Best Rosters: Patriots 1st, Packers 2nd

[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.