T.E.D's Packers Report Card: Offense

[LegandofthePack15]

Now that the great Bob McGinn has graded the Packers, it is T.E.D's turn. For the clueless, T.E.D stands for Tank Elf Duke.

Quarterbacks (grade in parenthesis):

Rodgers (C)- Like it or not everything Rodgers does in his career will be compared to the G.O.A.T...As the world turns, Rodgers' career path is deviating further and further away from Favre's - for the worse...In his first playoff game, Rodgers overthrew a WIDE OPEN Greg Jennings in the clutch, a costly mistake that eventually cost the Packers their playoff game against Kurt Warner; by comparison, in the G.O.A.T's first playoff game he connected with a WIDE OPEN Sterling Sharpe, an awesome throw that eventually beat Barry Sanders...After the G.O.A.T won his first Super Bowl, he led the Packers back to the Super Bowl; after Rodgers won his first Super Bowl, he led the Packers to a very fucking 1 and Done...Favre, as reigning NFL MVP, played like an MVP; Rodgers, as reigning MVP, played like a rookie who had no fucking clue how to beat the two shell defense...Rodgers also held the ball longer than it takes Bob Dole to play a round of golf...The G.O.A.T, single-highhandedly might I add, beat the shit out of the FuckingNiners the first time he played them in the playoffs; Rodgers, well, he got his shit beaten by the FuckingNiners.

Harrell (D-)- Was terrible in the pre-season; was terrible in his token appearances during the regular season...Despite the many sacks Rodgers took, he was able to display G.O.A.T toughness...Thank Deity.

Runningbacks:

DuJuan Harris (A) - In the show "King of the Hill" John Redcorn is always known as 'John Redcorn.' Likewise, I will refer to DuJuan Harris by his full name...DuJuan Harris is THAT awesome...DuJuan Harris came out of nowhere and took the league by storm...That someone called him a "Tyrell Sutton" clone is laughable...DuJuan Harris should be the Packers' feature back in 2013...1,600+ yards and 15+ tds in 2013...Bank on it.

Benson (B-) - Was giving the Packers a respectable run game until his injury...Kinda bittersweet b/c the injury gave DuJuan Harris an opportunity...Wouldn't hurt to bring Benson back next season.

Green (C) - Rare as it was, Green showed glimpses of Adrian Peterson at times...But it was an illusion...Would make a great 3rd down back.

Kuhn (D) - Not the short-yardage back he once was...Couldn't gain a yard on those stupid FB dives to save his 8 inch sword...Why the fuck was he still playing on third downs?...Yo McRetardy, d-coordinators don't blitz you anymore!

Starks (D-) - Was more injury-prone than Don Majikowski.

Wide Receivers:

Cobb (A-) - Did everything except punt and kick the ball...Negative? Averaged less than 12 yards a catch.

Jones (B+) - Was a touchdown machine...Nice guy, good player...But as a GM, I'd trade Jones and keep Jennings.

Nelson (B) - Biggest and most physical player on the roster....Yet, was even more fragile than Jennings.

Jennings (C) - When healthy, this guy is elite...I'd trade Jones and keep Jennings.

Boykins (D) - Ran up and down the field a few times on special teams...Not a bad way to make 6 figures.

Driver (D) - Clearly, the Packers were preparing Driver for a coaching gag when he retires.

Ross (D-) - Got some folks a bit hard in the two games he played against the Vikings...Then went to The Castro and laid a big fucking egg.

Tight Ends:

J-Mike (B+) - Would be putting up huge numbers in an offense like New England's or New Orleans...Was open at least a dozen times a game but the extremely sensitive Rodgers didn't bother to look J-Mike's way...Go J-Mike!...Go J-Mike! (And go J-Walk!)

Crabtree (C) - With body full of tattoos, Crabtree made a few nice plays here and there.

Williams (D+) - Wrestled a cow but played like a cowgirl...What does the cowgirl position look like when one wrestles a cow?...LOL. I am fucking funny.

Taylor (D-) - This guy was on the team? Ted Thompson loves tight ends, literally.

Quarless (INC) - Ball dropped. Incomplete.

Offensive Line:

F - What a pathetic, iniquitous, nefarious, fraudulent bunch of fat guys...Except for maybe Sitton everyone else is replaceable and should be replaced...Oh, btw, fire Champen...Mike Tice is a available.

