Best Rosters: Patriots 1st, Packers 2nd

[HarveyWallbangers]

According to Pro Football Focus (via ESPN):
http://espn.go.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/15772400/nfl-ranking-rosters-all-32-teams-2016-depth-talent


2. Green Bay Packers

If Green Bay hits on its 2016 draft class, it could jump to No. 1. That would mean incoming draft picks replacing weak links sooner rather than later. Rodgers is still one of the best quarterbacks in the league, and with Nelson back he has a legitimate No. 1 receiver to throw to. The Packers' interior offensive line is among the best in the league, and if rookie Jason Spriggs can prove to be an upgrade over Bakhtiari at left tackle it could become one of the best units in the league, period.

On defense, the secondary is young and talented. They have been adding pieces to the front, but that remains a work in progress. The Packers are in danger of ruining Clay Matthews with position switches, and Daniels needs more help than they have given him so far on the line, but the talent is there to play better than they have.

Green Bay will be carried by its offense, and it should look significantly better than it did last season when injuries took a deep bite out of the roster.

[pbmax]

I don't know how that can be when there are only 2 or 3 difference makers on the team.

I mean my eyeballs tell me they are as good as anyone, but internet people obviously know better.

[Zool]

That's a soft #2 roster.

[Bossman641]

TT and MM don't care about winning, just about getting into the playoffs. Time to send off some of our top-line talent before we accidentally win another SB.

[Upnorth]

While we have a great roster, I don't think we are the #2 in depth. Oline, WR, RB, S and CB are solid. DL and LB not so much. Our secondary depth is some what limited in its effectiveness by our only mid quality pass rush.
Don't get me wrong, I think our team can beat anyone else, but it helps having the QB we have.

[Zool]

While we have a great roster, I don't think we are the #2 in depth. Oline, WR, RB, S and CB are solid. DL and LB not so much. Our secondary depth is some what limited in its effectiveness by our only mid quality pass rush.
Don't get me wrong, I think our team can beat anyone else, but it helps having the QB we have.

We're pretty okay at QB, WR, Oline, OLB, S, and CB. ILB and DL could use some help, and maybe the rookies will show something, but that's a pretty significant portion of the roster to have in good shape at least from a 1's perspective.

[Striker]

I don't know how that can be when there are only 2 or 3 difference makers on the team.

I mean my eyeballs tell me they are as good as anyone, but internet people obviously know better.

This is just a sympathy ranking. The Packers could never compete with those powerhouse dynasties such as Seattle, Arizona, and Carolina. And the Vikings. They are the obvious new #1 dog in the NFC with their average QB and aging RB.

[Pugger]

I'm not an Insider subscriber. Can someone list the others just to satisfy my curiosity? If you listen to most folks there must be some mistake here...

[HarveyWallbangers]

Carolina is #3, Pittsburgh is #4, Minnesota is #10, Detroit is #24, Chicago is #30.

[Patler]

We have also included a list of the top five players on each roster, plus a look at starters who aren't up to par.

Who did they list for the Packers' top 5 players, and which starters not up to par?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Top five players: QB Aaron Rodgers, OG T.J. Lang, OG Josh Sitton, DT Mike Daniels, WR Jordy Nelson

Starters who should be upgraded: LB Sam Barrington, OT David Bakhtiari, LB Jake Ryan, DE Letroy Guion, TE Jared Cook

[Patler]

Top five players: QB Aaron Rodgers, OG T.J. Lang, OG Josh Sitton, DT Mike Daniels, WR Jordy Nelson

Starters who should be upgraded: LB Sam Barrington, OT David Bakhtiari, LB Jake Ryan, DE Letroy Guion, TE Jared Cook

Interesting that Cook is listed as a need for upgrade even though he has never played a down for the Packers. I'm hoping he will be an upgrade over what he has been so far in his career, playing with a decent QB for the first time in his career.

[pbmax]

Top five players: QB Aaron Rodgers, OG T.J. Lang, OG Josh Sitton, DT Mike Daniels, WR Jordy Nelson

Starters who should be upgraded: LB Sam Barrington, OT David Bakhtiari, LB Jake Ryan, DE Letroy Guion, TE Jared Cook

I am pretty sure this means either wist or red work at PFF!

