Top 10 Packers - all time by NFL Network

[Fosco33]

Last night, NFL Network aired a special - top 10 Packers of all time.

Did you see it? What'd you think?

Here's how it broke down:
- Timeframe: 30s/40s (1), 50s/60s (6), 70s/80s (1), 90s/00s (2)
- Position: QB (2), WR (2), RB (2), DE (1), LB (1), CB (1), OG (1)


1. Don Hutson
2. Brett Favre
3. Bart Starr
4. Reggie White
5. Ray Nitschke
6. Paul Hornung
7. Herb Adderley
8. James Lofton
9. Jerry Kramer
10. Jim Taylor


Discuss:
-Fuzzy or Kramer?
-Brett over Bart?
-Lofton or Sharpe?
-Willie Wood or Adderley or Woodson?
-Willie Davis or Reggie White?

I don't much care for the actual ratings as era comparisons are pretty tough - it was just a different game.

I also see possibilities for a few current Packers (Rodgers, Matthews and Woodson) - they just need more time or reference.

[KalamazooPackerFan]

Lists likes these are probably most useful to serve as debate starters than any real measure of the worth of a player. So...............let's debate! I'd gowith Bart over Brett simply on the basis of post season success. Brett will have the records, some due to longevity and some to his undeniable talent but his post Super Bowl meltdowns at key moments in big games definitely put him a rung below Bart (and if Aaron continues his ascent, possibly a rung below him as well.)

And while judging current players against the retrospecetive view of retired players is tricky, I honestly think Woodson might be the best DB the Packers have ever had.

[sheepshead]

Favre is far and away number one. He holds every record and gave us more highlight reels then we are likely to ever see in our lifetimes.

[Upnorth]

Bart Starr is the GOAT, except for maybe Montana! Pre, regular and post season!!
The pack has been spoiled by so many great qb's, brett maybe our third best, and soon fourth best qb. Accumulation stats mean little compared to efficency. Paul Hornung needs to be higher, but who can you put him over? What an amazing group! There is a reason no one has more championships than the pack!
So of todays crew, woodson belongs already. If arod and cmIII keep up their play for 4-5 more years who could they replace?
We need a top twenty, not top ten!

[MadtownPacker]

Is there anything special about a list like this? Been done a thousand times. Im guessing they pull the same names out of a hat and put them in order just to write something. Even though I never saw him I would have to say SB wins puts Starr and his '60s teammates #1.

[Patler]

I did see him, and I would clearly put Starr ahead of Favre. Starr also made lots of highlight plays, the only problem is there wasn't the video coverage at the time to publicize it, nor have many been kept.

For me, the big difference is this- at the end of a close game I wondered if Favre would pull out a miraculous play to win, or a bonehead play to lose it. He did both with great frequency. With Starr, I automatically assumed he would win it, and he almost always did. On the rare occasions that he didn't win it, it was never because of a bad play by him. In crunch time, he simply didn't screw up.

[Patler]

Discuss:
-Fuzzy or Kramer?



Kramer. I don't think it is particularly close. Thursten was a good player, Kramer was a great player.

[MJZiggy]

I did see him, and I would clearly put Starr ahead of Favre. Starr also made lots of highlight plays, the only problem is there wasn't the video coverage at the time to publicize it, nor have many been kept.

For me, the big difference is this- at the end of a close game I wondered if Favre would pull out a miraculous play to win, or a bonehead play to lose it. He did both with great frequency. With Starr, I automatically assumed he would win it, and he almost always did. On the rare occasions that he didn't win it, it was never because of a bad play by him. In crunch time, he simply didn't screw up.
Amen.

[red]

starr was a great leader and above average QB (skill wise)

favre had a ton more skill but didn't have the leadership qualities of starr

tough call

starr has all the titles, but also had maybe the best team of all time built around him, with the best coach of all time

i think the sting of favre is still fresh in the air. i'm guessing in 10 or 20 years it won't even be much of a debate anymore. favre was the better qb

[The Shadow]

Bart, definitely.

[Fosco33]

Starr
- 5 Championships
- 1 MVP Season
- 9 and 1 in post season (WOW) and no home playoff losses
- Passer rating (104)
- 4 X 1st or 2nd Team All Pro
- 4 Pro Bowls
- 24,000 passing yards, 152 TDs and 138 INTs (3100 attempts)
- #51 - All time player by NFL.com

Favre
- 297 consecutive games
- 70,000 yards and 500+ TDs with 300+ INTs (10,000 attempts - 3 X as many as Starr)
- 3 X MVP
- 1 Super Bowl
- 11 Pro Bowls
- 6 X 1st or 2nd Team All Pro
- Every passing record that matters


We're blessed to have this discussion - particularly with a current QB that may make the #1 all time Packer QB a mute discussion.

