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.