1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

96' VS. 07'.....

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by brennan1884, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. brennan1884

    brennan1884 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0
    Favre was asked if this team is as good as the 96' Packers that went on to win the Superbowl. Favre responded the only way to find out is to see how far this team goes, and wheather or not they win the superbowl.

    As far as a measuring stick I'd say Favres quote was accurate. However, my next statement may shock. I think this team is BETTER than the 96' team.

    Favre is arguably playing at the same level if not better than that Superbowl season, our defense is just as good if not better with arguably better cornerbacks, linebackers....I wont say line is better now, becuase Reggie White was on that line. Our O-Line is maybe a step behind, but our wideouts.....as far as talent goes, are a notch above that years recieving core. Id say running back was more solid in 96'

    I think overall this team is better as far as TALENT!!! Im not saying we will win the superbowl, but this team has maybe the most talented team in the league besides the Patriots, who are arguably one of the greatest teams maybe ever,,.....

    What do you all think?
     
  2. mi_keys

    mi_keys Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, I don't think this team is quite at the level of '96. We could definitely get there and these guys aren't far off. But that team in '96 had the number one offense, the number one defense, and one of the scariest special teams. The chemistry and drive were also amazing, in overcoming injuries at several positions (most notably Robert Brooks going down to that cheap shot from the 49ers). This team this year I think has that chemistry and drive to match the the Super Bowl team. The offense is not at the level of that in '96 and probably won't be unless the running game can take it a step or two higher (though I certainly appreciate the progress they've made so far). Also, I think Favre was just slightly more dangerous in '96 just for the simple fact that he was a little younger and at that time could still beat you with his legs (Favre wouldn't be able to pull off that diving touchdown he did in SB XXXI) while still being just as effective through the air. Defensively, we have the potential to be even better than we were that year though we haven't quite got there yet. Overall though I think we could get to that point, and who knows, maybe we'll have a Lombardi trophy to show for it.
     
  3. rabidgopher04

    rabidgopher04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,467
    Ratings:
    +0
    If we continue to improve through next year like we have this year, we'll be even harder to beat and could definitely make it to the Super Bowl.
     
  4. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    There is a lot of young players on the 07 team that have potential, and there were a lot of Veteren players on that 96 team that were really talented.

    QB = 96
    RB = 96
    WR = 07 (this one I think is close)
    DL - 96 (however the 07 DL is very good)
    DB - 07
    LB - 07
    K - 96

    I think this packer team is very good and will go far (not the superbowl IMO) however I think the 96 team was just a notch better.
     
  5. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hard to compare the two teams. A lot of football left. Right now I'd take the 96 team by 10+ points. Better backfield, pretty close in receiving, better offensive line, and Robinson + Butler is a huge upgrade over Bigby and Collins.

    Though the fact we're even having a thread like this shows how far this team has come since last year.
     
  6. Yared-Yam

    Yared-Yam Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,120
    Ratings:
    +0
    The '96 team had the #1 offense and the #1 defense in the NFL.

    The '07 team does not and so they are not better.

    Edit: Here is the team stats through week 11 of each

    PS/PA(Points scored/points against)

    1996: PS-288 PA-144
    2007: PS-239 PA-142

    Kind of suprising actually that the '07 defense is actually slightly better through week 11.
     
  7. Obi1

    Obi1 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,110
    Ratings:
    +0
    I gotta side with Brett Favre on this one...

    But, Brett is better this year than he was then... Probably because he HAS to be and because he has FAR better receivers than he had then.

    The DD/Jennings/Jones Combo has been deadlier than the mix of receivers we had in 96. Besides, the 96 bunch had receivers getting hurt alot and rarely had the full compliment available.

    The true measure is if the Pack get to the superbowl! EVERYTHING else is conjecture.
     
  8. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Agreed, except I don't think WR is close. I think today's WRs are significantly better. We just have so much depth at WR right now. Keep in mind in '96, our #1 WR went down for the season.

    You forgot to put in TE. 96 wins that one, as much as I like Donald Lee. 96 TEs were a dangerous red zone threat and there was pretty much nothing opposing Ds could do other than watch them score TDs once we got within the 5.
     
  9. Pack88

    Pack88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    90
    Ratings:
    +6
    Now I am trying very hard not to put on my Green and Gold Glasses but in several of the comaparions above, folks seem to think our 07 Lb's are better than the 96 crew. Now I love Hawk, Barnett and Pop but currently they are not the equal of Simmons, Williams and Koonce. Simmons was a beast in 96 and he dominated TE's. Also the 96 safeties were far superior to the 07 version. So while I think the potential of the 07 team is high they have not yet reached their potential
    Pack88
     
  10. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think the 07 version would match up better with the 94 version.
     
  11. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    I forgot about that. Yes, our '96 Safeties were monsters. Good point.
     
  12. de_real_deal

    de_real_deal Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    591
    Ratings:
    +0
    Jackie Harris & Mark Chumura gave us another dimension along with Favres mobility. Our safeties were one of the best in the business. Gilbert Brown made it impossible to run the ball vs us.

