1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Most talented Packers team you have ever seen?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Aug 4, 2011.

  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    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?
     
  2. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    I think it's by far the deepest team I've ever seen. But that 96' team was incredibly talented.
     
  3. Pack88

    Pack88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    90
    Ratings:
    +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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    you saw the 62 team play? wow
     
  5. Murgen

    Murgen MechaPackzilla

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,288
    Ratings:
    +585
    I think the 96 team. Although if we can stay healthy, maybe the 2011 will be.
     
  6. GBPack2010

    GBPack2010 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Ratings:
    +67
    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.
     
  7. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,838
    Ratings:
    +1,631
    The '96 team was also my first thought. I liked the '82 offense too (think it was then with Lofton, Coffman, Dickey)
     
  8. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,595
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    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.
     
  9. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,975
    Ratings:
    +2,226
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,112
    Ratings:
    +1,442
    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. :)
     
  11. Helmets

    Helmets Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +222
    1961 and the early to mid 60's. A few more Hall of Famers than four...
     
  12. Croak

    Croak Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,492
    Ratings:
    +1,974
    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).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,609
    Ratings:
    +339

    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.
     
  14. Croak

    Croak Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,492
    Ratings:
    +1,974
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    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
     
  16. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    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? ;)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Pack88

    Pack88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    90
    Ratings:
    +6

    Even in NJ the 62 packers were often on television!
     
  18. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,609
    Ratings:
    +339

    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.
     
  19. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,609
    Ratings:
    +339
    I mean....just as an example....even with todays team....at 250 Forrest Gregg would never be able to block BJ Raji.
     
  20. greenandgold

    greenandgold I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,776
    Ratings:
    +473
    Loaded question. I reveal my age if I have to say it's one of the Lombardi teams.
     
  21. greenandgold

    greenandgold I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,776
    Ratings:
    +473
    When Forrest Greg was playing there weren't any 350+ DL's.
     
  22. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,609
    Ratings:
    +339

    My point exactly.....Its hard to compare because....from a strictly athletic stand point.....today's teams are much more talented.
     
  23. Croak

    Croak Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,492
    Ratings:
    +1,974
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    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.
     
  25. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    I'd take Hutson today over Jennings or Driver. Dude was fast. like lightning
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page