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

Greatest Packer team of all time

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by showgirl, Jul 11, 2006.

  1. showgirl

    showgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just for something to do while we wait for camp and preseason, which Packer team do you believe was the best of all time? I vote for the 1962 Packers, when the backfield of Starr, Taylor, and Hornung were in their prime. Lombardi had molded the young team into a football machine. No, I wasn't alive then, but it makes sense to me. What do y'all think?
     
  2. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    2005 Packers!

    Ahmad Carroll, Mark Roman, Adrian Klemm, Robert Ferguson...man...that brings back memories.
     
  3. jdlax

    jdlax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +0
    Tough to say, what with having to compare great teams from different generations. Maybe the '96 team was the best, topping the league in both offence and defence(I believe?), and rolling through the playoffs.
     
  4. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Talent wise. 96 would of beaten any of the Older Packer teams with ease. Bigger, faster, stronger players. That's just how it is.

    In terms of who dominated the opposition more. The 65 (or 64 maybe) Packers I believe lost one game to the Lions and went 13-1 and won the NFL Title.
     
  5. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't know about all that. Willie Davis, Nitchke, Aderly, would give brett a solid challenge.
     
  6. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    GB's D-Line in 96 would slaughter all the 265 pound guards and tackles the 64 team had. Rison, Brooks, and Freeman would probably burn the Packer DB's all day. Players are just bigger, faster, and stronger now a days. Better and more intense training. Better weight sets. Better workout programs. It's no diss to the older Packer teams it's just how the game has evolved.
     
  7. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    That '96 Packer team is still reveled as one of the all time best teams ever.
     
  8. 4packgirl

    4packgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,415
    Ratings:
    +0
    i'd give it to the old guys...underpaid (to say the least), underappreciated, party maniacs, & some of the toughest players EVER!!
     
  9. PackerChick

    PackerChick Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,143
    Ratings:
    +1
    I agree with you very much
     
  10. Hammer

    Hammer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +0
    The 96 team lead the league in both D and O. The 62 team might have set a record for average margin of victory ( I think I read that somewhere ). I'll go with 62.
    Hammer
     
  11. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    The '62 team had 21 teams in the leauge.
    The '96 team had 29 teams in the league.

    In that over 30 year span it was a completely different game. The game now is has best athletes nationwide where as in the 60's that can not be said.

    If you compare team vs other teams in that area maybe the '62 may have been better (I wasn't even a gleam in papa's eye then).

    But if you want to put any 60s 'great' team vs any 90s 'great' team the 90's team will be better.
     
  12. packedhouse01

    packedhouse01 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,560
    Ratings:
    +1
    Great post. The 96 team was superb no doubt about it. Had Mike Holgren's ego not gotten the best of him, I believe that the Packers of that era would have had a dynasty similar to what Vince had. I'd take the 96 team based on the fact that offensively they did so much more. Both defenses were tough and hard nosed. They were both great teams and both superbly coached and highly motivated. If you could prorate players and put those 62 guys in todays bodies, I'm not sure that I'd stay with my choice, but we can't do that and it simply put it goes to the class of 96.
     
  13. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983
  14. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I think the '96 team wins hands down, but I think watching the '62 team play would be more entertaining. To my knowledge the 60s teams played a much rougher game, the way it was MEANT to be played.
    You know what I mean. Now you have to have an appointment to hit the freakin QB. You can't clothsline, seriously who wouldn't want to see Randy Moss get his neck rung??
     
  15. Hammer

    Hammer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +0
    One thing that must be considered though, what if players of yore had had the same access to the training regimens that existed 10 years ago?
    Put 25 or 30 lbs on Ray, 40 on Willie Davis, and so on. Maybe Adderley or Dowler could have cut their 40 times down a few tenths of a second with more specialized training and less off season idleness/real work. Can you imagine Jim Brown at 255?
    Hammer
     
  16. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Jim Brown @ 255 vs 60s or 90s?
     
  17. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Jim Brown was ahead of his era. All you have to do his watch. Would he been as dominate in the 90's as he was in the 60's. Probably not but I wouldn't doubt him anyways.

    Hourning and Taylor on the other hand are small backs and not that fast. Bart Starr was pretty small and couldn't move in the pocket. They'd get crush. 90's will always usually beat the 60's.

    Now if we had equal era's 60's vs 90's and equal weight sets, etc..

    That's be interesting. I guess it'd come down to what group had the most potential. If it came down to coaching, with all do respect to Holmgrem he's great but I'd go 60's then because of Lombardi. Lombardi is the greatest coach of all time. So with equal training, eating, vitamins, etc... 60's (as long as they stayed inside the night before) because the coaching might get it.

    That's a good question Hammer.
     
  18. IndiPack

    IndiPack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is like guessing whether Ali in his day could've beaten either Lewis or Marciano in their days. Who knows.
    No steroids or HGH around in 62, so I'll go with the elders.
    Out of principle, not physics.
     
  19. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0

    Forrest Gregg, Kramer, Skoronski, Thurston were all hardnosed players, and would have give reggie and company the game of their life. Brooks was hurt the year the Packers won in '96. As far as Rison and Free go, i bet my life Herb Aderly and Willie Wood would have been able to cover Free & Rison. Especially Herb Aderly, whom was an extremly gifted athlete.

    Jim Taylor was a power lifter way back in 60's. in '62-'65 Taylor was benching like 500lbs. (without steriods)!!!
     
  20. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Are you older than 40?

    I think it comes down to the generation you watched. I didn't see those Packers but I'm willing to be that they weren't as fast or strong as the 96 team. In fact I know 90% of that team wasn’t. You can name one or two guys. I happen to think Nitchske could of played in this era. As for someone like Bart Starr. I'm not sure he even starts nowadays. 40 years from now, it could very well be the same thing.

    You can be a hardass all you want on the field like some of the older Packers but a 260 pound tackle isn't going to block Reggie White and Sean Jones off the end.
     
  21. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    what was the avg size of the denver broncos o-line that defeated the packers in SB XXXII
     
  22. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    what was the avg size of the denver broncos o-line that defeated the packers in SB XXXII[/quote:2vfgka0q]

    About 290 but they were running a scheme and they were quick enough to run it. The older Packers didn't use a zone blocking scheme (I'm not sure if any variations existed back then)

    The older Packers were smaller and slower. The power running game Lombardi would use wouldn't work. GB wouldn't be able to run the sweep or anything outside or up the middle. So the older skool Packers wouldn’t work in the zone scheme now a days either because of quickness up front.
     
  23. Philtration

    Philtration Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,247
    Ratings:
    +9
    It does not matter because the 85 Bears would have stomped on any one of them.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  24. Hammer

    Hammer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +0
    By implication, the 90s. Restating my point, he might not only be bigger, but also faster if he had modern training methods/nutrition/etc.
    Hammer
     
  25. Hammer

    Hammer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +0
    By implication, the 90s. Restating my point, he might not only be bigger, but also faster if he had modern training methods/nutrition/etc.
    Hammer
     

Share This Page