Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers heading in different directions

Bears are more balanced

I alluded to it earlier in the post, but it’s important to restate the point more definitively — without Aaron Rodgers, this is one of the worst teams in the NFL. That’s a testament to just how good Rodgers is. He has single-handedly carried the franchise on his back and been solely responsible for their success since 2009.

But the problem with putting all your proverbial eggs in one basket is that if that egg (or its collarbone) breaks, then you’re left with nothing. On the other hand, the Bears have built a roster that has more depth and better-skilled players at the majority of positions. With a few exceptions, the Bears have the advantage at every spot. Take a look at how the rosters — minus special teams —  stack up against each other.

Again, there are a few exceptions, but taking the rosters on balance, the Bears have a significant advantage over the Packers. But that’s how good Rodgers is and just how critical he is to the Packers’ success.

If he has an atypical season or misses time again due to injury, the roster simply doesn’t have the horses to compete. When you have the second-best quarterback in the game you can mask a lot of deficiencies.

For the most part, though, a complete and deep roster is necessary to have sustained success in the league. The Bears have that at the moment and the Packers do not. So while the Packers may maintain an advantage in the very near term, the long-term outlook favors the Monsters of the Midway.