Packers All-Stars Team

[cheesehurdler]

If you were given the task of assembling a football team out of the best players in Packers history, what would that team be? For example, here is my All-Stars roster:


OFFENSE:

QB:
Bart Starr
Aaron Rodgers
Brett Favre

RB:
Paul Hornung
Tony Canadeo
Ahman Green

FB:
Jim Taylor

WR:
Don Hutson
James Lofton
Sterling Sharpe
Boyd Dowler
Robert Brooks

TE:
Ron Kramer
Mark Chmura
Jermichael Finley

OT:
Forrest Gregg
Cal Hubbard

G:
Jerry Kramer
Mike Michalske

C:
Jim Ringo

DEFENSE:

DE:
Willie Davis
Reggie White

DT:
Henry Jordan
Gilbert Brown
Ron Kostelnik

LB:
Ray Nitschke
Clay Matthews
Lee Roy Caffey

CB:
Herb Adderly
Charles Woodson
Al Harris
Willie Buchanon

S:
Willie Wood
Leroy Butler

K:
Jan Stenerud

P:
Jon Ryan

KR/PR:
Desmond Howard

Coach:
Vince Lombardi

Offensive Coordinator:
Mike McCarthy

Defensive Coordinator:
Dom Capers

 

[Kitten]

I think you pretty much hit it with that. I honestly can't think of anything I'd change or anybody I'd add.
Perhaps Ted Thompson or Wolf as GM/ owner?

 

[greenandgold]

Was Brockington a FB? If he was I would add him. Heck, I might add him if he was a HB.

 

[GreenBayGal]

I agree with Kitten. I think you did a great job properly picking the talent. That was a fun exercise.

 

[mradtke66]

The only issue I see, and this is normal, is grabbing people across eras. It causes problems.

Jim Taylor (for example) was an excellent FB, but in the era in which he played, the FB was a ball carrier.

In the modern game, he's likely to slow to be an everydown HB and too small to be a battering ram FB. Jim Taylor was John Kuhn, before there was a John Kuhn. :icon_lol:

 

[PackersRS]

The only issue I see, and this is normal, is grabbing people across eras. It causes problems.

Jim Taylor (for example) was an excellent FB, but in the era in which he played, the FB was a ball carrier.

In the modern game, he's likely to slow to be an everydown HB and too small to be a battering ram FB. Jim Taylor was John Kuhn, before there was a John Kuhn. :icon_lol:

Yeah, except that the training and conditioning of that era was very different than today.

You have absolutely no idea if he could bulk up or get faster. All you can do is analyse how he performed amongst his peers, and he was a Hall of Fame fullback, league MVP, one of the best in the league.

I hate this argument that people from past eras couldn't play, or would be just average nowadays. People who do that aren't transpassing what happened that day to nowadays.

Can you imagine Jim Taylor with 7% body fat and being able to work on his craft full time, not having to work on sidejobs during the offseason? He would be a monster.

 

[mradtke66]

I'm not immediately saying that players of an older era couldn't hack it in the modern game because they're just not as big/fast/strong as modern players. Some of them certainly might be able to make the jump if we had a magic time machine and could subject them to modern training.

What I AM saying is that the game has changed (duh) and that what made a great player great from the past might not even matter anymore. This tends to get worse as you go back further in time. Taylor is a fine example.

Nitschke might be another such example. The snot-bubble middle linebacker will always have A place on the team, but not necessarily THE place, at least anymore. If you can't cover well enough, you leave the field in nickel. I haven't seen enough evidence that Nitschke would be good enough in coverage. (Yes, he has picks, but a lot of them SEEM to be "Oh $%^&" throws by QBs)

If he wouldn't (theoretically) be good enough to cover, I'd come out in offenses that demand nickel, 3WR, etc. Force him off the field.

Left tackle is another one of those "the position is completely different now." Gregg might be able to bulk up and be Bigger, Faster, Stronger, and be a stud o-lineman, but he might fail spectacularly at being a left tackle. You need to be a freaking dancer to survive on that island these days.

