NYJetsFan.com Forums: Packers Will Not Tag Matt Flynn - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

Jets fresh off the bye prepare to stomp Washington
azjetfan Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:07 PM) Dolphins have also fired their DC
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:24 PM) I am composed. 115 and I may see things differently but he has never pissed me off. He is just trying to make his point of view and I mine nothing more
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:25 PM) I just feel the rule is a very bad rule to give the offense the ball back for losing the ball in the endzone because of a batted ball and feel the NFL is far to offense firendly these days thats all
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:27 PM) I know many agree with that. I get that many changes have been made to limit things like brain damage and other injuries some season ending and career ending but defenses cant play hard like they used to and pathetic calls on defenses have ruinbed many games.
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:29 PM) Thats why brought up the Jets Fish game. The balls were clearly uncatcahable and a light tug on the jersey shouldn't be a pi. Whatever happened to the uncatchable ball rule?"
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:33 PM) and as far as that montage I did have ESPN on for 2 hours after the game because I wanted to see all the reactions and get a clear understanding of this old rule and I never saw a bunch of clips where flags were thrown for the play in question. So I asked for proof. If it was on ESPN it wasn't on ESPN1 maybe ESPN 2 ,3 or news. Its not wrong or brutal to ask for proof when he stated he saw it on ESPN I had the channel on and didn't see what he claimed he saw and still haven't seen any video of proof of his claims
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:36 PM) But as I said not mad at all. 115 and I are cool and always have been Ive never been mad at him in anyway. This is a fan forum and we dispute. If we all agreed on everything there would be no point of the forum. Disputes on stats and calls make things interesting, and makes each of use see things from different points of view
Jetsfan115 Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:56 PM) it was on whatever channel the game itself came on
Jetsfan115 Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:56 PM) and for the record I don't have any issue with anything rob said. I just disagree with it
Jetsfan115 Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:57 PM) I do think rules are too offense friendly, but I think in this case, when someone blatently breaks a rule ti should be punished
Jetsfan115 Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:57 PM) but then again pacman got away with ripping off a players helmet and didn't get a penatly
Jetsfan115 Icon : (08 October 2015 - 03:57 PM) refs need to be more consistent
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 09:04 PM) Hell yeah! Pac 12 AZ State Jaelen Strong. Not a Texans fan but and dont watch a ton of college football but do watch the Pac 12 for football and basketball growing up in Phoenix and also a Suns fan and liking the Cardinals since they moved to AZ .Was a Jets fan though before Az got the cardinals . Strong was really good for AZ State.
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 09:05 PM) Havent studied up on strong for the Texans but will have to since the announcers said he hasnt played much. I want to know if he has been injured or not performing. He has good hands and size
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 09:08 PM) I actually was debating on starting the Colts witth Jets D on bye week glad I dropped them. Wasn't much to choose from. Some decent defenses but bad matchups. took a chance on the Jags this week hoping they can shut down Tampa
ROBJETS Icon : (08 October 2015 - 09:10 PM) Oh and thanks for that 115. people took it wrong. we were simply debating our opinions with passion for our love of football with no animosity and people took it wrong. Easy to misunderstand texts
Jetsfan115 Icon : (09 October 2015 - 11:21 AM) yeah people don't realize it's ok to disagree on the internet without it being 2 people hating each other lol
RetireChrebet Icon : (09 October 2015 - 12:30 PM) I think if the defense touches a live football in the end zone, period, it should be ruled a touchback.
RetireChrebet Icon : (09 October 2015 - 12:30 PM) Talking about fumbles, not passes, of course.
RetireChrebet Icon : (09 October 2015 - 12:31 PM) That's the simplest way to combat any confusion about the rule.
RetireChrebet Icon : (09 October 2015 - 12:32 PM) If you don't like that rule, then don't fumble in the end zone your trying to score in.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (09 October 2015 - 02:21 PM) it's gotta be possession.
RetireChrebet Icon : (09 October 2015 - 04:03 PM) I know what the rule is. In proposing a rule change. Evidently, the way it is now is too complicated. If a defense touches a live football in the end zone it should be their ball at the 20. Problem solved.
RetireChrebet Icon : (09 October 2015 - 04:03 PM) I'm*
Jetsfan115 Icon : (09 October 2015 - 04:44 PM) what if the defense touches it whole trying tor ecover but doens't get it and the offense jumps on it first?
ROBJETS Icon : (09 October 2015 - 05:56 PM) You may not agree with it 115 but the way I look at it is if the offense recovered it it would be a touchdown. Its ok for a punter, qb, or rb ,etc. to deliberately take a safety so they dont get a punt blocked for a td or to avoid giving the ball up on the 1-2 yard line giving up a near definite td. An also those safeties by the O sometimes saves the game because giving up 2 instead of 7 keeps the game in reach at times.
ROBJETS Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:03 PM) Thats why I disagree with the rule. The offense gets the breaks of only giving up 2 points on O. but when fumbkling into the endzone and out it is always ruled a touchback even if the defender or O tries to recoiver the ball in the endzone and the ball goes out of bounds. Thats why I think batting the ball out of the endzone should still be a touchback instead of giving the ball back to the O that fumbled the ball into the endzone. Just dont feel that they should get a chance to get the ball back for an almost automatic td when they fumbled into the endzone just because of a batted ball. Its something that could litterally cause the defense that made a great play to lose simply because of a vbatted ball. Yet if they try to recover it it and it goes out its a touchback. I just feel its to game changing and a bad rule to give the O the ball back after they messed up bad because that play was the difference between a win and loss. The O fumbles so giving the O the ball back is like saying your great def play was worthless.
ROBJETS Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:04 PM) Just feel that its a bad rule since it would have almost definitely changed the game winner.
ROBJETS Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:08 PM) Just to many good rules for the O these days and to many bad rules for the D. this isn't college where offense dominates in most games. In the pros I want to see an equal playing field and not how its become so offensive friendly. Our own Jets have lost a lot of games on defensive calls alone after stopping the O. 3rd down and a mile and a penalty cost a 1st down and in many cases the game for us. Basically that's why I'm against the rule. I want an equal playing field in the pros nothing more.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:26 PM) Offense is in control of the ball, they should have that option. Both teams get to play offense it's not unfiar
Jetsfan115 Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:26 PM) a major defensive play is more game changing then a major offensive play too.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:26 PM) turnover ratio is better linked to win/loss then any other stat
Jetsfan115 Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:27 PM) even in your case the offense gives up 2 point and posession back with good field position and ball control
ROBJETS Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:33 PM) Lets just a agree to disagree on this topic. We both see the situation different and neither of us will budge on this. best we just let it go and see if the NFL starts enforcing the rule more or changes it at some point. Either way. All the coaches and players in the league now know the rule so I doubt it will deliberately happen again any time soon....but then again who knows...in the games there are a lot of stupid fouls out of frustration, taunting, etc.
ROBJETS Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:34 PM) And the fans and officials are now aware of a rule almost no one but the officials knew.
ROBJETS Icon : (09 October 2015 - 06:37 PM) Heck Im upset that we arent 4-0 right now with all thr mistakes against the Eagles and still almost coming back. I feel we need every win we can get especially with the Bills looking decent and always having to deal with the pats every year. Be nice to win the division for once. So tired of seeing the Pats win and get a bye almost every year.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (09 October 2015 - 11:12 PM) Why do the Jets DBs have to talk about the Giants WRs!!? Why can't they just worry about our own team.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (09 October 2015 - 11:13 PM) I think all jets fans remember the last time our DBs talked crap about a Giants WR..
MikeGangGree... Icon : (09 October 2015 - 11:13 PM) The jets should just worry about the Jets!!
santana Icon : (Yesterday, 10:29 AM) jets and giants players hang out all the time
santana Icon : (Yesterday, 10:29 AM) i'm sure they dont care lol
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Yesterday, 11:24 AM) well bills won, we need a win this week to stay inn 2nd
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Yesterday, 11:25 AM) at least miami is pretty much done but we have to compete with NE and buffalo still
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Yesterday, 11:26 AM) as santana said, it's probably all in fun. most of these guys in the NFL are friends with players form other teams. I'm sure some jets/giants players are friends with each other
santana Icon : (Yesterday, 10:31 PM) Vick = $$
Resize Shouts Area

