Packer's 2026-27 Season

[CheezWizHed]

Might as well kick off the season with a brand new thread! The offseason is over...let the games begin!

[CheezWizHed]

Let's start off with predictions!

I'll predict a record of 11-6.

Love will top 4000 yds with Golden and Watson topping 1000 each. 

No RB will top 600 yds, but we will have a few with 3-400. 

Cooper will open some eyes this year. 

We will trade away a DT.

[OldHeidelberg]

Packers o/u is 9.5 wins, about the same as Cubs HR's tonight. I would take the over but not by much. I really like our WR group and expect to score a lot of points, just wish I felt as optimistic about the defense. 10-7 with a late season rally sneaking them into playoffs. It's the least optimistic I have felt in a while, maybe that means they will surprise me. 

[HarryDoyle]

Third verse, same as the first and second verse. #7 seed, first round exit, most likely because of MLF.

[TwinsBrewersWorldSeries]

6-11.  Defense is garbage without Parsons, our offensive line still sucks, and their coaching is lousy.

Gutey and MLF get fired in December

Packers win the Super Bowl in February 2029

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I hope I come back to this post and laugh. 

But I can't shake the vibe that the wheels are about to fall off. We paid a lot of money for Micah Parsons to spend big chunks of 2 seasons not playing football. 

We have some talent on this roster for sure, but the lack of depth, the issue with Jacobs, the reliance on multiple cogs coming back from major injuries, lack of playmakers defensively, a coach who I think is a great coordinator and Xs and Os prep guy, but lacks the mettle to be a HC...

Jordan Love going bonkers could mask a lot of that. I think it's realistic to believe this could be a contending team. But like I said, my gut feeling just isn't there.

7-10. Injuries and Jacobs get used as an excuse to save our two heroes from unemployment, again.

 

[GAME05]

I'm more optimistic than that. Assuming he comes back at full strength, Parsons kinda fixes all. The defensive line overall I expect will be really good and cover up for the bad secondary again.

[Brewin]

I don't get the negative vibes on the Packers that many here seem to have. I see 10-7 minimum, probably 11-6. The stretch of games without Parsons is manageable, and, unlike most on here, think MLF is an above average coach.  

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 hours ago, Brewin said:

I don't get the negative vibes on the Packers that many here seem to have. I see 10-7 minimum, probably 11-6. The stretch of games without Parsons is manageable, and, unlike most on here, think MLF is an above average coach.  

Their minimum is more wins than they've had 3 of the last 4 years? I think you can easily argue an 11-6 season. But that's the minimum?

[Brewin]

I just believe their roster is more talented than the last several years. Injuries are a huge factor for every team, every year. Unfortunately, the Packers have had multiple injuries to the top end of their roster (Parsons, Tom, Watson, Wyatt, Kraft,..) and I don't believe they will be as injury riddled to key guys this season. 

Also, not having Jacobs, for who knows how long (maybe forever), will force MLF to be more aggressive I hope. My biggest complaint with him the last two years is he is way too conservative as a play caller and hasn't given Love enough freedom.

[CheezWizHed]

Personally, I see Love, Watson, Reed, Golden, and Kraft coming together in a big way this year.  That tends to fuel my optimism.  Without Parsons last year, we were a middle defense.  With him we were top 10 (with a huge hole at DT).  That hole seems to be fixed. Our CB situation isn't strong, but stronger than last year.

The OL is the area that concerns me most.  ZBB doesn't give me great vibes to start the season... I think Belton starts game 1.  But Morgan should be better than Walker.  We have two backup Gs that are improved on last year.  Rhyan seems to have figured out the C position (after being thrown in last year).  

If the OL is solid and Parsons comes back healthy, we should have SB hopes. 

[CheezWizHed]

Thinking more about the McCord situation... I'm guessing that Gute gambled a little bit.  I'd imagine they were wrestling with keeping McCord as the 3rd QB or lose him in waivers when Miami called for a trade.

In order for Gute to feel comfortable with a trade, he had to be reasonably sure he could grab another QB for the practice squad. I'm sure he looked around the league and had his eye on a few guys that were 4th on the depth chart of other teams... but then several teams kept 4 on their active roster. 

We ultimately signed Kedon Slovis, but that feels more like a concession then a real development option. The teams with 4 QBs can't keep them forever. The season is going to push that button at some point. 

Here are the teams with 4 QBs and the one that is 4th on the depth chart:

• Vikings - Max Brosmer was already cut and resigned to the PS.  JJ McCarthy is rumored to be trade bait. 
  • I'm not sure I'd bother with either of these QBs. 
• Falcons - Jack Strand - a 2026 UDFA out of Div II MN Moorehead.  Could be an interesting prospect to watch with big skills, yet raw talent.  
• Eagles - Cole Payton - 5th round pick that is unlikely to be cut.  Sounds like a Taysom Hill experiment more than a QB, which might explain why they have 4 QBs. 
  • I'll guess they cut Palmer or McKee if anyone. 
• Steelers - Drew Allar: A 3rd round pick, so it is unlikely he is cut.  
  • Will Howard - A 2026 6th round pick to keep our eyes on though

[OldSchoolSnapper]

25 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Personally, I see Love, Watson, Reed, Golden, and Kraft coming together in a big way this year.  That tends to fuel my optimism.  Without Parsons last year, we were a middle defense.  With him we were top 10 (with a huge hole at DT).  That hole seems to be fixed. Our CB situation isn't strong, but stronger than last year.

