Last 2 Packer SB teams vs each other

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
Green Bay Packers news | How do Green Bay Packers' last two Super Bowl teams match up? | Green Bay Press Gazette


So which Green Bay Packers Super Bowl championship team is better, Mike Holmgren’s heroes of 1996 or Mike McCarthy’s marauders of 2010?

The easy answer, based solely on statistics, would favor the 1996 team that ranked No. 1 on offense and defense in the NFL and produced a flashy 16-3 record.

But the current Packers championship team (14-6) can’t be dismissed so easily. It produced more total yards and sacks than the 1996 team and committed fewer penalties and turnovers. Plus it traveled a much more difficult playoff road and still came away with the Lombardi Trophy.

Both teams possessed remarkable similarities:

• They featured fifth-year head coaches with similar credentials. Holmgren (51-29) was slightly better than McCarthy (48-32) during the regular season, but McCarthy held an edge in post-season winning percentage (.714 to .700).

• They both had 58-year-old general managers — Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson — that served as the architects of their title teams. Wolf built the Packers from the ground up in the 1990s, and one of his key hires was Thompson, who 14 years later would follow in his mentor’s footsteps on the way to Super Bowl glory.

• They both featured elite quarterbacks – Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers – who led their teams to titles in their sixth NFL seasons at age 27. Both Favre and Rodgers were acquired by the Packers with first-round draft choices.

• They both signed big-name free agents – Reggie White and Charles Woodson – that served as dynamic playmakers on defense.

• They both overcame significant injuries. The ’96 team lost Robert Brooks, Ken Ruettgers and George Koonce. The 2010 team suffered even more damage with the loss of starters Jermichael Finley, Nick Barnett, Ryan Grant, Mark Tauscher, Morgan Burnett and Brad Jones.

So which team would win a head-to-head matchup?

Who better to answer that question than Edgar Bennett, the Packers’ starting halfback in 1996 who served as the 2010 running backs coach.

“It doesn’t matter,” Bennett said with a smile. “It’s about bringing that trophy home and putting another ring on your finger.”

It’s hard to blame Bennett for not addressing the question. My position-by-position analysis didn’t produce a more conclusive answer, with both teams deadlocked in a 4-4-1 stalemate (* indicates which team gets the edge):
Quarterbacks

* 1996: Brett Favre.

* 2010: Aaron Rodgers.

Analysis: This is a dead heat with Favre winning NFL regular-season MVP honors and Rodgers earning Super Bowl MVP accolades. Rodgers had a better passer rating (101.2 to 95.8) and completion percentage (65.7 to 59.9) but Favre threw more touchdown passes (39 to 28). Surprisingly, their interception percentage was almost identical (2.4% for Favre, 2.3% for Rodgers).








Reach Vandermause at [email protected] or at www.twitter.com/MikeVandermause.
Check the rest..
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
its sooo tough to compare. But ill go 2010 for 2 reasons, first I believe Rodgers is the better QB. Secondly I believe this is a passing league and the 2010 passing D was amazing where as 96 was decent. The one thing in favor of 96 that no one can argue is the special teams.
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
2,737
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
I would go with the 96 team being more of a juggernaut. With the injuries this year, I felt at times the team was held together with duct tape and baling wire. I never really felt like they were going to win when they walked on the field mainly because someone new was playing. At the time the 96ers just seemed destined to win every game with the SB victory being icing on the cake.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
The 96' team was much better in the regular season. It was the most dominant regular season Packers team I've seen.

The 10' team was much better in the postseason. It was the most dominant postseason Packer team I've seen.

And it affects in specific areas.

Favre was a much better regular season QB in 96' than Rodgers was in 10', no comparison. But Rodgers was much better in the postseason than Favre was. In fact, Rodgers had arguably the greatest postseason a QB has ever had.

Same for the coaches. Holmgren wins in a landslide comparing the regular season. But IMHO MM was phenomenal in the postseason, maybe better than Holmgren was.

BTW, Vandermause forgot to compare coaching staff. IMHO Holmgren was a better coach than McCarthy is, but, no offense to Fritz Shurmur, Dom Capers is in another level. Lewis and Philbin are more behind the curtains guys, with both MM and Holmgren taking active roles in offensive playcalling. I don't need to mention ST, right? We had a coach in 96, we didn't in 10. (Here's hoping Slocum has the performance of his life in 11')
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
I never thought anyone would even debate a team that had Matt Flynn to a team that didnt.

Case closed.
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
I have to go with the '96 team. With that team, whenever the defense stepped on the field, I KNEW that they would shut down the other team when needed. During the last season, I held my breath before each game-saving INT that the defense delivered.

In short, both teams got the job done, but one was a near-given and the other an awesome surprise.
 