Having never seen Starr - it's hard for me to say. Purely from championships and post season record - you have to give it to Starr (w/ a caveat of Lombardi's Packers... not Favre's packers).

[pbmax]

Kramer. I don't think it is particularly close. Thursten was a good player, Kramer was a great player.

I have read that Kramer's post career notoriety (Ice Bowl, Instant Replay, television interviews) had an inflationary effect on the assessment of his career and talents. He was also a favorite of Lombardi's supposedly (teammates have commented about this) and was brought up by the coach as the type of player he loved.

So was Kramer the best interior lineman of that late Lombardi era? Fuzzy retired earlier and I know many people feel that Kramer's contribution to Starr's sneak was to jump offside while Ken Bowman made a better block. And that Gale Gillingham was at least his equal and Kramer was a lock solid pick for the HoF due to his post career rather than his on field accomplishments and that Gillingham's HoF chances suffered from Lombardi's era overload.

But I have only ever seen NFL Films and other highlights. What do eyewitnesses think?

[sheepshead]

Good call on Woodson, yes he belongs on the list. ARod could very well make the top of this list one day.

[Patler]

starr was a great leader and above average QB (skill wise)

favre had a ton more skill but didn't have the leadership qualities of starr

tough call

starr has all the titles, but also had maybe the best team of all time built around him, with the best coach of all time

i think the sting of favre is still fresh in the air. i'm guessing in 10 or 20 years it won't even be much of a debate anymore. favre was the better qb

I disagree with that. The team Starr had around him in the early '60s was great, and he was an important part but the team as a whole might have won with other QBS. The three-peat teams were not so great. Great players had left or retired. Great players had gotten old and were not so great anymore. Starr made the difference on those teams. Guys like Kramer and Gregg had often said they won in those later years simply because Starr would not accept losing.

There is a part of the Lombardi years and success that I think is overlooked. Lombardi was a great in his roles of acquiring players and motivating the players. But, in those days the QBs called the plays, and Starr was a master at that. I wonder if Lombardi's simple approach to offense would have been as successful without a master like Starr setting up plays the way he did, with calls early in the game lulling teams into mistakes late in the game and calling the unexpected plays at the times he did.

To me, a QB is much more than just his stats. Favre had a lot of great stats and highlight plays, but he had so many opportunities to take the team to the next game of the playoffs and failed to do so. Very few of his great games were playoff games, but several of his worst performances were playoff games and his greatest gaffes came in playoff games.

I felt this way about Favre while he was in GB, and often wrote of it. Time won't change my opinion. Starr was at his best when the team needed it the most. I can't say the same for Favre.

Favre had unbelievable personal stats, but what did he achieve with them? When all was said and done and playoff games came done to final drives, when a truly great QB should step forward and lead, drag or carry his team to a final score, how many times did Favre screw it up? How many times did he make the blunder that killed the chance? Whether or not it should have come down to that drive, it did; and too many times the teams last chance was killed by a Favre mistake. To me, that isn't the record of the greatest players at the most important position.

[Fosco33]

Willie Davis - spent 10 years with the Pack and prior to the sack concept - he would've recorded more than 100 (possibly 120 or 140) - including one year with 25. Obviously - he was part of all the world championships (5) in the 60s. He also holds fumble recovery record.

Reggie spent 6 years with the Pack and had 68.5 sacks - winning one SB.

I'm a huge Reggie fan - but I think time is playing in his favor. Sounds like Davis would be the all time sack holder, anchor of the line of the 60s and an impressive consecutive game streak to boot.

[Scott Campbell]

In a way, Favre deserves to be associated with #2.


But he can't hold Bart's jock.

[Patler]

I have read that Kramer's post career notoriety (Ice Bowl, Instant Replay, television interviews) had an inflationary effect on the assessment of his career and talents. He was also a favorite of Lombardi's supposedly (teammates have commented about this) and was brought up by the coach as the type of player he loved.

So was Kramer the best interior lineman of that late Lombardi era? Fuzzy retired earlier and I know many people feel that Kramer's contribution to Starr's sneak was to jump offside while Ken Bowman made a better block. And that Gale Gillingham was at least his equal and Kramer was a lock solid pick for the HoF due to his post career rather than his on field accomplishments and that Gillingham's HoF chances suffered from Lombardi's era overload.

But I have only ever seen NFL Films and other highlights. What do eyewitnesses think?

Funny that you mention it, because as I was typing my earlier response I initially put in that Gale Gillingham would have been a better one to compare to Kramer than Thursten was, but I decided not to bring another player into the debate, so I deleted it. Part of my reason for deleting it was I couldn't decide who I thought was better, Kramer or Gillingham.

