Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Both of these teams had their only winning record in an eight year span, 1970-77 for the Pack, 1973-80 for the Niners. Both heavily featured the running game in their offense.

49ers actually had a better point differential than the Packers. Also a better yardage differential. I still go with the Packers for these reasons:

1) Scott Hunter couldn't move the ball through the air, but could avoid picks (only 9 for the Pack that year, unlike Plunkett and the 49ers (21.) Packers also had a better pass defense than the 49ers, which can be key late in games.

2) Packers' special teams were a bit better, due to Chester Marcol.

3) Packers played a tougher schedule.

Thoughts?

Both of these teams being 'island' winning campaigns - each in an eight year span as you say - warrants both being brought up together. One being the first since a Dynasty with the other being the last before an (eventual) other. However, I say '72 Packers by a noticeable margin and not because they were 10-4 as opposed to 8-6 and actually did make playoffs. That body-of-work of that '72 Pack...beating playoff-bound Cleveland (in Clev) & Dallas, sweeping 8-5-1 division-rival Detroit, beating another 8-5-1 in playoff-bound San Fran, and giving both Raiders & Redskins good games (Monte's Niners split with Rams and beat Vikes and that's all). I can only imagine, going into the playoffs, thinking GB had a pretty good chance of returning to the Bowl after a 5-year absence!

And then they take that 16-3 dump and don't return to the playoffs again until ten years later (not in a non-strike until 21).