Michael from Elizabethtown, KY
I've practiced restraint while watching my beloved Packers in the past, using the method "serenity now," calmly watching the game without letting others know my pain. Let me tell you, it didn't turn out well. It's best to get it out and yell for bad times and good. Don't keep it in. You'll feel better about it in the morning. It's football, and for four hours of the day I'm going to let my passion show.
Insanity now?
Tom from Erie, PA
I remember some truly outstanding backups: Earl Morrall, Frank Reich and Zeke Bratkowski. Do you think Matt Flynn fits in with these esteemed individuals? I can't help but think some guys perform better being No. 2 vs. No. 1?
Packers running backs coach Alex Van Pelt played nine years in the NFL as a backup quarterback. In seven of those years, he threw 18 or fewer passes. Hey, that's a pretty nice pension Coach Van Pelt earned wearing a baseball cap on the sideline. Maybe he learned from Chico Ruiz: "Bench me or trade me." The worst thing that ever happened to Gary Cuozzo was being traded. That meant he had to play. There's nothing wrong with being a trusted backup. Every team needs one. Flynn has been a trusted backup in Green Bay. Maybe he should have a long talk with Coach Van Pelt.
Tristan from Golden, CO
I would have gone for two, too, and had we converted, it would have been the hap hap happiest I've been since Bing Crosby tapped dance with Danny Kay.
You better put a hold on that, Tristan. He's got a lip fungus they ain't identified yet.
Craig from Chicago, IL
Every Packers fan is stuck trying to reason through why Tolzien started over Flynn against the Vikings. I think McCarthy's reasoning is simple: He believes in his system and Tolzien was executing that system effectively enough during practice that there wasn't enough cause for concern to go to Flynn. Agreed?
No, not agreed. Craig, Coach McCarthy told us why he stuck with Tolzien. It's because Flynn wasn't ready to play. They were drawing plays in the dirt, so to speak, after Flynn replaced Tolzien this past Sunday. Flynn hadn't practiced the no-huddle. They were ad-libbing it. Do you think that might've had something to do with Coach McCarthy deciding to go for two? Folks, instead of thinking you know the answer, take the time to find the answer. These are learned football men. There are reasons they do what they do. Practicing and knowing how to run the plays is critically important to executing the plays. These coaches and players put a lot of work into what they do. What did you do after the game on Sunday? Did you take time to put it into perspective, digest it, deal with your hurt? Well, the coaches went to work immediately after the game, because when Sunday's game ended, it immediately became Tuesday, which is game-planning day. Within minutes of the conclusion of Sunday's game, the coaches shifted into game-planning for the Lions, and a whole new work day began. This is not as easy as you think it is.
Kody from Layton, UT
We have been talking about the coin flip and the options teams have. The Patriots elected to have the wind at their back in overtime and even (Belichick's) players didn't understand what they were doing. The article on nfl.com quotes the players as saying they deferred.
When I read stories on the overtime coin flip, aside from being amazed at the level of ignorance that continues to dominate coin toss decisions, especially as they pertain to overtime, I was even more amazed the Patriots didn't screw it up. All they had to say was "we want to kick that way," and the Broncos would've had the ball and the wind. You may elect to kick, receive or defend a goal. Never say kick unless you want to kick. There was no doubt in my mind that Belichick was going to take the wind in overtime. All he's got to do is get one stop on defense, and the Patriots have the ball with the wind and they'll have the wind for the rest of the game. In fact, he doesn't even have to get a stop. With the new overtime rule, all he has to do is hold the Broncos to a field goal. It was a no-brainer.
Steve from Eau Claire, WI
Vic, I saw an article yesterday where the writer basically said Thompson and McCarthy may have ruined the Packers' playoff hopes by not bringing Flynn back sooner. I'm sorry, but that seems a little extreme.
Flynn was available to the Packers from Oct. 7-14 and from Nov. 4-12; they signed him on Nov. 12. If they had signed him the week of Oct. 7, how could they be sure Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have gotten hurt in Baltimore? Flynn wouldn't have had enough time to be prepared to play. If they had signed him the week of Nov. 4, which was the day of the Bears game, how could they be sure Seneca Wallace wouldn't have gotten hurt against the Eagles? Flynn wouldn't have had enough time to be prepared to play. I think the criticism of how the Packers handled Flynn is unfair. If you want to blame the team for misevaluating Graham Harrell and B.J. Coleman, go ahead, but criticizing the handling of Flynn is all about not being able to handle the frustration of defeat.
Tim from Newberg, OR
Starting QB at Detroit: Do you think holding off on naming a starter for the Lions game is partially strategic? They could game plan for Flynn and all of a sudden it's Rodgers. Thoughts?
That's what I'd do. What gain is there in it for the Packers to provide information to the Lions?
