Poll Question: Which Super Bowl was better?

Total: 4

Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Close games are what make the NFL exciting and I don't think it should discredit a teams accomplishments.

I think it goes without saying that the definition of sneaking into the playoffs is how the Packers got into the playoffs in '03 by the Cardinals last second upset of the Vikings. That's sneaking in.

Winning two consecutive win or (basically) go home games to close out the season, one of which against a rival who admittedly said they didn't want you in the playoffs out of fear is unquestionably not sneaking in.


As you said, the '10 Packers earned their spot in the playoffs. And I don't believe the same could be said for the '03 Packers playoff team.



Kind of a side thought, I wonder if parity hadn't set in thoroughly enough in the '96 season and that's why there were so many lopsided scores? I believe there were only 3 or so years of free agency at the time.

And what does it mean that the losers of the Championship games were both expansion teams, the Panthers and Jaguars who founded only one year prior?
UserPostedImage
porky88
12 years ago
It is obviously all opinion, but I would take the 90s over the 2000s, though I do think the NFL is rising again. The level of play in college the last four or five seasons has been outstanding.

I also take exception to the assessment that the Cowboy and 49er dynasties were over in 96. The 49ers won 12 games in 96, 13 in 97, and 11 in 98. They were very much a powerhouse football team. Keep in mind; the refs made a bad call in a Monday Night showdown at Lambeau. Don Beebe made 50-plus yard TD catch and run in that game, but he stepped out of bounce. That play should not have counted and had the officials made the correct call, the 49ers would have won that game. They would then have had home field throughout the playoffs with GB as the No. 2 seed.

I understand there is a lot of coulda, shoulda, and woulda involved, but the author applied the exact same logic toward the Devin Hester punt return touchdown.

Perhaps GB beats SF in the postseason either way. Personally, I think they do, but then again, GB is the reason why the 49ers don’t have a sixth or maybe seventh SB right now. In my view, that says more about the Packers than the 49ers.

96 dominated its competition and they were a more complete team. Personally, I don’t believe that is debatable. The 2010 Packer offense also finished 9th in offensive yards and 96 finished 5th. Granted, 2010 gained 200-plus more yards, but I would argue 96 had better average field position and played during a time when a defense actually was allowed to play defense. There were no helmet-to-helmet controversies then. The five-yard rule wasn’t called near as much. In other words, the 96 offense didn’t have the benefit of playing in today’s offensive oriented NFL. For the record, that also should tell you just how special the 2010 Packer secondary was.

96 had the No. 1 scoring defense and offense. They scored over 28 ppg, which is more than the 2010 team. They allowed 13 ppg, which is two fewer than 2010. They are only the second Super Bowl team to accomplish that feat.

The other was the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

They also had amazing special teams. Chris Jackie made one of the more clutch kicks in Packer history in that 49er Monday night game. I have yet to see Mason Crosby make a kick like that during those circumstances.

Also, the Packer return game was never better in the team's modern history. Imagine Devin Hester on the current Packers’ roster. The 96 team had that with Desmond Howard.

At the end of the day, I suspect the debate will come between a Packer team in waiting and 96. I am hopeful it will be in 2011 because things are align for that to happen. In fact, things are align for 2011 to surpass even those 96 Packers. The upside is certainly greater for sustaining success. I think that is something the 2010 Packers have on the 96 team, which the writer points out well.
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

Don Beebe made 50-plus yard TD catch and run in that game, but he stepped out of bounce. That play should not have counted and had the officials made the correct call, the 49ers would have won that game.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



That's very interesting, do you have the play by play or video or anything that could support this? I'm not trying to call you out or nothing, I just don't remember the play that well. I don't remember the 50yd TD being the final play of regulation or what happened after it. Other than the Packers won, lol.


I'm trying to find anything on it and failing ...



Edit, okay I must be looking at the wrong game because that 59yd TD happened in the 3rd quarter.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199610140gnb.htm 




If you're just matching the authors line of thinking, okay, gotcha, but if you really believe the Packers wouldn't have won if they got the ball where (allegedly) Don Beebe stepped out of bounds, there's no way in hell anyone can say with a straight face the Packers wouldn't have won ... there was still an entire quarter to play yet of which they were within range of scoring a TD.

I made a similar statement about Devin Hester's TD and the ensuing possessions the Bears had within the 20.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
12 years ago
The play Porky talked about....he's right. Although i THINK it was that Beebe was touched while down, and the play should have been stopped there. Instant replay would have corrected that.
(So we did luck out).
Either way, i do recall that one, that we got a HUGE break.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

The play Porky talked about....he's right. Although i THINK it was that Beebe was touched while down, and the play should have been stopped there. Instant replay would have corrected that.
(So we did luck out).
Either way, i do recall that one, that we got a HUGE break.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



Either way, I don't buy that a play in the 3rd quarter decided the game, especially since I can't find out where Don Beebe was allegedly downed or out of bounds. I'm not disputing he wasn't because I don't remember, I'm disputing the notion a play in the 3rd quarter decided the out come. 🙂
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
12 years ago
I'm pretty sure the out of bounds play was when he was with Buffalo.
The one when he was a Packer, he was touched while down, then got up and just ran to the endzone. I think he knew he was down, but in a "heads up" move, decided "why NOT run it in, just in case?"
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

I'm pretty sure the out of bounds play was when he was with Buffalo.
The one when he was a Packer, he was touched while down, then got up and just ran to the endzone. I think he knew he was down, but in a "heads up" move, decided "why NOT run it in, just in case?"