[Pugger]

What in the hell does a throw from 2009 have to do with this year? Yeah, let's dump the reigning MVP. We can always sign Timmy Tebow and our QB problems will disappear. You, sir, are a freaking moron. Quit living in the damn past and get over the loss of Favre already! :lol:

[Patler]

Legand; You have your facts wrong (no surprise).

After the real G.O.A.T. won his first championship, he took them back and WON again; and before his career was up he took them back and WON again, and WON again, and WON again.

After the photographer/model won his first championship, he took them back and lost, then disappeared from playoff significance except for the games he botched.

[LegandofthePack15]

What in the hell does a throw from 2009 have to do with this year? Yeah, let's dump the reigning MVP. We can always sign Timmy Tebow and our QB problems will disappear. You, sir, are a freaking moron. Quit living in the damn past and get over the loss of Favre already! :lol:

Rodgers' career will always be pitted against Favre's. That's just the way it is. Right now the G.O.A.T has the upper hand.

Rodgers took the monkey off his back by winning SB 45 with a 10-6 team, a team that lost to hapless, tasteless teams like Washington, Detroit and Miami. But Rodgers is still living in the shadow of the G.O.A.T, Brett Favre. Just compare the facts and you'll see why.

[Pugger]

Sorry pal, Favre is not the GOAT of this franchise let alone the league.

[Deputy Nutz]

Every time Tank brings up Favre, he is totally disrespecting the legend and doesn't even know it.

Favre is a top 5 QB all time in the NFL and was one of the top 3 most entertaining football players ever. I am a huge Montana fan but lets be realistic it was a lot easier to win championships before free agency, and he also had the best football player ever to throw the ball to. Plus, he had one of the 3 best coaches ever. I am sure everyone can imagine how many more championships Favre could have had a better opportunity at winning if Holmgren would have stayed along with Ron Wolf. Montana was great but when comparing players remember they all played in different eras that has as much of an impact as anything else.

[LegandofthePack15]

Legand; You have your facts wrong (no surprise).

After the real G.O.A.T. won his first championship, he took them back and WON again; and before his career was up he took them back and WON again, and WON again, and WON again.

After the photographer/model won his first championship, he took them back and lost, then disappeared from playoff significance except for the games he botched.

No way Bart Starr is the G.O.A.T when all he did was hand the ball off to a couple of HOF runningbacks. And Starr's claim to fame was a selfish act: instead of handing the ball off as called, Starr took the sneak in the "Ice Bowl."

Its harder to win championships today than back then. That's why the G.O.A.T only have 1 ring; 3 if you include NFC Title games.

[LegandofthePack15]

Every time Tank brings up Favre, he is totally disrespecting the legend and doesn't even know it.

Favre is a top 5 QB all time in the NFL and was one of the top 3 most entertaining football players ever. I am a huge Montana fan but lets be realistic it was a lot easier to win championships before free agency, and he also had the best football player ever to throw the ball to. Plus, he had one of the 3 best coaches ever. I am sure everyone can imagine how many more championships Favre could have had a better opportunity at winning if Holmgren would have stayed along with Ron Wolf. Montana was great but when comparing players remember they all played in different eras that has as much of an impact as anything else.

The STATS say Favre is the G.O.A.T.

Winningiest qb. Most passing yards. Passing TD king. Iron man. On and on.

[denverYooper]

The STATS say Favre is the G.O.A.T.

Winningiest qb. Most passing yards. Passing TD king. Iron man. On and on.

:lol:

Keep choppin' wood.

You do realize that one of those leads to the others, right?

[Deputy Nutz]

The greatest stat ever for Favre is the consecutive starts. For a team to rely on a QB suiting up each week regardless of personal, or physical ailments is unbelievable. Each week the Packers had a player that could single handed win a football contest show up. Rodgers has also been fantastic with keeping himself in the starting lineup. He has only missed one game due to injury in 5 years. That is remarkable, although not surprising in today's NFL.

[Patler]

The greatest stat ever for Favre is the consecutive starts. For a team to rely on a QB suiting up each week regardless of personal, or physical ailments is unbelievable. Each week the Packers had a player that could single handed win a football contest show up. Rodgers has also been fantastic with keeping himself in the starting lineup. He has only missed one game due to injury in 5 years. That is remarkable, although not surprising in today's NFL.