Page 1 of 1

Packers Will Not Tag Matt Flynn

#1 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,653
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:07 AM

Per a report on Friday, Green Bay will not use the franchise tag on QB Matt Flynn. While everyone else is chasing after the has been from Indy, what are the thoughts on us making a run at Flynn? It's already been reported that Miami's going to make a push for Flynn as well. I'd at least prefer to drive the price up a bit on them. I honestly do not want to see him in Miami.

Packers wont use tag to set up trade of Flynn
Report: Packers won't use tag to set up trade of Flynn
Published: Feb. 25, 2012 at 07:16 p.m. Updated: Feb. 26, 2012 at 06:56 p.m.
Liked: 0 | Comments: 230
Email Print
Read Discuss
The Green Bay Packers are not likely to use the franchise tag on backup quarterback Matt Flynn in order to engineer a sign-and-trade scenario, according to a report by ESPN Milwaukee.

The report did not cite any sources.

Theoretically, Green Bay could apply the franchise tag to Flynn and then trade him rather than simply letting him become a free agent. That would be allowed by the league, though not encouraged. Teams have until March 5 to use the franchise tag.

"(The Packers) don't do business that way," a league source told the website.

It's prohibited for teams to agree to such a deal before the franchise tag deadline, and one unnamed NFL team executive told the website that would be farther than Thompson is willing to go.

"(Thompson) doesn't bend the rules," the executive said.

The franchise tag for quarterbacks is expected to be valued at $14.4 million for the 2012 season. The Packers would have to maneuver to fit that contract under the salary cap, according to the report, a number which would also be significantly more than the contract of starting quarterback Aaron Rodgers (whose base salary is $8 million).

Speaking at the NFL Scouting Combine, Packers coach Mike McCarthy talked up Flynn's prospects as a starter, saying that "it's his time to play."

Flynn, a seventh-round pick in the 2008 NFL Draft, has started just two games in his career, but dazzled in his last significant action, throwing for 480 yards and six touchdowns in a 45-41 victory over the Lions in the Packers' regular-season finale.

It was thought to be more of a possibility to use the tag on Flynn after the Packers reached an agreement with tight end Jermichael Finley on a two-year deal. Finley was scheduled to become a free agent, and the Packers might have been forced to use the tag on him.
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!

#2 User is offline   EBoozer32 Icon

  • Drafted Rookie
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 01-September 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milwaukee

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:43 PM

Funny they say the Packers wouldnt do that and are too holy...

'Since Ted Thompson took over as GM in 2005, the Packers have used the franchise tag just twice.

DT Corey Williams received the tag in 2006 and then was traded to the Cleveland Browns for a second-round pick, and DL Ryan Pickett got the tag in 2010 but worked out a four-year, $25 million deal shortly thereafter.'


Page 1 of 1

Fast Reply


1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users