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!
    Dismiss Notice

Greatest Packer team of all time

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

  1. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I have to disagree. Players then were tougher compared to players of now and its because of how they were raised and took care of themselves and how they worked out.

    To say the players of 60s would be bigger, faster and stronger today would be like saying we are going to eventually evolve into giants. The 60s had their big men too, they just weren't playing football.

    Just my logical two cents, of course, I could be wrong too.
     
  2. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Jim Brown was 6'2" 225 and ran a 4.40 40 yard dash. That is amazing for the 50's and 60's era.
     
  3. Hammer

    Hammer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's not an evolution issue, but a training issue. Brown could have packed 20 to 30 pounds on that frame easily. He's 6'2", how many backs these days are that tall, yet weigh 225?
    Hammer
     
  4. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I strongly disagree.
     
  5. Popcorn

    Popcorn Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Ratings:
    +0
    The 1975 Packers
     
  6. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm with you. I don't any fathers who are faster and stronger than they're sons. They're are some exceptions to the rule like Jim Brown but the people nowadays are bigger and faster.
     
  7. NDPackerFan

    NDPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,253
    Ratings:
    +4
    No doubt that the '96 Packers were the best of all-time. The 60's were awesome, but I can't imagine those O-Lineman being able to handle the likes of Reggie White and company.
     
  8. 4packgirl

    4packgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,415
    Ratings:
    +0
    to try & pick a player out of today's world & plunk him into the 60's is really kinda silly. in fact, the whole premise of this thread doesn't make a whole lot of sense. you cannot truly compare the two era's because the NFL is a completely different "animal" now than it was in the 60's.

    i guess it makes for interesting chit chat though.
     
  9. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    I did find this program on the internet that allowed you to plug in the teams you wanted to see play, the whether and we're it would be played and the program would tell you the outcome of the game. Stat Card and everything.

    It really has no creditability but I'll try to dig it up just for kicks.
     
  10. 4packgirl

    4packgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,415
    Ratings:
    +0
    cool, porky! like you said, no credibility but cool nonetheless!! :)
     
  11. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    http://www.whatifsports.com/nfl/

    That's it right there. Again it's just a program so it's really no different than just taking a video game and using the historic rosters and simming it that way.
     
  12. ohiopacker

    ohiopacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Ratings:
    +0
    One thing everyone is forgettin is the head coaching match-up - Lombardi vs Holmgren. The 60's team would be down 14 at half , and Vince would've kicked some butts in the locker room and the 60's team would come back and win on a drop kick by Jerry Kramer .
     
  13. PackerTraxx

    PackerTraxx Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +0
    I believe when you when you compare the greatest teams you have to consider the era in which they played, with that in mind my vote goes to the Lombardi teams because of their consistent and prolonged greatness. The specific team would be the '62 team. Look at the number of HOFers from that team and there's one missing, Jerry Kramer, which is ludicrist since he was voted to the All 50th Anniversay Team. How can you be considered one of the two best players at your position the first 50 years of football and not be in the HO Shame on them.

    If you want to ask which team would beat which team, any teams that are separated by a couple of decades or more, the latest team wins. That's pretty obvious when the later players are 20-60 lbs more, depending on position, and they're faster; they are more specialized, and the game plans are more complex.

    JMT
     
  14. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    946
    Ratings:
    +62
    You are utterly, absolutely and remarkably full of crap.

    The NFL game is a game of comparables. They only true measure of great teams is how they dominated comparable competition. It's like saying you are smarter now because you have the Internet. But were people before you dumb because they didn't have the internet? No, they were comparable. But a wide variety of 'sports authorities'(including players, media, execs) think the 1962 Championship team was the greatest assembled talent the Packers have ever had. The Packers dominated that year...and won 13 games....just like the 96 club.

    That isn't my assessment but the assessment of dozens of people.
     
  15. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    946
    Ratings:
    +62
    The Packers defense then would have shut the '96 team out. Absolutely no doubt about that in my mind. That defense had at five NFL Hall of Famers on it. Brett Favre would have been picked off. This defense defeated better receivers than Freeman and Brooks. Dorsey Levens? How about Gayle Sayers? Jim Brown? Packers beat them, no problem.

    The offense would have scored a couple times, though Reggie White would have beaten Bob Skoronski. Sean Jones would have been beaten by Forrest Gregg. Jim Taylor would have gained 125 yards, Starr would have been about 10 for 15, two t.d.'s. Hornung would have run for another.

    Jerry Kramer in a championship game made hash out of a guy from Oakland who was nearly 7' tall and 300 pounds. Think Gilbert would have been a problem?

    I've had the advantage of seeing two eras of champions. It's still 60's Packers by a mile.
     
  16. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    There were more teams to beat in the 90's than the 60's.

