Best Offenses of All Time

[pbmax]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2713599-nfl-nostalgia-ranking-the-best-offenses-in-nfl-history

2 Packer Offenses on the list. Both within millennial's living memory.

[mraynrand]

1983 Packer offense (and really 1982 strike year too) was a thing of beauty. Especially when Schnelker would call the WR reverse to Lofton.

Can't compare eras because of softening of D. Just ain't the same.

[pbmax]

The late seventies/early eighties were really the wild west of offense. It took so many different forms.

I do wish I had seen AFL though.

[hoosier]

I suppose 2011 has to be there, no?

1983 was a fun year, but with lots of peaks and valleys if I remember correctly. Real clunkers against Tampa, Detroit, and someone else.

But '83 is borderline for millennial living memory. Based on that clue alone, I would look further. 1996 is the obvious place to look but the offense really wasn't consistently great that year, there were too many bad games after Brooks and Freeman got hurt. Now the '96 defense might make an ATG list.

The other answer that comes to mind is '89. It doesn't qualify as statistically great by any stretch, but Majkowski engineered lots of comebacks and excitement. So assuming this list isn't based on numbers alone, I would go with '89 and '11.

[mraynrand]

Yeah, I don't give a --- about millennials and their Packer memories - most of 'em think history began when they were born anyway. I just wanted to point out how great '83 was. And clunkers? The '96 team had multiple shitty offensive games, mostly due to injuries. The three losses at MN, KC and Dallas were awful, and I think they did pretty poorly against Detroit at home too.

[hoosier]

I can't believe they list the '96 offense. And they claim that Holmgren spawned the move away from a single "bell cow" RB. But Walsh had already trademarked that move back in the early 1980s when the SF offense was Montana, Clark, Solomon and a bunch of role players at RB that nobody had ever heard of and who nobody can remember today. I think they put 1996 in there because they felt they had to recognize the rebirth of the Packers and because the renaissance is associated with QB and not defense. The fact that they felt the need to add that the Packers thrived with, and sometimes despite, Favre is symptomatic of this contortion. Maybe they need to add a third list: Best front offices of all time.

[pbmax]

I can't believe they list the '96 offense. And they claim that Holmgren spawned the move away from a single "bell cow" RB. But Walsh had already trademarked that move back in the early 1980s when the SF offense was Montana, Clark, Solomon and a bunch of role players at RB that nobody had ever heard of and who nobody can remember today. I think they put 1996 in there because they felt they had to recognize the rebirth of the Packers and because the renaissance is associated with QB and not defense. The fact that they felt the need to add that the Packers thrived with, and sometimes despite, Favre is symptomatic of this contortion. Maybe they need to add a third list: Best front offices of all time.

I think its because of the Super Bowl and Favre making hay with Rison in the lineup. And Tanier explicitly says when its a run of a team with basically the same characters, he picks one representative sample so they can discuss more teams.

But the 1995 offense, league ranks aside, the better unit. Football Outsiders had them over 20% DVOA that year, in 1996 they were 15.2%

Everyone talks about Favre and Holmgren, but the D reached better performance (though they had a big letdown in '95).

[hoosier]

I haven't looked at DVOA but I bet the '97 offense ranked better too. Problem is, neither '95 nor '97 was able to finish.

[Zool]

I can't believe they list the '96 offense. And they claim that Holmgren spawned the move away from a single "bell cow" RB. But Walsh had already trademarked that move back in the early 1980s when the SF offense was Montana, Clark, Solomon and a bunch of role players at RB that nobody had ever heard of and who nobody can remember today. I think they put 1996 in there because they felt they had to recognize the rebirth of the Packers and because the renaissance is associated with QB and not defense. The fact that they felt the need to add that the Packers thrived with, and sometimes despite, Favre is symptomatic of this contortion. Maybe they need to add a third list: Best front offices of all time.

I think that Roger Craig guy was pretty good at football.

[hoosier]

He came along a little bit later.

[Zool]

I suppose 1983 is a little later

[mraynrand]

1985 is later than 1983.

I report true facts for your edification.