OP
OP
longtimefan

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
its sooo tough to compare. But ill go 2010 for 2 reasons, first I believe Rodgers is the better QB. Secondly I believe this is a passing league and the 2010 passing D was amazing where as 96 was decent. The one thing in favor of 96 that no one can argue is the special teams.


I think 96 D line was better then last years
 

Powarun

Big Bay Blues fan
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,047
Reaction score
355
Location
Madison
Well I could see Favre getting intercepted a little more and Rodger's getting sacked a little more. White may of had a field day, though I don't think CM3 wouldn't do half bad.

Either way Packers win.
 

Kitten

Feline Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Philly/ South Jersey area
Well I could see Favre getting intercepted a little more and Rodger's getting sacked a little more. White may of had a field day, though I don't think CM3 wouldn't do half bad.

Either way Packers win.

Oh this is hard! You can break it down on so many different levels for comparison. You can compare the teams as a whole, individual players/ positions, offense and defense, special teams, coaching staff....

I'm going to go with 1996. I tried and I tried and I simply cannot go against Reggie's team. Even thinking about that win still gets me choked up even to this day. Even after 2010.

Now, Powerrun you got me thinking. Can you imagine a hybrid of the two? Rodgers as QB, both CM3 and White...... Oh my holy footballs!
 

Helmets

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
616
Reaction score
161
Location
Milford, MI
They would line up Reggie to face Buluga. The Iowan rookie would be schooled and clubbed all game. Should probably compare the backup QBs as Flynn would have to finish the game...
 

Powarun

Big Bay Blues fan
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,047
Reaction score
355
Location
Madison
Ivo you just opened up a new can of worms, McMahon would love to beat the Pack, shoot there goes me cheering for the 96 group, their offense is lead by the two QB's who have betrayed the Packers in my lifetime.

Go Flynn/Rodgers combo, though if goes down we can switch to wild cat, which was nonexistant back then.
 

GBPack2010

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
483
Reaction score
67
Location
CA
Tough to go against a Hall of Fame DE. As good as our team was last year, I'd have to go with '96 team. Now had those 15 injuries not occurred, maybe I'd rethink it. Equally tough to defend a team with Jennings, Finley, Nelson, Driver and secondary featuring Woodson, Williams, Collins, and Shields.
 

GaryGnu

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
20
Reaction score
5
Has anyone set this up in Madden? I know one used to be able to unlock super bowl winning teams, though I don't know if that can still be done. And I don't own any newer game than 2008. I would be curious how a computer simulation would handle the head to head match-up.
 

lambeaulambo

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
2,550
Reaction score
700
Location
Rest Home
well. now this is a good subject...

people forget that BOTH secondaries were excellent. that is a push. Woodson, Williams, Collins, and Peprah up against Evans, Newsome, Butler, and Robinson. Both of these units were great and I believe have at the least 2 HOFers in those 8.

Defensive line - hands down 96 no question, with arguably the greatest defensive lineman in football history, and a young gilbert brown, santana dotson, and dont forget Sean Jones. Their backups wouldve started on most other teams then.

Linebackers - I'll give the edge to 2010 due to their duct tape job, but overall its really close. Not going to disrespect Wayne Simmons, Ron Cox, Brian Williams, et al. they were great. Simmons was an animal, like Matthews, just a little bigger.

Oline - this ones easy:

pass blocking - '10 but close

run blocking - '96 (not even close) remember dorsey levens running through HUGE holes, and it almost looked like they were running downhill at all times.

running backs - '96 had more consistancy so they get the nod. The best mudder in nfl recent history has to be Edgar Bennett in the modern era.

receivers - this is a push. Jennings, DD, Nelson, Jones up against Brooks, Beebe, Rison, Freeman. too close to call.

quarterback - this is not even close. Rodgers is twice the championship qb that Favre ever was. Holmgren was in Favre's ear constantly, while Rodgers had more freedom and just flat out is a better decision maker. When Favre made the decisions and had more freedom, the result was just not the same. Favre was an incredible improvisor, but Aaron just has more poise.

Special Teams - Jacke was wayyyy better than Crosby.
the punters, I got to give it to hentrich, but its close. Return teams all 96, it was the dagger in the sb win. Desmond Howard truly sparkled.

Overall if these two teams played, I truly believe 96 would win due to their run game, and keeping rodgers off the field. It is really close though. I'd say something like 31-28, because Jacke nails the 50 yarder in crunch time, while Crosby chokes. And Reggie White would demoralize '10's OL.

Great idea for a post.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
Woodson > Butler > Williams > Collins > Evans > Newsome > Robinson > Peprah

I'd give the secondary nod to the 2010 team.


But overall, 96 was a dominant team whereas the 10 team just squeaked into the playoffs. I would say if the 11 team can dominate throughout the season like I think they can and win another one, they will become the better team.
 