Yup, and not likely to be matched with today's emphasis on injuries, especially concussions. Not to take anything away from his amazing record, but Favre had a few concussions, too. Who knows if he would have cleared the tests under today's practices. It seems more and more players are out at least the following week for a concussion.

Just another example of how quickly the "eras" change in the NFL, and why it is difficult to compare players on stats alone. Favre set his record when lots of other QBs couldn't. Manning had an impressive streak going, then missed an entire season,

The long and short of it is that the Packer fans have been as lucky as anyone to have darn good QB play over the last 50+ years:

Starr 1960 - 1970
Dickey 1976 - 1985
Majkowski 1987 - 91
Favre 1992 - 2007
Rodgers 2008 - present

Granted, Dickey and Majkowski missed a lot of games, but were as exciting to watch as the others when they did play. To go from Dickey to Majkowski to Favre to Rodgers with only one full year of Randy Wright has spoiled Packer fans.

[pbmax]

That is remarkable, although not surprising in today's NFL.

There are six QB's who have missed 2 or fewer starts in the last five years.

Manning, Flacco and Rivers have made 80 starts. Brees has 79 (Rodgers would be here if not for day off prior to Lions game). 78 includes Rodgers. Ryan is at 77.

[pbmax]

The STATS say Favre is the G.O.A.T.

Winningiest qb. Most passing yards. Passing TD king. Iron man. On and on.

You can do better than to just repeat total number stats. You make him sound like Pete Rose. Unless you think Pete Rose was the best baseball player ever?

[Pugger]

The Packers' GOAT has a ring for each finger on his throwing hand. tinkerbelle's boyfriend has one and is the league's leader in playoff INTs with 30.

[Deputy Nutz]

you have to go to a lot of playoff games to throw that many interceptions.

[Deputy Nutz]

6 did come in one game. After the 3rd one that clanged off Freeman's hands I don't think he gave a shit about throwing picks anymore. He just said "fuck it, I'm throwing it."

[Deputy Nutz]

The 60's Packers were loaded, it is not like Starr carried the team on his shoulders for a decade. He had a hell of a lot of Hall of Famers on that team.

The Packers had Favre, and White. I simply can't think of another Hall of Famer during that time that played for the Packers. The next closest is Leroy Butler, and maybe Darren Sharper.

[Joemailman]

The Packers' GOAT has a ring for each finger on his throwing hand. tinkerbelle's boyfriend has one and is the league's leader in playoff INTs with 30.

And #1 in yards and #2 in TD passes.

[Patler]

The 60's Packers were loaded, it is not like Starr carried the team on his shoulders for a decade. He had a hell of a lot of Hall of Famers on that team.

The Packers had Favre, and White. I simply can't think of another Hall of Famer during that time that played for the Packers. The next closest is Leroy Butler, and maybe Darren Sharper.

Yes and no. Again, hard to compare then and now. The League was much smaller, fewer teams, smaller rosters (40) and a lot fewer players. but the HOF has always selected their 4-7 players. The HOF'ers from the '60s were concentrated on a lot fewer teams. Yes, the Packers had a lot of them, but teams like the Bears, Lions, Cots and even Vikings of the '60s also had a lot of HOF'ers, more than most of today's teams will have. The Packers of the '60s were playing a lot of teams with a bunch of future HOF'ers. I'm not sure the same can be said for many of the teams Favre played against.

[Noodle]

I actually kind of agreed with many of the player ratings. Once you look past QB, Tank is not too bad about gradomg talent.

But as to the GOAT, for the Pack, it's Starr. Five championships, 9-1 record in playoffs (best all-time), and his 104.8 postseason qb rating is, incredibly, also best all-time, even though passer rating has gone through the roof since the early 90s. Check out his yard/attempt numbers (which in my judgment is the best measurement of a qb), 11th all time and way better than Favre, who comes in at number 65 all time. And he did all this calling his own plays.

Like Patler says, we're incredibly lucky to be having this debate. I doubt this comes up very often on Bear boards.

[Joemailman]

I actually kind of agreed with many of the player ratings. Once you look past QB, Tank is not too bad about gradomg talent.

But as to the GOAT, for the Pack, it's Starr. Five championships, 9-1 record in playoffs (best all-time), and his 104.8 postseason qb rating is, incredibly, also best all-time, even though passer rating has gone through the roof since the early 90s. Check out his yard/attempt numbers (which in my judgment is the best measurement of a qb), 11th all time and way better than Favre, who comes in at number 65 all time. And he did all this calling his own plays.