 

[PackersRS]

I'm not immediately saying that players of an older era couldn't hack it in the modern game because they're just not as big/fast/strong as modern players. Some of them certainly might be able to make the jump if we had a magic time machine and could subject them to modern training.

What I AM saying is that the game has changed (duh) and that what made a great player great from the past might not even matter anymore. This tends to get worse as you go back further in time. Taylor is a fine example.

Nitschke might be another such example. The snot-bubble middle linebacker will always have A place on the team, but not necessarily THE place, at least anymore. If you can't cover well enough, you leave the field in nickel. I haven't seen enough evidence that Nitschke would be good enough in coverage. (Yes, he has picks, but a lot of them SEEM to be "Oh $%^&" throws by QBs)

If he wouldn't (theoretically) be good enough to cover, I'd come out in offenses that demand nickel, 3WR, etc. Force him off the field.

Left tackle is another one of those "the position is completely different now." Gregg might be able to bulk up and be Bigger, Faster, Stronger, and be a stud o-lineman, but he might fail spectacularly at being a left tackle. You need to be a freaking dancer to survive on that island these days.

I understand what you are saying, but you're not talking about one trick ponies in here, or guys that played a lof of positions, but all only well. You are talking about hall of famers. There's a reason these guys are Hall of Famers.

Taylor was the 2nd best combination of size and speed at his time (Jim Brown being the #1). He was 6'0", 215. He had incredible vision and burst, and he was very shifty, he could run you over, he could catch te ball, all traits that absolutely translate to the modern game. Watch the film of the ice bowl and you'll see what I'm talking about. Watch america's game, the first SB championship. All you can find on Hulu.

As for Nitschke, how's 25 career ints for a bad coverage MLB? Ray Lewis, the best modern-era MLB, has 30, FYI. And he doesn't get benched on passing downs, does he?

So, to sum it up, I understand your point, some players would not be able to put on the weight while maintaining the frame, but you're using the absolutely wrong players to make this point. It really doesn't appear you know enough about the players you're reffering to.

What made a great player then was their ability to play football better than their peers. That would still be the case with most HoF players from any era. Football was still back then a game of athleticism.

 

[GreenBayGal]

You can over-analyze any scenario or hypothetical situation to death. I think the selection should be made with consideration given to what was available to them at the time. Players of yore may not have been as big/fast/strong but they also didn't have the same type of training facilities. They clearly didn't have similar quality safety guidelines or gear. Position expectations/duties has also changed so you can't really compare them as though they were apples to apples. I like Cheesehurdler's selections as they are weighing talents based on "for that time" expections & accomplishments.

 

[mradtke66]

What you are also saying is true, but I argue only to a point. A good football player will always be a good football player, but again, what they were good at in the 60's doesn't always translate to the 2010s.

A more absurd example would be to find the finest QB in Packers history that ran the Wing-T. Doesn't matter who this player was or even if he never lost a game. That skillset is obsolete.

And yes, I know that Nitschke had a boat-load of picks, I even admitted this much in my previous post. Picks don't always mean you can cover (See Jared Bush, SB45 :smirk

In the case of Jim Taylor, not only are we talking about a projection of improved training, but also an effective position change. 1960s: FBs run between the tackles. Present day: It's either A) FB's block. B) FB? What's a FB? That kind of like an H-Back receiver thing? I think my grandpa knows something about that. . .

 

[GreenBayGal]

What you are describing is basically two different games. Hmmmm...you're probably right. I think of the 60's era as very tough-as-nails, ferocious, fearless players. Maybe a little less refined as todays players. :wink: I don't think Jay Cutler would have survived in that league.

 

[AmishMafia]

What you are also saying is true, but I argue only to a point. A good football player will always be a good football player, but again, what they were good at in the 60's doesn't always translate to the 2010s.

A more absurd example would be to find the finest QB in Packers history that ran the Wing-T. Doesn't matter who this player was or even if he never lost a game. That skillset is obsolete.

