Compare the Packers and Bears

[GrnBay007]

Thought it would be interesting to see how you guys would compare or rate the 1996 Packer Superbowl team to the current Bears team.

If you want, use a rating with the Packers being a 10. How would you rate this Bears team?

[MJZiggy]

The Packers were a complete team in all phases of play.

Packers 10
Bears 5 They sometimes have a great defense, sometimes not. Special teams is good when they don't fumble and they have Grossman for a qb for god sakes. Anyone who thinks they can compare him to Favre needs to share what they're smoking.

[Jerry Tagge]

1996 Packers would destroy either one of these teams, although I think the Colts could make it interesting with Manning.

Eddie Munster would throw 4 intercetpions in the 1st quarter. Mark Chmura would run over Urlacher and then introduce him to some 17 year olds so Urlacher could continue his quest to become the Shawn Kemp of the NFL.

[Iron Mike]

IIRC, 96 Packers wound up the season statistically rated #1 on Offense and #1 on Defense.

[b bulldog]

The 96 team's D gave up the fewest TD's in NFL history and had the ultimate weapon in Des Howard. The Dline was awesome and was led by the best Dplayer ever imo. The O had a two time MVP running the show with two great TE's and a WR corp that had the likes of free at his prime, Brooks for a while, Beebe, Mickens and Rison. I may be a homer but I think the 96 team is the most underrated championship team ever. They are the last of the really great teams since UFA imo has made all the teams very close. Packers would be my choice but this is definitely a gray area.

[b bulldog]

They were the last team to end up ranked number one on O and d SINCE THE EARLY 70'S. They deserve much more credit and a great book about this team is the Gil Brown/Chris Havel book. It really puts evrything into black and white how impressive this team really was. Reggie White, the guy was a beast. The book said that the team would just watch Reggie's highlight reel from the past game and they all would be in awe. One more thing, Simmons was never appreciated here or around the league.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Of course, the Packers. Compared to this Bears team? Come on! If the Bears win, I'll have the same feeling I did last year when the Steelers won. How can that team be championship caliber?

I don't think the WRs were that good though. They didn't have Brooks for most of the season. Free wasn't really in his prime. He didn't even start until Brooks went down. He was a first time starter. Other than the TD in the Super Bowl, Rison didn't do much. He was past his prime.

[GrnBay007]

Maybe my initial post was not precise enough. I know the Packers of 96 were a much better team. Just wondered where you all would place the bears in comparison....like a 2? a 6? and so on.

[GBRulz]

negative 5

[b bulldog]

I was comparing them to the 85 team

[Iron Mike]

negative 5

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

[red]

lets see special teams are a wash. our st from 96 and the bears st, are both very very good

so i'll split the other 10 points up into 2 parts, o and d

fror defense. i give the packers 4.5. they did almost everything right and were a great d. the bears i give a perfect 5. they're damn good, they just always seem to make the big play when they need one. if they need a fumble, they pop the ball lose, if they need a int, they tip the ball in the air and have 5 guys there to pick it off. i gotta give a slight edge to the bears d. there d is scary good

for the o side. packers get a 4.5. they were good but if you say a perfect 5 is something like indy, then you have to say the pack was just a notch below that. the bears offense i give a 3 to. somedays they're great, other days they're horrible. the better games seem to outnumber the bad games by a little big, and they have a nice 2 headed rb attack

so for me, out of 10 i give the packers of 96 a 9 out of 10, and this years bears a 8

so its close for me, both d's were very good, but the pack o was much better

[red]

god damnit, double post

i got some debug error saying the email didn't go through when i hit the first send buttom

"PC load error, WTF does that mean"?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think it's close. The Bears scored 427 points and allowed 255 points this year--while playing 3 games against teams with winning records. The '96 Packers scored 456 points and allowed 210 points--while playing 7 games against teams with winning records. They went on to beat two 12-4 teams in the playoffs to reach the Super Bowl. Chicago beat a 9-7 team and a 10-6 team this year. I'd give the special teams edge to Chicago. I'd give a clear edge on offense and defense to the Packers.

That Packers team was a great all around team. The only reason they lost 3 games was because most of their receiving corps were injured during a tough stretch when they played at Kansas City and at Dallas.

Doesn't really matter though. All Chicago has to do is beat one very good team to win the Super Bowl, but they don't ask how it's done. They just ask that it gets done.

[woodbuck27]

god damnit, double post

i got some debug error saying the email didn't go through when i hit the first send buttom

"PC load error, WTF does that mean"?

I've been getting that error report alot also, Mad.

It will go away after some time or you have to log out and back onto the forum to defeat it.

[Jimx29]

Are we talking mini-bears, or regular bears?


Mini - 2
Regular - 5

[wist43]

No contest... '96 Packers were probably one of the best 10 teams of all time.

The '06 Bears aren't even a legitimate SB team IMO.

The Bears are going to have to have the stars aligned perfectly for them to even have half a chance... and while they do have a punchers chance, they're simply not a legit SB team.

[b bulldog]

Better to compare the 96 and 85 teams