I don't agree with Guion, though I am not sure he is the same kind of nose that Pickett and Raji were. Its kinda early for Cook as Patler said, but I can see being unimpressed if you look at his Rams production only.

Hard to not agree with the other three. If Bach is healthy, he doesn't scare me out there though.

[Zool]

Every team has starters that could be upgraded. Unfortunately there are 31 other teams in the league pulling from the same pool of players.

[Patler]

We're pretty okay at QB, WR, Oline, OLB, S, and CB.

That's 15 of 22 starting positions that look to have solid starters and reliable backups. I would throw RB in there too, with a rejuvenated Lacy and Starks. I am hopeful TE might be just a notch below that, with Cook being a pleasant surprise as the starter, but backups being rather pedestrian. It has the potential of an offense without apparent weakness.

Defense being solid at CB, S and OLB is a very good start in the pass-happy NFL. Now it will be up to the three rookies and maybe Ringo to come in and make them better at DL and ILB, with hopeful upticks from Ryan and Barrington.

I think you also have to consider Crosby and the take-your-pick return men to be solid components of the roster. Masthay seemed to have a down year, yet demolished the Packer record for net punting average by a full yard (40.2/39.2), a record that was set in 1963 and never seriously challenged since then by anyone other than Masthay. (I hope Masthay bought nice gifts for Janis, Goodsen and the other members of the punt coverage team.)

Darn, this kool-aide is good!

[Deputy Nutz]

I think if Peppers plays more as the 2nd defensive linemen during passing downs then as an OLB the Packers defense should be better for it. I would also like to see him as more of a 4 tech head up on the tackle in the base defense as well. He was a great athlete in his prime, he is still considered a great athlete for his age, but I think he could make a bigger impact on the defensive line. I think Perry should get a chance to start and moving Peppers around gives the defense a chance to get their best football players on the field at the same time.

I think the ILB position will clear up as training camp hits. I think Ryan will be a good player and a great value as a 4th round pick, and Martinez is already demonstrating his ability to pick up the defense in OTAs. Barrington needs to stay healthy so the Packers can truly evaluate his value to this defense. With his injury history I see Martinez and Ryan playing most of the year. Clay will stay outside for the most part because his value is as a pass rusher.

I thinking drafting Spriggs was a huge bonus to the offensive line that has been plagued with injuries. It will force guys to play hard through injuries and also to protect their bodies if they want to continue to start.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like the roster. In fact, I think it's one of the more balanced rosters they've had in awhile. I think ILB will end up not being as weak as people think. I like Jake Ryan as a long-term starter. I'm hopeful that either Barrington will be healthy or Martinez will surprise. DL could be troublesome. Raji's retirement and Pennel's suspension hurt--even with the addition of Clark. I think CB could end up being a hidden sore spot. I like Shields, but he seems to get nicked up every year. Randall is solid. I'm not expecting a sophomore slump. I'm not quite as impressed with Rollins as others. Hyde is a good backup at both CB and S, but I don't want to see him playing a lot of snaps. Goodson has shown me very little. Gunter might get exposed with more playing time, covering better WRs. I'm intrigued by Robertson Daniel. I really have no issues with the rest of the roster--provided Jared Cook stays healthy and performs like I think he will.

[Patler]

I like the roster. In fact, I think it's one of the more balanced rosters they've had in awhile. I think ILB will end up not being as weak as people think. I like Jake Ryan as a long-term starter. I'm hopeful that either Barrington will be healthy or Martinez will surprise. DL could be troublesome. Raji's retirement and Pennel's suspension hurt--even with the addition of Clark. I think CB could end up being a hidden sore spot. I like Shields, but he seems to get nicked up every year. Randall is solid. I'm not expecting a sophomore slump. I'm not quite as impressed with Rollins as others. Hyde is a good backup at both CB and S, but I don't want to see him playing a lot of snaps. Goodson has shown me very little. Gunter might get exposed with more playing time, covering better WRs. I'm intrigued by Robertson Daniel. I really have no issues with the rest of the roster--provided Jared Cook stays healthy and performs like I think he will.

I agree about the roster in general. They should have depth at every position, even the weaker ones of DL and ILB. While they may not have top end talent, injuries won't change things much and their backups won't be awful.

