PICK YOUR ROSTER...PACKERS OR GIANTS

[Bretsky]

You are the head coach going into next season.

You get the choice of one of the two rosters......
Packers or the Giants to coach for the year and win the big one


WHOSE ROSTER DO YOU TAKE AND WHY ????

[Harlan Huckleby]

packers have youngest team in NFL, if I'm not mistaken. I kinda doubt Strahan comes back. You gotta take the packers roster.

[Bretsky]

I'll find this one interesting to see the judgments

I still have a hard time admitting the Giants have more talent than GB

They budded at the right time and had better coaching and pefect Giant weather when they beat Green Bay.

I wonder who will agree.

[Bretsky]

packers have youngest team in NFL, if I'm not mistaken. I kinda doubt Strahan comes back. You gotta take the packers roster.

THIS IS AN AS IS POLL

Strahan returns, as does Favre.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I question the statistical validity of your study. There may be a bias in a Packers forum.

[Bretsky]

I question the statistical validity of your study. There may be a bias in a Packers forum.

I'm sure you are right; but I'd still expect you to vote for the Giants. I'm just not a believer. They peaked; had a great run and were the better team Sunday.

There win was a great win for the NFL though. What a banner season for football.

[BallHawk]

Giants made a fantastic run and they were the better team down the stretch. However, I can't say the Giants are in better shape for the future. They have aging guys and the simply aren't that talented in the secondary. Their secondary benefits from having a fantastic pass rush, but if the pass rush is nullified their secondary cannot stand up week-in-week-out to good offenses. On offense Eli will only get better and Jacobs and Bradshaw, along with Ward, looking promising. However, Plaxico is in his 30s, Toomer is old, Shockey is aging, etc. We easily have more younger talent than they do on offense. Favre is a big factor in which team will be better in 2008, but I think with even A-Rod starting we have the better Offense. Defense we will be fine as long as our young players grow and we sort out the secondary.

It's close, but I give the Pack a slight advantage.

[4and12to12and4]

Giants made a fantastic run and they were the better team down the stretch. However, I can't say the Giants are in better shape for the future. They have aging guys and the simply aren't that talented in the secondary. Their secondary benefits from having a fantastic pass rush, but if the pass rush is nullified their secondary cannot stand up week-in-week-out to good offenses. On offense Eli will only get better and Jacobs and Bradshaw, along with Ward, looking promising. However, Plaxico is in his 30s, Toomer is old, Shockey is aging, etc. We easily have more younger talent than they do on offense. Favre is a big factor in which team will be better in 2008, but I think with even A-Rod starting we have the better Offense. Defense we will be fine as long as our young players grow and we sort out the secondary.

It's close, but I give the Pack a slight advantage.

Isn't it funny how a BELOW average secondary can look like allstars when they only have to protect for 4 seconds or less? The great thing about our team going forward is that we do have athletic young guys in the secondary and a hard hitting safety in the middle, and with the way this staff is dedicated to developing the front seven, we will be dominant for years to come, even if our offense loses some firepower without Favre ... IF.

[RashanGary]

I took the Giants just because most of their big players are either young our they have at least one more year left so next year should be another good one.

That said, if a few key players on the Packers look like manimals at TC and into the preseason, I could easily change that. Jolly and Harell are at the top of that list.

[GrnBay007]

All I know is I LOVE THE GREEN BAY PACKERS!!! And can't wait till next season. Now I'm just waiting to hear those 3 exciting words from Favre....I'M COMING BACK!!!

BTW, I voted Packers. :D

[4and12to12and4]

All I know is I LOVE THE GREEN BAY PACKERS!!! And can't wait till next season. Now I'm just waiting to hear those 3 exciting words from Favre....I'M COMING BACK!!!

BTW, I voted Packers. :D

Sassy, will you marry me? We can have green and gold babies!!

[GrnBay007]

All I know is I LOVE THE GREEN BAY PACKERS!!! And can't wait till next season. Now I'm just waiting to hear those 3 exciting words from Favre....I'M COMING BACK!!!

BTW, I voted Packers. :D

Sassy, will you marry me? We can have green and gold babies!!

I already have 2. Took a little longer for my daughter to become a Packer fan, but she's all there now!!

