So we had the 2010 vs 96 thread but I personally love these two teams as much as any I have watched. Both broke my heart, 07 a little more than 09, but both were great teams that just didnt get it done in the playoffs. SO the question is, which team was better? and which team did you like better?
But that thread is a intersting question. As for the OP. Id say the 2009 team was better. But somehow we just could not get anything started on Defence in Arizona
sometimes I feel like woodchipper gets bored and just makes random facebook pages Its the offseason Its a lockout its not like news or things to talk about are dropping out of the sky.
'07 team was set to roll and choked. I think they would have been a good match-up with the Patriots also but failed to get their ticket punched. '09 team was not quite ready for prime time yet.
Packers '07 would of won. Kind of have to think of Favrebowl 1 last season to reimburse my theory. I hate to say it too.
This all depends on whether Al Harris is injured or not for this matchup. The 07 defense would have Tramon as a minor player and Woodson playing #1 corner. The 09 defense would have the emerging Tramon as a nickle DB if Al Harris is healthy. Of the two... I think that's harder squad to throw on. With the careful Rodgers of 09 throwing vs. the 'Ole Gunslinger' working against a 3-4 defense. I think Matthews gets pressure against the 07 OLine and I think you win the turnover war with the 09 squad.
You gotta take the teams as they were, with injuries and current ability and everything. Personally, I would take the 07, the ST and D were better. But then again, it all depends if Favre decides to screw everybody and just have fun out there. If that's the case, 09 wins.
2007 team was a favorite to represent the NFC in the Superbowl. They would have given the Patriots a great game and have a chance to win. The 2009 had some holes that 2010 filled or made better to say the least. I don't think the 2009 would have won in New Orleans honestly.
