Why do people have to be this way? There are 32 teams only one will win. 31 will fall short. That's a 3.125% chance.

No it's not obvious. You have no idea what the core of receivers will do so it's not "obvious" at all.
I guess that is why they picked up 3 new O-linemen isn't it? To short up the line and provide more protection.
Wow. No tam in the history of sports has had to think about potential injuries. Must be unique to GB.
Again no team has ever had their assistant coaches move on. MLF doesn't know what to do with his assistant coaches to insure his plan is being carried on to the players.
This is just silly. Depth on every team is a real thing. To suggest it is more for the Packers is dumb. Then again it goes to the linemen issues.
Please don;t tell me you really expect Campbell and Douglas to be exactly the same as they were last year. Of course they will more than likely regress *some*. And if they do that is not the reason for the Packers to fail. Why not add # 7 and have Aaron not play at the MVP level? Why not add 8 and look at any of the other key starters?

---

I agree with everything you said, Wayne.
Every point the guy is trying to make could go for any team. (Except for the Vikings and Lions, as they won't win the Super bowl as they are....well.
..the Vikings and the Lions!)😁

---

Who?

---

Oh wait, You did say Vikings and Lions. But you forgot the other losing team in the NFC North.


Da bares.

---

If you read the link below, you'll see Bill has bi-polar.

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/100-days-until-kickoff-six-reasons-why-packers-finally-will-win-super-bowl 

---

I actually did think of Da Bares
The only reason I didn't include them is that 37 years ago, they did win ONE Super bowl.
While the Queens went to four, and only won "participation trophies", and the only way the Lions are going to a Superbowl is if they buy 53 tickets!😜

---

Yes I know. I added them so I could use the crapping photo.

---