game so if he gets a job he may show interest as well.

Flynn in redraft is a waste of a roster spot this year. San Francisco and New Orleans will prevent the Packers from locking up the #1 until week 16. Plus Rodgers is battling Brees and Brady for passing records.

Excellent thread btw

 
Forgot about Locker. Depends on his contract though. Flynm will get $60 million so we will see.

Another wild card is if the Packer coaching staff is raided and someone there gets a head coaching job. Plus, Gruden called the New England game so if he gets a job he may show interest as well.

Flynn in redraft is a waste of a roster spot this year. San Francisco and New Orleans will prevent the Packers from locking up the #1 until week 16. Plus Rodgers is battling Brees and Brady for passing records.

Excellent thread btw
A real stretch there.



Locker is a rookie; his contract isn't really an issue. They paid with a high draft pick for him. He will get his opportunity.

 
(Personally, I think their offense is better suited to play on the road and getting homefie'd may actually hurt them, but that's another story.)
Hey David - not to hijack the thread, but can you unpack this a bit? I can understand saying their offense is well-suited to playing on the road. But I'd have a hard time finding a case where getting homefield advantage hurts any team...unless perhaps you're worried about winter weather in GB hurting the precision passing game?
 
Forgot about Locker. Depends on his contract though. Flynm will get $60 million so we will see.

Another wild card is if the Packer coaching staff is raided and someone there gets a head coaching job. Plus, Gruden called the New England game so if he gets a job he may show interest as well.

True it is a stretch, but he will end up somewhere and my gut tells me it will be in an offense that will allow him to succeed. Whether or not he does is up to him I guess but I'm buying.

Flynn in redraft is a waste of a roster spot this year. San Francisco and New Orleans will prevent the Packers from locking up the #1 until week 16. Plus Rodgers is battling Brees and Brady for passing records.

Excellent thread btw
A real stretch there.



Locker is a rookie; his contract isn't really an issue. They paid with a high draft pick for him. He will get his opportunity.
 
(Personally, I think their offense is better suited to play on the road and getting homefie'd may actually hurt them, but that's another story.)
Hey David - not to hijack the thread, but can you unpack this a bit? I can understand saying their offense is well-suited to playing on the road. But I'd have a hard time finding a case where getting homefield advantage hurts any team...unless perhaps you're worried about winter weather in GB hurting the precision passing game?
That's exactly the way I read it. GB has a stellar passing attack with a limited running game and weak defense. The weather in GB in January could easily level the playing field with whatever opponents they get.
 
(Personally, I think their offense is better suited to play on the road and getting homefie'd may actually hurt them, but that's another story.)
Hey David - not to hijack the thread, but can you unpack this a bit? I can understand saying their offense is well-suited to playing on the road. But I'd have a hard time finding a case where getting homefield advantage hurts any team...unless perhaps you're worried about winter weather in GB hurting the precision passing game?
We know the Packers offense is a well oiled machine and can regularly go for 30-40 ppg indoors and in warm/dry weather. They've proven that.What we don't know is how well they will do in frigid/snowy/icy playing conditions in Green Bay in late December and January. I suspect that will cut into their offensive production and they will score fewer points. At this point, anything that serves to limit the GB offense is good for any of their opponents.

At this point it won't happen, but if the Packers had been able to play @ATL, @DET, and @NO, I would think that their offense would again be going full throttle and scoring 35-40 points throughout the playoffs, even playing on the road.

I don't think the Packers defense is anything to write home about, so they likely will still give up a lot of yards and a fair amount of points. Basically, inclement weather will impact the GB offense more than it would impact other teams . . . meaning the games should be closer (at least theoretically).

I am not saying the Packers will lose because of the weather and having to play outside, but consider . . .

Rodgers over his career has thrown for 43 fewer yds/gm playing outdoors and his passer rating is "only" 95.2 in games where the temp is 20 degrees or less (still very good but still lower than the 111 rating he has playing inside). Oddly enough, he's only played in one game in his career listed as having precipitation, so if he ends up playing in the rain or snow we really don't know what to expect.

While this is pure conjecture at this point, if the Packers go from scoring 35-40 ppg down to scoring 27-30, that can only be a good thing for anyone facing them, even if it is in Green Bay.

Like I said, certainly a topic open to debate.

 
(Personally, I think their offense is better suited to play on the road and getting homefie'd may actually hurt them, but that's another story.)
Hey David - not to hijack the thread, but can you unpack this a bit? I can understand saying their offense is well-suited to playing on the road. But I'd have a hard time finding a case where getting homefield advantage hurts any team...unless perhaps you're worried about winter weather in GB hurting the precision passing game?
We know the Packers offense is a well oiled machine and can regularly go for 30-40 ppg indoors and in warm/dry weather. They've proven that.What we don't know is how well they will do in frigid/snowy/icy playing conditions in Green Bay in late December and January. I suspect that will cut into their offensive production and they will score fewer points. At this point, anything that serves to limit the GB offense is good for any of their opponents.

At this point it won't happen, but if the Packers had been able to play @ATL, @DET, and @NO, I would think that their offense would again be going full throttle and scoring 35-40 points throughout the playoffs, even playing on the road.

I don't think the Packers defense is anything to write home about, so they likely will still give up a lot of yards and a fair amount of points. Basically, inclement weather will impact the GB offense more than it would impact other teams . . . meaning the games should be closer (at least theoretically).

I am not saying the Packers will lose because of the weather and having to play outside, but consider . . .

Rodgers over his career has thrown for 43 fewer yds/gm playing outdoors and his passer rating is "only" 95.2 in games where the temp is 20 degrees or less (still very good but still lower than the 111 rating he has playing inside). Oddly enough, he's only played in one game in his career listed as having precipitation, so if he ends up playing in the rain or snow we really don't know what to expect.

While this is pure conjecture at this point, if the Packers go from scoring 35-40 ppg down to scoring 27-30, that can only be a good thing for anyone facing them, even if it is in Green Bay.

Like I said, certainly a topic open to debate.
Great explanation - strange as it sounds to say "homefield disadvantage", the way you describe it makes some sense. :thumbup:
 
Did the Pats sit TB12 in 2007?
Did the Pats win the Super Bowl in 2007?
Just my opinion but I don't think they lost the Super Bowl in 2007 because they didn't bench Tom Brady in Week 17. I think they lost because they were outscored by 3 points in the Super Bowl.
Just mentioned that because I didn't see the connection to the question and I was linking it to what I said after. Basically I was meaning that playing the guy in Week 17 doesn't correlate to winning THE goal; the Super Bowl, but playing him in a game that is otherwise meaningless could be a disaster (I went on to mention a scenario where rodgers starts a game like that and then takes a good hit early in the game, forcing the coach to say "this isn't worth it..we need him for the playoffs). So I was building a reason why someone with Rodgers might want to add Flynn because whether they are chasing an undefeated season or not, if there is not seeding implications on the line, week 16 and 17 could be tricky for Rodgers owners because if there is nothing to play for, the coaches won't risk him if a game starts off badly or he gets a bad hit.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top