Most talented Packers team you have ever seen?

AllouezPackerFan

Section 121 Row 47
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
1,597
Reaction score
164
Location
Green Bay, WI
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.

I agree with everything thats being said. I'm just saying the games are sooo different. I'm merely saying that arguments can be made on both side and no one can be 100% correct on this subject. Fun debating it though! :happy0005:
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
1,576
Reaction score
377
Location
Charlotte
Yes, simply because we won the Super Bowl last year and now this year we will have a tight end who draws double coverage every play and possibly have an actual running game. That and the fact that I believe the 2011 Packers have more playmakers than the 1996 team.
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
game has also gotten soft compared to then. never heard of pass interference back in the day
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I agree with everything thats being said. I'm just saying the games are sooo different. I'm merely saying that arguments can be made on both side and no one can be 100% correct on this subject. Fun debating it though! :happy0005:
Oh absolutely. It's two completely different games nowadays and in the 60's.

I just hear so often that today is harder/better, which is not true. Like you said, it's impossible to measure.

You can say that nowadays QBs have better games than in those days, that is correct, because the QB position and the game have progressed. But you can't say today's QB are better because of it, just because the QB position and the game have progressed.
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
game has also gotten soft compared to then. never heard of pass interference back in the day

Oh yeah, and remember the old clothesline tackles? They happened all the time back then. It's terrible, but I loved seeing a guy ****** off his feet backward by some big defender's forearm.
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
Oh yeah, and remember the old clothesline tackles? They happened all the time back then. It's terrible, but I loved seeing a guy ****** off his feet backward by some big defender's forearm.

Those mel blount and jack tatum highlights are amazing.
 

Jebsta16

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
I think there are some aspects of the 96 team that make them better but overall I think this is the best team GB has ever seen. We have more depth in just about every position. I would give the 96 team the edge on the oline and dline but not much on the oline. The rest of the team though you have to give to the current regime. I think we are much deeper at WR, RB, DB and LB. I think the qb's are a flush. They are both great in their ways. You really can't say one is better than the other at this point because they are two different qb's. Favre was a pure play maker and Rodgers is more of a surgeon.

I think this year we are going to see one of the most dominant teams in recent memory. They have a chance to be even better than the 16-0 pats. The difference being we are in a much more competitive division so we don't have 6 easy wins. Division games in the North are brutal no matter how bad another one of the teams are.
 

Forget Favre

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
1,807
I dunno...
Trying to decide which team is the most talented would be like pouring the same root beer into two different glasses and asking which one tasted the best.
To me, any team that went to and won a championship game is the most talented.
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
Or we could all be prophetic and say this is the most talented team because they will win 4 Super Bowls in 5 years. :prayer:
 

GBPack2010

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
483
Reaction score
67
Location
CA
^hahahahaha that'd be awesome though. 3 in next 4 would be next to impossible given we have an all star roster to financially satisfy soon but you can always hope right? I'd honestly be happy with just 2 more championships anytime this decade of 2010s. Anymore and it's seems like wishful thinking.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
The 2011 team is probably more talented overall than 1996 (especially in regards to the backups) but many of the players on the 2011 team are still young and not near their career peak productivity. People also do tend to forget how talented the 1996 team was. Some statistical studies have 1996 GB as the Greatest/Most Dominant Super Bowl Champion in League History (Especially Epstein's book titled Dominance).
Here is how I would compare the talent for the starting units of the 1996 vs 2011 team


Offense
---------
QB-We'll call it a draw. In 1996 Favre was at the peak of his powers and had a 39/13 TD/Int ratio. He could have probably broken Marinos 48 TDs if they were not involved in so many blowouts. Roders just had an amazing Post Season and should be entering his prime.

RBs-Hard to debate since Starks and Green are unknowns. Bennett was average but reliable and Levens wasn't the stud he would become in the few yaears afterwards. My gut says edge 2011

WRs-Slight Advantage 1996. At full health a Freeman/Brooks/Rison/Beebe Combo is better than Jennings/Driver/Jones/Nelson. Cobb is likely better than the 1996 Counterpart but can't count him too much before he has ever played a snap.

TEs-Edge 1996. Jackson and Chmura were Both Pro Bowl Caliber Players. Finley is a stud but injury prone so far and the other TEs are complete unknowns.

O Line-Edge 2011. Hard to compare. The 1996 squad was competent and workman like but far less talented than the 2011 Line that could feature 1 All Pro (Sitton), 1 Pro Bowl Player (Clifton),and 2 1st Round picks (Sherrod and Bulaga)
-----------
Defense

D Line-Huge Edge 1996. White/Jones/Dotson/Brown is light years better than Raji/Neal/Picket

Linebacker-Edge 2011. The 1996 LBs were decent but underwhelming and had nobody who could dream of Matthew's impact. Bishop might be better than any of the 1996 LBs too but debatable.