Kramer had the accolades while he played, not just after it. His reputation was well established before the ice bowl game and before his post playing career. Kramer was the better player when Thursten was his running mate at guard.

Gillingham is another matter. He was there for the end of the Lombardi years, then suffered through the poor teams that followed. There were often stories that he might have been the best guard in the NFL into the early 70's, but the team had little respect and the players were mostly overlooked, except for Gillingham. He routinely appeared on the first team All-conference and All-NFL lists. Yes, Gillingham might have been a better guard than Kramer was.

[3irty1]

If There exist arguments for putting Starr over Favre but if Starr's accomplishments put him over Favre, they put him over everyone. Nobody else has 5 rings.

Don Hutson at 1 is the right call. He was as dominant a player as the NFL has ever seen and his records will stand for centuries.

[Upnorth]

If There exist arguments for putting Starr over Favre but if Starr's accomplishments put him over Favre, they put him over everyone. Nobody else has 5 rings.

Don Hutson at 1 is the right call. He was as dominant a player as the NFL has ever seen and his records will stand for centuries.

The only qb who might compare with Starr is Montana, and I think starr has him beat as GOAT qb.
Hutson should be number one on list of all players!

[Patler]

Willie Davis - spent 10 years with the Pack and prior to the sack concept - he would've recorded more than 100 (possibly 120 or 140) - including one year with 25. Obviously - he was part of all the world championships (5) in the 60s. He also holds fumble recovery record.

Reggie spent 6 years with the Pack and had 68.5 sacks - winning one SB.

I'm a huge Reggie fan - but I think time is playing in his favor. Sounds like Davis would be the all time sack holder, anchor of the line of the 60s and an impressive consecutive game streak to boot.

I think it comes down to deciding if we should list the greatest players who were Packers at one time, or the greatest in how they played as Packers. In other words, do we look at their entire careers, or just how they played in the years that they were Packers?

Both Davis and White were exceptional players, and if you look at their entire careers I think White comes out on top, but not by as much as some might think. If you look only at their careers as Packers, my nod would go to Davis.

[pbmax]

Funny that you mention it, because as I was typing my earlier response I initially put in that Gale Gillingham would have been a better one to compare to Kramer than Thursten was, but I decided not to bring another player into the debate, so I deleted it. Part of my reason for deleting it was I couldn't decide who I thought was better, Kramer or Gillingham.

Kramer had the accolades while he played, not just after it. His reputation was well established before the ice bowl game and before his post playing career. Kramer was the better player when Thursten was his running mate at guard.

Gillingham is another matter. He was there for the end of the Lombardi years, then suffered through the poor teams that followed. There were often stories that he might have been the best guard in the NFL into the early 70's, but the team had little respect and the players were mostly overlooked, except for Gillingham. He routinely appeared on the first team All-conference and All-NFL lists. Yes, Gillingham might have been a better guard than Kramer was.

That was essentially Zimmerman's take on Gillingham. I wonder where Bowman fit into the picture. He replaced Curry at center, after Lombardi decided Curry couldn't handle Butkus. At least, that is the take Bill Curry gives in radio interviews. He is exceedingly honest about the criticism Lombardi leveled at him, to the point that its uncomfortable to listen. Lombardi at some point said point blank that Curry was in awe of Butkus and couldn't win a battle with him. And Curry admits this might have been true.

But Bowman was on the team before Curry and seems to have replaced him after. And the Packers did not run as well later in the decade. I have never heard where Bowman fit into this story.

[Patler]

That was essentially Zimmerman's take on Gillingham. I wonder where Bowman fit into the picture. He replaced Curry at center, after Lombardi decided Curry couldn't handle Butkus. At least, that is the take Bill Curry gives in radio interviews. He is exceedingly honest about the criticism Lombardi leveled at him, to the point that its uncomfortable to listen. Lombardi at some point said point blank that Curry was in awe of Butkus and couldn't win a battle with him. And Curry admits this might have been true.

But Bowman was on the team before Curry and seems to have replaced him after. And the Packers did not run as well later in the decade. I have never heard where Bowman fit into this story.

I think Lombardi just gave up on Curry to soon. I think he was only with the Packers for two years. Curry went on to a pretty good career with the Colts, even making a couple All-Pro teams. I don't remember what the Packers got for Curry from the Colts.

As I recall, it was sort of a debate as to who should be starting, Bowman or Curry, but initially Curry seemed to have greater potential. I remember at the time not being worried when Curry left, because I thought Bowman would do OK. I think that is what Bowman ended up being. A good enough center that you didn't think he needed to be replaced, but not an all-world guy either. I think Curry ended up being the better player, but probably not by a lot.