Like Patler says, we're incredibly lucky to be having this debate. I doubt this comes up very often on Bear boards.

Starr had some advantages though. Because the '60's Packers were a strong running team, play action was very effective and many of Starr's big plays came off that. Also, because Starr only threw the ball about 20 times per game, 1 or 2 big plays would boost the YPA more than it would the QB's who played in a later era. None of this argues against Starr being G.O.A.T., just that comparing different eras is hard to do.

[Patler]

And #1 in yards and #2 in TD passes.

And with the positive stats for yards and TDs he is (or was) #19 in winning percentage of QBs with 10 or more playoff starts.

In some ways, a player of many contradictions.

[Patler]

Starr had some advantages though. Because the '60's Packers were a strong running team, play action was very effective and many of Starr's big plays came off that. Also, because Starr only threw the ball about 20 times per game, 1 or 2 big plays would boost the YPA more than it would the QB's who played in a later era. None of this argues against Starr being G.O.A.T., just that comparing different eras is hard to do.

He also had a few significant disadvantages, too. DB's who could shove and grab receivers until the ball was in the air, OL who had to keep their hands in and against their chests while blocking DL who could use head slaps and a lot of other maneuvers now not allowed, defenders who could lay him out long, long after the ball was thrown.

Just more reasons why statistical comparisons 30-40 years apart are almost impossible.

[Joemailman]

And with the positive stats for yards and TDs he is (or was) #19 in winning percentage of QBs with 10 or more playoff starts.

In some ways, a player of many contradictions.

Definitely a player of contradictions. One of the fascinating things about him. I would point out though that unlike many of the playoff QB's ranked ahead of him, Favre did not have the advantage of playing all or the vast majority most his playoff games under 1 great coach. Starr/Lombardi, Brees/Payton, Brady/Belichick, Montana/Walsh, Rodgers/McCarthy. Under Holmgren, Favre was 9-5 (0-3 against a superior Dallas team), and his passer rating under Holmgren would put him 8th all-time. He wqsn't the greatest, but he was one of the greatest, despite the flaws.

[Travbrew]

Rodgers' career will always be pitted against Favre's. That's just the way it is. Right now the G.O.A.T has the upper hand.

Rodgers took the monkey off his back by winning SB 45 with a 10-6 team, a team that lost to hapless, tasteless teams like Washington, Detroit and Miami. But Rodgers is still living in the shadow of the G.O.A.T, Brett Favre. Just compare the facts and you'll see why.

Yes, let's compare facts.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-definitive-list-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks/6376/

1. BART STARR (Green Bay, 1956-71)

Best season (1966): 156 for 251 (62.2%), 2,257 yards, 9.0 YPA, 14 TD, 3 INT, 105.0 passer rating

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Championships: 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967

Overview: That's right. Bart Starr. The greatest quarterback in the history of the game.



Sit down and take notes:



History has done a grave disservice to the legacy of Starr, the 17th-round draft pick out of pre-Bear Bryant Alabama who turned into the most clutch and most cruelly efficient passing assassin of his or any other generation.



History remembers Starr's legendary coach, and the bevy of Hall of Fame talent that surrounded him. It forgets that Starr was Lombardi's second in command, a tremendous big-game performer, and that the Packers of the 1960s would have been just another team without the prolific Starr as their beloved on-field leader. Instead, they won five NFL championships, with Starr at the helm of every single one of those title teams, while he crafted an NFL-record 9-1 postseason mark. The rings say it all: Starr is the only quarterback in history who has one for every finger on his throwing hand.



And even if you listen to teammates today, they make it pretty clear that they would have fallen on a grenade for Starr. Leadership is an elemental piece of quarterbacking – probably more important than gaudy passing stats. And that love his teammates had for their field general is an incredible sign of his leadership.



But forget, for a moment, the team accomplishments and the "intangibles" of leadership.



If you want to talk passing and statistics, we'll put Starr up against anybody. Anybody.



He led the NFL in passer rating five times. Johnny Unitas led the league in passer rating just twice. Ditto Joe Montana. Only Steve Young surpassed Starr's mark (six).



