So, are the 1972 Miami Dolphins really the greatest team ever?

[JimmyHendricks 0]

With all the talk of New England going 19-0, we were subjected to numerous 1972 Miami Dolphins (mostly Mercury Morris) going on, and on, and.....on about how they not only didn't want the Patriots to go undefeated and match (really, rather--break) their undefeated record, but because they went undefeated, THEY were the greatest NFL team of all time. NFL Films ran a series called "America's Game" last year, ranking the top 20 Super Bowl champions, and well, the 1972 Dolphins were chosen #1, from a panel of writers and NFL Alumni.

 

Now, while watching the Super Bowl on Sunday, I was heavily rooting for New England, only because I wanted them to win, go 19-0, and finally shut up all those old Dolphins players who just seem so god damn selfish, never wanting their record to be broken. Of course, that didn't happen.

 

My question is, are the '72 Fins REALLY the greatest team ever? Yes, they went undefeated, but only faced 3 teams that year (including Washington in the Super Bowl) with winning records. Yes, a 17-0 season is impressive--very impressive, but I don't believe it automatically qualifies you as the greatest team ever. I think many teams, the '85 Bears, the '89 Niners, and yes, even the 18-1 2007 Patriots, would beat the '72 Dolphins if it was possible for them to meet.

 

I guess I'm sick and tired of seeing a team being declared (and declaring themselves) the greatest ever, based on one (rather large) statistic. Maybe I should laugh at Mercury Morris and Larry Csonka going on and on like a bunch of old geezers about no one being as good as them. But seeing NFL Films and ESPN constantly give them football-equivalant blowjobs, well, ehh.

 

Anyone else care to share?

[Guest Vitamin X]

The Dolphins went 17-0. The Patriots went 18-0 before losing a game. The difference is in the championship game (a big one, of course, but still..). I don't think Miami has THAT much cause to brag. Not to mention that they went on the longest winning streak in league history from 03-04. The 73 Dolphin team, while also winning a championship, wasn't anywhere as good.

 

Fun fact: The Dolphins, if you include their record into the 1973 season, also went 18-1, before reeling off a ten-game winning streak, losing to the Colts before going undefeated through the playoffs again. The team they beat to kick off that winning streak? The New England Patriots (44-23!).

 

And so it all comes full circle.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I wanna say 85 Bears, but as Dikta said before, this year Pats team would have defeated them in the same fashion the Dolphins did that year. One team that is always forgotten about in this talk is the 91 Skins team.

 

As far as dynasties and all that... the Pats dynasty also has a low ranking, as many people will rather put teams that dominated the competition in their postseasons rather than just do enough to win.

 

I'll have to give an answer after I've had some sleep, I'd like to go through some stats and all that... but like I said, it's almost criminal the 91 Redskins never get mentioned in these talks... and I hate the fucking Skins.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

I wanna say 85 Bears, but as Dikta said before, this year Pats team would have defeated them in the same fashion the Dolphins did that year.

So because the orange-faced meatball thinks the Bears would've hypothetically lost to the '07 Patriots, their actual quantifiable dominance is somehow compromised? In the words of Da Coach himself, who you crappin'?

 

'72 Dolphins are probably the best team ever because they never lost a game. The '85 Bears are #1A. Let's not drag this out further than it needs to be dragged.

[Slayer 0]

I wanna say 85 Bears, but as Dikta said before, this year Pats team would have defeated them in the same fashion the Dolphins did that year. One team that is always forgotten about in this talk is the 91 Skins team.

1984 49ers

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I'm in agreement on the 91 Redskins.

 

I started watching football in about 87-88...and I still regard that Skins team as the best team I've seen.

 

That was a sick sick team.

[NoCalMike 0]

I wanna say 85 Bears, but as Dikta said before, this year Pats team would have defeated them in the same fashion the Dolphins did that year. One team that is always forgotten about in this talk is the 91 Skins team.

 

As far as dynasties and all that... the Pats dynasty also has a low ranking, as many people will rather put teams that dominated the competition in their postseasons rather than just do enough to win.

 

I'll have to give an answer after I've had some sleep, I'd like to go through some stats and all that... but like I said, it's almost criminal the 91 Redskins never get mentioned in these talks... and I hate the fucking Skins.

 

 

#1 Offfense

#2 Defense

11 of the teams they played had 10+ wins, they are 2nd only to the '85 Bears in margin of victory. I believe it wasn't until the fourth home game that an opponent even scored a TD against them (at home).

 

Playoffs: Redskins 24 Falcons 7, and Redskins 41 Detroit 10, Superbowl Redskins 37 Bills 24.

 

Of course I am biased because I am a Redskins fan, but I do think this team is often overlooked because they came right in the middle of two dynasties, the 49ers 80's Dynasty and the Cowboys 90's dynasty. People often look at only dynasties to find the best teams, but that 91' Redskins team dominated the league that year. They might not be the best team of all time, but they deserve to be ranked up there pretty damn high.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Czech really seems to despise this type of discussion. I would avoid hypotheticals and stick with the facts, quantifiable data.

