Top 10 Packers - all time by NFL Network

[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.