The OL is the area that concerns me most.  ZBB doesn't give me great vibes to start the season... I think Belton starts game 1.  But Morgan should be better than Walker.  We have two backup Gs that are improved on last year.  Rhyan seems to have figured out the C position (after being thrown in last year).  

If the OL is solid and Parsons comes back healthy, we should have SB hopes. 

If you're referring to 2024, yes. If you're referring to last year, they were terrible. I think people really need to stop reaching back 2 seasons as evidence that the team is good because it's mostly the same guys. 2 years is 2 decades in the NFL. We have turnover like every team does and an entirely new coordinator.

The path forward I see for this season is Love playing like an MVP candidate, carrying the team until Parsons gets back, and hoping their division is within reach when he's going full gear. It's not that unrealistic, but I don't think it's going to unfold that way. I think they're just worse than people think.

[CheezWizHed]

2 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

If you're referring to 2024, yes. If you're referring to last year, they were terrible. I think people really need to stop reaching back 2 seasons as evidence that the team is good because it's mostly the same guys. 2 years is 2 decades in the NFL. We have turnover like every team does and an entirely new coordinator.

The path forward I see for this season is Love playing like an MVP candidate, carrying the team until Parsons gets back, and hoping their division is within reach when he's going full gear. It's not that unrealistic, but I don't think it's going to unfold that way. I think they're just worse than people think.

Without Parsons last year,

This doesn't mean 2024. After Parsons was hurt, we were somewhere in the 15-20 range of defense.  

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Without Parsons last year,

This doesn't mean 2024. After Parsons was hurt, we were somewhere in the 15-20 range of defense.  

Except no, they were one of the worst, if not the worst.

405.5 yards/game 32nd by a lot. 

27.5 points/game  roughly 28th.

This generously leaves out Denver, in which the Broncos score 2 touchdowns immediately after his exit and blow the game open.

[homer]

Yes, the Packers defense was not as good without a future hall of famer. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, homer said:

Yes, the Packers defense was not as good without a future hall of famer. 

It wasn't simply "not as good." It was catastrophically worse. That continues to be glossed over by many, as I noted earlier, like some kind of phenomenon adjusting to the acceptance that he's hurt. "15" is closer to what they were with Parsons. Probably right about 10th or so.

After the ACL injury, the Packers finished the regular season 0-4, allowed an NFL-worst 170.8 rushing yards/game, and recorded only 3 sacks, the fewest in the NFL over that span.

Post-Parsons: NFL-worst rushing defense, NFL-worst sack production, roughly bottom-of-the-league yardage performance, followed by 31 points allowed in the playoff loss. Yes, they lost some other guys too. But it shouldn't be a hot take that when you mortgage two firsts and pay a gajillion dollars to a superstar, your team is a LOT worse when he can't play. Just on the eye test alone, they were alarmingly worse the second he was out.

The one major thing the defense has going for it, is that it would be hard to be as bad as they were forcing turnovers for 2 years in a row. Just by sheer odds, they should do that more often this season.

[homer]

11 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

It wasn't simply "not as good." It was catastrophically worse. That continues to be glossed over by many, as I noted earlier, like some kind of phenomenon adjusting to the acceptance that he's hurt. "15" is closer to what they were with Parsons. Probably right about 10th or so.

10th is pretty good

[homer]

The 2025 team had a very specific goal on defense - prevent the big play. And they were successful at that over the course of the season. Obviously, they fell victim to death by a thousand cuts as Parsons covered up how thin the D Line was - even more so when Wyatt was out. New D Coordinator, some additional people upfront it might be a different strategy this year. I don't think they'll be great either and neither do a lot of prognosticators but I don't care how they start I care how they finish.

[CheezWizHed]

39 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

It wasn't simply "not as good." It was catastrophically worse. That continues to be glossed over by many, as I noted earlier, like some kind of phenomenon adjusting to the acceptance that he's hurt. "15" is closer to what they were with Parsons. Probably right about 10th or so.

After the ACL injury, the Packers finished the regular season 0-4, allowed an NFL-worst 170.8 rushing yards/game, and recorded only 3 sacks, the fewest in the NFL over that span.

Post-Parsons: NFL-worst rushing defense, NFL-worst sack production, roughly bottom-of-the-league yardage performance, followed by 31 points allowed in the playoff loss. Yes, they lost some other guys too. But it shouldn't be a hot take that when you mortgage two firsts and pay a gajillion dollars to a superstar, your team is a LOT worse when he can't play. Just on the eye test alone, they were alarmingly worse the second he was out.

The one major thing the defense has going for it, is that it would be hard to be as bad as they were forcing turnovers for 2 years in a row. Just by sheer odds, they should do that more often this season.

I was going off memory, but thought they had dropped "only" to middle of the pack.  Looks like my memory was off (shocker! 😂). But hey... our JV team did a good job stopping MN. 

All year long, run D was a struggle.  It became a struggle as soon as we traded Clark and relied on a bunch of low round/UDFA rookies for depth and starting.  That should be theoretically improved.  Our starting NT last year didn't even make the team this year. 

It will be interesting to see how the DC is able to generate pressure without Parsons.  I think this scheme will play to our CB's strengths (or cover weaknesses if you prefer).