I am, I put him there. Look, there are several factors for that. For one, while QB was an important position in the '60s, it wasn't the be-all and end-all that it's been since the '80s or especially '90s. The NFL was still a running game at that time, and the Packers in the early '60s won because they had a great run game with an outstanding line and two great backs. They won in the later '60s primarily because of their defense. Starr was a great leader, outstanding poise, excellent play caller, accurate passer. But he lacked arm strength and wasn't athletic -- I went down to Alabama to talk to his HS teammates and coach, and his HS coach told me that even at the HS level Starr was not considered very athletic for a QB. Teams in the '60s didn't game plan to stop Starr -- I wouldn't be surprised if Forrest Gregg figured in their minds more than Starr. Cliff Christl, the Packers' historian, has dug up a stat that's telling. From 1965-67, which were Starr's best years, the Packers had eight games in which Starr either couldn't play because of injury, or that he had to leave because of injury with them anywhere from tied to being down by no more than seven points. Bratkowski took over for him in those eight games, and the Packers were 7-1. I'm not saying Bratkowski was as good as Starr, he wasn't. But that gives you an idea of the collective talent of those teams and of course Lombardi's greatness as coach. Starr was surrounded by, what, 11 or 12 other Hall of Famers? Look, if someone wanted to argue that he should be ahead of Gregg at No. 10, that's plausible. Same for putting him ahead of White at No. 9 because White was with the Packers for only six years. I'd disagree, but I'd get the argument, and maybe I'm wrong. Any higher than that though? I don't think so. Ron Wolf and Christl had were fully on board with the top of the list, and I trust their judgment on this. Both have talked extensively over the years with the coaches and scouts from the Lombardi era, and Wolf's and Christl's judgments are based on those conversations. And Christl has read pretty much everything Lombardi ever said publicly about his team and players (and every Press-Gazette sports section since 1919). Call me crazy, but I'm going with what the coaches and scouts from those teams said about those guys, which among other things was that Hornung was the best player from the '60s era. Wolf said he asked several of those caoches and scouts if every player from the '60s Packers were available in a draft, which one would they take first? He says they all chose Hornung. Also, Christl and a guy who wrote a book on Tom Landry a few years ago have reported independently of each other that in '65 or '66 Lombardi tried to trade Starr to the Cowboys for Don Meredith straight up (and Landry said no). On top of that, when Lombardi got to Washington, he told some of the coaches and scouts he'd worked with in GB that Sonny Jurgensen was better than Starr. Meanwhile, Adderley and Wood were incredible, impactful, dominating players in their era. Ahead of them on the list were Verne Lewellen, the best player on the Packers teams that won three straight titles (1929-31) and a member of the NFL's all-time two-way team (named in 1969 I think); Clarke Hinkle, who players from his era who remained affiliated with the Packers and lived in GB through the '60s said was the equivalent Nitschke on defense and Taylor on offense (and who Lambeau called the best FB and MLB he'd ever coached -- the best at both positions); Don Hutson; and Rodgers and Favre. I know the Starr fans consider it an outrage that he's not higher, and some think he should be No. 1. And it mostly comes back to five titles in seven years. But then how to explain Lombardi saying Jurgenson was better than Starr? Or Dave Hanner (OL and coach in the '60s) saying in the '90s that if Favre had been Lombardi's QB they might not have lost a game? Starr was a great player/leader, I'm not for a second disputing that. But I think there's also an emotional-sentimental attachment and romanticism with Starr that leaves some people closed to consider he's anything but the best QB and even best player in team history. When it comes to those '60s team, I just have to defer to the coaches and scouts who were with the team at that time, and what they have told Wolf and Christl.