Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Last 2 Packer SB teams vs each other
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PackersRS" data-source="post: 369189" data-attributes="member: 1429"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>And regarding the 96' receivers, you are overrating them, quite frankly. Rison and Beebe wouldn't see the field in the 2010 team.</p><p>Jennins > Brooks > Nelson > Jones > Freeman > Driver > Rison > Beebe</p><p></p><p>If we're talking about healthy players, then Driver probably overlaps Nelson.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>Williams > Woodson > Butler > Collins > Shields > Newsome > Robinson > Evans > Peprah.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So, in conclusion, if this hypotetical game was played in 96', chances are that team would win.</p><p></p><p>But if it was played nowadays, the 2010 team would have the matchup advantage.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PackersRS, post: 369189, member: 1429"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Schultz
Emur
Guacamole
gopkrs
tynimiller
Latest posts
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: Guacamole
3 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: tynimiller
14 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Not too soon 2024 roster prediction
Latest: DoURant
22 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: DoURant
Today at 5:26 PM
Draft Talk
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Last 2 Packer SB teams vs each other
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top