Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



28 Oct 2009

'96 Packers vs. '09 Vikings

The guys from 1996 Packers are a little annoyed at some of the hype surrounding their old teammate Brett Favre and his current Vikings team. "To say that the team he's on now, after seven games, is better than the '96 team -- that's just preposterous," says Leroy Butler. "Not only did we have the No. 1 defense in 1996, but we had No. 1 special teams."

DVOA would like to agree with Mr. Butler. After seven weeks, the 1996 Packers had a DVOA of 54.0%. The 2007 Patriots are the only team in the DVOA Era with a higher rating through Week 7. The 2009 Vikings are at 24.6%, which isn't even in the top five for this season. Butler's wrong about one thing, though -- the current Vikings actually have darn good special teams and a Desmond Howard-like return weapon in Percy Harvin (2 TD so far). It's their offense and defense that have been merely good, not great.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 28 Oct 2009

25 comments, Last at 29 Oct 2009, 9:32am by Packer Pete

Comments

1
by jmaron :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 11:52am

I think all this talk came about when Favre said this team had as much talent as any team he played on. I have no idea if that is true or not, but the 09 Vikings are not anywhere near the 96 Packers. That team was one of the better teams of the last 20 or so years.

6
by ebongreen (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 12:44pm

I think all this talk came about when Favre said this team had as much talent as any team he played on.
Yes, that's what this is about. And yes, he's talking out his a$$ again. The '96 squad was a defensively dominant team, with solid-or-better starters at every position, including a monstrous D-line, pair of stud corners, and a should-be-HoF free safety.

The Vikings are a good team, but: 1996 Reggie White > 2009 Jared Allen; 1996 Gilbert Brown > 2009 Pat Williams; 1996 Packers secondary >> 2009 Vikings secondary. I'll give the Vikings the advantage at Adrian Peterson and Kevin Williams and at offensive tackle, but the Packers get it back at guard & center, depth in WR & TE, depth at RB, and especially at QB: 1996 BF > 2009 BF.

The 96 Packers didn't win every game. They were still a dominant squad: highest scoring offense; fewest points allowed; and utterly steamrolled through the playoffs, winning by no less than 14 points in each of the three games they played. When they won that year, they tended to win big: the margins of victory in their regular season wins were 31, 26, 32, 21, 31, 3, 6, 10, 13, 11, 35, 28, and 28 points, an average of more than 21 points in each win. This was a STOMPing team for a full eight regular season games.

The 2009 Vikings, in turn, have won by 14, 14, 3, 7, 28, and 2 points so far, an average of a little over 11 points margin of victory. As of now, I'll take the 96 Packers by ten points, please.

2
by AnonymousA (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 12:05pm

Best of luck to Jared Allen, who's an outstanding defensive end, and one of the most important players in football, in becoming the sort of historically dominant player Reggie White was.

I wouldn't bet on it, though.

CAPTCHA: "Nixon's ruffle". Awesome.

3
by Bobman :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 12:21pm

Is Jared Allen left-handed (or just evil)? Either way, he could go by the moniker Sinister of Defense. That's halfway to Reggie status right there, no?

4
by Yaguar :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 12:33pm

Yeah, that's the most striking advantage the '96 Packers have.

For the most part, I'd say that the '96 Packers are better than the '09 Vikings at every position but RB.

7
by tuluse :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 12:44pm

I don't know. I might give receiver to the Vikings (especially if Berrian can get healthy).

While, Reggie White was a super hall of famer, the Vikings D-line as a unit might be better.

12
by MCS :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 2:07pm

If you're going to talk receivers, you need to include tight ends. I have to give the edge to Keith Jackson and Mark Chmura. Both were top 20 in DYAR with Jackson at #2 in the NFL and #1 in the NFC (Shannon Sharpe).

5
by Keith (1) (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 12:34pm

Go 36!

8
by M :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 1:12pm

I love how everyone is getting so hyped up about this. I actually think Brett may be right, but the 1996 Green Bay Packers were a better TEAM. There are quite a few aspects of a team other than talent that influence how good a team is. Best example I can think of is the Super Bowl between Washington and Buffalo. Washington was FAR better than Buffalo that year once margin of victory and strength of schedule were taken into account. But in looking at actual players on Washington vs. Buffalo, how many positions would one say that Washington had more talent than Buffalo? I would maybe say that Washington had superior specialists (Brian Mitchell, Chip Lohmiller) and a stellar Darrell Green, but Washington came together in a way that I've seen very few teams do. Frankly, I will bet that once DVOA is calculated for that team, it will even top the 1996 Packers. But in no way were they one of the 5 most talented teams of the past 20 years.

