'96 packers may not have been filled with Superstars but with the way they came together they were the best Unit that the NFL would see that year. How they worked together to improve each others game and make each other better is what made them special. The minister of Defense might not have had a career year sacks-wise BUT he did apply pressure and take on double teams to free up linebackers to make plays. Also to say hat 09 favre >'96 favre is just wrong. In '96 favre had one of his best statistical seasons (and broke the packers single season passing TD record with 39) so 09 favre (though he is playing some phenomenal football right now) has a lot of work to do if he wants to stack up to '96 favre.
It's a difficult comparison for several reason ... - The 1996 Packers won the Super Bowl, but went into the play-offs being 13-3 ... The Bronco's entered from a 12-4 ...
It can be argued both ways ..., however the 1996 will probably still be regarded as the "best" of those two teams, unless the Vikings manage to win a Super Bowl this year. Because even if the Vikings should manage a 14-2 or better regular season record, - it could be argued that the 09 Vikings is indeed better than the 1996 Packers, one important thing will still be missing ... - The Super Bowl Win ...
Once in the play-offs, anything can happen ... - Just ask the 16-0 Patriots ...
Season / Super Bowl Winner / Regular Season:
2008 Pittsburg Steelers (entered the play offs with a 12-4)
2007 NY Giants (entered with a 10-6)
2006 Indianapolis Colts (entered with a 12-4)
2005 Pittsburg Steelers (11-5)
So there are alot of ways to determine "Best" team really ... But looking at the "factual" composition of the two teams 1996 Packers vs. the 2009 Vikings ... - More than likely ... when you look at the entire team ... - Alot of arguements *could* be made that the 2009 are in fact the "better" team, however ... untill or IF the 2009 Vikings actually manages to win a Super Bowl, that comparison will be kinda moot ...