My ex is a Bronco fan.......I love it!! :D

[Joemailman]

Well, it's impossible to be impartial about this, but I would take the Packers. Lots of young talent with plenty of room for improvement. The Packers WR situation is especially impressive. James Jones won't be a rookie anymore, K-Rob finally gets the advantage of going through a training camp with the team, and you have two other Pro-Bowl caliber guys. That said, the Giant's superior ability to get pressure on the quarterback makes this a close call.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I question the statistical validity of your study. There may be a bias in a Packers forum.

I'm sure you are right; but I'd still expect you to vote for the Giants. I'm just not a believer. They peaked; had a great run and were the better team Sunday.

There win was a great win for the NFL though. What a banner season for football.

I was just jokin. But really - isn't the question really who had a better roster THIS year, the Giants or Pack? I think you have to say Giants.

How can we freeze the roster for this year, then project 9 months from now, and guess how good they are gonna be? And of course that is silly, the rosters will be different next year.

If the question is a speculation of who will be better next year, after all draft picks and retirements and such, most people in a Packer forum are going to hopefully and reasonably say Green Bay.

[The Leaper]

I'll take the Giants. They are significantly better than the Packers on both lines right now...and that is where you win games in the NFL. Our OL is a huge weakness, and our DL can't mount near the pressure on the QB that the Giants can.

So, at this point, I would take the Giants...but that could change depending on how the offseason goes. The answer could be Green Bay by the start of next year, because the two teams aren't that far apart.

[pbmax]

Packers by virtue of youth and Rodgers over Tank Lorenzen that the Giants have at backup QB.

But if you split it up by unit, I would take the Giants D and the Packers O. And then I would crush the Patriots again and again. And maybe the Bears. But Purple Jesus might kill us (Giants D) again.

[the_idle_threat]

I voted Packers, because it's pretty close, and I'm a homer. :pack: :cow: :talk: :bs2: :bump: homer. :pack: :cow: :talk: :bs2: :bump: homer. :pack: :cow: :talk: :bs2: :bump: homer. :pack: :cow: :talk: :bs2: :bump:

Also, I don't think the personnel is better on the Giants' defense ... I think the difference is scheme. The Packers' defense was far better earlier in the year, and we have guys that can get after the QB. But our big guns like Kampmann and Barnett wore down while the Giants' scheme worked better at the end of the season, when things count.

[denverYooper]

Packers. No doubt.

[Freak Out]

I'll take the Pack's roster...and some of the Giants coaching staff. 8-)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All I know is I LOVE THE GREEN BAY PACKERS!!! And can't wait till next season. Now I'm just waiting to hear those 3 exciting words from Favre....I'M COMING BACK!!!

BTW, I voted Packers. :D

Sassy, will you marry me? We can have green and gold babies!!

I already have 2. Took a little longer for my daughter to become a Packer fan, but she's all there now!!

My ex is a Bronco fan.......I love it!! :D

Bronco fan. WTF were you thinking. I know love is blind, but is it stupid as well? :twisted:

You do realize that you've been tainted..no self respecting Packer fan can touch you? :wink:

[Zool]

I know love is blind, but is it stupid as well?

This has been proven throughout history.

[b bulldog]

Can I take the Giants D and the Packers O?

[twoseven]

I'll take the team that plays MN, CHI, and DET twice each in 2008 over two with DAL, WAS, and PHI any day of the week.

[Fred's Slacks]

I question the statistical validity of your study. There may be a bias in a Packers forum.

I'm sure you are right; but I'd still expect you to vote for the Giants. I'm just not a believer. They peaked; had a great run and were the better team Sunday.

There win was a great win for the NFL though. What a banner season for football.

I was just jokin. But really - isn't the question really who had a better roster THIS year, the Giants or Pack? I think you have to say Giants.

How can we freeze the roster for this year, then project 9 months from now, and guess how good they are gonna be? And of course that is silly, the rosters will be different next year.

If the question is a speculation of who will be better next year, after all draft picks and retirements and such, most people in a Packer forum are going to hopefully and reasonably say Green Bay.

You can believe the Giants roster is better now but Green Bays is better for the future. All future acquisitions aside, our roster is younger so there's more chance for growth.

However, as young as we are, you have to be impressed with some of the young talent NY has. Bradshaw, Smith, Boss, Alford, Webster, Ross and Tuck are all still pretty young budding players. It's a tough call so I am going to lean towards my team. I vote GB.

