Packers are NFL's youngest team 4-years running

[Newz]

If people predicted big things in the preseason it would be dumb to alter those expectations after one game.

Early season games are often wacko, but the important thing is to get the W (see Pats and SD for other examples). You want to work out the kinks as quickly as possible and get into midseason form. Our schedule is set up nicely for us to do that. We have two winnable games the next two weeks, a very tough road game against Minny, then a bye. Our coaches and players should have a very good idea where they are at in the bye week.

I'm not saying you should change your prediction... In my opinion the Packers beating the Bears should strengthen your opinion of the team. I know it definitely made me think more of the Packers... If not for Barbre's poor performance and a few dropped balls, we would have beat them pretty easily. Another great thing about the game is Rodgers got his first official fourth quarter comeback win.

[Newz]

I don't think having the youngest roster on average means all that much. We were also the youngest team in the league when we went 13-3 and I don't think anyone could say that wasn't a championship caliber team.

The youngest team in the league thing is an illusion. I read an article that I cannot find right now... But our starting defense and offense aren't ranked last in age compared to other starting units. In fact I think our defense was like 8th.

[LUKE23]

I don't think you can hold TT's first year against him, considering the damage Sherman had done to this teams cap. He cleaned house and we knew we were in for a down year that first year. We were signing O'Dwyer and Klemm on the OL for God's sake. If you look at the other three years, he is 28-21, and the only sub .500 year we were (I know some will call it excuses) pretty much the unluckiest team of the past 20 years (7 games lost by 4 points or more, and we outscored our opponents for the year).

This roster is very well put together for how young it is and how good of financial shape it is in.

[El Duderino]

I don't think having the youngest roster on average means all that much. We were also the youngest team in the league when we went 13-3 and I don't think anyone could say that wasn't a championship caliber team.

One thing being lost in the overall age deal is that most of the key players and starters have played for at least of a couple of years. Guys like Jennings, Spitz, Colledge, Grant, Jolley, Hawk, Bishop, Collins etc have all played a number of snaps already, they are experienced youngish players. Thompson simply prefers to keep most of the backups as young players vs pretty experienced vets and that also brings down the roster age. Our kicker and punter are also young, but on many teams those guys are older. We have no older backup QB.

[Ayt]

Yep. As was mentioned, I bet if you look at the primary starters we aren't inexperienced at all on average. Heck, out of the 22 we have only 4 new starters compared to two years ago coming into the season. The entire D is the same. Offensively, obviously you have AR, then Sitton and Barbre on the line. Kuhn also has gone from sharing snaps in 2007 to being the main FB now.

Football is obviously not all about starters, but we are only slightly different from what we were 2 years ago personnel wise at the top.