And, lest we forget, Starr was the best postseason passer in NFL history, as evidenced by his record 104.8 playoff passer rating and 1.41 percent interception rate, also a postseason record (CHFF readers are well aware of the importance of not throwing picks in the playoffs). Starr played in an era when 80 was a decent passer rating. Yet he still performed more efficiently in the playoffs than folks such as Montana, Brady, Manning, Marino, Young and ... well, anybody, ever.



There's a cause and effect here, folks: NFL's greatest dynasty, only winners of three-straight title games, and a record 9-1 postseason mark. And there, underlying it all, is Starr with his postseason passing records. The two are intricately intertwined.



History also remembers Starr's Packers as a great running team, and that's certainly true of their earlier years. But the truth is that they typically passed the ball more effectively than they ran it, especially during their run of three straight, when they were a below-average running team.



In their 1965 championship season, the Packers were 11th in the 14-team league with an average of 3.4 yards per rushing attempt. They were second in the league, with an average of 8.2 yards per passing attempt.



In their 1966 championship season, the Packers were 14th in the 15-team league, with an average of 3.5 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.9 yards per passing attempt.



In their 1967 championship season, the Packers were 4th in the 16-team league, with an average of 4.0 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.3 yards per passing attempt (Starr himself that season averaged 8.7 YPA).



Starr averaged a remarkable 7.85 YPA over the course of his entire career, the 8th-best mark in history, and better than that of a slate of quarterbacks who are generally regarded as the best passers in history, including Dan Marino (7.37), Joe Montana (7.52), Roger Staubach (7.67), Dan Fouts (7.68), Sonny Jurgensen (7.56), Fran Tarkenton (7.27), Y.A. Tittle (7.52), Terry Bradshaw (7.17) and Joe Namath (7.35).



Six times in the 1960s, Starr surpassed 8.2 YPA for a season. To put that into context, Peyton Manning has surpassed 8.2 YPA just twice in his brilliant 10-year career.



And, if you want drama, don't forget that Starr scored the winning TD in the Ice Bowl, probably the most famous game in NFL history. Sure, Montana led his team 92 yards for the game-winning score in Super Bowl XXIII. But he did it on a 68-degree night in Miami. Turn down the thermostat by 86 degrees (it was 18-below in the fourth quarter of the Ice Bowl) and you begin to approximate the conditions under which the greatest quarterback in NFL history operated during his greatest moment in the sport's greatest game.



And Starr was brilliant on that drive, in the decisive moments of the sport's most famous game: he completed 5 of 5 passes in ball-busting cold, and then called a run play for the winning score. But instead of handing it off, he decided in his mind, without telling his teammates, that he was going to punch it in himself. It was only fitting: the game's greatest signal-caller taking matters into his own hands in the sport's signature moment.



To cap his career achievements, Starr earned MVP honors in the first two Super Bowls after shredding the best the AFL could throw his way for 452 yards on 47 passing attempts (9.6 YPA). Among those victims were the 1967 Raiders, perhaps the AFL's greatest single team. He posted a combined 106.0 passer rating in those two games. If you think it was no small feat to beat up on "upstart" AFL teams, just look at how NFL quarterbacks fared in Super Bowls III and IV. (Here's a hint: they were embarrassed.)



When it comes to a combination of leadership, victories, big-game performances and statistical supremacy nobody – NOBODY – put together a more total package than Bart Starr, the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

Suck it tank.

[pbmax]

Yes and no. Again, hard to compare then and now. The League was much smaller, fewer teams, smaller rosters (40) and a lot fewer players. but the HOF has always selected their 4-7 players. The HOF'ers from the '60s were concentrated on a lot fewer teams. Yes, the Packers had a lot of them, but teams like the Bears, Lions, Cots and even Vikings of the '60s also had a lot of HOF'ers, more than most of today's teams will have. The Packers of the '60s were playing a lot of teams with a bunch of future HOF'ers. I'm not sure the same can be said for many of the teams Favre played against.

You know, that is a good argument for increasing the number of inductees, if that hasn't already happened.

[smuggler]

Best thing about that Cold Hard FB Facts list is this: No Elway. I hate when people put Elway on a pedestal. I know he was a good player, and better than his numbers, but other QBs had to deal with shit, too.

[Iron Mike]

The 60's Packers were loaded, it is not like Starr carried the team on his shoulders for a decade. He had a hell of a lot of Hall of Famers on that team.

