NFL.com writer Elliot Harrison has come up with his all time Packer team.
his premise for the list was this
Essentially, though, this is an all-time starting lineup, complete with a fullback and a guy who could play nose tackle if needed. It is not the 25 greatest Packers, so there's just one QB to choose between Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers and ...here is a link to the article if you want to read his rationale.
http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap2000000330675/alltime-team-green-bay-packers but here is his list
QB Bart Starr
RB Jim Taylor
FB Clarke Hinkle
WR Don Hutson & James Lofton
TE Paul Coffman
OT Forrest Gregg & Call Hubbard
OG Jerry Kramer & Mike Michalske
C Jim Ringo
DE Reggie White and Willie Davis
DT Gilbert Brown & Henry Jordan
OLB Dave Robinson & Clay Matthews
MLB Ray Nitschke
CB Herb Adderly & Charles Woodson
S Leroy Butler & Willie Wood
K Ryan Longwell
P Craig Hentrich
KR Travis Williams
I didn't start following the Packers until about 1975 and I am barely old enough to remember much before that anyway so I can't speak to any personal knowledge about the old timers but for the most part I would not argue with any of these choices.
Some of my initial observations are
Starr over Favre or Rodgers I won't argue but Katie bar the door this will ruffle more than a few feathers. While I won't disagree with his choice I would have a hard time disagreeing with Favre or Rodgers either. I do believe that in 5 years it will be Rodgers though (unless you continue to count championships as your benchmark)
My personal favorite is Ahman Green but I never saw Taylor play and I will go along with those who say he was something really special. I hope Eddie Lacy takes this spot in another 5 or 6 years
Putting in a true FB and adding Hinkle will bother some people because the Golden Boy (Paul Hornung) got left off.
I agree with the WR choices but Sterling Sharpe is going to get a lot of love, as well he should.
Nothing against Matthews but in his relatively short and often injured career I find it hard to believe there wasn't another better OLB to choose from. He is a force when healthy however so maybe he does belong.
Sort of the same thing for Gilbert. He was certainly popular and a very good player but I can't help but think a lot of his popularity is showmanship. I won't say he doesn't belong but I'm surprised there is no one better.
Most of the arguments will come from the youngsters who fail to realize that they played football in Green bay prior to 1990. I would guess that most of their list would look something like this
QB Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers (kind of comes down to Ted Thompson fans vs Ted Thompson haters)
RB Ahman Green
FB William Henderson
WR Sterling Sharpe & Donald Driver
TE Jermichael Finley or the Toolbox (Ed West)
OT Chad Clifton & Mark Tausher
OG Josh Sitton and Ross Verba (or was he a tackle)
C Bag-O-Donuts (Frank Winters)
DE Reggie White & KGB or Aaron Kampmen
DT Gilbert Brown & Santana Dotson
OLB Clay Matthews & Nick Barnett (or was he ILB)
MLB AJ Hawk
CB Leroy Butler and Charles Woodson
S Nick Collins & Darren Sharper
K Ryan Longwell
P Craig Hentrich
KR Desmond Howard
Not a bad team at all but certainly not best of all time.
The biggest argument you get from the youngsters is that players of yesteryear could not play in today's game. They cite player size and speed along with advances in training, nutrition, technology etc etc as reasons why not. This may be somewhat true along the OL and DL and maybe LB spots where physical size is more important and there is no denying that players today are simply larger (maybe not more talented) My argument to these youngsters though is that if you took a guy like Ray Nitschke and put him in the current game where he had access to all the same training, nutrition, technology etc etc as players today do who is to say he would not have been even that much better. In reverse, take someone like Clay Matthews and give him access to the same information as was available in the 60s and how would he perform today, or even back then.
IMO if you are going to compare players of different eras you have to compare them on equal footings. You can't just say take this guy from this era and put him in that era and this is what would happen. You have to give that guy the benefit (or detriment) of the tools available of the era. You have to look at what a guy like this COULD have done had he been born 40 years later, or earlier.