[Fred's Slacks]

I'll take the Giants. They are significantly better than the Packers on both lines right now...and that is where you win games in the NFL. Our OL is a huge weakness, and our DL can't mount near the pressure on the QB that the Giants can.

So, at this point, I would take the Giants...but that could change depending on how the offseason goes. The answer could be Green Bay by the start of next year, because the two teams aren't that far apart.

I wouldn't call our OL a huge weakness. College is extremely inconsistent and the run game is a work in progress but you can't complain about their pass pro. We didn't have near the problems NE had with QB pressures. If I remember correctly, the only game we really had protection issues was Dallas.

[Patler]

You can believe the Giants roster is better now but Green Bays is better for the future. All future acquisitions aside, our roster is younger so there's more chance for growth.

However, as young as we are, you have to be impressed with some of the young talent NY has. Bradshaw, Smith, Boss, Alford, Webster, Ross and Tuck are all still pretty young budding players. It's a tough call so I am going to lean towards my team. I vote GB.

I don't know, the Giants are an awful young team, too. There roster lists:

11 rookies
3 in year 1
11 in year 2
7 in year 3
5 in year 4
5 in year 5

That's 42 of their players with 5 years or less experience. Their average age is skewed by Feagles, who is 41 years old. The only others 30 or older are Burress, Robbins and O'Hara (30), Ruegamer, Wright and McQuarters (31); Russell (32) Madison and Toomer (33) and Strahan (36)

The Packers list 9 who are 30 and older, including key players like Favre, Driver, Woodson, Harris, Tauscher and Clifton. When your QB, most reliable receiver, both OTs and both CBs are soon to need replacing, it is a bit of concern for the long term outlook.

[Bretsky]

I'll take the Giants. They are significantly better than the Packers on both lines right now...and that is where you win games in the NFL. Our OL is a huge weakness, and our DL can't mount near the pressure on the QB that the Giants can.

So, at this point, I would take the Giants...but that could change depending on how the offseason goes. The answer could be Green Bay by the start of next year, because the two teams aren't that far apart.

I wouldn't call our OL a huge weakness. College is extremely inconsistent and the run game is a work in progress but you can't complain about their pass pro. We didn't have near the problems NE had with QB pressures. If I remember correctly, the only game we really had protection issues was Dallas.

I'd agree with Leaper.

As always, Tauscher and Clifton were very solid
Well was average at best IMO; he seemed to take a step back
Colledge, Spitz, and Coston....they just were not good enough IMO.

It would be wonderful if we brought in a starting OG and let the others fight it would for the other spots.

[Fred's Slacks]

You can believe the Giants roster is better now but Green Bays is better for the future. All future acquisitions aside, our roster is younger so there's more chance for growth.

However, as young as we are, you have to be impressed with some of the young talent NY has. Bradshaw, Smith, Boss, Alford, Webster, Ross and Tuck are all still pretty young budding players. It's a tough call so I am going to lean towards my team. I vote GB.

I don't know, the Giants are an awful young team, too. There roster lists:

11 rookies
3 in year 1
11 in year 2
7 in year 3
5 in year 4
5 in year 5

That's 42 of their players with 5 years or less experience. Their average age is skewed by Feagles, who is 41 years old. The only others 30 or older are Burress, Robbins and O'Hara (30), Ruegamer, Wright and McQuarters (31); Russell (32) Madison and Toomer (33) and Strahan (36)

The Packers list 9 who are 30 and older, including key players like Favre, Driver, Woodson, Harris, Tauscher and Clifton. When your QB, most reliable receiver, both OTs and both CBs are soon to need replacing, it is a bit of concern for the long term outlook.

As usual your numbers don't lie. You're right Patler. I was just going off of what everyones says about us having the youngest (or second youngest) roster in the league. As I noted, I do think the Giants have a lot of good young talent and it looks like they may be better situated for the future. We'll have to hope TT can continue to add talent or we may be sitting behind NY (among others) for a while.

[Fred's Slacks]

I'd agree with Leaper.

As always, Tauscher and Clifton were very solid
Well was average at best IMO; he seemed to take a step back
Colledge, Spitz, and Coston....they just were not good enough IMO.

It would be wonderful if we brought in a starting OG and let the others fight it would for the other spots.

You can say its not a strength but how can you say it's a huge weakness. They gave up 19 sacks all year. That's fantastic. The deep, dominant Giants line was held sackless. As was the great Seahawk passrush. The run game needs improvement and I would also like to see a veteran OG added but I think its a little dramatic calling it a huge weakness.

