From a tactical point of view, Roberts may have a point.
That is, the more consensus driven a decision is, the harder it is to overturn by a future court, *and* the harder it is for appellate courts to mess with it, by focusing on the individual consensus or dissent, instead of the rest of the decision.
There are exceptions, of course. What comes to mind is the very large (and brilliant) concurring opinion by justice Thomas in McDonald v. Chicago. While every other justice was focused on the 2nd amendment, Thomas put his focus on the “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th amendment.
Seriously, this needs its own chapter in the law books it was so dynamic and important. While McDonald was a strong decision, it put a steel shell around it, making it bulletproof.
But, all told, Roberts is correct that most concurring or dissenting opinions are pretty much fluff and curl paper.
Dissents sometimes become tomorrow’s majority opinion. Justice Harlan was the sole dissenter in Plessy v Ferguson, where the SCOTUS majority held that separate but equal should prevail. That all changed some 50 years later when Brown v Board of education reversed the Plessy Majority. Dissents to Roberts’ votes will surely become law someday too.