Most talented Packers team you have ever seen?

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
As an ode to a previous player, is this the most talented Packers team you have ever seen?

If yes, why?

If no, who then?
 

Pack88

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
6
This may be the most talented team of recent vintage but I will defer that until after we have seen the team on the field a few times. I still believe that the 62 or 66 teams were the most talented group I can recall. Game was different then. Have to admit I would live to see a 26 y\o Herb Adderly and Willie Wood play today!
Pack88
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
This may be the most talented team of recent vintage but I will defer that until after we have seen the team on the field a few times. I still believe that the 62 or 66 teams were the most talented group I can recall. Game was different then. Have to admit I would live to see a 26 y\o Herb Adderly and Willie Wood play today!
Pack88

you saw the 62 team play? wow
 

Murgen

MechaPackzilla
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
565
Location
Dallas
I think the 96 team. Although if we can stay healthy, maybe the 2011 will be.
 

GBPack2010

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
483
Reaction score
67
Location
CA
On paper it can be argued, but they still need to perform. The '96 team won their games by like 20 pts. Until this team can crush their opponents at will as well, injuries or not it's really hard to make a valid argument. But there's def. potential.
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
Nope, I would say the 66 team was more talented....




And I did see them play on TV......Live......In Black in White and then Color.....Back when we only had 4 options for TV channels in the Green Bay area, WLUK,(ABC) was 11, WBAY (CBS) was 2 and WFRV (NBC) was channel 5. I think it was channel 21 that was the PBS channel back the.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,270
Reaction score
2,387
Location
PENDING
Probably those teams of the 60s. But our current roster has a chance. The 96 team was not as talented as this one. How many HOF players where on that one? 2? There were some weak areas on that roster to be sure. This current team, I believe, will have more HOFers, 4 maybe.
 

Kitten

Feline Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Philly/ South Jersey area
It's a blessing to be sitting here picking through a list of incredibly talented teams! That always feels good. For me it vacillates between the '96 team and '10. To compare and contrast them on so many levels is just mind boggling. I think it fair to assume they are both special and just not choose between the two. It's like trying to pick through two flawless gems. I'm going to play neutral and say both of them. :)
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
65 - 67 Team. Wow! The men and the coach who made up that team were legendary. This team is really good, the 96 team was really good. But Lombardi, Starr, Jim Taylor, Kramer, Thurston, Wood, Adderly, Hornung, "Zasu" Pitts, Dowler, McGee, Nitzsche, Robinson, Dale, Lionel Aldridge, Caffey...etc. Those men were amazing in my eyes. They were mud and blood and guts; men's men. They were both feared and respected by their opponents. They also did a lot to break down racial barriers in the NFL, which was a good thing, too (Lombardi leading the way).
 

AllouezPackerFan

Section 121 Row 47
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
1,597
Reaction score
164
Location
Green Bay, WI
I think it's by far the deepest team I've ever seen. But that 96' team was incredibly talented.


I'm going to have to second this. As good as we were on offense that season....we were DOMINANT on defense. We seriously had the best players at every position on defense. Amazing.
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
A lot of you are too young to remember the teams of the 60's so I suppose the 96 team would look pretty darn good. But for those of us who saw the team in the 60's, we saw a team that was dominant for a decade and won the championship 3 years in a row. I don't think any other team has ever done that in the NFL has it?
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
I think this team is more talented than the 96 team. QB is better. TEs are as good if not better. Defense is close. and the depth isnt even debatable
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I think this team is more talented than the 96 team. QB is better. TEs are as good if not better. Defense is close. and the depth isnt even debatable

That team's running game was better, no questions. This year, with Grant and Starks, it might get near to Bennett and Levens, but, so far, not even close. And every position on defense had a very good starter, at least.

But you're right, the depth isn't even debatable.

And for the old guys, shame on you. Stop rubbing it on us, you lucky bastards. Yeah yeah, you were alive to see the best team ever in pro football in the 60's Packers, an amazing, dominant team in the 96' Packers and last years' MASH bunch with a great future. We know you are the luckiest football fans ever, OK? ;)
 

AllouezPackerFan

Section 121 Row 47
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
1,597
Reaction score
164
Location
Green Bay, WI
Probably those teams of the 60s. But our current roster has a chance. The 96 team was not as talented as this one. How many HOF players where on that one? 2? There were some weak areas on that roster to be sure. This current team, I believe, will have more HOFers, 4 maybe.


If the 96 team and the 66 team played each other? Who would win? I don't think the 66 team could compete even most average teams in the NFL today. This is the classical historical argument. The game changes. And I suppose the gap between the two teams isn't football talent and ability but athletic talent. The 96 team was certainly, bigger, taller, stronger, and faster.

As far as hall of famers.....there are way more players in the league today and talent is certainly more diluted accross the league. The teams from the 60s were certainly more dominant and reflected a much bigger gap in their own talent and the talent level between their team and other teams. If the 96 team played the 66 team.....the 96 Packers would win easily.
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
My point exactly.....Its hard to compare because....from a strictly athletic stand point.....today's teams are much more talented.[/QUOTE

That might be, but size doesn't always equate with talent. There were other differences in the game back then that may demonstrate the players were even more remarkable. They had to work regular jobs during the off season. They didn't have trainers or fancy supplements like today. Or a long off season with special mini-camps to hone their skills. They used the skills they had. Perhaps one could even see them as more athletic because of the remarkable ability they had given what little they had to work with. Today's players have everything to make their job easier.

They had a lot more autonomy on the field than today's players as well. For instance; Starr called most of the game for the offense. I'm not sure who's responsibility it was on defense.

That being said; I'd still take Paul Hornung over any of 96's or 2010's Running backs. I'd guess Hornung and Taylor could run roughshod over a good portion of today's defenses as well. I'd take Bart Starr's smarts and adjustments on the field over #4's arm. The verdict is still out for me on Aaron if he'll be as smart on field as Starr. I'd take Nitzsche over Matthews as well. Though the two would make quite a pair. 66 was just plain mean on the field. Heck, I'd take him over most of today's linebackers.

Yes, it may be the classic different years argument. But, I don't think that detracts from the athleticism of those guys. I think it emphasizes it. With shorter time and less "aids" to help them prepare for a season, they were still hard hitting, ****** guzzling, barb wire eating sobs. More modern doesn't always equate to more athletic.

I see what you are saying, and you may be right. But I don't think it's a slam dunk. I'd still hate to have a 250 ball of mean coming down the field at me full steam. And Lombardi was an expert at making them mean.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
My point exactly.....Its hard to compare because....from a strictly athletic stand point.....today's teams are much more talented.

Not necessarily, because today's medicine and conditioning are much more advanced than back then.

Back then, no human being with 320lbs would be athletic enough to play football.
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
I'd take Hutson today over Jennings or Driver. Dude was fast. like lightning
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top