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!

Which packer to team do you guys feel was the better team not win the super bowl 97 team or 2011?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Farvetowebster, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Farvetowebster

    Farvetowebster Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    268
    Ratings:
    +23
    the 97 had a much better running game imo...but this years team was much more explosive imo and although the defense sucked this year..its a mystery to me..so much talent on that side...was it scheme? Idk
     
  2. ram29jackson

    ram29jackson Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    322
    Ratings:
    +51
    the 97 team was obviously better LOL..they had, I am very sure, a better ranked defense..plus they lost in the SB. Not before it.
     
  3. Farvetowebster

    Farvetowebster Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    268
    Ratings:
    +23
    true but this team was 15-1
     
  4. Brandon

    Brandon Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +106
    This team was miles and miles better than the Packer team in 97. There is no doubt in my mind that if the 2011 team faced the 1997 team, the 2011 team wins by a wide margin. But you can't truly compare because that was a while ago and teams have changed and will continue to change.

    As for our defense there is no mystery about it. We had a terrible pass rush all year which can make even the best secondary look terrible. If QB's have all day to throw someone will eventually get open, that's just how it is.
     
  5. ram29jackson

    ram29jackson Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    322
    Ratings:
    +51
    being IN a SB trumps being 15-1 and losing in your first playoff game any day,any year,any way you pick.
     
  6. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,565
    Ratings:
    +645
    '97. We were one dimensional this season. When the offense, unfortunately, had a bad game and needed the defense to bail them out, it didn't happen.
     
  7. SanDiegoCheese

    SanDiegoCheese West Coast Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +184
  8. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Like someone said the 97 team made it to the Super Bowl. The 2011 team with a 15-1 record and the table set for them punched the fail button early.
     
  9. marksj

    marksj Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +0
    97 for sure.Have to get in the SB first.More balanced team in 97.
     
  10. dbain21

    dbain21 Chicagoland Packer Fan

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    436
    Ratings:
    +111
    Im thinking the 97' team. As much as i don't respect him, brett was a great qb in his prime and that team made it to the Super Bowl. The 11' packers collapsed and had many problems as we saw.
     
  11. Quientus

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    509
    Ratings:
    +3
    Reading the question the OP posted, I don't understand people who picked this seasons team over the '97 team ...

    Either those people ...

    a) are too young to remember the '97 team or
    b) haven't been a Packer fan before 1998 ... or
    c) still can't move on from Brett Favre (and still hold grudges) ... or
    d) all of the above ...

    Despite going 15-1 in the regular season, and despite setting huge numbers and more ... don't forget, it's a totally different league now than it was in 1997 ...

    I mean ... Look at how many QB's got past the 4k mark this season ..., not to mention TD's ...

    I'm not saying it wasn't impressive, however, if you look at it in context it suddenly doesn't seem that "spectacular" ...

    All season long the defense had been the Achilles heel of this team, and when the offense got shut down similar to what it did against the Giants, there wasn't much to do ...

    I don't buy the thing that it was because of the tragedy that this team lost ... - If anything I would say that it should have fired them up ... and dedicate the win to the memory of Philbins son ... (alas it wasn't so ...) The entire team looked as if they had spent their bye week doing everything else, but prepping for the game against the Giants ...
     
  12. The Rick

    The Rick Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +1
    Seems to me we were big favorite to beat Elway's Broncos that year, although I could never understand why. My fears about that game were simple... if we didn't stop Terrel Davis, we were going to be in trouble.

    Little did I know...
     
  13. Quientus

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    509
    Ratings:
    +3

    Hah !!! I remember that game only all too well ... - I was deployed for the first time in Bosnia, and I was the ONLY Packer fan amidst probably 100 people (I was the only non-American hah) who was watching the game ...
     
  14. Farvetowebster

    Farvetowebster Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    268
    Ratings:
    +23
    i think the 95 packer team was better than the 2011 team
     
  15. Farvetowebster

    Farvetowebster Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    268
    Ratings:
    +23
    86 giants were better than any team the packers have ever had imo
     
  16. Quientus

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    509
    Ratings:
    +3
    Child ... Please !!
     
  17. Farvetowebster

    Farvetowebster Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    268
    Ratings:
    +23
    thats the second time you have said "child please"
     

Share This Page