9
by Joe T. :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 1:18pm

What about strength of schedule? Won't really know until the end of the season, but GB absolutely thumped Denver in '96, and spanked Frisco in the playoffs.

Minnie '09 is a couple plays from being 4-3 and not 6-1, after last minute victories against SF and Baltimore.

I'm still expecting a patented Favre meltdown.

16
by MCS :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 3:55pm

That Denver team was missing Elway and the starting LT (Zimmerman?). Forget his name but I rememebr him as being pretty good.

They had already clinched.

But yeah, it was a good old fashioned butt whoopin'.

18
by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 5:18pm

As I recall, Shanahan basically didn't play anyone for about the last three weeks that year and yes it was Hall of Famer Gary Zimmerman who was far better than "pretty good." He was old by then (1997 was his last year), but Zimmerman was an absolutely dominant player for a long time.

20
by I am excellent at making love (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 8:31pm

Not to say that the '96 Pack wasn't a great squad, but your examples of their dominance need an asterisk or two.

The "Frisco" that GB "spanked" in the playoffs (and squeaked by during the regular season) was quarterbacked by the legendary Elvis Grbac. The Denver team the Packers "thumped" was quarterbacked by Bill Musgrave.

Even counting SF and the resting Denver team, the Packers were 4-3 against teams with a winning record that year

W: PHI, MIN, SF, DEN
L: MIN, KC, DAL

22
by Jon T. (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 9:32pm

To be fair to GB, The loss to MIN was Favre's annual loss in MIN....without looking, I'd say he lost his first 10 times there. The losses to DAL and KC were the unfortunate 2 games after Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, and Mark Chmura were injured, but before Andre Rison was signed. The Packers played those games with the immortal Don Beebe and Anthony Morgan tandem. Against Dallas, a 21-0 loss, Chris Bonial hit a last second field to set a record for 7 FG's in a game. Oh, and Favre never won in Dallas.

10
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 1:26pm

I didn't think anyone expected the King of Zombies to have a 2nd career as a general manager after he is done infecting announcers, referees, sportswriters, etc., so I was a little surprised to see so much fuss made about this, until I remembered that this is the King of Zombies, and everything asscociated with him results in a big fuss. Silly me.

11
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 1:44pm

As to non-Zombie analysis, the current Vikings match up competitively on the defensive line, even without a historically great player along the lines of White. The offensive line is not as good, but it isn't a huge drop-off. The Vikings are much better at running back, but worse at fullback. The Vikings are much, much, worse in the defensive backfield, especially at safety and in terms of depth. The Vikings are worse at linebacker, espcially given that E.J. Henderson isn't playing close to the level he was at last year, prior to his injury. The Vikings may actually be better at receiver, if not tight end, but it is hard to tell, since the young Zombie King was off the charts, and the old Zombie King is merely good.

People forget how, yes, inhuman, number 4 was, in terms of making incredible throws, prior to his thumb injury. All the rules of the living were nearly rendered moot, because he could put the ball exactly where he wanted to, or more precisely, where Zombie Master Holmgren wanted him to, under even terrible circumstances.

17
by MCS :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 4:11pm

I think you forget how dominant that '96 Packer defense was. Even with three losses and some narrow victories mid season when they were fielding the JV receiving corps, they still ended up with a point differential of 15.4 per game. This year's Vikings, 8.3 so far.

The Packers held teams to 13.1ppg and Minnesota is currently at a pace of 21.1ppg. By the way, the average scoring in the NFL in 1996 was 20.4 ppg. The current pace is 20ppg. You can obviously see that means Minnesota opponents score at a pace higher than the league average.

For the FO stats:
1996 GB defensive DVOA: -24.3
2009 Minny so far: -3.9

Granted, that is not a very scientific study, but I remember people talking like the '96 Packers defense was as dominant as the '85 Bears. Not just Packer fans either. (I wasn't one of them.)

21
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 8:32pm

Well, as I wrote, the Packers were much, much, much better in the secondary, and had better linebackers

13
by Q (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 2:09pm

"The Vikings may actually be better at receiver, if not tight end,"

The TE comparison is 1 of the most lopsided between these 2 teams. At TE 96 GB had Keith Jackson (borderline HOFer) and Chmura a Pro Bowl TE. Minn's TE's are nowhere near the caliber of two different Pro Bowl caliber TE's.

