96 Packers and 10 Packers resemblance

I don't remember 96 as being that bad for injuries. Of the three you mentioned, Chewy and Freeman both scored in SB 31 and I remember Free playing with a cast. I don't remember Chmura being out at all. Brooks and Koonce had season-ending injuries and with a couple other guys it was a game here, a game there.

Chmura was out for a few games. He broke his forearm against the Chiefs that year (or the game before the Chiefs, I can't remember exactly).

Brooks went down in the Monday Nighter against the 49'ers, which was one of the finest regular season Packer games I ever saw. Jacke kicked something like a 51 yarder to win in OT. Beebe had a terrific game.

Freeman and Chmura went down and the Pack proceeded to go in a scoring funk. I believe they lost to the Chiefs and know they lost to the Cowboys, the game where their kicker had 7 FG's and how this riled up Reggie White.

Then they added Rison and I think one of Chmura and Freeman were back for the Sunday-nighter against the Rams. It was a tight game for awhile. I believe Doug Evans may have had an INT for a TD that got things going.

The Pack never looked back after that game and eventually did return both Chmura and Freeman.

But, for awhile, of three starting receivers, all were out.

Of course, Brooks was out for the year and never really returned to his former self. A shame. What a class act and he missed the SB win.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakatk64:
That year they lost Chewy, Brooks and Freeman.

That was pretty much all they lost that year. And while that decimated the recieving corps, temorarily, they did not lose multiple people at multiple positions like this year's Packers. Every defensive position has at least one player on IR this year. On offense, a very good TE - out for the season, and the starting RB is out for the season. Now Driver is dinged up. And the OL did not escape with Tauscher out and Colledge playing hurt. GB did not start rookies in 96 - that I recall - on a regular basis. But they are this year. I agree, if the end result were the same, that would be great. But how we got there would be vastly different than in '96.

One thing about 96 though. Ruetgers was retired, Michels didn't pan out, and they played Bruce Wilkerson at LT.

I think that is probably the biggest surprise. But, Wilkerson did pretty good, as I recall.

Wrong. The Packers lost Ruettgers early in the season ending his career after 4 games. Gary Brown was a starter twice at left tackle during the season and couldn't block his shadow. Michels was the starter but Wilkerson didn't fill in until later.

Ron Cox replaced Koonce due to his knee injury.

Brooks was also knocked out in the Seahawk game with a violent hit before tearing up his knee.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:
Wrong. The Packers lost Ruettgers early in the season ending his career after 4 games. Gary Brown was a starter twice at left tackle during the season and couldn't block his shadow. Michels was the starter but Wilkerson didn't fill in until later.

Ron Cox replaced Koonce due to his knee injury.

Brooks was also knocked out in the Seahawk game with a violent hit before tearing up his knee.

My recollection with Ruettgers was that he had retired before the '96 season. He had always "retired" when he had a contract dispute, but this particular year he was so beat up that he really thought he'd give retirement a go. Once Brown and Michels flamed out, I thought that's when Ruettgers decided to give it one more shot and was re-signed mid-season. He just couldn't cut it and the Pack went to Wilkerson who finished the year at LT and Ruettgers went back to being retired from Green Bay has stayed from Pro Football for all of eternity since that point.

Ruettgers was PUP'ed(stand corrected) in 1996. The Packers then activated him with him starting one game before playing in 3 others.

1996 Packer and 2010 Packers have no resemblance.

Everyone knew the 1996 Packers were going to win it all. I bet it at the start of the season. It was on the cover of SI

2010 team has had vastly different hurdles to conquer

Correct on the lack of '96 comparisons

It was the 1997 Packers that beat the Cowpukes 45-17 at Lambeau

http://www.pro-football-refere...res/199711230gnb.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:

Everyone knew the 1996 Packers were going to win it all. I bet it at the start of the season. It was on the cover of SI

I put $20 on them to win the NFCCG & the superbowl while in Vegas that summer..

Found this while goin through my old SI's a few weeks ago

Agreed, no comparison. In 1996 they lost a few high-profile players for a few games each -- with the exception of Brooks, who gave them seven games before he went down. Not the same as five starters on IR by week 4.

The one real comparison was both had a GM who was into building team depth, not a GM who was always after one player who could win one more ring for the good ol Southern boy who just enjoyed playing the game as little kids do.

Yeah I agree with you guys. Guess there isn't as much resemblance. That program got me thinking and comparing the injuries to thoseof this year. I know everyone was picking them to win it in 96 but I know forsure if they were all healthy or atleast only somewhat dinged up like 96 they would be the front runners by far! Man gets me sick to think how good and deep this team could have been this year!

Perhaps my memory is bad but I thought Reuttgers played well all season and then after the Dallas loss just retired. He had a bad knee and didn't want to deal with the pain anymore, but for sure he had a good game against a stout Dallas D. I also thought his replacemnet came off the waiver wire ala Rison!

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
1996 Packer and 2010 Packers have no resemblance.

Everyone knew the 1996 Packers were going to win it all. I bet it at the start of the season. It was on the cover of SI

2010 team has had vastly different hurdles to conquer

Had we not had the injuries we had this season, it might have been a lot more similar. Going into the season there were a lot of writers picking the Pack to go all the way. We had a dual threat at TE. A young, upcoming QB, a respectable RB, solid OL, great DC, #36 at safety, a very strong DL, Matthews as our pass rushing Reggie White...

What's different than 1996?

The approach of our GM: Youth over vets, almost the entire team was drafted, very few FA's - but the key is that TT evaluates talent with the best in the biz.

Parity: I had almost forgotten about this factor until you reminded me a couple weeks back. Back in those days, there were a handful of awesome teams each year. Not this season. It leaves the door open.

This is a passing league now: And we have a good QB and good WR's. If we can somehow get through the tough weather games without a running game, we could still make it to the big game.

The coaching staff: Holmgren's staff was exceptional, but I've never seen a staff develop young talent as quickly as this one. It's impressive. We'll be lucky to keep all of our coaches next year.