That's part of the point. Even the guys that "no one remembers" (except old guys like yooper and I) on the Lombardi-era team were at a higher quality level than today's Packer defense.
When you're worse than a team with no memorable names, you're not very good.

Promising you'll be better, when it looks like you're relying on the same worse-than-less-than-memorable-old-fart-teams, is a hollow sort of promise.

It might happen. But I'm not holding my breath.

---

[grin1]

---

100 players / 32 teams = 3.125, so we're above the avg. then.

On offense I think many will agree we're not far off, or at least have an offense that isn't holding the team back from succeeding.

As for the defense, this is a bit of a SSALY wishful thinking from a fan, but there is some young talent that should be able to either develop or get healthy over the offseason. Worthy, Hayward, D. Jones, and Boyd all come to mind. We saw the leap Daniels made in year two, and although it doesn't guarantee those four will, it does offer reason to be optimistic. Texas and I are apparently glass half full people when it comes to the youth on this defense, but I agree that the team, specifically the D, is closer than we realize if we can just get a little more help at safety and LB.

It would be interesting to know how they judge "top 100" - past performance - how recent?, potential - according to ?, wild guess, etc.

The math notwithstanding, I'd kinda like the Packers to be farther above average than that.

Yeah, I'm fairly optimistic about our young D Linemen - just getting Raji and Pickett out of there will help, but a rotation of Daniels, Worthy, D. Jones, Boyd, and Jolly seems pretty good - maybe adding a low round gem to that. Any of those young guys could step up and be top 100.

---

Saints move on from Smith, Harper, Greer, Vilma 

---