Greatest Packer team of all time

showgirl

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
54
Reaction score
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?
 

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
2005 Packers!

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

jdlax

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Location
Burnaby, B.C.
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.
 

porky88

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

dhpackr

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
0
Location
SE Wisconsin
porky88 said:
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.

I don't know about all that. Willie Davis, Nitchke, Aderly, would give brett a solid challenge.
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
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.

I don't know about all that. Willie Davis, Nitchke, Aderly, would give brett a solid challenge.

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.
 

4packgirl

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
2,413
Reaction score
0
Location
illinois
i'd give it to the old guys...underpaid (to say the least), underappreciated, party maniacs, & some of the toughest players EVER!!
 

PackerChick

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
3,143
Reaction score
1
Location
Ashland, WI
showgirl said:
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?

I agree with you very much
 

Hammer

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
651
Reaction score
0
Location
Durham, NC
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
 

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
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.
 

packedhouse01

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
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.
 

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
longtimefan said:
http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/1929-gb

12 games and the most any team scored was 6 points..7 times they posted a shut out...

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/teams ... es/packers

Hard for me to say, we go by history that WE have witnessed so naturally most of us would pick 96...

I would probably take the 96 team as well..

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??
 

Hammer

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
651
Reaction score
0
Location
Durham, NC
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
 

porky88

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

IndiPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
76
Reaction score
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.
 

dhpackr

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
0
Location
SE Wisconsin
porky88 said:
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
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.

I don't know about all that. Willie Davis, Nitchke, Aderly, would give brett a solid challenge.

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.


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)!!!
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
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.

I don't know about all that. Willie Davis, Nitchke, Aderly, would give brett a solid challenge.

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.


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)!!!

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.
 

dhpackr

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
0
Location
SE Wisconsin
porky88 said:
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
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.

I don't know about all that. Willie Davis, Nitchke, Aderly, would give brett a solid challenge.

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.


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)!!!

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.

what was the avg size of the denver broncos o-line that defeated the packers in SB XXXII
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
dhpackr said:
porky88 said:
dhpackr said:
[quote="porky88":2vfgka0q]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.

I don't know about all that. Willie Davis, Nitchke, Aderly, would give brett a solid challenge.

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.


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)!!!

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.

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.
 

Philtration

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
It does not matter because the 85 Bears would have stomped on any one of them.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Hammer

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
651
Reaction score
0
Location
Durham, NC
Zero2Cool said:
Hammer said:
Can you imagine Jim Brown at 255?
Hammer

Jim Brown @ 255 vs 60s or 90s?
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
 

Hammer

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
651
Reaction score
0
Location
Durham, NC
Zero2Cool said:
Hammer said:
Can you imagine Jim Brown at 255?
Hammer

Jim Brown @ 255 vs 60s or 90s?
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
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top