    90s team > 60s team

    thats just how it is



    and yes I am more smartest because i has the interweb.
     
  17. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    its not the interweb

    its the intranet
     
  18. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    The two teams played in different generations. They're is no right answer. Anyone who thinks they no the answer is showing 100% pure fresh squeezed ignorance.

    In terms of who dominated they're era's more the 60's Packers did. No doubt about that. I don’t think anyone can argue that. The 96 team was as it is. The 60’s team is a dynasty.

    In terms of physical gifts. The 96 Packers win. They ran faster 40's. They were stronger. They were bigger. That's how the game has evolved. /that's why when you hear about players like Jim Brown who were ahead of they're time with a 4.45 40. Back then that was very fast. Rare to see someone probably under a 4.60. Now it's average speed among running backs. Probably won't get you top 25 now a days.

    The 60's Packers wouldn't be able to keep up speed wise to the 96 team. I'm going to have to look this up but I'm willing to be the slowest 96 Packer WR was still at least .5 faster than the fastest 60's Packer DB. Strength wise, I don't think the 96 offensive line would have any problems with the 60's D-line. They're bigger and stronger and probably had better quickness as well.

    Only thing 60’s Packers would have on the 96 team in my opinion is coaching and that goes along ways if the game is close.

    The Game has evolved. Accept it and don't dwell in the past.
     
  19. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    There were more teams to beat in the 90's than the 60's.

    90s team > 60s team

    thats just how it is



    and yes I am more smartest because i has the interweb.



    larger text with hopes the irony sinks in
     
  20. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've got to go with the 60's teams.

    They may have been smaller in stature but I believe they were tougher both mentally and physically.

    The 60's players weren't playing strictly for the money like the crybaby millionaires of today. They played for the love of the game and were very loyal to their team. Virtually all of them had to have offseason jobs to survive.

    There were fewer teams in the 60's so the competition wasn't as watered down as it is today. Playing against better competition every week they still were able to win more championships than the modern day Packers can even dream about.

    Give me a 60's Packer team over these modern day "players" any day.
     
  21. CalifPacker

    CalifPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    757
    Ratings:
    +1
    Put me down for the 60's Packers teams as well.

    Great coaching and tough hard nose players. That is what I remember.
     
  22. cmarti02

    cmarti02 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    What does having more teams in the league have to do with it? More teams means more watered down talent. How do you think someone like BJ Sander can stay in the league?

    The '96 Packers were the last GREAT. team in the NFL. Great teams will never be seen again, due to free agency.

    But, how can you not pick the '62 Packers. 10 Hall of Famers, not including Jerry Kramer, and the greatest football coach EVER.

    Once the '96 Packers have 5 HOF's, they can start staking a claim.

    I think we're done here.
     
  23. NiVeK

    NiVeK Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    492
    Ratings:
    +0
    I was only 10 when we won SB XXXI but I still gotta go with them. They were unbelievable. The only thing I know about the 60's teams is what I see on ESPN Classic.
    [​IMG]

    AND OF COURSE......
    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  24. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    OK guys the answer is obvious. net will never give a Brett Favre led team it's due so just ignore his post.


    The more dominating team was the team of the 60's. They had more titles more HOF's etc. Zero is right though. It is a helluva alot easier to win a title when less teams are involved. If this concept escapes you then the help you need is beyond my ability to provide.

    However if you lined the teams up against each other there would be no competition. The '96 team would have dominated. The size, speed and sophistication of the NFL is far and away greater now. The 60's teams would be overwhelmed. Now if you don't believe me just ask Jerry Kramer. In his book titled "Distant Replay" he said that when he came back for a "homecoming game" the size of the players scared him. He said that there is no way he could 've played in the NFL today at the size that he was. I am paraphrasing because I refuse to look it up for you trolls. That book was probably written 15-20 years ago.


    To sum it up the Packers of the 60's were more dominating in their era but the 96 Packers would have have kicked their arse, in my opinion. And as everybody knows my opinion is the only one that matters on this board.
     
  25. 4packgirl

    4packgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,415
    Ratings:
    +0
    the question we have before us is which team is the greatest?? i think we've all got our own ideas of what "greatest" means & thusly have varying opinions as to which era deserves this "greatest" distinction. by MY definition of greatness, i still believe the 60's teams far surpass the 96 team. i bet if you asked the guys of the 96 team if they'd like to play under the conditions, pay, & in the pads of the guys of the 60's they'd say "hell no"!! now turn that around & i'm guessing old nitschke would take a stab at playing in the 90's.

    the cool part of all this is that we all love a team that has enough SB wins to "argue" about which team is the greatest...LOTS of teams are not quite as fortunate. (bears, viqueens, lions, etc...) :)
     

Share This Page