I'm not convinced Goodsen will make the roster after his suspension is up. Robertson Daniel could be this year's surprise. If Shields, Randall, Rollins, Daniel, Hyde and Gunter are all healthy, they might not have room for Goodsen, whose real value last year was ST only. If someone else steps up during Goodsen's four-week suspension, they might not need him. If the temporary practice squad modifications for 2014 & 2015 have been extended to 2016, Goodsen would be practice squad eligible, I think. If they haven't been, or aren't before the season, I don't think he is PS eligible.

[wist43]

Alright you bunch of nimrods... been too busy to rain on your parade, but here's the skinny.

How can anyone say we have the 2nd best roster when we finished 2nd in the division, were a hail mary away from being 9-7, 23rd in total offense, 26th in passing offense, 15th in total defense, and 21st in rushing defense?? And it's not like our 26th ranked passing attack was bolstered by the #1 rushing offense, we finished 12th in rushing. Amazingly, we finished 6th in passing defense.

We lost 1 of our studs - Jordy Nelson, and that is grounds for the entire team to falter?? Carolina lost their best WR (Benjamin) and went to SB, not to mention the fact that they whooped us pretty good (27-7 at the half) until they took their foot off the throttle and made the game closer than it really was.

Everyone says we have the #1 player, at the most important position, QB - if we had the 2nd best roster overall, that should add up to at least a SB appearance, no?? We didn't even win the division!!! Minnesota comes to Lambeau and stomps on our throats?? What's wrong with that picture??

You guys are drinking the green and gold kool-aid again.

We have an easy schedule - actually the easiest schedule in the league - so that will help our record some, but when we come up against the big boys, they know how to exploit our flaws. They're not going to be scared off by some pundits preseason take on best roster.

[Patler]

Alright you bunch of nimrods... been too busy to rain on your parade, but here's the skinny.

How can anyone say we have the 2nd best roster when we finished 2nd in the division, were a hail mary away from being 9-7, 23rd in total offense, 26th in passing offense, 15th in total defense, and 21st in rushing defense?? And it's not like our 26th ranked passing attack was bolstered by the #1 rushing offense, we finished 12th in rushing. Amazingly, we finished 6th in passing defense.

We lost 1 of our studs - Jordy Nelson, and that is grounds for the entire team to falter?? Carolina lost their best WR (Benjamin) and went to SB, not to mention the fact that they whooped us pretty good (27-7 at the half) until they took their foot off the throttle and made the game closer than it really was.

Everyone says we have the #1 player, at the most important position, QB - if we had the 2nd best roster overall, that should add up to at least a SB appearance, no?? We didn't even win the division!!! Minnesota comes to Lambeau and stomps on our throats?? What's wrong with that picture??

You guys are drinking the green and gold kool-aid again.

We have an easy schedule - actually the easiest schedule in the league - so that will help our record some, but when we come up against the big boys, they know how to exploit our flaws. They're not going to be scared off by some pundits preseason take on best roster.

Well, you dolt (isn't it fun calling people names?) last season's results mean very little, not just for the Packers but for the NFL in general Stuff happens. No need to rehash all the WR and OL injuries in addition to Nelson, or Lacy's situation. You know all of that, but it doesn't support your troll-like objective in making this post.

Do you think the PFF people weren't aware of what happened last year? Do you think they have a Packer bias? I give much more credibility to their analysis than yours, since you are one of the least objective posters on here, in my opinion.

Strength of schedule for next year? Also very irrelevant in the off-season. Weak teams become strong teams and strong teams become weak teams, and when you play a team might be more important than who you play, both for yourself and the opponent.

[gbgary]

top 10? sure. top 2? that's a stretch. pff dives into this type of stuff a lot deeper than anyone else. maybe it's true.

[yetisnowman]

I'm really not sure how you can make an argument that our roster is better than Carolina, Arizona, Seattle,Cincy,KC. Thats where I'd put us in the 6-8 range. Too many JAGS in the front 7, and unknowns at skill positions. We completely fell apart the 2nd half of the season. You have to accept that there is a correlation between the struggles and overall roster talent. A few injuries are not an excuse for that debacle.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Strength of schedule for next year? Also very irrelevant in the off-season. Weak teams become strong teams and strong teams become weak teams, and when you play a team might be more important than who you play, both for yourself and the opponent.

Agreed. I actually think our schedule will end up being harder than it looks. I like Jacksonville as a sleeper. The Colts will have Luck back. Tennessee is on the rise and Mariota looks very promising. Houston may have a QB. Dallas will have Romo back. I think the schedule might end up being tougher than it looks. Things change dramatically from year to year.

