Packers Huddle

Papa John wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 09:22

Labrev wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2025 19:07

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2025 12:58

Strong disagree. They have the best QB in the league. They have the best C in the league. They have arguably the best DT in the league. McDuffie is one of the best CBs in the league. They have two of the leagues better OGs in the league with Thuney and Smith. Travis Kelce is still one of the leagues better TEs despite on the backside of his career. Then you go across the board and they just have a lot of other solid players. Leo Chenal, Nick Bolton, George Karlaftis, Isaiah Pacheco, Justin Reid. They dont have league worst position groups that kill them like the Packers have had in recent championship pushes.

I'll give you McDuffie, but I otherwise stand by my take. Humphrey arguably is the best in the league sure but C is not a super impactful position. Bolton, Pacheco, Reid, etc. are all nice players but not field-tilters IMO, or anyone you have to gameplan around.

KC certainly is a solid all-around team, which is impressive in a sense, but I think the intangibles is more what makes them great.

If I may interject here. A solid all-around team with a few star players- preferably a star QB, and smart coaches are what a team needs to win a Super Bowl. Most importantly, the team must have no weaknesses.I am convinced that if a team has a weakness at any position group, that weakness invariably will be exposed in the playoffs. So, in summary, I don't think you need a roster littered with field-tilters. You just can't suck anywhere.

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 10:07

Papa John wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 09:22

Labrev wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2025 19:07

I'll give you McDuffie, but I otherwise stand by my take. Humphrey arguably is the best in the league sure but C is not a super impactful position. Bolton, Pacheco, Reid, etc. are all nice players but not field-tilters IMO, or anyone you have to gameplan around.

KC certainly is a solid all-around team, which is impressive in a sense, but I think the intangibles is more what makes them great.

If I may interject here. A solid all-around team with a few star players- preferably a star QB, and smart coaches are what a team needs to win a Super Bowl. Most importantly, the team must have no weaknesses.I am convinced that if a team has a weakness at any position group, that weakness invariably will be exposed in the playoffs. So, in summary, I don't think you need a roster littered with field-tilters. You just can't suck anywhere.

I have done data research of SB winners the last 20 years (I've posted this a few times on this board) and looking into if it is better to have a top flight offense or top flight defense.

My findings were that offense or defense didn't really matter. What mattered most was:

1. SB winning teams generally has a top 5 something (offense or defense) and more importantly a top 10 of the other thing.
2. SB winning teams were never in the bottom third in any category (offense, defense, STs).

There are exceptions. The 2006 Indianapolis Colts were bottom in the league in defense but then exploded out of nowhere in the postseason. Also had the 2000 Ravens that was completely carried by a historic defense. 2015 Broncos were similar.

So yes. Usually you need to be pretty good in one facet but then just not belew average in any other facet.

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 10:19

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 10:07

Papa John wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 09:22

If I may interject here. A solid all-around team with a few star players- preferably a star QB, and smart coaches are what a team needs to win a Super Bowl. Most importantly, the team must have no weaknesses.I am convinced that if a team has a weakness at any position group, that weakness invariably will be exposed in the playoffs. So, in summary, I don't think you need a roster littered with field-tilters. You just can't suck anywhere.

I have done data research of SB winners the last 20 years (I've posted this a few times on this board) and looking into if it is better to have a top flight offense or top flight defense.

My findings were that offense or defense didn't really matter. What mattered most was:

1. SB winning teams generally has a top 5 something (offense or defense) and more importantly a top 10 of the other thing.
2. SB winning teams were never in the bottom third in any category (offense, defense, STs).

There are exceptions. The 2006 Indianapolis Colts were bottom in the league in defense but then exploded out of nowhere in the postseason. Also had the 2000 Ravens that was completely carried by a historic defense. 2015 Broncos were similar.

So yes. Usually you need to be pretty good in one facet but then just not belew average in any other facet.

awesome post, the thing is, as Papa, Others, and your investigation show, is that a team with weak position will get exploited and the team overall has to be very good

we hear often that defense wins championships, but that's dependent on the offense and ST's getting them off the field for some rest, or they will get gassed just as ours has at times

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 11:43

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 10:19

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 10:07

I have done data research of SB winners the last 20 years (I've posted this a few times on this board) and looking into if it is better to have a top flight offense or top flight defense.

My findings were that offense or defense didn't really matter. What mattered most was:

1. SB winning teams generally has a top 5 something (offense or defense) and more importantly a top 10 of the other thing.
2. SB winning teams were never in the bottom third in any category (offense, defense, STs).

There are exceptions. The 2006 Indianapolis Colts were bottom in the league in defense but then exploded out of nowhere in the postseason. Also had the 2000 Ravens that was completely carried by a historic defense. 2015 Broncos were similar.

So yes. Usually you need to be pretty good in one facet but then just not belew average in any other facet.

awesome post, the thing is, as Papa, Others, and your investigation show, is that a team with weak position will get exploited and the team overall has to be very good

we hear often that defense wins championships, but that's dependent on the offense and ST's getting them off the field for some rest, or they will get gassed just as ours has at times

lol. This is so funny to me.

Because the numerous times I posted this before you hated my analysis as it didn't fit your "offense wins championships" agenda.

Labrev wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 12:15

Rumor: McCarthy underwhelmed in his NO interview, unlikely to get HC gig there.

https://wisportsheroics.com/packers-mik ... ints-2026/

BF004 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 12:56

No one answered my question yet, why would Seattle have any interest in trading Metcalf?

BF004 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2025 12:56

No one answered my question yet, why would Seattle have any interest in trading Metcalf?