Secondary-Draw. 1996 has the Advantage at Safety where 2011 has an Advantage at CB

---------------------
Special Teams-Huge Edge 1996. If Cobb and Crosby could do 1/2 of what Howard and Jacke did I'd be ecstatic
 

AllouezPackerFan

Section 121 Row 47
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
1,597
Reaction score
164
Location
Green Bay, WI
I think there are some aspects of the 96 team that make them better but overall I think this is the best team GB has ever seen. We have more depth in just about every position. I would give the 96 team the edge on the oline and dline but not much on the oline. The rest of the team though you have to give to the current regime. I think we are much deeper at WR, RB, DB and LB. I think the qb's are a flush. They are both great in their ways. You really can't say one is better than the other at this point because they are two different qb's. Favre was a pure play maker and Rodgers is more of a surgeon.

I think this year we are going to see one of the most dominant teams in recent memory. They have a chance to be even better than the 16-0 pats. The difference being we are in a much more competitive division so we don't have 6 easy wins. Division games in the North are brutal no matter how bad another one of the teams are.


Tough to argue WR depth....I might take Brooks, Freeman, Beebe, and Andre Rison. The Safeties on that team were better. Hard to argue any position except QB.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I really, really don't get why people think the 96' receiving corps was better. In name, sure, but only Brooks was in his prime, and he missed a lot of time. Rison was washed up, Beebe was washed up, and Freeman was only entering his prime, much like Jordy and Jones...

I would take Jennings over Brooks in a hearthbeat, Driver over Rison, Jordy over Beebe. The only one I wouldn't take is Jones over Freeman, but we don't know how the 2011 Jones or the 2011 Nelson will perform. If it's anything like the playoffs, I would take them over 96' Freeman as well.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I think you are a little undervaluing the 1996 receivers. I am taking a little liberty since the 1996 Combo of Brooks/Freeman/Rison/Beebe never played together but in a hypothetical game they would since they were all part of that team. Here is how I see the comparison:

-Brooks over Jennings. Brooks put up 1,500 Yards and 13 TDs in 1995. Jennings has yet to have a season that rvials Brooks from 1995. Even if you take Greg's Career Highs in Both he does not match Brooks' stats from 1995.

-Freeman over Jones. Freeman averaged 85 yards/game and .82 Tds in 1996. In only 11 games he put up 933 yards and 9 TDs. That total might exceede the entire combined production of Nelson and Jones in 20011.

-Beebe over Driver. In 1996 Beebe put up 700 yards and 4 TDs. In 2010, Driver put up 565 yards and 4 Tds and it is highly unlikely he will be better in 2011 after he is 1 year older.

-Nelson over Rison. Jordy put up almost 600 yards in 2010 and should only improve whereas Rison was more of a stopgap or the injury ridddled 1996 receivers.
 

DevilDon

Inclement Weather Fan
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
1,393
Reaction score
268
Didn't even read any other person's entry. Sterling Sharpe!!!!!
 

FrankRizzo

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
771
Location
Dallas
Didn't even read any other person's entry. Sterling Sharpe!!!!!
I loved Sterling and he was my username in many things. He was as good as Rice was for a few years there, until his injury.
Talent-wise, yes he's as good as it got.

But Reggie White was special.

Jasonfan, good facts about that 1996 set of receivers.
Robert Brooks was so great.... so courageous and brave. One of the most underrated Packers of all-time because Farve got him killed with too many ill-advised throws. Robert would always go for the ball and never alligator-arm or half-*** anything like a lot of the superstars. I wish Robert would have let some of them go and lasted longer..... although his torn ACL vs SF came at Lambeau untouched, just like Al Harris' and Aaron Kampman's, also at home.... also vs SF.
 

Pack88

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
6
It just depends whose rules you use! Put a 21st century team on a 1960's field and rules and you would a vastly different result than you imagine. With no free releases and coverage through the play much of the free wheeling offensive show we se today would disappear. Offensive line are bigger and stronger only because they are permitted to use their hands freely.
Should you limit the roster to 40 men who is your 4th wide receiver and so on!
I thoroughly enjoy watching the modern game but the argument that modern atheletes are better is specious at best, they are different because the rules are different. One thing I agree placekickers are better and punters are better but with a 40 man roster I wonder what would also happen to that skill set. Just a final thought the NFL scoring record was set in 1950 with the Rams and it took an awful lot of rule changes and roster expansions to beat them!!
Pack88
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top