Greatest Packer team of all time

net

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
980
Reaction score
22
Location
Rhinelander
cmarti02 said:
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.

1)That team will have two HOF's....Reggie White and Brett Favre. That's it.
2)Apparently you have forgotten the New England Pats who won three Super Bowls. The 96 team was a very good team, but to rank it that high smacks of hallucinations.
3)Your assessment of the '62 Packers is spot on, not only by me and you, but many others.
 

net

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
980
Reaction score
22
Location
Rhinelander
DePack said:
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 ****, in my opinion. And as everybody knows my opinion is the only one that matters on this board.

So do we ignore your posts because you diss Vince Lombardi and Bart Starr? We've had this discussion ad nauseum. I had the audacity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Brett Favre has peaked and his attitude has changed, not for the better. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I think I'm closer to the truth than you are. Also, I make my judgements of great players by how many championships they win, not how many T.D.s they throw. John Brodie threw touchdowns like rocks on a lakeshore, but he's not considered the greatest of the era...why?...he never won a championship. Favre won one...lost one. Starr...won five...lost one(1960)

I truly resent your definitive statements that you know my position and to dismiss my argument simply because you and a some of your buds here happen to agree with you. You are beginning to make a mockery out of your increasingly inane argument.

You are absolutely wrong about the 96 team. It was a good team, but proved it's lack of distinction when it layed a huge fart against Denver the next year. To compare that team to the team of the 60's with a straight face reveals your true lack of knowledge.
 

net

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
980
Reaction score
22
Location
Rhinelander
NDPackerFan said:
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.

Just because they are bigger and fatter doesn't mean they are better.
Dave Robinson was 6'3 and 245....bigger than today's linebackers by and large.

When you make the above argument you are dissing Vince Lombardi friend.
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
cmarti02 said:
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.

2 Different era's of football. The numbers some of the older players put up would not get you into the HOF today.

Once again it's a "what if" case. They're is no right or wrong answer. Just people in they're 20's and 30's going for one and people's in they're 50's and older going for the other. I think that has to do with it a lot.
 

jdlax

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Location
Burnaby, B.C.
I'm with the "bigger, faster, better" athlete of today, as well as the newer strategies, ect. I'm thinking the '96 defence just may have had a teensy weensy chance of nullifying the power sweep.
 

CalifPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
757
Reaction score
1
Location
California Gold
4packgirl said:
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...) :)

Very well put. Nice post, 4Packgirl.
 

NDPackerFan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
2
Location
North Dakota
net said:
NDPackerFan said:
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.

Just because they are bigger and fatter doesn't mean they are better.
Dave Robinson was 6'3 and 245....bigger than today's linebackers by and large.

When you make the above argument you are dissing Vince Lombardi friend.

How was my comment a diss toward the great Vince Lombardi? I don't get it. I'm saying that the more athletic team will probably win out and that is definitely the '96 Packers over any team the Packers have had IN MY OPINION WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO ANYONE WHO MAY DISAGREE INCLUDING THE GREAT VINCENT T. LOMBARDI.
 

DePack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
1
Location
Newark, Delaware
net said:
DePack said:
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 ****, in my opinion. And as everybody knows my opinion is the only one that matters on this board.

So do we ignore your posts because you diss Vince Lombardi and Bart Starr? We've had this discussion ad nauseum. I had the audacity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Brett Favre has peaked and his attitude has changed, not for the better. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I think I'm closer to the truth than you are. Also, I make my judgements of great players by how many championships they win, not how many T.D.s they throw. John Brodie threw touchdowns like rocks on a lakeshore, but he's not considered the greatest of the era...why?...he never won a championship. Favre won one...lost one. Starr...won five...lost one(1960)

I truly resent your definitive statements that you know my position and to dismiss my argument simply because you and a some of your buds here happen to agree with you. You are beginning to make a mockery out of your increasingly inane argument.

You are absolutely wrong about the 96 team. It was a good team, but proved it's lack of distinction when it layed a huge fart against Denver the next year. To compare that team to the team of the 60's with a straight face reveals your true lack of knowledge.

Obviously you didn't read my post or choose not to comment on that. I never dissed Lombardi or Starr. They are two of the greatest. I said they were the more dominant team. I'm about your age, but I don't feel it necessary to sit back in my rocker and spin about how everything was better back in my day. The NFL player is much more refined, talented, bigger and faster. That's just the way it is. Deal with your immortality.

You only judge QB's by championships won. So you do think that Dilfer was a better QB than Marino? Why not address that part of my post? So you would take back your atatement earlier that Payton Manning is better than Favre? How so? By titles won? How about the part about what one of yours and mine heroes, Jerry Kramer said. Address Jerry Kramers statement.

Face it teams 30 years ago couldn't compete now and the Packers of '96 wouldn't be able to compete in the NFL of 2026. Sorry! Which is why your can't say who was better. Just who was more dominant in there era. And I don't think any team will ever be as dominant as the Lombardi Packers.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top