The Packers had Favre, and White. I simply can't think of another Hall of Famer during that time that played for the Packers. The next closest is Leroy Butler, and maybe Darren Sharper.

Mike Prior.

[smuggler]

LeRoy Butler approached the borderline, to be fair.

[Deputy Nutz]

Mike Prior.

I always forgret about Mike Prior. He was demon on special teams, drastically changed games during the 1996 season.

[Deputy Nutz]

Best thing about that Cold Hard FB Facts list is this: No Elway. I hate when people put Elway on a pedestal. I know he was a good player, and better than his numbers, but other QBs had to deal with shit, too.

Elway was a fantastic athlete, and he was a pretty damn good QB. He went to a shit load of Super Bowls and he was kind of the stand out, nobody else on those 1980s team really brought any attention besides Elway. He was gamer and I put him in my top 10 list of QBs.

[Deputy Nutz]

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Starr threw an average of 10 touchdown passes a season and threw for less than 2000 yards a season. The Packers dominated the run game during the 60s. He was a great play caller under the GOAT coach.

Favre's td to int ratio was 1.5. Starr's was 1.1

[Patler]

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Starr threw an average of 10 touchdown passes a season and threw for less than 2000 yards a season. The Packers dominated the run game during the 60s. He was a great play caller under the GOAT coach.

Favre's td to int ratio was 1.5. Starr's was 1.1

All true. Even so, at the time Starr played he was considered a very accurate passer, with a low interception rate. With the way DBs were allowed to mug receivers, it was a wonder that any passes were completed sometimes. You didn't see 3, 4 and 5 receivers on the field at the same time, with 40 man rosters they often only had 3 WRs in total on their roster. The RBs were quite involved in the passing game, but that shortened the typical completion length.

It was a rushing league then, not just the Packers. As a result, on average, teams had fewer plays per game than they do now, and a lot fewer pass plays. For all of Starr's career they played just 12 or 14 games per year. In Starr's 16 year career, the team played only 214 games.

Still more reasons why simply comparing stats from the game of the '60s to stats of today is virtually meaningless.

[pbmax]

All true. Even so, at the time Starr played he was considered a very accurate passer, with a low interception rate. With the way DBs were allowed to mug receivers, it was a wonder that any passes were completed sometimes. You didn't see 3, 4 and 5 receivers on the field at the same time, with 40 man rosters they often only had 3 WRs in total on their roster. The RBs were quite involved in the passing game, but that shortened the typical completion length.

It was a rushing league then, not just the Packers. As a result, on average, teams had fewer plays per game than they do now, and a lot fewer pass plays. For all of Starr's career they played just 12 or 14 games per year. In Starr's 16 year career, the team played only 214 games.

Still more reasons why simply comparing stats from the game of the '60s to stats of today is virtually meaningless.

Didn't the Packers running game decline significantly during Lombardi's tenure?

[Joemailman]

Didn't the Packers running game decline significantly during Lombardi's tenure?

1961 - 1st in NFL
1962 - 1st
1963 - 2nd
1964 - 1st
1965 - 10th
1966 - 8th
1967 - 2nd

[pbmax]

1961 - 1st in NFL
1962 - 1st
1963 - 2nd
1964 - 1st
1965 - 10th
1966 - 8th
1967 - 2nd

Clearly they weren't tough in 65 and 66. And they didn't have momentum either.

[Patler]

Many argued that anyone could have won with the Packers of '60-'63 or 64. In the glory days of Hornung, Taylor, Moore and Pitts the Packers just bullied their way down the field with the RBs carrying the load. Starr sort of had that "game manager" reputation that QBs get. After Hornung and Taylor were gone, Anderson was OK, but no Hornung. Grabowski was the heir-apparent to Taylor, and really showed promise at times, but knee injuries did him in. Travis Williams was there and gone in a flash, it seemed in the late '60s.

By the years of the '65, '66, '67 (and even after that, but Starr, too declined) the team went only as far as Starr could take it. When yards, first downs or scores were needed, Starr almost willed them down the field. Since he was calling all the plays, his stamp was on all of their success. They came to rely more on his passing in critical situations, with run success being more from deception/surprise, not power. Of course, the line was getting older too, and except for Gale Gillingham the influx of young players wasn't close to the Skoronski, Kramer, Gregg, Thurston mold.

