Are the Packers more balanced?

I sure hope so.  I think they have the talent to take the next step but they need to achieve that ultimate balance in all 3 phases to do so.   To me you win big if you have that balance (well usually) and I think having a offense that is humming takes pressure off the D and having a D that is stepping up takes the pressure off of the offense.  If the Packers D can continue to trend up and if the offense gets back on track this team can do great things.

Word.

It would be nice to take pressure off of  

and not have him be required to have a 120+ passer rating and throwing 4 TD's a game in order to win. If this defense can avg around 18ish points per game, coupled with a fairly easy schedule, this team should be humming

FWIW

Based on 2015, Falcons and 49ers have hardest strength of schedule (.555 opponents’ win pct) and Packers have easiest schedule (.457).

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) April 14, 2016

Having the easiest the easiest schedule means you never need to go for 2

We shall see Pike!

This should be Packers year

Playing "the easiest schedule" always feels like a bad omen.

Besides injuries (which is always the number 1 derailer), the only other concern I'd have is if GB had a season like 2011 where they blew through that season, played nobody, then got totally blindsided by the Giants and we're one and done.

Playing the Cards, Panthers, Broncos etc can have it's advantages in exposing where your true weaknesses are. HOPEFULLY MM and Capers learned their lesson from playoff games like the Giants, 49ers. They have just lost in the most bizarre fashions. Gotta hope GB has some luck for once...

Here's a link to the SoS for the 2016 season.  Sorry if this was posted elsewhere:

Strength of Schedule

packerboi posted:

Or does AR and this offense still need to rack up 30+ points to win games?

I certainly would no hurt.  30 points per game + 'clamp down' defense + great special teams = a SB winning season

Of course we "could" (key word there) have a 'clamp down' defense like the Broncos did last year and the 85 Bears did and win the SB anyway. 

I hate close games.  So I'll take the formula above. 

Pikes Peak posted:

Having the easiest the easiest schedule means you never need to go for 2

Maybe it means you always go for 2.  If you are 90% sure you make the 2 point conversion, and your kicker is in his contract year, you would always go for two.  Just saying .......

Kicker already signed an extension so you go for 2?

I don't think we can say in blanket fashion "offence needs to score 30+".  I mean, hell yeah, I want to see the 2011 version of this offense again, but...

The Offense has to improve vs last year regardless of opponent.  If they play 2009-2014 versions, I think you can assume we'll win the games we should win.

However, regardless of how good your offense is, with a Dom Capers defense, you should assume that side will absolutely be torched by good QBs.  

Against bad/average QBs, the offense needs to be good
Against good QBs, the offense needs to be very good
Against very good to great QBs, the offense needs to be all world.  

And who are these very good to great QB's?

CAPackFan95 posted:

Against bad/average QBs, the offense needs to be good
Against good QBs, the offense needs to be very good
Against very good to great QBs, the offense needs to be all world.  

GB and even more telling Carolina, had no answers for Denver. Thankfully, that defense has gotten somewhat dismantled but just watching Carolina's offense get their ass handed to them after averaging 31.3 ppg was incredible

I'll add ST's and in particular punting when it comes to facing playoff teams/great QBs. Ginger thoroughly sucked last season and really the year before that as well. When GB is scoring like they have 2011-2014, a lot of that got masked. But TT is going to need to get a lot more out of him. Or find someone else.

GBFanForLife posted:

And who are these very good to great QB's?

Pro Bowl Teddy for one.......

DH13 posted:

Playing "the easiest schedule" always feels like a bad omen.

I wouldn't worry about it either way...today's NFL makes it more of a contrarian view going by last seasons performance.

Real SOS is calculated from games  played in season...but what do I know.

Whether regular season or post:

++ Good Luck, Brady, Brees, Good Roethlisberger

+   Rivers, Bad Luck, Good Cam, Wilson, Bad Roethlisberger, Romo, Carr, Good Palmer, Good Dalton, good Manning

+/- Manning, Bad Cam, Cousins, Cutler, Bad Palmer,Bad Dalton, Bridgewater

vs.

++ Packers need both sides of the ball to have good games

+   Packers need one side to dominate, other to be avg.

+/- Packers need at least avg. from both sides

oldschool posted:

DH13 posted:

Playing "the easiest schedule" always feels like a bad omen.

 

I wouldn't worry about it either way...today's NFL makes it more of a contrarian view going by last seasons performance.

Real SOS is calculated from games  played in season...but what do I know.

No I know.  But they should have a schedule that is in the bottom quarter of 32. 

It's just that "easiest SOS" carries the same suspicious smell that "dream team" does.  Don't irk the football gods.

2011 they were blindsided by the death of their OC's son.

Still need defense. I agree about getting back to scoring 30+ a game. Regardless of opponent. But Doms defense needs to be 2010 level for a change

They are more balanced but this team's success still depends on the offensive output vs. the defensive stinginess.  The offense pulls their heads out of their ass and puts Clements in a dunce hat, the defense will be opportunistic.  This isn't a power defense.  

Right. Not a power defense but one that can get turnovers & give the ball back to Rodgers on a short field.

That's the key