PICK YOUR ROSTER...PACKERS OR GIANTS

[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. homer. homer. homer.

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.

[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.

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!!

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

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

[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

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