[pbmax]

DVOA for Holmgren's Run


Year Offense Defense ST (good Defensive=negative score, second number is league rank)
1992 -0.1%/14... +6.1/10 ... -2.0/23
1993 -3.5/17 ... -9.3/9 ... 5.5/4
1994 13.3/4 ... -11.3/4 ... -2.7/22 (the year Favre got it around mid-season)
1995 20.9/2 ... +5.3/19 ... -1.1/19
1996 15.2/3 ... -19.3/1 ... 7.4/2
1997 15.5/4 ... -10.6/3 ... 3.5/6
1998 6.7/9 ... -7.7/6 ... 1.4/13
1999 7.9/11 ... -0.2/18 ... -1.0/19 (one year of Rhodes/ShermLewis/EmmittThomas)

I remember not being impressed with Nolan Cromwell's special teams. Was he the first hire or did he replace someone? Don't remember how they got a 4th ranking in 1993. Maybe that was before Jacke started dating Holmgren's daughter.

Defense has big dip in 1995. That and bad special teams doomed them versus Dallas.

[hoosier]

Defense has big dip in 1995. That and bad special teams doomed them versus Dallas.

I don't know if it was the defense that doomed them against Dallas, and the special teams actually performed pretty well in that game. They blocked Jett's first punt to set up the offense deep in Dallas territory. Favre came out throwing the ball ten feet over his receivers's heads, and the Packers weren't able to do anything with it. He had a pass tipped and intercepted deep in GB territory on the next series, so if anything it was the hyperventilating offense that failed to capitalize on what could have been a great start. True, the defense wore down later, but if Favre had not gotten off to his typical skittish start the defense might not have gotten tired. But the real turning point in that game was when that asshole Erik Williams cheap shotted Jurkovich. After that GB lost its composure.

[pbmax]

I don't know if it was the defense that doomed them against Dallas, and the special teams actually performed pretty well in that game. They blocked Jett's first punt to set up the offense deep in Dallas territory. Favre came out throwing the ball ten feet over his receivers's heads, and the Packers weren't able to do anything with it. He had a pass tipped and intercepted deep in GB territory on the next series, so if anything it was the hyperventilating offense that failed to capitalize on what could have been a great start. True, the defense wore down later, but if Favre had not gotten off to his typical skittish start the defense might not have gotten tired. But the real turning point in that game was when that asshole Erik Williams cheap shotted Jurkovich. After that GB lost its composure.

Fair points. I forgot that was the game where Favre decided to play catch with the sidelines.

[mraynrand]

Random points from that 1995 NFCC game:

- Favre threw a TD pass after the punt block that was negated by a bullshit delay of game penalty (Hochuli)
- Sean Jones dropped an INT deep in Dallas territory with the Packers up by 3 late third quarter.
- Favre threw his killer INT down by 4 when he had Chmura open for 4 yards or a run for 2 easily available.
- Not only was Jurko hurt in that game, but Gibert Brown had been injured the week before and was playing at (maybe) 50%. Given how bad their run defense had been in the regular season loss, it was too much to overcome.
- Favre's 'overthrows' early were grossly magnified by Madden (of course)
- Dallas had purchased Sanders from the 49ers because they wanted to win another Super Bowl. Dallas had a pretty good defense with Deion at one corner. He also had a long run on offense due to an illegal pick.

That loss was due to a collection of factors, offense and defense.

[pbmax]

I might actually watch a rebroadcast of that game if it airs.

[hoosier]

I have it on DVD. It was ok to rewatch once but I would not do that to myself again.

[mraynrand]

I have it on DVD. It was ok to rewatch once but I would not do that to myself again.

I like to watch it right up to the point Favre throws the late INT. Then I turn it off.

Same for that Seattle game after 2014 - I watch up to the moment Burnett gets the INT and then - poof - off it goes.

[hoosier]

Yup, we could call them--after the ill-advised, Peppers-induced Burnett slide--the points of no return.

[pbmax]

Yup, we could call them--after the ill-advised, Peppers-induced Burnett slide--the points of no return.

It was still very winnable. But no, run into a 9 man front with one wideout.

Who needs a first down?!

[Fritz]

I still get slightly sick when I think about that game. That was worse than the 4th-and-26 game, I think.

Not that it was an all-time great offense, but I enjoyed the '82 Packers' offense, with Dickey and Lofton and Ivery. They could score.