[Patler]

I'm really not sure how you can make an argument that our roster is better than Carolina, Arizona, Seattle,Cincy,KC. Thats where I'd put us in the 6-8 range. Too many JAGS in the front 7, and unknowns at skill positions. We completely fell apart the 2nd half of the season. You have to accept that there is a correlation between the struggles and overall roster talent. A few injuries are not an excuse for that debacle.


I like the Packers roster compared to their rosters of recent years. As far as if it is #2, #3, #10 or #20, I really don't have a clue, because for the most part other teams rosters are just names on a list, players that I might see a couple times a year if they are starters, and not at all if they are the backups. I suspect that is true for a good many of us who post on here. However, there are entities like PFF who have made it their business to review and analyze all players past performances and hypothesize about what it means going forward. Some of what they do is for publicity, perhaps even a little controversy, but they have a pool of data and information that most of us do not. They have to remain credible to a certain extent. For those reasons, I can not simple dismiss what they say. In the end, it doesn't matter if the Packers roster is #2 or #6, the differences are negligible, and will change as soon as the injuries start rolling in and/or rookies start over-performing or under-performing.

I think we are greatly mistaken if we equate roster strength with performance, either past or future. I think I agree with Wist on one thing (at least I think he feels this way when I sift through the chaff of his comments), the Packers have been underachievers since Holmgrens days. It was a problem under Wolf and Holmgren, Sherman and TT and MM. They have had rosters good enough to go farther than they have. I don't mean they have had the best roster, the best rosters don't always win the SB. They have had consistently good rosters, and some very good rosters for most of the last 25 years, and in my opinion should have threatened more than they have. I'm just hoping that 2016 isn't another year of frustration.

[Patler]

Agreed. I actually think our schedule will end up being harder than it looks. I like Jacksonville as a sleeper. The Colts will have Luck back. Tennessee is on the rise and Mariota looks very promising. Houston may have a QB. Dallas will have Romo back. I think the schedule might end up being tougher than it looks. Things change dramatically from year to year.

Agreed. My initial reaction to the schedule was that it wasn't as easy as it might seem and the home and away layout with the bye is strange.

As for who you play and when, Dallas is a good example. Does GB play them when things are going good for GB or not so good? Before Romo is injured, or after? When Romo is playing well, or during one of his periods when he plays only well enough to lose a close game.

[yetisnowman]

I think we are greatly mistaken if we equate roster strength with performance, either past or future.

I get what you are trying to say. Many Packer teams over the decades should have gone farther in the postseason. However, on the field individual performances can be evaluated differently. Eyeball test. We are pretty talent deficient in certain spots. Stretches over the last few years have shown us that. And even positions we thought were strengths (is WR corps last season) were shown to be bit of fool's gold. Evaluating roster talent is not an exact science, but nothing is more tangible than on the field performance.

[pbmax]

Total yardage rankings are for Bears' fans.

[Patler]

I get what you are trying to say. Many Packer teams over the decades should have gone farther in the postseason. However, on the field individual performances can be evaluated differently. Eyeball test. We are pretty talent deficient in certain spots. Stretches over the last few years have shown us that. And even positions we thought were strengths (is WR corps last season) were shown to be bit of fool's gold. Evaluating roster talent is not an exact science, but nothing is more tangible than on the field performance.

I don't disagree, but the eyeball tests for many Packers in 2015 didn't correspond well to the same players' eyeball tests from 2014 (Cobb, Adams, Lacy, Linsley, even Aaron Rodgers, etc.) and it wasn't all because of Nelson's absences. So which eyeball test is to be believed, and why was there a difference? For Cobb, Lacy and AR, I want to think we should see in 2016 what we saw in 2014. For Linsley and Adams, the jury is out, and maybe they really are something that is a blend of what we saw the past two seasons.

But the bigger question is really how do we compare the roster to other teams rosters? I can say that in my opinion the 2016 Packer roster potentially looks stronger than the 2015 performance for a lot of reasons; but I really can't say how that compares to the roster of any other team. I don't see the other teams that much to be able to make such a comparison. Especially for teams GB has not played recently. However, while a lot of people extol the virtues of Seattle, for example, a team we have seen frequently, I don't think overall the Packers roster is lacking compared to Seattle's. It is different than Seattle for a lot of reasons Wist and others may emphasize, but it is certainly a team the Packers can beat. Not every time, but in a given game.

