More Meaningful: the ’96 or ’10 SB Team?

This question was recently posed to myself and a group of Packer fans. It made for such great debate I decided to ask around. Here’s what they said…

Tough question. Initially, I'm tempted to say '96 because it ended decades of futility and put an historic franchise back on the map. But for me personally, 2010 feels more meaningful because I am older and able to have a greater appreciation for how rare a SB victory is. Additionally, that '96 team was stacked and had SB expectations the whole season. Last year's team came in with high expectations, but a lot of folks jumped ship midway through the season when the injuries piled up, so overcoming that adversity and surprising everyone made the run more memorable.
~David

I gotta go with 2010. The way they did it was impressive. People counted them out as late as December. Also, for the simple fact that there's so much info/connectedness to the team as a whole now.
~Marty

2010 all day. We went through growing pains with the release of Favre and the 3-4 defense. However, Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy were strategic in their plans and brought us the trophy. Not to mention, you can't beat The Claymaker presenting A-Rod the Championship belt!
~Johnny Bigtime

I give it to 1996 by the slimmest of margins. That team was special across the board – I’d put them against any team in history. It was so satisfying to reach that point after years of bad teams and finally surpass the Cowboys (although we didn’t play them). I was at the NFC Championship game, too – best game ever I’ve ever been to in my life.
~Scooter

2010, definitely. It was much more of a Cinderella story, and there seemed to be more excitement being the underdog that kept defying the odds. The playoffs really started with the Patriots game in week 15, and even though that was a loss, it started the run of 7 nearly flawless games. What a ride!
~Gregg

Tough call, but 1996. I grew up watching some awful Packer teams in the 80s and early 90s, but it was the 1996 season that solidified the Packers into a Championship team. That title ended a long and frustrating drought of Packers championship football and propelled the Packers into a consistent playoff contender. But my vote goes for 2010 for the better championship gear - how awful were those New Orleans Super Bowl champs hats and shirts?
~Mark

2010 is the winner for me as it was a bit more unexpected with all the injuries that mounted. In ‘96 we built up to that greatness by finally getting past Dallas and making it to the Super Bowl. It was almost expected we were going to win it with our record, etc. 2011 was a year with more chaos, injuries, McCarthy bad clock management and calls, etc. Also to end my point we beat the Chicago Bears, in Soldier Field, to get to the Super Bowl and eventually win it! So we actually won the SuperBowl twice this year!!! Oh and by the way…12 is 3 times better than 4!
~Steven

'96 signified a monumental swing in the history of the Green Bay Packers, Brett Favre in his prime brought the Packers back to respectability, Reggie White showed people playing in Green Bay was not undesirable. It hadn't happened in over 3 decades. I was a freshman in college (in LaCrosse, Wisconsin) and watched it at maybe the best party I ever attended. An amazing experience.
~Alan

'10 means more to me for many reasons. First, doing things the right way pays off. Ted Thompson did things his way – the right way. A program. A Team. A discipline to not over react. A trust in a young, talented, high-character locker room. Honestly, vindication. They were right. The promise of Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, a high-powered offense and dominant defense. The hope that the Packers can be that next great NFL dynasty. The belief there is no way it will be 13 years before they bring home number 15.
~Tony J.

There you have it – 5 to 4 in favor of the Packers most recent Championship. So who got it right and who's off their rocker? Let us know in the comments.