[Bretsky]

I'd agree with Leaper.

As always, Tauscher and Clifton were very solid
Well was average at best IMO; he seemed to take a step back
Colledge, Spitz, and Coston....they just were not good enough IMO.

It would be wonderful if we brought in a starting OG and let the others fight it would for the other spots.

You can say its not a strength but how can you say it's a huge weakness. They gave up 19 sacks all year. That's fantastic. The deep, dominant Giants line was held sackless. As was the great Seahawk passrush. The run game needs improvement and I would also like to see a veteran OG added but I think its a little dramatic calling it a huge weakness.

You make some good points as well.

But I do think overall our OL is weak, literally. Maybe too often soft is what I'm looking for.

The Seahawks provided a favorable matchup. Some undersized and athletic guys. That is what GB is right now. We match up to that.

The Giants provided a challenge with the complete package. Speed and Size. The Giants were sackless, but MM was keeping extra blockers in and there is some good reasoning as to why we had nobody open much of the day. And the Giants tore apart our interior line to the point where the run plan was tossed to the birds. I don't even want to relive that screen pass again; but our interior OL failed us badly and maybe I just can't get over it :lol:

Maybe it's not a huge weakness; maybe they are average.

[Packers4Ever]

All I know is I LOVE THE GREEN BAY PACKERS!!! And can't wait till next season. Now I'm just waiting to hear those 3 exciting words from Favre....I'M COMING BACK!!!

BTW, I voted Packers. :D

I'm waiting for those 3 words too, 007, it makes me almost
ill to think of watching a game for 3 hours with no Brett Favre
in sight..... week after week.
Sorry, bad night..... :(

[HarveyWallbangers]

You can say its not a strength but how can you say it's a huge weakness. They gave up 19 sacks all year. That's fantastic. The deep, dominant Giants line was held sackless. As was the great Seahawk passrush. The run game needs improvement and I would also like to see a veteran OG added but I think its a little dramatic calling it a huge weakness.

Agreed. Almost every team in the league wishes they had bookend OTs like Clifton and Tauscher. You realize how much you need them when you don't have them. People dog Wells, but he's solid. He's really good with the line calls--which goes unnoticed by many fans.

[twoseven]

I'd agree with Leaper.

As always, Tauscher and Clifton were very solid
Well was average at best IMO; he seemed to take a step back
Colledge, Spitz, and Coston....they just were not good enough IMO.

It would be wonderful if we brought in a starting OG and let the others fight it would for the other spots.

You can say its not a strength but how can you say it's a huge weakness. They gave up 19 sacks all year. That's fantastic. The deep, dominant Giants line was held sackless. As was the great Seahawk passrush. The run game needs improvement and I would also like to see a veteran OG added but I think its a little dramatic calling it a huge weakness.
Before that 19 sacks suggests the interior line is good enough, let's factor in that Brett may be the best at reading the blitz in the entire league and he gets rid of the ball very quickly on most occasions. What Brett does so very well at the line and after the snap is every bit a part of those lowly 19 sacks.

[The Leaper]

I wouldn't call our OL a huge weakness. College is extremely inconsistent and the run game is a work in progress but you can't complain about their pass pro.

Pass protection is overrated. Favre gets rid of the ball extremely quick. Our pass protection even looked OK in 2005 and 2006 in terms of raw stats, simply because of Favre. Our tackles are great in pass protection, but our interior OL is very shaky in both aspects of blocking...although I will agree that they are more consistent in pass protection than they are in run blocking.

Our OL is certainly a big weakness...the difference between us and the Giants is the fact that the NY running game DOMINATED in the playoffs against any DL. Ours did fine against a speedy finesse defense, but couldn't handle an aggressive physical front. We need a major upgrade in the interior of the OL to be considered a true title contender.

[The Leaper]

People dog Wells, but he's solid. He's really good with the line calls--which goes unnoticed by many fans.

I like Wells...he'd be a very solid center IMO if he didn't have two inconsistent louts on either side of him. The play of our OGs is inferior.

[pbmax]

Forget the O Line for a minute. OK, don't forget it, but put it down as number three in the needs dept.

We need D Line and secondary. Our D couldn't contain the fantastic Manning and Plaxico.

Combine Packer O and Giant D and we might even beat the Bears.