How far do you realistically see us going this year?

[bobblehead]

I just can't ever buy that, Tex. The game, to me, is won in the trenches, on both sides.

Those great Packer teams from the Wolf era had incredible offensive lines.

Brady won a bunch of Owls with subpar skill players, a good OLine and a top 5 defense. Same goes for Mahomes. Same for Hurts now (Ok, they have better skill positions and a MONSTER OL, but Hurts is very average). Thats the recipe to win championships. High powered offense and a sieve defense has never been the model to win it all. And I can't recall many champions with a piss poor OL. But name me the top WRs on Brady championship teams. Mahomes? Yep, about what I thought.

[Fritz]

I can't think of a team with a high-powered offense but a sieve for a defense that has won it all, but I can think of a Packer team that fit that description perfectly: the 2011 edition. One of the best offenses, maybe, in Packer history, but a defense like slut - they let everyone score. Easily.

I'd say your formula is correct: have a very good defense and a good offensive line, then a QB who is very good. You can get by with mediocre skill players on offense outside the QB.

Look at Seattle last year. Look at the Ravens in 2000. The losing team in the Super Bowl has averaged 19.7 points in that contest since 1999.

[Joemailman]

The 2009 Saints were 25th in the NFL in yards allowed, but were 2nd in turnovers forced. Their offense was #1 in points scored and yards gained. In the Super Bowl their defense gave up 432 yards, but returned an INT for the clinching TD.

[Fritz]

I suppose that brings up the question of what constitutes a "good defense." Can a defense that gives up a lot of points and yards but gets lots of turnovers be considered a top notch defense?

I would note that the N.O. defense only gave up 17 points. They did allow Manning to throw for 333 yards the the backs to rush for 99 yards.

[RashanGary]

Hi rats,

I’m kinda like Tex-lite in that I seem to always think we have the talent to win it all.

This is the best skill group we’ve had on offense since the driver, Jennings, Nelson, Finley and Jones days. Jacob’s and Lloyd are probably both better than Grant. Kraft is clearly better than Finley. Watson, Reed and Golden are just a good compliment of receivers who all know the offense and the QB.

The camp impression of the young OL is that they’re all good players. We’ll see on that, haha.

Same for the young DL. Like Bretsky says, probably fluff. But I still hope.

Best DB group we’ve had since the SB run. Maybe the corners aren’t ideal but neither were Peprah and Jarret Bush. Nixon is serviceable. I do believe the cisse hype because corner play can show up in camp. I’ve always liked valentine. And the other guy who is a JAG but he’s got nfl experience and not a complete dumpster fire.

The linebackers compliment each other well. Cooper is a freak.

special teams is a hope and a prayer.

All in all, I like our chances to be great. Kraft might be a HOF level player. Parsons is. And there are a couple others including Love who aren’t out of the question. We have the star power and cohesion at important areas that require smarts and experience.

[texaspackerbacker]

Welcome back, RG. I haven't seen you for a while. It seems like you are maybe even more optimistic than I am.

The jury is still out on Gannon's D scheme. It looked great with the first stringers, but it really stunk when the scrubs were in. Isn't a scheme supposed to cover up weakness and mask the sucking of the backups? Ideally, I attribute the suckage to not putting the bulk of the scheme on video for other teams to see,

I don't think the D Line is all fluff. I really think we are deep in front 7 quality even now without Parsons. And our Safeties are great. We may even have found a quality backup in Kenion. I'm less optimistic than you about the Corners, though. I really can't stand Nixon. Cisse apparently has been good in practice, but he wasn't all that good against the Steelers. St. Juste was a disappointment too IMO. Gannon gave all of them the opportunity to fail, and they did fail.

I didn't think they were horrible on Special Teams, especially considering that you had a LOT of very low level players used there.

[sharpe1027]

Thing is, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy the team. Some prefer to be positive at the start. They get to enjoy the early part of the season but can have more of a let down when things go bad. Some set expectations lower. They don't get the positivity early, but don't feel the hit as bad if the team underperforms.

Each to his own!

[Vincenzo]

Thing is, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy the team. Some prefer to be positive at the start. They get to enjoy the early part of the season but can have more of a let down when things go bad. Some set expectations lower. They don't get the positivity early, but don't feel the hit as bad if the team underperforms.

Each to his own!

You see I totally get this point. However I see it more of a “realists” standpoint.

There were those who while in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean at 2 am April 15th, 1912 that felt everything was absolutely fine when the ship was about to plunge into the depths. And then there were those that saw it for what it really was.
Our Pack certainly aren’t in that sort of predicament, but the scenario comes to mind.
IMG_5962.jpg

I can recall years and years of Packer preseasons when you could clearly see the team was on the rise and about to have a special season. You could look ahead at the schedule and easily predict a 6-2 start before the bye.
Predicting at 16-1, 15-2 or 14-3 regular season record just isn’t realistic this season. That’s my 2 cents.

Go! You Packers Go!

[texaspackerbacker]

"realists" shit. That's just a code word for not having balls/being afraid to claim the team is damn good - which they certainly are - and pussily foreseeing a bad outcome.

As for early season success versus late season, a big whatever. Some years you start fast, some years you finish strong. There are a lot of reasons why, luck of injuries, etc. like lasty year being primary among them. Schedule also varies a lot.

As I said earlier, this Packers team should not be an underdog to anybody. Even I don't claim that they won't stumble along the way, but barring the injury thing, it shouldn't happen often. 14-16 regular season wins is very realistic.

[Fritz]

Thing is, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy the team. Some prefer to be positive at the start. They get to enjoy the early part of the season but can have more of a let down when things go bad. Some set expectations lower. They don't get the positivity early, but don't feel the hit as bad if the team underperforms.

Each to his own!

I think we all believe this to be true, but in fact no matter how low you set your expectations, you still feel like shit when a promising start goes into the toilet.

I can say the one situation in which I don't feel awful is when the team plays a game and just sucks really bad from the get-go. You get to the third quarter and your team just looks like hell, and it's easy to turn it off and not feel too terrible. I specifically remember the 2016 season, when the Packers won two playoff games and advanced to the NFCCG against the Falcones. Rodgers carried the team with what I recall was a gimpy leg. But from the get-go of that Atlanta game, the team looked sluggish and slow and overmatched. I turned it off pretty quickly and didn't feel crushed like I did when the Packers lost to the Giants in the Division Championship game in 2011 or against the Gints in the 2007 season when Favre through that late-game pick.

This year? As I have come to understand more and more, if your team is talented - as usually about a half-dozen teams are - it all depends on injuries. Good injury luck, and you've got a real shot. Bad injury luck and it rarely works out. By injury luck, I'm talking about your top players.

The other factor, for me, is the offensive line. Banks might have had a rogue surgery and may or may not be available at season's opening, and how good would he be, anyway? So far, he's been a turd. Anthony Belton is having a crummy camp, but others seem to be stepping up. I do think Jordan Morgan will be a real upgrade over Rasheed Walker, and Burton looks like the real deal.

[Vincenzo]

Major Sportsbook and analysts predicts 9.5 to 10.5 wins.