Rank: Member
Joined: 11/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Tennessee
Applause Given: 35
Applause Received: 47
|
You knew it was comming! How do you rate the order of the greatest Packer Super Bowl Teams?
1) Super Bowl I
2) Super Bowl XLV
3) Super Bowl XXXI
4) Super Bowl II
Some might think I'm crazy for putting I first and II last, but remember, the season for II was actually very poor at times, yet it did edge the very powerful Cowboys. What's your rating? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Premier Member
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,384
Applause Received: 3,733
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 11/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Tennessee
Applause Given: 35
Applause Received: 47
|
" said:  Great raiting system! Is that a... :sarcasm: ? :P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Premier Member
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,384
Applause Received: 3,733
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2009(UTC)
Applause Received: 2
|
I can't tell you how good the SB I and II teams were since I wasn't born yet, and didn't see them play. However, I do think the SB 31 team was better than this one, and that is NOT a knock on this team. This team had more depth than the 96 Packers, but, they were better at the top.
Not only that, but I think the SB 31 team is arguably the most underrated football team in NFL history. We had the number 1 offense and number 1 defense that year, which is something that is unheard of. That team was amazing. I think since they didn't repeat the next year everyone forgot how good they really were. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Registered
Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Marquette, Michigan
Applause Received: 48
|
" said: I can't tell you how good the SB I and II teams were since I wasn't born yet, and didn't see them play. However, I do think the SB 31 team was better than this one, and that is NOT a knock on this team. This team had more depth than the 96 Packers, but, they were better at the top.
Not only that, but I think the SB 31 team is arguably the most underrated football team in NFL history. We had the number 1 offense and number 1 defense that year, which is something that is unheard of. That team was amazing. I think since they didn't repeat the next year everyone forgot how good they really were. I agree completely. I can't rank those first two Super Bowl teams because they were before my time. They were past their prime, so they were not necessarily better than the '96 team. This year's team is probably #4, but in some ways they were the most impressive of all by showing so much heart down the stretch. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Select Member
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany
Applause Given: 389
Applause Received: 263
|
I'm so glad this raiting system has finally comm! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 318
Applause Received: 537
|
I don't know how to rank all four in order but I think the '96 team has to be number one. They had the best offense, the best defense, and the best special teams in the league. It was one of the greatest teams in NFL history.
I have also heard that the Lombardi teams were even better in '61 and '62 than in '66 and '67 with the Super Bowl years. The team was aging and declining by that last Super Bowl and just made one more push for a title.
All that said, this last one is by far my favorite team. They lost so many players to injuries and had so many inconsistent patches of form that, although it was easy to see they had the talent to win it all, most of us came to doubt at one point or another that they actually would. They went on arguably the hardest single elimination stretch any team has to win a title--6 games against the NFC 7th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, and 2nd seed and finally the AFC 2nd seed--and they put you on edge for most of it. It's been one hell of a ride. |
Born and bred a cheesehead |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Registered
Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)
Applause Received: 3
|
I can't comment on SB I and II too much but the '96 team in my opinion was better than the 2010 team. The 2010 team's SB win was more impressive because they were a #6 seed and the injuries, etc. but in terms of a better team, the Packers were the #1 seed in the NFL in 1996 and easily beat all the teams in the playoffs. Plus they had the #1 O and #1 D I think, plus Desmond Howard. http://en.wikipedia.org/...%E2%80%9397_NFL_playoffsYou know what's crazy that I did not notice before about the Packers beating the Panthers to get to the SB in 1996: This game is also the first time since 1991 that the Dallas Cowboys or the San Francisco 49ers did not appear in the NFC Championship Game. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Select Member
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,641
Applause Received: 1,852
|
It is tough to evaluate Ninja. While I was alive and those were the teams that made me a Packer fan, 1 & 2 played in a different era.
The mystic is greater for those teams. they were a part of a dynasty.
I would go
I (Dynasty still in force.)
XXXI (dominated on both sides of the ball.)
XLV (Injuries pull this one down.)
II (fading) |
sono affamato |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.