Matt Schneidman of The Athletic did not sugarcoat the question that has lingered for a generation of Green Bay Packers supporters this offseason.
A fan who has followed the team since 1989 asked, ahead of the 2026 opener, why anyone should believe this season will feel different from the recent ones that ended in heartbreak when the games tightened. The veteran beat writer answered with unusual bluntness for a mailbag: he does not think it will be much different.
The honesty landed because it refused the usual preseason optimism. Schneidman was not talking only about late-game collapses, though those remain part of the team’s recent identity under Matt LaFleur. He was talking about the larger picture of record and playoff ceiling. After a 9-7-1 finish in 2025, he sees too many unresolved questions for a meaningful leap.
The pass rush without Micah Parsons is the first of those questions. Green Bay’s ability to finish plays and shorten the field for its secondary has long depended on that kind of disruptor. Without him, the corners will have to cover longer, and Schneidman is skeptical they can.
The room features a rookie expected to start opposite Justin Jefferson in Week 1, a veteran whose second-half form last year raised doubts, and depth that looks adequate only if the front can hurry the quarterback. That combination is fragile.
The offensive line carries similar doubt. Performance or health questions exist at four of the five starting spots. Those issues matter whether the Packers want to run or pass.
Jordan Love has weapons around him, but those weapons need time and clean pockets. If the line cannot provide either, the offense’s talent remains theoretical.
Then there is the backfield. Josh Jacobs is unavailable, leaving MarShawn Lloyd as the featured option. Lloyd has never been a high-volume runner at the NFL level and carries an injury history that makes an immediate heavy workload unwise.
The Packers have talent, Schneidman acknowledged, but talent scattered across too many question marks does not automatically produce a step forward.
That assessment is not a prediction of disaster. It is a refusal to pretend the roster is suddenly complete. For a fan who has watched LaFleur’s teams melt down in critical moments, the reply offered little comfort. The same structural doubts that defined the last few seasons remain in place.
Optimism, in Schneidman’s view, would require those doubts to be answered on the field rather than hoped away in September.
The Packers still have a quarterback, skill players, and a coaching staff that knows the system. Those pieces can produce winning football. They have not yet produced the kind of consistent, high-stakes success that would change a longtime fan’s default setting from cautious to confident.
Schneidman’s mailbag answer simply said the quiet part out loud: the questions are still too numerous for him to expect a different ending.
Be the first to comment