As I said before, whether they are #2 or #6 doesn't really matter much.

[wist43]

Total yardage rankings are for Bears' fans.

Would that mean that better records are for Vikings fans, and losing at home in the final game of the season with the division title on the line is for Packers fans?? What does Detroit get??

[ThunderDan]

Would that mean that better records are for Vikings fans, and losing at home in the final game of the season with the division title on the line is for Packers fans?? What does Detroit get??

Stats are used to support whatever position you want to take.

Turnovers have a much closer relation to win/loss record than yardage.

Losing the last game didn't mean that much to the Pack this year. In fact Minn lost the next weekend and the Packers won playing a weak Washington team.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Kind of interesting to see which players are ranked in NFL.com's various Top 100 lists. There is the list of Top 100 players ranked by the players, but four contributors are also providing their lists. So far, they've done #31-#100.

WR Jordy Nelson (NR, #49, #55, NR, NR)
OG T.J. Lang (NR, NR, NR, #83, NR)
OG Josh Sitton (NR, #78, NR, NR, NR)
DL Mike Daniels (#95, #74, #73, NR, NR)
OLB Clay Matthews (#51, #37, #40, #61, NR)
OLB Julius Peppers (NR, NR, NR, #72, #86)
S Ha Ha Clinton Dix (NR, NR, NR, NR, #83)

Some of these guys will be ranked in the top 30. Looks like Aaron Rodgers will be in everybody's top 30.

With 32 teams and 100 players, each team should have ~3 players on average on each list, so the Packers are fairly well represented.

[3irty1]

I buy 2nd best roster. We rarely lose because we played our best and it wasn't good enough.

[Upnorth]

3irty1, I agree with your analysis. Do we have holes? Yes, but so does every team in the league.

[Smidgeon]

Is HaHa that good? At first blush, I didn't think so... But safeties rarely make impacts like Nick the Pick did. So maybe...?

[Pugger]

Kind of interesting to see which players are ranked in NFL.com's various Top 100 lists. There is the list of Top 100 players ranked by the players, but four contributors are also providing their lists. So far, they've done #31-#100.

WR Jordy Nelson (NR, #49, #55, NR, NR)
OG T.J. Lang (NR, NR, NR, #83, NR)
OG Josh Sitton (NR, #78, NR, NR, NR)
DL Mike Daniels (#95, #74, #73, NR, NR)
OLB Clay Matthews (#51, #37, #40, #61, NR)
OLB Julius Peppers (NR, NR, NR, #72, #86)
S Ha Ha Clinton Dix (NR, NR, NR, NR, #83)

Some of these guys will be ranked in the top 30. Looks like Aaron Rodgers will be in everybody's top 30.

With 32 teams and 100 players, each team should have ~3 players on average on each list, so the Packers are fairly well represented.

We may not have as many "stars" as some other teams but perhaps “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”?

[Smidgeon]

I'm wondering more and more how much the offensive players' rankings lead wide are because of Rodgers and how much are because of them.

If Jordy Nelson had Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan, would people still think he was a Top 7 WR?
If the OLine had Blake Bortles, would Lang and Sitton still be considered the best pass-blocking guard duo in the league?
Would Bahk still be looking at Top 10 LT money next year?
If Cobb had Bridgewater throwing to him, would he still be known as a WR who can fix a broken play?

I don't know the answer to these. Best guess is that it's a little of column A, a little of column B.

[theeaterofshades]

Well, you dolt (isn't it fun calling people names?) last season's results mean very little, not just for the Packers but for the NFL in general Stuff happens. No need to rehash all the WR and OL injuries in addition to Nelson, or Lacy's situation. You know all of that, but it doesn't support your troll-like objective in making this post.

Do you think the PFF people weren't aware of what happened last year? Do you think they have a Packer bias? I give much more credibility to their analysis than yours, since you are one of the least objective posters on here, in my opinion.

Quoted for TRUTH

[Pugger]

Check out Bucky Brooks over on nfl.com. He omits us and NE as far as the most talented roster and includes the cowgirls and NYG instead. :lol:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000664439/article/seahawks-steelers-panthers-headline-10-most-talented-teams