VersusTheMoose

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
160
Heart vs. talent. In the end I think the 2010 Packers would win just because I believe Rodgers is a much more steady QB.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I think 1996 would win pretty comfortably. Can you imagine Desmond Howard and the 96 Special Team against those of 2010? It would be a 10 Point advantage just in ST. The 1996 Team not only was maybe the best Packers team ever but statistically has a strong argument as the Greatest Team in NFL History.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I think 1996 would win pretty comfortably. Can you imagine Desmond Howard and the 96 Special Team against those of 2010? It would be a 10 Point advantage just in ST. The 1996 Team not only was maybe the best Packers team ever but statistically has a strong argument as the Greatest Team in NFL History.

I'm not so sure it would be that much of a blowout.

Remember, back then rarely teams were spreaded. I'm not so sure if our 96 D would do great if we spreaded them.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
That is true but that Defense was pretty exceptional and GB was successful vs the 49ers who while not a spread Offense were sending out 3-5 eligible players on each pass play. 1996 allowed fewer TDs than the 85 Bears did during the regular season, which is really a remarkable feat. I think that the D Line Combo of White, Jones, and Dotson would give the 2010 O Line huge problems, especially considering that 96's D Line was better than Detroit's D Line in 2010.

The scary thing about 1996 is that their Offense never played at full strength (Brooks and Rison never got to play together). In theory, their Top 4 receivers would be Brooks, Freeman, Rison, Beebe which is a stronger core probably than even 2010 and that is not factoring in 2 Pro Bowl Caliber TE's in Jackson and Chmura.

2010 would need Matthews and Jenkins to really play fantastic since even 2010's awesome secondary would struggle vs those 6.

In Epstein's Book of Dominance, 96 GB grades out as the strongest Super Bowl Champion in NFL history.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
That is true but that Defense was pretty exceptional and GB was successful vs the 49ers who while not a spread Offense were sending out 3-5 eligible players on each pass play. 1996 allowed fewer TDs than the 85 Bears did during the regular season, which is really a remarkable feat. I think that the D Line Combo of White, Jones, and Dotson would give the 2010 O Line huge problems, especially considering that 96's D Line was better than Detroit's D Line in 2010.

The scary thing about 1996 is that their Offense never played at full strength (Brooks and Rison never got to play together). In theory, their Top 4 receivers would be Brooks, Freeman, Rison, Beebe which is a stronger core probably than even 2010 and that is not factoring in 2 Pro Bowl Caliber TE's in Jackson and Chmura.

2010 would need Matthews and Jenkins to really play fantastic since even 2010's awesome secondary would struggle vs those 6.

In Epstein's Book of Dominance, 96 GB grades out as the strongest Super Bowl Champion in NFL history.
Yes, those Packers were statistic juggernauts, but saying that the 96 DL would dominate the 10' OL is meaningless if the secondary wouldn't be able to cover Jordy Nelson and James Jones, who would be a considerable mismatch with Tyronne Williams and Mike Prior. We saw that in the SB.

It's just different eras. They didn't have to play any spread offenses (SF's offense was very good, but we're still talking about a LB covering a TE or a RB, not having to sub 2 extra dbs to take care of the extra receivers.)

And regarding the 96' receivers, you are overrating them, quite frankly. Rison and Beebe wouldn't see the field in the 2010 team.
Jennins > Brooks > Nelson > Jones > Freeman > Driver > Rison > Beebe

If we're talking about healthy players, then Driver probably overlaps Nelson.

And if we're including TEs, Finley is a much bigger weapon than Chmura or Jackson ever was. They were more productive for a much longer period of time, but we're talking about everyone healthy in here, right?

And the Packers 2010 secondary is much, much, much better than the 96'. Woodson and Williams are in a completely different level than Newsome and Doug Evans. The safeties are better, specially Robinson to Peprah, though.
Williams > Woodson > Butler > Collins > Shields > Newsome > Robinson > Evans > Peprah.

All in all, the 96' team was slightly better than the 2010, but football is still about mismatches. The 2010' Defense has proven that it can take any kind of offense and shut it down, while the 96' Defense didn't face any spread team, while lacking the CB depth to do so, while the 2010 Offense thrived in it.

Regarding Special Teams, Every single team we faced in the playoffs had a huge ST advantage, specially the Bears. It didn't affect the game that much.

So, in conclusion, if this hypotetical game was played in 96', chances are that team would win.

But if it was played nowadays, the 2010 team would have the matchup advantage.
 

buckshotrob

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
62
Reaction score
8
Location
Columbus, Ohio
yea thats cause now days the 96 team is old back then the 10 team were children lol in all seriousness id say the 10 team wins i like the 96 d you cant stop reggie but the way our d plays this year is unstoppalbe everyone works together and farve is famous for chokin in important games with rodgers you never see that so i say the 10 team has the upperhand
 

Latest posts

Top