And yes, I know that Nitschke had a boat-load of picks, I even admitted this much in my previous post. Picks don't always mean you can cover (See Jared Bush, SB45 :smirk

In the case of Jim Taylor, not only are we talking about a projection of improved training, but also an effective position change. 1960s: FBs run between the tackles. Present day: It's either A) FB's block. B) FB? What's a FB? That kind of like an H-Back receiver thing? I think my grandpa knows something about that. . .

I don't think the intent was to assemble a team to play tomorrow. If it was, he wouldn't have picked any of the dead people - their performance would be pretty poor regardless of the era. It was a look at our all-time greats by position.

 

[mradtke66]

What you are describing is basically two different games. Hmmmm...you're probably right. I think of the 60's era as very tough-as-nails, ferocious, fearless players. Maybe a little less refined as todays players. :wink: I don't think Jay Cutler would have survived in that league.

Heh. I'm glad my thesis managed to come through my analysis.

 

[PackersRS]

What you are also saying is true, but I argue only to a point. A good football player will always be a good football player, but again, what they were good at in the 60's doesn't always translate to the 2010s.

A more absurd example would be to find the finest QB in Packers history that ran the Wing-T. Doesn't matter who this player was or even if he never lost a game. That skillset is obsolete.

That is a very good point

And yes, I know that Nitschke had a boat-load of picks, I even admitted this much in my previous post. Picks don't always mean you can cover (See Jared Bush, SB45 :smirk

No, single picks don't translate to cover ability. Ammount of picks in a career, a high number for an ILB, do translate.

In the case of Jim Taylor, not only are we talking about a projection of improved training, but also an effective position change. 1960s: FBs run between the tackles. Present day: It's either A) FB's block. B) FB? What's a FB? That kind of like an H-Back receiver thing? I think my grandpa knows something about that. . .

Again, you're stereotyping, not using factual information. BS that Taylor only ran between the tackles. He did everything, from leadblocking, to running tosses, to running routes.

Watch the tape and tell me that with a straight face. Would he play FB in todays NFL? No.

Did he play a great majority of the same concepts RBs nowadays do? Hell yes.

It's a nice debate, but you're only using theorical arguments in here, some of which are just wrong. I'm giving you facts that prove otherwise.

 

[PackersRS]

I don't think the intent was to assemble a team to play tomorrow. If it was, he wouldn't have picked any of the dead people - their performance would be pretty poor regardless of the era. It was a look at our all-time greats by position.

That being said, Herb Adderley in his 70's would still be a better player than Jarrett Bush...

(poor Bush, I keep picking on him, he's a great person and a very good ST player)

 

[mradtke66]

Did he play a great majority of the same concepts RBs nowadays do? Hell yes.

It's a nice debate, but you're only using theorical arguments in here, some of which are just wrong. I'm giving you facts that prove otherwise.

I'll agree that my issue with Taylor is more theoretical. I do maintain that he (likely) wouldn't be fast enough. You can always get bigger and stronger, but there is a limit to how much faster you can make yourself with training. A major part of that is genetics.

Nitschke, I still say, is a 2-down linebacker in the modern game. Based on the film I've seen, which is mostly highlights, his picks were less of a question of skill but smarts. Certainly, that is huge, but if you can't turn your hips and run, you can't cover.

I would also like to consider a tangent that might more mind-blowing (I really hate the term, but I can't come up with something better right this second.)

What if the Packers (and other Pros) of the 60s would not be the best players in the modern game is offered modern training? Perhaps Bob, the bartender who played in high school but wasn't big enough to turn Pro, would have responded better to modern training techniques. . .

Hypotheticals, how I love thee.

 

[mradtke66]

(poor Bush, I keep picking on him, he's a great person and a very good ST player)

Hell, my bread-and-butter in high school was special teams and I like to give the guy a hard time.

 

[PackersRS]

I'll agree that my issue with Taylor is more theoretical. I do maintain that he (likely) wouldn't be fast enough. You can always get bigger and stronger, but there is a limit to how much faster you can make yourself with training. A major part of that is genetics.

