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
I think it's by far the deepest team I've ever seen. But that 96' team was incredibly talented.
I think it's by far the deepest team I've ever seen. But that 96' team was incredibly talented.
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
you saw the 62 team play? wow
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.
I mean....just as an example....even with todays team....at 250 Forrest Gregg would never be able to block BJ Raji.
When Forrest Greg was playing there weren't any 350+ DL's.
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.
My point exactly.....Its hard to compare because....from a strictly athletic stand point.....today's teams are much more talented.