The preason is now officially done and we are well on our way to the first game with the Saints. The season holds a lot of promise, and the Packers have an extremely talented roster, but as we sit with this roster my question is quite simple....

What is the riskiest part of it?

I think I've become numb to the fact that Ted Thompson always takes a big gamble to one part of our roster. In fact I think that gambling streak has bit us in the ass for the last couple of years....but the Packers have generally overcome that problem.

For example, in 2009 the Packers took a huge risk with the tackle spot. In that year Mark Tauscher was hurt and not even on the roster at the beginning of the year so they trotted out Allen Barbre as the starting RT. Chad Clifton was the starting LT as always, but there was some hope that Darryn Colledge was going to be the back up should something happen. The long shot for both spots should the original plan not work out was a rookie named T.J. Lang. Really though the Packers were just hoping that Barbre would hold up and Clifton wouldn't get hurt. And then early in the year it was clear that Barbre wouldn't hold up and Clifton did get hurt. This led to some bad games, lots of sacks and two gut wrenching losses to the Vikings and Brett Favre. It was overcome though when Tauscher was signed around midseason and Clifton got healthy.

Last year we saw the odd arrangement of two HB's on the roster and three FB's. Well this would work out fine as long as Ryan Grant stayed healthy and James Starks got right around midseason and quickly got up to NFL speed. What happened? Grant goes down in the first game of the year and Starks doesn't really get going until the playoffs. As a result the running game suffered all year.

So my question is...do we have something similar for this year?

I think we do. It shouldn't be that surprising that we do since Peter King called this one of the "quirkiest" rosters he's ever seen.

The culprit is in the offensive line in my humble opinion, but unlike 2009 the interior line is the worrisome part. The Packers kept only 8 offensive linemen. This is probably because the talent just wasn't very deep on the line this year compared to other parts of the team. Now I'm not too concerned with the starters or the backups at tackle. The starting line looks as good, or possibly better, than last year. I also don't really have too many concerns with Sherrod or Newhouse as backups at tackle. I really don't think Evan Dietrick-Smith is a good answer for the interior line, and neither Newhouse nor Sherrod has shown much promise as guards. This means that an injury to Lang, Scott Wells, or Josh Sittion could be scary thing for this team.

acme packing co wrote:

Wherever the injuries happen is where we will need depth.

If the starting interior line holds up, it isn't an issue. Yes, I know it is a big if.

Last year every body thought the CB position would be a big issue and several were upset at TT's huge failure to address such an obvious need.

There were also some who said out D-line would be our downfall without better depth.

Nobody was thinking we would lose 6 linebackers and the running game.

You can't predict injuries.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

OL, then to a lesser degree, DL, then ROLB.
One thing no one mentions is FB. What if Kuhn goes down? Not to jinx us or anything. Yeah, we got Crabtree, but he's not a real FB.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

OL, then to a lesser degree, DL, then ROLB.
One thing no one mentions is FB. What if Kuhn goes down? Not to jinx us or anything. Yeah, we got Crabtree, but he's not a real FB.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

QB because if the Packers lose their starter, they are finished. Therefore, it's the weakest position.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool