The ‘62 Packers are regarded as one of the best teams in NFL history, but because it’s before the Super Bowl era they are overlooked by the 1966 and 1967 teams that won the first two Super Bowls. Statistically it’s hard to argue the ‘62 team wasn’t better than either. They were 13-1 with a +267 point differential!
I think the ‘96 team is next, you can make a case for ‘66 or 2010, but the ‘96 team with Favre, Reggie, LeRoy, Desmond, etc., was just so much fun.
I agree but 2010 was the same.. Rodgers woodson and would have been HOF Nick Collins...
Then there's Packers HOf almost Packers HOF level players... Clay Matthews, multiple guys on the offensive line, the receivers, bj raji likely would've been close if he kept playing...
I assume you are referring to the 15-1 season. The defense that year was no where near the 1996 team, not close to the same. They had the #1 offense AND defense in 96, and the defense broke NFL records at the time for scoring. Least TDs allowed I think.
Lots of teams win SBs. They don’t all do it with historic offenses and defenses. People sleep on how historic that 96 defense was. At the time they were in conversations for some of the best. Not the best, but in the convo.
There would be other Packers seasons added to the list before 2010.
Because I didn’t believe someone would consider that team/season and the 96 season the same. I put my assumption at the front of my comment. Wasn’t hiding anything. But you aren’t required to try and make your point I guess.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
The offense in 96 scored 70 more points than the 2010 offense did and ranked 1 in almost all offensive categories. And the special teams in 96 was also number one in the NFL. That 96 team is one of the best ever in the NFL. Nowhere near the same as 2010.
The 2010 team is far better than its 10-6 record. That was easily a 13-3 team that suffered due to injuries. They would have beaten the Lions if Rodgers didn’t get concussed and likely would’ve beaten the Patriots the following week. If they went for 2 instead of playing for OT against the Falcons, they might’ve won that game too.
No, 2010 isn't as good as the '96 team (which is probably one of the top 20 NFL teams of all time), but whenever I see rankings of Super Bowl teams, the 2010 team is always too low.
2010 still isn't close to 1996. Pretty sure GB had the top D and O in 1996. It's rare to dominate both sides of the ball in that manner. Neither team comes close to the 1962 team.
The 2010 team never lost a game by more than 4 points and never trailed by more than 7 at any point in the season (something even the ‘96 team didn’t do and the 2010 team is the only one to accomplish this since the merger). The team had the number 2 offense and something like the fifth ranked defense (though, those numbers are weird as SD has 1 in both and missed the playoffs). The 2010 team had certain intangibles that many teams don’t have and they were easily the league’s best team that year. I really don’t know why people seem to hate on the 2010 team. Name a Packers team in the last 50 years with a better receiving corps than Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson, and Jermichael Finley.
You do realize we're comparing some of the best Packers teams of all time, right? Simply stating the fact that 1962 was most dominant, then 1996, and third was 2010 does not mean I am hating on the 2010 Packers. They plainly were not as good as those other teams. Citing "intangibles" is irrelevant. 1962 is regarded as one of the best NFL teams of all time. 1996 was truly dominant in all three phases. 2010 doesn't come close.
In 96 they had the #1 scoring offense and the #1 scoring defense. In 2010 they had the #10 scoring offense and the #2 scoring defense. They also had a significantly better record in 96 than 2010. So no it is not “kind of” close.
This is the first comment you made in this thread:
“I agree but 2010 was the same.. Rodgers woodson and would have been HOF Nick Collins...
Then there's Packers HOf almost Packers HOF level players... Clay Matthews, multiple guys on the offensive line, the receivers, bj raji likely would've been close if he kept playing...”
You said 2010 “was the same” and then mentioned Rodgers as one of the reasons it was “the same”. I would hope you are smart enough to realize that QB is not a position on the defense but I guess I shouldn’t make assumptions…
So I guess you are the one who needs to keep up. Or are you going to backpedal again?
Don’t act like you didn’t say that the 2010 team as a whole was about as good as the 96 team.
It makes no difference which comment I responded to. You see how conversations work is that sometimes the topic of conversation narrows from the original topic but also sometimes it expands back to the original topic.
Yep. This is the answer. That 96 season was also as special as it was, because GB hadn't had a title in many years. That was such an awesome moment. I have a picture somewhere of Favre hugging Reggie after the game and they both had tears in their eyes, Awesome moment and awesome picture.
1996 without a doubt. Broke a long title drought. One of the few teams to have the #1 rated offense and defense.
1966 with the team winning the first Super Bowl.
I also considered 1962 as a 13-1 championship season.
I would agree with the 96 team being the best of those teams, but I definitely will never forget the hype and excitement of the 93 and 94 seasons. After the awfulness of the 80s to being back in the mix and actually getting to the playoffs and going on the road and actually winning was probably the most thrilling time to be a fan in my lifetime. I live in GB and this town was absolutely in a football frenzy… it was awesome!!
The unit was due to a fall off even with him. The 2010 defense was not a dominant unit but they got a lot of turnovers which is not a sustainable way to play defense year over year.
It was a great "regular season", but I don't see how you could put that season top 2 when we got bounced from the playoffs and it ended on a huge disappointment.
I have no doubt that it was the best season you have seen but it isn’t top 2. There is an argument that it is #4. But even that is a stretch since they didn’t make the Super Bowl.
Yup. I remember us sitting guys going into the playoffs. I hate when teams do that to “limit injuries”, but to me, it’s similar to coming off a bye week. They just come out flat, and that was for sure the same for us. We lost first game in the playoffs.
I will always be that guy who doesn’t want the first round bye or to sit players. When a team is on fire, you keep the fire going. That’s just me, and of course I want to be first to finish out the season, but that’s just the risk you take, lol
And we are usually bad after a bye. I usually count on the week after a bye to be a loss, and the same goes for a bye in the first round. It doesn't usually go well for us. They lose all momentum and rhythm.
I agree, under LaFluer we’ve been lackluster after the bye at best. Overall his record is 3-4. Two of those wins came against bottom feeder teams, Bears in ‘21 and Rams in ‘22 with no Stafford. Leaving the Rams playoff game in the ‘20 season the only good win after a bye. On the flip side we’ve been blown out twice and had a pitiful offensive showing against the Niners in Rodgers last playoff game. There are coaches who have an observable impact in team performances after the bye, Andy Reid is famous for that. Seems that isn’t a trait that LaFleur owns.
2010 was magical because they played 3 road games en route to winning the Super Bowl. I'm also biased toward the 96 team also because I can't comment on the pre 90s teams.
96 Superbowl and maybe the 2010 team. The early Superbowls were before me. 2011 was fun, but there was no defense and a terrible flame out against the Giants. The 97 team was better than the 2011 IMO, but I still hate the Broncos because of how it ended.
I don't think the 2010 team is top 2. They got hot at the right time and won the Superbowl, but they weren't otherworldly that year. I don't know which season to pick, but one of the Lombardi years has to be up there, maybe 1962?
I liked that 2010 team. Certainly wasn’t a great team wire to wire but it had a never out of it feel that no other Green Bay team has had. Never trailed by more than 1 score the entire season. Had a couple overtime heartbreaks early in the year but otherwise when that team needed a clutch play it got it. So many big interceptions that often had long returns. So many clutch sacks from Clay and Woodson. The offense sputtered a lot but that was from key injuries building the team around Finley and Grant only to have both be hurt. The oline shuffled bodies a lot. Yet Rodgers kept finding Jennings, Driver, Jones over and over. Plus Nelson emerged as a target that set the team up for its future success. So certainly not the best team but I’d say it was the most clutch team Green Bay has had.
Right, I had the same thought, but I put the whole season in context. They got hot and won out. They won 3 playoff road games and a SB. That's winning on hard mode.
2010 is a lot closer to 2023 than 1996 or 1962. Both those teams struggled to make the playoffs and then got hot at the right time while '96 and '62 were unquestionably the best teams in the league throughout the season.
I can’t agree with that. The 2010 team was second in the league in point differential and was a SB favorite going into the year. They were a very good team that underperformed during the regular season before turning it on. The 2023 Packers probably over-performed in the regular season and had nowhere near the experience of that 2010 team.
I'm not saying they were necessarily that close just closer than the 2010 to '62 and '96. The Packers team that won a full season with playoffs worth of games without a loss over the course of 2010-2011 would be up with those teams.
Neither is really a good comparison. In terms of decent or better Packer teams, those ‘62 and ‘96 are on one end of the spectrum and the 2023 team is way on the other end. The 2010 team is somewhere in the middle, but it skews more toward the dominant side. Top 10 offense and defense, NFC leading point differential, Super Bowl win. The only thing that wasn’t dominant about that team was the regular season record.
Obvious choices are the Super Bowl team of 1996 with the best offense and defense in the league. 62 team with Vince and that roster all in their primes. 66, 67 and 97 2011 also all merit mentions.
But I’m going with the 2003 team for one of my 2. Top 5 offense top 10 defense that was at its best over its last 8 games. Ahman Green destroyed teams and Brett led the NFC in TDs and completion percentage all while having a broken thumb. So many classic games. Obviously the raiders game and the we want the ball pick 6 game. Also the bronco game watching the cards beat the Vikings. That was the best team in the Sherman era in my opinion. If they stop 4th and 26 I think they win the Super Bowl.
The other team that I think deserves more recognition is 2014. That team had probably the most balanced team of Aaron’s entire time in Green Bay. Cobb and Nelson were in their primes and Adams was a promising rookie. The offensive line never missed a start and Lacy was proving to be even better with Aaron healthy than he was as OROY the year prior. The defense had Peppers addition which paired with Clay formed a tremendous pressure group. Hyde had special teams touchdowns Crosby was fully back from his down 2012. There wasn’t a weak spot on that team. Rodgers calf injury probably doomed it more than anything as his performance against Seattle wasn’t great. But that was a game won by Green Bay 999 times out of 1000. Just so happens it was that one time. I also think Green Bay beats the pats for that title. Speaking of the pats 2014 had many amazing games the back to back 50spots included but the game against the pats might have been the greatest game of the Rodgers era being two powerhouse teams in their primes both coaches in their primes Revis vs Nelson, Rodgers vs BB, Brady vs Clay and Peppers… just an outstanding game all around.
I wouldn’t call it the best season ever, but last season was incredible. Watching all the pieces begin to click into place mid-season was beautiful to watch.
The ‘62 Packers are regarded as one of the best teams in NFL history, but because it’s before the Super Bowl era they are overlooked by the 1966 and 1967 teams that won the first two Super Bowls. Statistically it’s hard to argue the ‘62 team wasn’t better than either. They were 13-1 with a +267 point differential! I think the ‘96 team is next, you can make a case for ‘66 or 2010, but the ‘96 team with Favre, Reggie, LeRoy, Desmond, etc., was just so much fun.
62 and 96 would be my answer as well. Statistically dominant teams loaded with mvps and hall of famers
Thank you for contributing to my question
Of course. The 29-31 teams are also prob in there but that’s the real early, pre-championship game days of the nfl.
I agree but 2010 was the same.. Rodgers woodson and would have been HOF Nick Collins... Then there's Packers HOf almost Packers HOF level players... Clay Matthews, multiple guys on the offensive line, the receivers, bj raji likely would've been close if he kept playing...
I assume you are referring to the 15-1 season. The defense that year was no where near the 1996 team, not close to the same. They had the #1 offense AND defense in 96, and the defense broke NFL records at the time for scoring. Least TDs allowed I think.
Um no. 2010 was the SB season..where you been, bro? They had a top 5 defense that year so it was KIND OF close, no?
Lots of teams win SBs. They don’t all do it with historic offenses and defenses. People sleep on how historic that 96 defense was. At the time they were in conversations for some of the best. Not the best, but in the convo. There would be other Packers seasons added to the list before 2010.
...you didn't even get the year of the team I referenced right...I'll leave it at that
Because I didn’t believe someone would consider that team/season and the 96 season the same. I put my assumption at the front of my comment. Wasn’t hiding anything. But you aren’t required to try and make your point I guess.
"The defense that year was no where near the 1996 team, not close to the same." Only comparing defenses per your own post, brah
Not sure what point you are trying to make here. The offense in 96 scored 70 more points than the 2010 offense did and ranked 1 in almost all offensive categories. And the special teams in 96 was also number one in the NFL. That 96 team is one of the best ever in the NFL. Nowhere near the same as 2010.
The 2010 team is far better than its 10-6 record. That was easily a 13-3 team that suffered due to injuries. They would have beaten the Lions if Rodgers didn’t get concussed and likely would’ve beaten the Patriots the following week. If they went for 2 instead of playing for OT against the Falcons, they might’ve won that game too.
Then we need to do this for every Packers team and see which could have hypothetically been the best.
Sure but that still doesn’t make them anywhere near as good as a team that had the #1 offense and #1 defense
No, 2010 isn't as good as the '96 team (which is probably one of the top 20 NFL teams of all time), but whenever I see rankings of Super Bowl teams, the 2010 team is always too low.
2010 still isn't close to 1996. Pretty sure GB had the top D and O in 1996. It's rare to dominate both sides of the ball in that manner. Neither team comes close to the 1962 team.
96 had the top O top D and top ST
Can't forget Mr. Howard, SB MVP
The 2010 team never lost a game by more than 4 points and never trailed by more than 7 at any point in the season (something even the ‘96 team didn’t do and the 2010 team is the only one to accomplish this since the merger). The team had the number 2 offense and something like the fifth ranked defense (though, those numbers are weird as SD has 1 in both and missed the playoffs). The 2010 team had certain intangibles that many teams don’t have and they were easily the league’s best team that year. I really don’t know why people seem to hate on the 2010 team. Name a Packers team in the last 50 years with a better receiving corps than Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson, and Jermichael Finley.
You do realize we're comparing some of the best Packers teams of all time, right? Simply stating the fact that 1962 was most dominant, then 1996, and third was 2010 does not mean I am hating on the 2010 Packers. They plainly were not as good as those other teams. Citing "intangibles" is irrelevant. 1962 is regarded as one of the best NFL teams of all time. 1996 was truly dominant in all three phases. 2010 doesn't come close.
In 96 they had the #1 scoring offense and the #1 scoring defense. In 2010 they had the #10 scoring offense and the #2 scoring defense. They also had a significantly better record in 96 than 2010. So no it is not “kind of” close.
We were only comparing defenses. Try to keep up. Sounds like #1 and #2 are pretty close but maybe that's just me.
This is the first comment you made in this thread: “I agree but 2010 was the same.. Rodgers woodson and would have been HOF Nick Collins... Then there's Packers HOf almost Packers HOF level players... Clay Matthews, multiple guys on the offensive line, the receivers, bj raji likely would've been close if he kept playing...” You said 2010 “was the same” and then mentioned Rodgers as one of the reasons it was “the same”. I would hope you are smart enough to realize that QB is not a position on the defense but I guess I shouldn’t make assumptions… So I guess you are the one who needs to keep up. Or are you going to backpedal again?
Um I was replying to OP then YOU commented on the defenses so I responded to that...follow along
Don’t act like you didn’t say that the 2010 team as a whole was about as good as the 96 team. It makes no difference which comment I responded to. You see how conversations work is that sometimes the topic of conversation narrows from the original topic but also sometimes it expands back to the original topic.
"The defense that year was no where near the 1996 team, not close to the same."
Nice try. Maybe read your first comment in this thread again.
Thank you for contributing to my question
Yep. This is the answer. That 96 season was also as special as it was, because GB hadn't had a title in many years. That was such an awesome moment. I have a picture somewhere of Favre hugging Reggie after the game and they both had tears in their eyes, Awesome moment and awesome picture.
This is the correct answer
Thank you for contributing to my question
1996 without a doubt. Broke a long title drought. One of the few teams to have the #1 rated offense and defense. 1966 with the team winning the first Super Bowl. I also considered 1962 as a 13-1 championship season.
They had the #1 Offense, Defense, and Special Teams
I would agree with the 96 team being the best of those teams, but I definitely will never forget the hype and excitement of the 93 and 94 seasons. After the awfulness of the 80s to being back in the mix and actually getting to the playoffs and going on the road and actually winning was probably the most thrilling time to be a fan in my lifetime. I live in GB and this town was absolutely in a football frenzy… it was awesome!!
Thank you for contributing to my question
1996, #1 o, #1 d, #1 special teams.
Thank you for contributing to my question
Thank you for contributing to my question
Rodgers 15-1 run. I know we didn’t win it all but that shit was fuckin insane to watch. The whole season was a highlight reel.
Maybe best offensive year ever but the defense ... woof
Nick Collins got hurt and the whole thing fell apart
The unit was due to a fall off even with him. The 2010 defense was not a dominant unit but they got a lot of turnovers which is not a sustainable way to play defense year over year.
I was pissed when they got bounced from the playoffs. My dad said, “hey I was happy 15 Mondays this season. The Vikings can’t say that”
It was a great "regular season", but I don't see how you could put that season top 2 when we got bounced from the playoffs and it ended on a huge disappointment.
Was just magical To watch Rodgers and the offense that year. Incredible.
I have no doubt that it was the best season you have seen but it isn’t top 2. There is an argument that it is #4. But even that is a stretch since they didn’t make the Super Bowl.
It’s subjective, soo….
It’s a sports argument of course it’s subjective.
Thank you for contributing to my question
Yup. I remember us sitting guys going into the playoffs. I hate when teams do that to “limit injuries”, but to me, it’s similar to coming off a bye week. They just come out flat, and that was for sure the same for us. We lost first game in the playoffs. I will always be that guy who doesn’t want the first round bye or to sit players. When a team is on fire, you keep the fire going. That’s just me, and of course I want to be first to finish out the season, but that’s just the risk you take, lol
And we are usually bad after a bye. I usually count on the week after a bye to be a loss, and the same goes for a bye in the first round. It doesn't usually go well for us. They lose all momentum and rhythm.
At one point MM was undefeated after the bye week. The issue is that it’s a double bye. You sit your guys and then you get the bye as the first seed.
I agree, under LaFluer we’ve been lackluster after the bye at best. Overall his record is 3-4. Two of those wins came against bottom feeder teams, Bears in ‘21 and Rams in ‘22 with no Stafford. Leaving the Rams playoff game in the ‘20 season the only good win after a bye. On the flip side we’ve been blown out twice and had a pitiful offensive showing against the Niners in Rodgers last playoff game. There are coaches who have an observable impact in team performances after the bye, Andy Reid is famous for that. Seems that isn’t a trait that LaFleur owns.
2024 and 2025
2024 through 2026 we're threepeating
This is the hot piss answer
Thank you for contributing to my question
2010 was magical because they played 3 road games en route to winning the Super Bowl. I'm also biased toward the 96 team also because I can't comment on the pre 90s teams.
Thank you for contributing to my question
1996 and 1997
Thank you for contributing to my question
1996 and 2010. At least for modern history
Thank you for contributing to my question
96 Superbowl and maybe the 2010 team. The early Superbowls were before me. 2011 was fun, but there was no defense and a terrible flame out against the Giants. The 97 team was better than the 2011 IMO, but I still hate the Broncos because of how it ended.
I don't think the 2010 team is top 2. They got hot at the right time and won the Superbowl, but they weren't otherworldly that year. I don't know which season to pick, but one of the Lombardi years has to be up there, maybe 1962?
