Matt Flynn:
55 of 81 (67.9%) for 731 yards | 9 tds. | 2 ints | 8 sacks | 0 yards rushing | 2 fumbles lost

Russell Wilson:
60 of 100 (60%) for 594 yards | 4 tds | 4 ints | 8 sacks |80 yards rushing | 1 fumble lost

Green Bay's winning percentage with Flynn? 50%

Seattle's winning percentage with Wilson? 50%

I was initially surprised by Flynn's amount of sacks... but then I remembered that Green Bay's offensive line was a sieve the last few years (usually happens when you have a lousy running game). I think the best thing about seeing the number of sacks he took, is see the production he made despite it. Defenses were gunning for him and he made them pay.

The equal winning percentage doesn't really bother me either. Flynn's first start was against the 2010 Patriots and he had them down near the redzone with a chance to win. And besides, neither guy has played enough for winning percentage to matter that much.

I think the biggest detractors of Flynn will say that he had the benefit of having a great offense with great offensive weapons. Yeah? So? I think that's a great positive for Flynn! He came into the game and the offense still played at its maximum potential. How is that a negative?! They didn't have to dumb things down and help him minimize mistakes. They said, "Nut up and get out there and play." And he did.

What is the one thing that troubled the Packers the last few years? No running game and inconsistent defense. Well Seattle does not have that problem. Put him in Pete. Don't be a stubborn old fool who hitches his wagon to the wrong horse. It's too early for horse hitching anyway. Let the horses play.