GB 96's WR's were also far superior. Here was 96 GB's Top 4: Freeman (Pro Bowl Level), Brooks (Pro Bowl Level), Rison (former Pro Bowl Level), Beebe. No receiver on Minn was better than either Freeman or Brooks that year. The crazy thing about 1996 GB is that they did not play 1 game at full strength, Brooks and Rison were never on the field at the same time whereas in any hypothetical game they would be.

Many people tend to forget how 2 of their losses came towards the middle of the season after their Top 3 receivers all got hurt (imagine the 07 Pats losing Moss, Welker, and Stallworth all at the same time for multiple weeks). One can only imagine what their DVOA would be without the injuries that decimated their WR's for that portion of the year. Watching Keith Jackson line up at WR vs the Cowboys cuz they had no other recievers healthy at the time is hard to forget

14
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 2:19pm

I think you greatly underestimate the degree to which the 1996 version of number 4 made receivers look great; they simply did not need to gain significant seperation, although they did have to learn how to handle an extreme fastball.

I agree with you on the tight ends, if I was unclear.

15
by Parker (the first one) (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 3:55pm

Brooks had 23 catches while appearing in 7 games in 96.
Rison had 13 catches in 5 games.

To suggest that either of these guys were a serious part of the receiving corps is stretching it a bit. I am not downplaying their abilities at all, just saying that when you are assessing the 96 Packers, those two don't figure into much of the equation.

So tagging Brooks at pro bowl level in a year that he had 23 catches doesn't make much sense. Also, not for nothing, but Brooks never made a pro bowl in his career. I could just as easily say that Berrian is at pro bowl level, for what that is worth.

Freemon was in his second year. Your assessment of how good he was in 96 is influenced by how good he ended up being (again, I am not disparaging Freemon, he was a very good receiver). But to say Freemon is better than Sydney Rice is going to be, well, we don't have all the evidence yet now do we. After a few 'get-to-know-ya' games, Rice is averaging 6 catches and 110 yards. Percy Harvin doesn't look too shabby at the moment either.

My point is only that you are comparring guys that have had full careers (good ones!) to guys that are still pretty young. Also, guys like Freemon and Brooks had the benefit of playing with one of the top QB's ever in the prime of his career.

For the record, I would not even attempt to make an arguement that the 09 Vikings are as good as the 96 Packers. As a Viking fan I find that laughable. Lets wait until we are hoisting a certain trophy before we even think about that.

19
by Q (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 7:31pm

"So tagging Brooks at pro bowl level in a year that he had 23 catches doesn't make much sense"

In 1995 Brooks finished 6th in DYAR and had conventional stats of 102 catches, 1,497 yards and 13 tds. In 1996 Brooks was on pace to finish 7th in DYAR (108 DYAR through 6 games since he got hurt in game 7).

In 1996 Freeman put up 933 yards and 9 tds in a little over 11 games which tracks to roughly 1,444 yards and 13tds.

This is not even factoring in the fact that GB played in less optimal passing conditions and often shut down the passing game by the middle of the 3rd quarter due to their huge leads. Accordingly, opportunities to boost stats with 50 yards 4th quarter bombs like Rice had vs the Ravens did not exist for GB that year since they just ran out the clock from the last 1-2 quarters

23
by Parker (the first one) (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 11:10pm

Your point that Brooks was a quality receiver is not in question. But he only played in 7 games. I'm not ripping on Brooks, just pointing out that he was not a primary reason that the team was as dominant as they were because HE WAS NOT PLAYING ALL THE TIME.

Oh, whats the use.

24
by Q (not verified) :: Wed, 10/28/2009 - 11:53pm

In a hypothetical comparison though you would be assessing the teams at FULL STRENGTH and Brooks while healthy that season was playing at a Pro Bowl caliber level. Minn's current wr corps is likely not even better than 09 GB much less 96 Gb

25
by Packer Pete (not verified) :: Thu, 10/29/2009 - 9:32am

How good were the Packers defensively? They set a record for yielding the fewest touchdowns in a 16 game season, one fewer than the 1985 Chicago Bears. That's right, the '85 Bears that everyone considers one of the best defenses of all time. The Packers' fewest TD mark stood until the Ravens gave up only 16 in a season in which the Ravens played the three worst offenses in football (Cincinnati, Cleveland, San Diego) five times that year.

The '96 Packers were the first team since the '72 Dolphins to lead the league in both most points scored and fewest points allowed. I don't believe that's happened again since '96.

One big difference is that in the mid '90s, Favre didn't choke in the big playoff games. In the 2000's, Favre ended three potential Super Bowl runs with horrid interceptions to kill the seasons. I fully anticipate that he will put a sudden end to the Vikings season in like manner.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.