    Reggie White was honestly as productive as 2 D-lineman by himself, he was that good and nobody since even comes close to as good as he was. You just dont see people throw Larry Allen to the ground repeatedly with one arm. That was Reggie White....i got goosebumps now. Man i miss that guy.

    Our O-line was much better, our running backs were a little better at running and they might have been the best in the league(Levens & Bennett especially at receiving out of the backfield)

    Linebackers are a wash i guess, 2007 corners get the edge, receivers are about even since we have so much depth.

    Overall, its not fair to compare 2007 to 1996 just yet.
     
  13. trippster

    trippster Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,405
    Ratings:
    +2
    Jackie Harris was already gone. Keith Jackson was on the team.


    We are more like the 95 Packers. Pleanty of optimism and good play. The 96 packers were dominating in every game and wan most of them going a way. This Packer team has eaked out too many games to be considered with the 96 team.

    Also, keep in mind the 96 team played a harder schedule considering their previous year finish.

    Just to throw this point out there, I think the 97 team was the best even though they puked on themselves in the SB. If you recall, everyone was talking of 16-0 just like the Patriots, until we laid an egg in Philly.
     
  14. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes. You couldn't run up the middle against the '96 Packers, nor could you run to Reggie White's side.

    Plus, one really important person we forgot was our PR/KR, who was the #1 in the game back then. He went on to be SB MVP.
     
  15. de_real_deal

    de_real_deal Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    591
    Ratings:
    +0
    YEA SORRY, I MEANT KEITH JACKSON. THAT MAN WAS A NICE PLAYER.
     
  16. nathaniel

    nathaniel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    905
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think the biggest thing '96 had over the '07 squad is experience. We don't know how some of these younger players are going to react in the playoffs.

    Remember, we were in the hunt for a few years before '96. Now we're coming off 4-12 and 8-8 seasons.
     
  17. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Desmond Howard. I had a brain fart.

    Desmond Howard when on was unstoppable.
     
  18. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Exactly. It is the '95 team that we should be comparing this one to, although they are improving so quickly that anything seems possible right now. Let's see what happens.
     
  19. Raider Pride

    Raider Pride Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,868
    Ratings:
    +2
    Brennan...

    This is a great thread concept is a super read.

    Thank you for this.

    Tripster makes the best point, and Greg backs it up. This team should be compared to the 95 Packers..... And then Heretofore, the 2007 Packers can be compared to the 1996 Packers based on progression of this team.

    However..... No one above has addressed the difference between 1996 and 2007 as far a coaching?

    Mike Holmgren 1996 or MM in 2007? Who is better?

    R.P.
     
  20. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good point, R.P. At this point I would give the nod to Holmgren, but it's hard to compare them. Holmgren arrived in Green Bay with an excellent track record as offensive coordinator for a championship team in San Francisco. By the time his Packers got really good in '95, Holmgren had proven that he was more than solid as a head coach, and he did a fantastic job helping Brett Favre become an elite QB.

    McCarthy, on the other hand, had much less impressive credentials as an OC, and this is only his second year as a head coach. He is much less of a proven commodity than Holmgren was in '96. And he hasn't had to start from scratch with a young QB. That's why I give the nod to Holmgren.

    HOWEVER...There is another way of looking at it. Mike McCarthy is shooting like a meteor through the NFL right now, coming out of nowhere (coordinating the 32nd ranked 49ers offense in 2005) to emerge as quite possibly one of the best head coaches in the league. So while Holmgren may have had the advantage over McCarthy in terms of proven quality, McCarthy has MOMENTUM on his side, in a big way.

    I would even say that McCarthy impresses me more than Holmgren did. It's just too early in his career for me to say he's a better coach than Holmgren. Time will tell.
     
  21. IronMan

    IronMan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,087
    Ratings:
    +8
    Well said. Good post.
     
  22. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    Just wanted to highlight some more comparisons. The 96' Super Bowl Team had 3 losses that year.

    A division rival game loss to Minnesota.
    A loss to the Chiefs
    and...

    a loss to the Cowboys in Dallas.

    This years team has two losses....
    A division rival game loss to Chicago
    and...

    a loss to the Cowboys in Dallas.

    The Cowboys and the Packers were the two top teams that year as well. and Dallas was beaten in the divisional playoff game by Carolina.

    eerily similar i think.
     
  23. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    No way is this team better than the '96 team.

    That team was dominant. Especially the D-line, O-Line, DB's, and RB's. The WR's weren't bad either, and the TE's were just better.

    The '07 team is good, but young.

    If TT has the wisdom to go after some free agent veteran help at O-Line next year, and safety, RB, and defensive back depth, then I think this team could be on the same level as the '96 team.

    Not until then though.
     
  24. BlueMoose

    BlueMoose Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't think we're up to the level of the '96 team. However, this year's team has a better record. Kinda hard to argue with that.
     
  25. mi_keys

    mi_keys Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    213
    Ratings:
    +0

    Maybe the first half of the year we were like the '95 team and in the second half we're becoming more like the '96 team.
     

Share This Page