Nitschke, I still say, is a 2-down linebacker in the modern game. Based on the film I've seen, which is mostly highlights, his picks were less of a question of skill but smarts. Certainly, that is huge, but if you can't turn your hips and run, you can't cover.

I would also like to consider a tangent that might more mind-blowing (I really hate the term, but I can't come up with something better right this second.)

What if the Packers (and other Pros) of the 60s would not be the best players in the modern game is offered modern training? Perhaps Bob, the bartender who played in high school but wasn't big enough to turn Pro, would have responded better to modern training techniques. . .

Hypotheticals, how I love thee.

We can never know how exactly they would translate to modern training, can we?

My point is, don't dismiss them because the early game was different. From what I said (production, the way they played) I believe the really good guys would be able to produce just as much with modern training.

But, yeah, we'll never know.

 

[ivo610]

I feel like this topic came up recently ... Anyways

I think we can all agree some players would thrive in the old school style pre Mel Blount era. Ray Lewis and Ed reed would have fit right in and been as feared as anyone.

I gotta still give it up to J bush. I have all the respect in the world for a player that stuck with it and through hard work earned a key spot on the Packers. If I said 2 years ago that Bush would play better in the SB than Troy Polomalu you would have said I was insane. That pick he had was just purely from film study, and he earned it. I was kinda sad he didn't get a second one at the end.

 

[PackersRS]

I feel like this topic came up recently ... Anyways

I think we can all agree some players would thrive in the old school style pre Mel Blount era. Ray Lewis and Ed reed would have fit right in and been as feared as anyone.

I gotta still give it up to J bush. I have all the respect in the world for a player that stuck with it and through hard work earned a key spot on the Packers. If I said 2 years ago that Bush would play better in the SB than Troy Polomalu you would have said I was insane. That pick he had was just purely from film study, and he earned it. I was kinda sad he didn't get a second one at the end.

I have TONS of respect for Jarrett Bush the man. Did you see that interview? Where he called the fans "the best fans in the nfl"?

I mean, after all the crap we give him? Talk about turning the other face.

Anyone that's able to do that is ok in my book.
Plus he has really come together as a ST player. One of the few good ones we have.

 

[Poppa San]

If you were given the task of assembling a football team out of the best players in Packers history, what would that team be? For example, here is my All-Stars roster:


OFFENSE:

QB:
Bart Starr
Aaron Rodgers
Brett Favre

RB:
Paul Hornung
Tony Canadeo
Ahman Green

FB:
Jim Taylor

WR:
Don Hutson
James Lofton
Sterling Sharpe
Boyd Dowler
Robert Brooks

TE:
Ron Kramer
Mark Chmura
Jermichael Finley

OT:
Forrest Gregg
Cal Hubbard

G:
Jerry Kramer
Mike Michalske

C:
Jim Ringo

DEFENSE:

DE:
Willie Davis
Reggie White

DT:
Henry Jordan
Gilbert Brown
Ron Kostelnik

LB:
Ray Nitschke
Clay Matthews
Lee Roy Caffey

CB:
Herb Adderly
Charles Woodson
Al Harris
Willie Buchanon

S:
Willie Wood
Leroy Butler

K:
Jan Stenerud

P:
Jon Ryan

KR/PR:
Desmond Howard

Coach:
Vince Lombardi

Offensive Coordinator:
Mike McCarthy

Defensive Coordinator:
Dom Capers

If you lined up this team against the best of each NFL franchises, how would they do? The Rams fearsome foursome with the greatest show on turf. Air Coryell, Steel curtain, orange crush with Elways offense, west coast 49er's, Monsters of the midway, Dallas doomsday defense with the triplets? Oh and leave Finley at home, he doesn't yet belong here. Maybe grab West, Jackson, or Coffman instead.

 

[GBPack2010]

I don't have a problem with it. Analyze a player's career and his effectiveness on the field with the peers at that time who were considered the best that era had to offer. Pretty fair way to do it. Rules have changed, what it takes to be a winner hasn't. Skill, determination, hard work, selflessness, teamwork.