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



The being touched while down, that vaguely sounds familiar. I can remember the play far more with that description, just don't recall any controversy over it. Sucks I can't find a video of it.
UserPostedImage
azrunning
12 years ago
I definitely remember the play and it was being touched while down. He should have been ruled down but got up and ran it in for a score anyway. Can't remember when during the game it happened; I'm thinking right before half. If you have the 1996 season video I'm pretty positive it is on there. I'd watch it to find out but I only have it on VHS and don't have a VHS player. Darn technology keeps marching on.

If the argument is for which super bowl team is better, I'd have to go with '96 mainly because of thier defense. That line was ferocious; Jones-Dotson-Brown-White. I do think the secondary might have problems keeping up with the passing attack though.

If the argument is for which super bowl was better, I'd pick XLV. Just didn't expect it so much and also I really enjoyed watching the run through the playoffs with my son and daughter.
blank
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Just seen the Don Beebe play. If he had been touched, he'd have been downed at about the 30 or so yard line. And he wasn't down by contact because at the time of contact he didn't have possession of the ball.

That ends that debate.
UserPostedImage
porky88
12 years ago

Just seen the Don Beebe play. If he had been touched, he'd have been downed at about the 30 or so yard line. And he wasn't down by contact because at the time of contact he didn't have possession of the ball.

That ends that debate.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


I wasn't making the point you thought I was. You made a mountain out of ice cream. Isn't that the saying?

Nevertheless, using the play as an example was more about applying the author’s thought process in regards to Devin Hester’s punt return to that play. In other words, the 96 Packers were just as close to being a No. 2 seed as the 2010 Packers were, when using that logic, though I don't particularly subscribe to that myself.

My main point, however, is disregarding the 49ers after 1994, as the author does, is an absolute inaccurate assessment of the next four seasons of the NFL. The Packers are the primary reason the 49ers don’t have a sixth and possibly seventh Super Bowl trophy. The two games in 96, and 97 NFC Championship game, had an impact on those two seasons. Writing the 49ers off as an expired dynasty is not fair in my opinion.

As far as the ice cream goes, it is worth noting that the only offensive TD the Packers scored that night was the Don Beebe catch and run. There is no guarantee they punch it in, especially with the way their red zone offense was working. Of course, Green Bay could’ve scored for all we know, but there is not guarantee one way or another. Personally, I don’t think they would have, because I have that game on DVD, and there was a common theme to it. Nonetheless, perhaps the Packers were due for a breakthrough.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (11h) : Chase Young to sign $13M contract with Saints
Zero2Cool (12h) : Yosh to Panthers what noooo. Wait he didn't do crap
wpr (18-Mar) : I say that he is technically HER BIL as he married her sister. I checked it out, he's considered my BIL as well. Sad.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : wpr, I assume its your BIL via marriage to your wife? If so, I can figure out where the smarts in the family went ;)
wpr (18-Mar) : Mucky my B-I-L is Bare Stupid. I could write a book.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : As a teenager in Rockford IL I would get heckled by adults in public for wearing GB gear
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : if you think the online ones are bad, try *living amongst* them
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : Never doubt wprs loyalty. Poor guy is surrounded by Bears fans in Northern IL
wpr (17-Mar) : pass Martha. Thanks for the invite though.
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : blog * as the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Baer
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : WPR, perhaps you should be joining the Bears fans blog has the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Bears
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : Ah a fellow U of Illinois hater. I can respect that though I imagine it's for different reasons
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : BTW. I didn't catch the game. I just hate Illinois.
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : They're your Big Ten Chumps and you will like it!
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not for the record. Referee's handled that BS. Orange team was trash ass
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : *Your* Big Ten Chumps for the record
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not Big Ten Champs. IL is big ten CHUMPS
wpr (17-Mar) : Big Ten Champs
wpr (17-Mar) : !!!
wpr (17-Mar) : INI
wpr (17-Mar) : ILL
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : Wisconsin with an outstanding on in the men’s Big Ten basketball tournament. Let’s hope it continues in the NCAAs
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Almost like taking QB in 2020 even if you don't need one is good move.
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : 2021 QB Draft class looking like a real clunker
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : A conditional 6th rounder? I remember Bears fans arguing they'd get a day 2 pick at worst lol
dfosterf (16-Mar) : So I got the no extension part right and the have to wait on the CW physical wrong
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears are trading Justin Fields for a 2025 6th-round pick that goes to a 4th-round pick based on playtime, per sources.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Former Packer Jarrett Bush opens Wisconsin’s first blow dry bar in Green Bay
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are not doing a deal with Washington, they also cannot trade Fields until Williams physical with them. All hail Caleb Williams!
dfosterf (16-Mar) : The talent is undeniable, but the (advertised) haul is obscene.
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are cutting a deal with the Commanders, in either scenario, cannot happen until williams passes a Commanders physical
dfosterf (16-Mar) : My guess is no to the Fields extension, but yes to the trade back with the Commanders.
dhazer (15-Mar) : I think the Bears do a Love extension and they will trade out of the 1st pick and take the haul
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : that might make sense
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Justin Fields to Steelers?
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Kenny Pickett. Eagles. Done.
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : They can claim best two WR tandem.
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : Aaron Donald retiring
dhazer (15-Mar) : Campbell signing with 49ers
dhazer (15-Mar) : I love how the Bear Fans are now claiming they have the best skill players in the NFC North lol
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Vikings made a move to get a 2nd first round pick
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : That's a not a bad deal for the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Bears have traded for WR Keenan Allen sending Chargers a fourth rounder.
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : *signs
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : MLB Devon White science with the Eagles
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : But that was before FA started
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : Dhaze, I thought Kurls would be their #1 target when I read that he was an Amos comp (jack of all trades guy)
dhazer (14-Mar) : I would like to see the Packers target 2 more FA still available Kamren Curl Safety and Chase Young edge
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : wow...didn't see that coming
Zero2Cool (14-Mar) : AJ Dillon re-signing with Packers.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Mar / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

16-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.