"One of the single greatest games played at the quarterback position"

[Upnorth]

I thought his game against the 49ers was more impressive in a way. After struggling a lot against them last year (and other teams with good front 7s) I felt like he'd cracked the shell a bit. In the short exposure we saw in preseason, I thought he showed a faster trigger and a willingness to make some throws he wasn't trying before. If that is indeed true, and the C2 looks stop being as effective, we'll see another impressive year from GB's offense.

Facing the perfect defense to stop us, amazing past rush with solid cbs and safeties, and he played a great game. Because he lost its over looked but man he played well that day.
Only chink in his armor is coming from behind in the fourth quarter.

[Guiness]

Good point, yet there wasn't the same level of competition either, at least at first blush. You have to wonder how factors such as the expansion of number of teams, increased college participation, increased population, popularity, season-long training, nutrition, growth factors, (not to mention deliberate attempts by the league to increase competetiveness with caps, draft, free agency) etc. etc. affect the resultant levels of competition; specifically, is there a net increase in talent and net increase in competitiveness, or a dilution of talent and the ability for a franchise to dominate? I come down on the side of the former.

don't forget PEDs

[HarveyWallbangers]

On the other hand, just getting to the playoffs was much harder in Starr's time. Finishing sixth in the conference, as GB did in 2010 would leave you home. Starr needed to drive the team to victories all season long. The Packers finished 11-2-1 in 1963 and did not even have an opportunity to win the championship. Their record was not good enough to qualify for the playoffs. Every game was critically important for a shot in the playoffs.

Keeping a team together was easier though. It was easier to keep a dynasty rolling because teams rarely lost their best players. If you had the right GM, you could be great for a long time. Curly's Packers won 6 championships and didn't have a losing season from 1933-1947. Otto's Browns went to 10 straight championship games and won 7 of them. Lombardi's Packers won 5 championships in 7 years. The Steelers and 49ers dominated for a long time. Even the Vikings dominated the NFC North for a long time--winning 10 division titles in 11 years.

[Patler]

Keeping a team together was easier though. It was easier to keep a dynasty rolling because teams rarely lost their best players. If you had the right GM, you could be great for a long time. Curly's Packers won 6 championships and didn't have a losing season from 1933-1947. Otto's Browns went to 10 straight championship games and won 7 of them. Lombardi's Packers won 5 championships in 7 years. The Steelers and 49ers dominated for a long time. Even the Vikings dominated the NFC North for a long time--winning 10 division titles in 11 years.

Sure, but your opponents could do the same.

My point was simply that the argument that Rodgers has it tougher because he has to win so many playoff games each year doesn't carry much weight with me, because the need to win each and every game during the season is less with so many playoff spots available. Depending on the strength of your division, you can be somewhat mediocre through out the season and still have a shot to catch lightening in a bottle and win three or four games necessary for a championship. You couldn't do that before the expanded playoffs. An individual game during the season carried more weight then than now.

[Pugger]

Good point, yet there wasn't the same level of competition either, at least at first blush. You have to wonder how factors such as the expansion of number of teams, increased college participation, increased population, popularity, season-long training, nutrition, growth factors, (not to mention deliberate attempts by the league to increase competetiveness with caps, draft, free agency) etc. etc. affect the resultant levels of competition; specifically, is there a net increase in talent and net increase in competitiveness, or a dilution of talent and the ability for a franchise to dominate? I come down on the side of the former.

In the later part of the 60s when we passed more than we ran the rules were not so passer friendly back then as they are today. Back then you could mug recievers past 5 yards and could clock the QB well after he threw the ball without fear of a penalty.

[mraynrand]

In the later part of the 60s when we passed more than we ran the rules were not so passer friendly back then as they are today. Back then you could mug recievers past 5 yards and could clock the QB well after he threw the ball without fear of a penalty.

well, I was pretty much ending my eval at 1965, before the superbowl era. Pack had 2100 yards passing and 1500 yards rushing, with 7 games where they rushed more than passed. Two games - Cowboys and Lions (tough matchups to be sure) Pack had negative yards passing (-10, and -2, respectively, winning 13-3 and losing 12-7 respectively). Imagine that - Starr throws for a net -10 yards and the Pack still wins. Almost the exact reverse of today's Packers, where they live and die with Rodger's effectiveness.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers farts potpourri

[Patler]

In the later part of the 60s when we passed more than we ran the rules were not so passer friendly back then as they are today. Back then you could mug recievers past 5 yards and could clock the QB well after he threw the ball without fear of a penalty.

Another big difference was in O-line play. The could not extend their arms in pass protection, so would strike that classic pose for linemen, with fists clenched and held against their chests.

[mraynrand]

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers farts potpourri

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you wonder about this

[bobblehead]

An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...terbacks/6376/

In every discussion of the greatest coaches ever I make this same point.

•Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He's 100-26 since.

Bill Parcells is the G.O.A.T. of coaches.

[Joemailman]

In every discussion of the greatest coaches ever I make this same point.

•Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He's 100-26 since.

Bill Parcells is the G.O.A.T. of coaches.

Parcells over Lombardi? Really? Lombardi won 5 titles in 9 years for an organization that hadn't won a title in 15 years when he took over, and wouldn't win another title for 29 years after he left. And if you're going to say he had Starr, I might point out Starr was 3-15-1 as a starter before Lombardi, 14-19-1 after he left, and 77-23-4 with Lombardi. None of this diminishes Starr, who was the greatest playoff QB ever, but Lombardi was in a class of his own.

[mraynrand]

In every discussion of the greatest coaches ever I make this same point.

•Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He's 100-26 since.

Bill Parcells is the G.O.A.T. of coaches.

This cracks me up, especially since Parcells couldn't win a championship without Belicheat. Ask Jim Kelly which one is the better coach.

[Willard]

An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...terbacks/6376/

This should be required reading for all football fans - age 8 and up.

[Guiness]

This should be required reading for all football fans - age 8 and up.

I don't know...a lot of 'it was better when...' in that article. I understand giving the pioneers their due but a lot of that article seemed to wax poetic about how fabulous the old guys were.