Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Football Perspective shows the 1996 Packers as 4th best against the run by DVOA.

The Packers finished #1 in points scored.
The Packers finished #1 in points allowed.
The Packers finished #1 in wins.

They are one of the greatest teams of all time. There are very few teams in NFL history who have finished tops in points scored, allowed, wins, and won the Super Bowl. That's something I should check into, now I'm curious.

Crazy Packers Fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 12:10 am The Packers finished #1 in points scored.
The Packers finished #1 in points allowed.
The Packers finished #1 in wins.

They are one of the greatest teams of all time. There are very few teams in NFL history who have finished tops in points scored, allowed, wins, and won the Super Bowl. That's something I should check into, now I'm curious.

Only 1 other team in the SB era pulled off the points scored/allowed/SB trifecta:

The 1972 Dolphins

Crazy Packers Fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 12:10 am The Packers finished #1 in points scored.
The Packers finished #1 in points allowed.
The Packers finished #1 in wins.

They are one of the greatest teams of all time. There are very few teams in NFL history who have finished tops in points scored, allowed, wins, and won the Super Bowl. That's something I should check into, now I'm curious.

The NFC wasn't very strong. They played in a shaky division where the second-best team (Vikings) finished 9-7 (and got blown out in the Wild Card round in Dallas) and the three other teams missed the playoffs. Their best competition was a vastly overrated 49er team (that should have been 8-8) and a one-hit wonder Panther team, and they still couldn't compete in Dallas on a Monday Night (despite the Cowboys taking a step or two back).

Also, they only had four Pro Bowl players that year.

They are just another example of the SB Myth era in action (they were the last team to win in that era. The teams got weaker as we went along).

The Packers' era in the 1990s was impacted by free agency. They brought in Reggie White and others. But they lost some key pieces; Bryce Paup, Tony Bennett, Jackie Harris. Paup was probably the biggest loss there. I'd have to look at it in greater detail, like I said the Packers did add pieces but sometimes the pieces they added (Sean Jones, Keith Jackson) were older than the ones they lost.

Also, Desmond Howard. Holds the record for punt return yards in a season by 176 yards! 875, Patrick Peterson is next at 699.

Howard was NOT selected for the Pro Bowl that year, they took Michael Bates from Carolina. Bates was a very good kickoff returner but for the season of 1996 this was a terrible choice.

Howard was a record setting returner, Heisman Trophy winner, big impact in the playoffs, but he's almost forgotten now. Packers ranked 1st in DVOA for special teams, it was a big factor in them winning.

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 8:48 am

Crazy Packers Fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 12:10 am The Packers finished #1 in points scored.
The Packers finished #1 in points allowed.
The Packers finished #1 in wins.

They are one of the greatest teams of all time. There are very few teams in NFL history who have finished tops in points scored, allowed, wins, and won the Super Bowl. That's something I should check into, now I'm curious.

The NFC wasn't very strong. They played in a shaky division where the second-best team (Vikings) finished 9-7 (and got blown out in the Wild Card round in Dallas) and the three other teams missed the playoffs. Their best competition was a vastly overrated 49er team (that should have been 8-8) and a one-hit wonder Panther team, and they still couldn't compete in Dallas on a Monday Night (despite the Cowboys taking a step or two back).

Also, they only had four Pro Bowl players that year.

They are just another example of the SB Myth era in action (they were the last team to win in that era. The teams got weaker as we went along).

I’d say the 96 Niners are more like a 10-6 team than 8-8, but that’s just me.

Also, though they didn’t play Green Bay in the playoffs, what do you think of the 96 Cowboys and Eagles?

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 12:19 pm

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 8:48 am

Crazy Packers Fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 12:10 am The Packers finished #1 in points scored.
The Packers finished #1 in points allowed.
The Packers finished #1 in wins.

They are one of the greatest teams of all time. There are very few teams in NFL history who have finished tops in points scored, allowed, wins, and won the Super Bowl. That's something I should check into, now I'm curious.

The NFC wasn't very strong. They played in a shaky division where the second-best team (Vikings) finished 9-7 (and got blown out in the Wild Card round in Dallas) and the three other teams missed the playoffs. Their best competition was a vastly overrated 49er team (that should have been 8-8) and a one-hit wonder Panther team, and they still couldn't compete in Dallas on a Monday Night (despite the Cowboys taking a step or two back).

Also, they only had four Pro Bowl players that year.

They are just another example of the SB Myth era in action (they were the last team to win in that era. The teams got weaker as we went along).

I’d say the 96 Niners are more like a 10-6 team than 8-8, but that’s just me.

Also, though they didn’t play Green Bay in the playoffs, what do you think of the 96 Cowboys and Eagles?

96 Cowboys basically were giftwrapped the NFCE by Arizona (3-1 vs WSH/PHI, lay down for Dallas as per usual)

People laugh at me saying the 91 Redskins season was more impressive than any Super Bowl team that followed them. I would argue that the 91 Redskins were a significantly more impressive team than the 96 Packers. I would take the Hogs and Monk/Sanders/Clark(who a case could be made for 91 MVP) over that Packers offense. They had Favre and what else? Also Washington won more games, scored more points and only allowed .9 per game more on defense on average. I think both teams line up on defense and special teams. Washington definitely played the tougher Super Bowl opponent(that was favored to beat them by oddsmakers), beat them far more dominantly than Green Bay did New England. I don't know that the 96 49ers and 2 year old Panthers were really that much better than the 91 Falcons and Lions, neither of those 96 playoff teams had a prime Barry Sanders and the Lions were 12-4 and on a roll just as much as those 12-4 Panthers were in 96. My top 10 90's Super Bowl Champs:

1991 Redskins
1998 Broncos
1990 Giants
1996 Packers
1995 Cowboys
1992 Cowboys
1993 Cowboys
1997 Broncos
1999 Rams

There were definitely a lot of misleading records in 96 final standings. The Panthers and 49ers got the gift of having 6 games against 3 of the worst messes of football teams of the decade that year in that division. Any team that caught the Oilers in Houston in the back half of that season got a big break playing a team that packed it in for the year playing with no fans in the seats total silence when the opposing team had the ball.

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2026 5:35 pm

But he doesn't know the Packers ranked #4 in rushing defense?

His reply: The Packers' 1996 LB's rate a C+, which isn't enough for a championship team. And, while Reggie White was still a super-human run defender, there didn't seem to be another Packer D-Lineman who was fully dimensional that year.

Also (this is from me), the Pack played the Bucs twice (22nd in rushing in 1996), Chargers (29th in rushing), Vikes 2x (24th in rushing), 49ers (who were somehow tenth in rushing. Their leading rusher only had 559 yards), Rams (20th in rushing), Broncos (TD had 14 carries for 54 yards, and he may have only played one half because the Broncos wrapped everything up. Elway didn't play), and Bears 2x (16th in rushing).

Sorry, but this is idiotic.

Packers LBs rate a C-plus? By what standard? And “isn’t enough for a championship team”? THEY WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP! What kind of nonsense thinking is this?

Same for the alleged lack of running game. How does that matter when, in the final balance, they convincingly ran the table in 1996? Who cares whether they had a dominant running game when their passing game was so productive? It’s not how you got there, but that you got there.

Also, the Packers running game improved as the season went along anyway. By the end, Dorsey Levens was very solid.