[bobblehead]

The 2017 GB Packers!

[pbmax]

The 2017 GB Packers!

Entirely possible.

[gbgary]

the dickey, lofton, jefferson, coffman, o was great to watch. the '89 majik, sharpe, o was fun too.

it's funny how we associate great o with passing. the ground and pound o's of the '60s don't even come to mind.

[gbgary]

The 2017 GB Packers!


Entirely possible.

yup.

[Cheesehead Craig]

the '89 majik, sharpe, o was fun too
After further review, the Bears still suck.

[mraynrand]

the dickey, lofton, jefferson, coffman, o was great to watch. the '89 majik, sharpe, o was fun too.

it's funny how we associate great o with passing. the ground and pound o's of the '60s don't even come to mind.

Pretty much. Still, there are some great ground and pound games in living memory. The Tampa Bay 'Clifton payback game' of 2003 comes to mind

[gbgary]

Pretty much. Still, there are some great ground and pound games in living memory. The Tampa Bay 'Clifton payback game' of 2003 comes to mind

ahman green's game against sea, lacy against dal, too.

[pbmax]

Lotta Ahman games looked like that. The modern version of ground and pound anyway.

[mraynrand]

Lotta Ahman games looked like that. The modern version of ground and pound anyway.

yeah, especially with U71. Helped compensate for Favre's broken thumb to be sure.

[ThunderDan]

Pretty much. Still, there are some great ground and pound games in living memory. The Tampa Bay 'Clifton payback game' of 2003 comes to mind

The GB/Sea snowglobe playoff game.

[mraynrand]

The GB/Sea snowglobe playoff game.

ya, but in that game the pass set up the run, particularly because the Grant fumbles delayed the gameplan (which I'm pretty sure was to run, run run).

[ThunderDan]

ya, but in that game the pass set up the run, particularly because the Grant fumbles delayed the gameplan (which I'm pretty sure was to run, run run).

No, Favre didn't even throw for 200 yards that game. Grant rushed for over 200 after the fumbles.

[ThunderDan]

Just looked at the box score 35 runs to 23 passes.

408 total yards - 235 rushing - 173 passing

[hoosier]

You're both wrong. It was Bigby's game of a lifetime that set the offense up repeatedly in the first half. The final stats were tilted toward the running game because the Packers were up the second half and were able to keep it on the ground, running it down the Seahawks thoats. In the first half they were much more balanced. But not to the extent that you could say they used the pass to set up the run. Bigby was the straw that stirred the drink that evening.

[mraynrand]

No, Favre didn't even throw for 200 yards that game. Grant rushed for over 200 after the fumbles.

I don't see how what you write disagrees with my point. As I said the pass set up the run. Not that it was a huge passing game. I also pointed out that I was sure the game plan was run heavy. And that's how it went after they got back in the game. But when the pack got down early, passing got them back in the game and loosened everything up.

[mraynrand]

You're both wrong. It was Bigby's game of a lifetime that set the offense up repeatedly in the first half. The final stats were tilted toward the running game because the Packers were up the second half and were able to keep it on the ground, running it down the Seahawks thoats. In the first half they were much more balanced. But not to the extent that you could say they used the pass to set up the run. Bigby was the straw that stirred the drink that evening.

BIG HITS!!!

[hoosier]

Who needs announcers and color commentators when you have Tony Siragusa. That aside, I am a bit mystified about how the new millennial Packer ground game made its way into a thread about GOAT offense. There is no association between the two, and if there ever was Shermy killed it in January 2004.

[gbgary]

and sea had 8 in the box most of the time.

[pbmax]

The 70's proved that under then current rules, you could throttle all but the best of run games. If you wanted a best offense with a running game, it had to be in college if not the CFL.

So I think its an open question whether more 60s running teams could be considered for the best offense. Even the Packers running attack was being held in check later in their decade, both by innovation (Flex Defense, preponderance of 4-3 fronts) and by age (Hornung and Taylor).

[mraynrand]

Think of the direction the NFL could have gone with to revive the running game (like they actually did with the passing game). Imagine rules that only allow two d-lineman on the line, only three linebackers max, and players having to be at least three yards off the LOS, IOW the unsound! Capers defense!