[mraynrand]

The G.O.A.T, single-highhandedly might I add, beat the shit out of the FuckingNiners the first time he played them in the playoffs

Poor Fritz must be rolling in his grave http://packerrats.com/image.php?u=177&dateline=2010. Keith Jackson, on the other hand, is probably having a good laugh.

[mraynrand]

Elway was a fantastic athlete, and he was a pretty damn good QB. He went to a shit load of Super Bowls and he was kind of the stand out, nobody else on those 1980s team really brought any attention besides Elway. He was gamer and I put him in my top 10 list of QBs.

unfortunately, he is top 5. Otto is #1.

[mraynrand]

comparing different eras is hard to do.

Breaking up, too.

[Patler]

1961 - 1st in NFL
1962 - 1st
1963 - 2nd
1964 - 1st
1965 - 10th
1966 - 8th
1967 - 2nd

1967 is a little deceiving. First, I think they were 2nd in what we now know as the NFC, not in the full league stats including AFL teams. Starr missed a couple games and played parts of a couple others. They ran because they had to, not because they were particularly good at it. It was even argued that they ran to keep games close by slowing it down, because the team was in noticeable decline. They had a succession of ball carriers, no body with even 500 yards. Ben Wilson was a god-send to them, after Grabowski got hurt, but no one had a particularly good season running the ball. Travis Williams was the only excitement, but he was a rookie and made his name returning kickoffs, with limited carries from scrimmage. Nobody worried about defending their running game.

That's one of the things that made the championship so pleasing that year. It was clear they were not one of the better team during the season. The Colts and Rams looked to be the class of the league, and everyone worried about the Cowboys who were the young upstarts with a load of young talent that was getting better and better.

[mraynrand]

Travis Williams was kinda like William Floyd for the 1994 Niners - a guy that joins a declining team as a rookie for their last hurrah, not realizing at the time that it's all downhill from there.

[Joemailman]

Starr was banged up in 1967, and had one of his worst years in the regular season, so they probably did run out of necessity. However, they did run more effectively in 1967 than in 1965-66, even if they did it with RB by committee. Didn't Gillingham replace Fuzzy as a starter in 1967? Perhaps they were better running the ball for that reason.

[Patler]

Starr was banged up in 1967, and had one of his worst years in the regular season, so they probably did run out of necessity. However, they did run more effectively in 1967 than in 1965-66, even if they did it with RB by committee. Didn't Gillingham replace Fuzzy as a starter in 1967? Perhaps they were better running the ball for that reason.

They may have been somewhat better in '67 than in '65-'66; but they were no where near the team of '60-'64 that could just pound the ball down the field. Everyone knew what was coming, but couldn't stop it. The Packers of '67, by and large, were not a team that could consistently drive the ball with just their running game. In the early '60s, that is exactly what they did.

Gillingham came and played a lot in '66, and became the full time starter in '67. You are right, he was an impressive blocker.

[Brandon494]

LMAO did you even watch any games this season with those grades? C- the QB with the highest QB rating?:roll:

[ThunderDan]

LMAO did you even watch any games this season with those grades? C- the QB with the highest QB rating?:roll:

I laughed at the leading TD WR getting a B+ LOTT doesn't watch the games. :roll:

[George Cumby]

LMAO did you even watch any games this season with those grades? C- the QB with the highest QB rating?:roll:

No shit, right?

Good discussion, though, in that it's drifted into some cool stuff comparing eras and how good Starr really was. That CHFF article is a classic.

[Bossman641]

LMAO did you even watch any games this season with those grades? C- the QB with the highest QB rating?:roll:

Wait, you mean Harris, Benson, Green, Cobb, Jones, Nelson, Jennings, Finley, and Crabtree DIDN'T all have better years than Rodgers?? :shock:

[Smeefers]

Many argued that anyone could have won with the Packers of '60-'63 or 64. In the glory days of Hornung, Taylor, Moore and Pitts the Packers just bullied their way down the field with the RBs carrying the load. Starr sort of had that "game manager" reputation that QBs get. After Hornung and Taylor were gone, Anderson was OK, but no Hornung. Grabowski was the heir-apparent to Taylor, and really showed promise at times, but knee injuries did him in. Travis Williams was there and gone in a flash, it seemed in the late '60s.