 

Realistically, little separates a 16-0 team from a 15-1 team. We just witnessed the Patriots lose to a team with a 10-6 regular season record. If you can not ensure a winner with a six win advantage, how can you do it with one?

 

You can look at points scored and allowed and try to establish quality based on that. The problem is when you plug it into expected W/L, the difference between the best teams of all time is a tenth of a win. How about long term winning percentage? The difference between the '72 Dolphins and the '86 Bears, if you take their two previous and two following seasons into account, is less than one percent. The NFL does not play enough games to establish quality with any certainty beyond a margin of error. In other words, maybe it is the unanswerable question.

[Slayer 0]

Czech really seems to despise this type of discussion. I would avoid hypotheticals and stick with the facts, quantifiable data.

Shocking

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Czech really seems to despise this type of discussion. I would avoid hypotheticals and stick with the facts, quantifiable data.

Shocking

I'm all for taking other factors into account. The problem is that whatever assumption you draw is going to be your decision. You can take the "quality of play improves over time" track, and if you do your answer is absolutely going to be the 2007 Patriots. Postseason dominance is most important? You've just chosen the '85 Bears. Wins mean everything? '72 Dolphins. Long term dominance? '46-'58 Cleveland Browns. You want to try and bring more into the discussion beyond a 20 second sports radio type opinion.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

No. The 72 Dolphins doesn't even sniff top 5.

 

All talk has to begin and end with the 1985 Bears. I don't understand why people are not willing to admit it. Mike Ditka is a paid analyst by ESPN who has to push the current flavors (not that the Patriots are just a flavor), even if it means throwing his team under the bus. Yes, the Dolphins beat the Bears that year, but come on, only Dolphins of that 1972 year can claim not to be beaten. What the Bears did after that loss is nothing short of amazing, as their playoff run saw them outscore their opponents 91-10, the 10 being scored in the Super Bowl. I challenge anyone to find a team with a stronger run than that.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

Czech really seems to despise this type of discussion. I would avoid hypotheticals and stick with the facts, quantifiable data.

Well, I mean it's just that no sport evolves as rapidly and drastically as professional football does, through rule changes, technology, leaps and bounds in scouting/steroids/training, strategies to fit rule changes, so on, so forth. Baseball is comparatively static. If you applied the evolution of football to the evolution of baseball, you'd have 150-mph fastballs by the mid-1980s.

 

It just seems like you can't easily compare one team against another if there's a considerable leap in time, and trying to send teams of youre into the modern league is a ridiculous waste of time. Most analysts seem to agree that Mike Singletary would be flagged on almost every play in today's NFL, and that Dick Butkus would be lucky to be a 4th linebacker on today's Bears. There's just no sense in comparing teams between eras because there are so many variables, moreso than in any other sport. Look, I'm football stupid. I readily admit this. I can't draft my own independent thoughts on this sport, so I just steal from other people to heavily buttress what few salient positions I can make on my own. The '72 Dolphins are the only team to go undefeated and win a Super Bowl, even if they weren't the most dominant team. Therefore, it stands to reason that I pretty much have to say they're the best team ever. Most football expert says the '85 Bears are the most dominant team ever--some even put them above the Fins--so I put them just a half-notch behind History's Greatest Monsters. That's as much as I want to think about the best teams in football history. Debating who would win between the '07 Patriots and '84 49ers is an undertaking that I'll leave to other people who don't think it's a silly waste of time.

 

Mike Ditka is a paid analyst by ESPN who has to push the current flavors

YES, JACKPOT, of course he's going to push the Patriots if he's sitting at the desk in Bristol. He probably just says what he's told, cashes his check, and then meets with his consultants to discuss the viability of Mike Ditka's Kick-Ass Organic Foods and Mike Ditka's Kosher Sausage: Because Skokie Loves Da Bears Too.

 

(not that the Patriots are just a flavor

if they were an ice cream flavor they'd be pralines and dick

[Ripper 0]

I don't think you can compare across time in football simply because football is pusified now. All that protect the QB, protect the recievers, the secondary can't touch anyone. Played in 72 rules, half of the patriots offensive starters would be injured after the first quarter. Wes Welker would be killed in the second quarter trying to go across the middle.

 

Played by todays rules, the 72 team doesn't stand a chance. They would have 1000 yards in penalties by halftime.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I wanna say 85 Bears, but as Dikta said before, this year Pats team would have defeated them in the same fashion the Dolphins did that year.

So because the orange-faced meatball thinks the Bears would've hypothetically lost to the '07 Patriots, their actual quantifiable dominance is somehow compromised? In the words of Da Coach himself, who you crappin'?

 

Well, Buddy Ryan never adjusted the D just to spite Dikta in that game, so maybe the same thing happens?

 

Sorry, only the facts from now on.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

I don't think you can compare across time in football simply because football is pusified now. All that protect the QB, protect the recievers, the secondary can't touch anyone. Played in 72 rules, half of the patriots offensive starters would be injured after the first quarter. Wes Welker would be killed in the second quarter trying to go across the middle.

 

Played by todays rules, the 72 team doesn't stand a chance. They would have 1000 yards in penalties by halftime.