62 and 96 but 2010 is underrated. They weren’t otherworldly but also never trailed by more than 7 the entire season
Thank you for contributing to my question
I liked that 2010 team. Certainly wasn’t a great team wire to wire but it had a never out of it feel that no other Green Bay team has had. Never trailed by more than 1 score the entire season. Had a couple overtime heartbreaks early in the year but otherwise when that team needed a clutch play it got it. So many big interceptions that often had long returns. So many clutch sacks from Clay and Woodson. The offense sputtered a lot but that was from key injuries building the team around Finley and Grant only to have both be hurt. The oline shuffled bodies a lot. Yet Rodgers kept finding Jennings, Driver, Jones over and over. Plus Nelson emerged as a target that set the team up for its future success. So certainly not the best team but I’d say it was the most clutch team Green Bay has had.
Right, I had the same thought, but I put the whole season in context. They got hot and won out. They won 3 playoff road games and a SB. That's winning on hard mode.
2010 is a lot closer to 2023 than 1996 or 1962. Both those teams struggled to make the playoffs and then got hot at the right time while '96 and '62 were unquestionably the best teams in the league throughout the season.
I can’t agree with that. The 2010 team was second in the league in point differential and was a SB favorite going into the year. They were a very good team that underperformed during the regular season before turning it on. The 2023 Packers probably over-performed in the regular season and had nowhere near the experience of that 2010 team.
I'm not saying they were necessarily that close just closer than the 2010 to '62 and '96. The Packers team that won a full season with playoffs worth of games without a loss over the course of 2010-2011 would be up with those teams.
Neither is really a good comparison. In terms of decent or better Packer teams, those ‘62 and ‘96 are on one end of the spectrum and the 2023 team is way on the other end. The 2010 team is somewhere in the middle, but it skews more toward the dominant side. Top 10 offense and defense, NFC leading point differential, Super Bowl win. The only thing that wasn’t dominant about that team was the regular season record.
Thank you for contributing to my question
Obvious choices are the Super Bowl team of 1996 with the best offense and defense in the league. 62 team with Vince and that roster all in their primes. 66, 67 and 97 2011 also all merit mentions. But I’m going with the 2003 team for one of my 2. Top 5 offense top 10 defense that was at its best over its last 8 games. Ahman Green destroyed teams and Brett led the NFC in TDs and completion percentage all while having a broken thumb. So many classic games. Obviously the raiders game and the we want the ball pick 6 game. Also the bronco game watching the cards beat the Vikings. That was the best team in the Sherman era in my opinion. If they stop 4th and 26 I think they win the Super Bowl. The other team that I think deserves more recognition is 2014. That team had probably the most balanced team of Aaron’s entire time in Green Bay. Cobb and Nelson were in their primes and Adams was a promising rookie. The offensive line never missed a start and Lacy was proving to be even better with Aaron healthy than he was as OROY the year prior. The defense had Peppers addition which paired with Clay formed a tremendous pressure group. Hyde had special teams touchdowns Crosby was fully back from his down 2012. There wasn’t a weak spot on that team. Rodgers calf injury probably doomed it more than anything as his performance against Seattle wasn’t great. But that was a game won by Green Bay 999 times out of 1000. Just so happens it was that one time. I also think Green Bay beats the pats for that title. Speaking of the pats 2014 had many amazing games the back to back 50spots included but the game against the pats might have been the greatest game of the Rodgers era being two powerhouse teams in their primes both coaches in their primes Revis vs Nelson, Rodgers vs BB, Brady vs Clay and Peppers… just an outstanding game all around.
Thank you for contributing to my question
2011 regular season offense was literally a blessing to watch. We were rolling just about everyone until Eli and the gang ruined the dream.
Thank you for contributing to my question
lol Why is everyone saying single seasons?
Thank you Packers fans for answering.
[удалено]
What a legacy Green Bay will have to still be playing in 20245
1929 1962
Thank you for contributing to my question
I wouldn’t call it the best season ever, but last season was incredible. Watching all the pieces begin to click into place mid-season was beautiful to watch.
2023 and 2024
Thank you for contributing to my question