By the years of the '65, '66, '67 (and even after that, but Starr, too declined) the team went only as far as Starr could take it. When yards, first downs or scores were needed, Starr almost willed them down the field. Since he was calling all the plays, his stamp was on all of their success. They came to rely more on his passing in critical situations, with run success being more from deception/surprise, not power. Of course, the line was getting older too, and except for Gale Gillingham the influx of young players wasn't close to the Skoronski, Kramer, Gregg, Thurston mold.

Do you remember this or are you a student of Packers history?

[mraynrand]

LMAO did you even watch any games this season with those grades? C- the QB with the highest QB rating?:roll:


I'm not defending the C- grade, because I think that's just baiting, pure and simple. However, several commentators have observed that Rodgers is being compared not to other QBs, but to Rodgers of 2011. I guess, compared to that guy, this year's Rodgers is a C - but that's due to unreasonable expectations - kinda like expecting the Packers to score TDs on most drives against the Niners defense.

[Smeefers]

The 60's Packers were loaded, it is not like Starr carried the team on his shoulders for a decade. He had a hell of a lot of Hall of Famers on that team.

The Packers had Favre, and White. I simply can't think of another Hall of Famer during that time that played for the Packers. The next closest is Leroy Butler, and maybe Darren Sharper.

I don't know if this matters or not, but Sharper is DEFINITELY a HOFer. He's 2nd all time with INT-TD with 11 behind Rod Woodson. He's also 2nd behind him in yardage with 1353 INT-return yards. He's 6th all time in interceptions with 63, tied with Ronnie Lott. He was also like, really really good.

[Deputy Nutz]

I was listening to a radio program yesterday and the theme was whether or not Rodgers needed to take more chances. I agree partially that Rodgers needs to trust his own arm accuracy to fit the ball into tighter windows to limit his sacks. Apparently once film was broken down Rodgers was responsible for 14 out of the 55 sacks in the regular season. More than anyone else. I don't think he needs to go down field more, the Packers need to go back to running the shorter routes of the West Coast Offense. With the end of Donald Driver the Packer do not have a true over the middle threat at wide receiver. Nelson has the size but he does most of his damage on the outside, same with Jones. Cobb seems to small although he has the quickness to exploit the middle of the field. More drop offs underneath, and swing passes will limit the drop depth of the linebacker opening up the second level for the tight ends and the wide receivers.

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't know if this matters or not, but Sharper is DEFINITELY a HOFer. He's 2nd all time with INT-TD with 11 behind Rod Woodson. He's also 2nd behind him in yardage with 1353 INT-return yards. He's 6th all time in interceptions with 63, tied with Ronnie Lott. He was also like, really really good.

He did a lot of his damage at the end of the half and at the end of the game.

[Patler]

Many argued that anyone could have won with the Packers of '60-'63 or 64. In the glory days of Hornung, Taylor, Moore and Pitts the Packers just bullied their way down the field with the RBs carrying the load. Starr sort of had that "game manager" reputation that QBs get. After Hornung and Taylor were gone, Anderson was OK, but no Hornung. Grabowski was the heir-apparent to Taylor, and really showed promise at times, but knee injuries did him in. Travis Williams was there and gone in a flash, it seemed in the late '60s.

By the years of the '65, '66, '67 (and even after that, but Starr, too declined) the team went only as far as Starr could take it. When yards, first downs or scores were needed, Starr almost willed them down the field. Since he was calling all the plays, his stamp was on all of their success. They came to rely more on his passing in critical situations, with run success being more from deception/surprise, not power. Of course, the line was getting older too, and except for Gale Gillingham the influx of young players wasn't close to the Skoronski, Kramer, Gregg, Thurston mold.Do you remember this or are you a student of Packers history?

Both, but the comments above are from my memory of the those years.

[Patler]

He did a lot of his damage at the end of the half and at the end of the game.

His (Sharper) game was so one-dimensional, even in pass defense. He always had a knack for interceptions, and did well on returns, but when he was in GB I never saw him as exceptional in pass defense from down to down.

[mraynrand]

He was also like, really really good.

4th and 26

[run pMc]

Originally Posted by Smeefers
He was also like, really really good.
4th and 26

The play at the 1:06 mark of this always sticks in my mind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjyAGArt8u0

Here's a writeup of the game. Tank's GOAT went 7 of 23 for 120 and 3 picks that day.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/favre/articles/favre_24354145.shtml