 

I guess guys not breaking their necks, legs, or getting any other serious injury is a bad thing because you don't want football in you words to be "pusified". Ridiculous

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

What kind of Raiders fan do you think you are. Go root for a dome team, sally.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

What the Bears did after that loss is nothing short of amazing, as their playoff run saw them outscore their opponents 91-10, the 10 being scored in the Super Bowl. I challenge anyone to find a team with a stronger run than that.

 

This is how I feel as well. When everything counted the most, the Bears were absolutely dominant. Two straight shutouts to get into the Super Bowl and then an absolute drubbing of the Patriots in it. They would be the best single season team, although the Niners from a year earlier are close.

 

The best dynasty was the Packers of the 60s with five World Championships in a seven year period and appearing in 6 out of 8.

 

BTW, I don't think we should be comparing teams from different eras directly since the game has changed so much as to get a fair comparison. What we should be doing is comparing the results and how far above the curve teams were within their own eras. Even if the Patriots won the Super Bowl, there were teams closer to them in quality than there were the Bears in 1985.

[Ripper 0]

I don't think you can compare across time in football simply because football is pusified now. All that protect the QB, protect the recievers, the secondary can't touch anyone. Played in 72 rules, half of the patriots offensive starters would be injured after the first quarter. Wes Welker would be killed in the second quarter trying to go across the middle.

 

Played by todays rules, the 72 team doesn't stand a chance. They would have 1000 yards in penalties by halftime.

 

I guess guys not breaking their necks, legs, or getting any other serious injury is a bad thing because you don't want football in you words to be "pusified". Ridiculous

 

What ever. Its bitch football. They practically have to let on on the QB now. you can't hit below the knees so all offensive lineman have to do is stay high. you can't hit above the shoulders. So you have all these rushers having to let up so they don't get penalized for touching the QB. And that flopping around because you got a light shove after you released the ball? The refs would have flagged you for being such a fucking girl back then.

 

The "You can't touch recievers' crap is also annoying and cripples the defense. The offensive player can touch the defensive player all do though.

 

Its fucking football. Its a sport where big men run into other big men at a high speed. get that fucking girly ass illegal contact, illegal hit to the qb bullshit outta here.

[Slayer 0]

What the Bears did after that loss is nothing short of amazing, as their playoff run saw them outscore their opponents 91-10, the 10 being scored in the Super Bowl. I challenge anyone to find a team with a stronger run than that.

1989 49ers would come pretty close with total of 126-26, probably the best offensive unit ever to win, which is amazing considering how many bigtime offensive units have failed to win (this year's Pats, '98 Vikings, '83 Redskins, '84 Dolphins, '01 Rams, '90 Bills...)

[majormayhem1 0]

2004 Patriots, let's not forget about them.

[tominator89 0]

2004 Patriots, let's not forget about them.

 

I try my best not to remember that team.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

I don't think you can compare across time in football simply because football is pusified now. All that protect the QB, protect the recievers, the secondary can't touch anyone. Played in 72 rules, half of the patriots offensive starters would be injured after the first quarter. Wes Welker would be killed in the second quarter trying to go across the middle.

 

Played by todays rules, the 72 team doesn't stand a chance. They would have 1000 yards in penalties by halftime.

 

I guess guys not breaking their necks, legs, or getting any other serious injury is a bad thing because you don't want football in you words to be "pusified". Ridiculous

 

What ever. Its bitch football. They practically have to let on on the QB now. you can't hit below the knees so all offensive lineman have to do is stay high. you can't hit above the shoulders. So you have all these rushers having to let up so they don't get penalized for touching the QB. And that flopping around because you got a light shove after you released the ball? The refs would have flagged you for being such a fucking girl back then.

 

The "You can't touch recievers' crap is also annoying and cripples the defense. The offensive player can touch the defensive player all do though.

 

Its fucking football. Its a sport where big men run into other big men at a high speed. get that fucking girly ass illegal contact, illegal hit to the qb bullshit outta here.

 

The Quaterback is probably the most dangerous and exposed position in football. There is no other position in football that leaves you suspectible to any type of hit or punishment. So the rules on the QB are understandable.

 

Going for the knees isn't or shouldn't be apart of football. Its cheap and its dirty.

 

The rules on the receivers are understandable as well. Is it fair that a corner could (and for a long time) basically hit a receiver at the line?

 

Yes, football is a tough sport. Yes, injuries do and will happen. Shit happens all the time. But the league has to at least protect its players from dirty plays and cheap shots. So excuse me if I don't want to see today's crop of NFL players barely able to walk after they retire.

 

Back on topic: I know I'm going to get flamed for this but the 2007 Pats are fairly or unfairly going to be remember in the same light as the 98 Vikings. A team that was on the proverbial doorstep to greatness only not to get the job done. I don't think its fair to the 85 Bears, 84 Niners of 91 Skins to even compare them to the Pats because simply because the Pats didn't win the Super Bowl. In the NFL, you are only great when you win a championship.

[megaadvice 0]

God damm people like around the Horn are dumb shits just coz NE lost one match (which they would have won if not for the greatest catch of all time) they say they wont be remebered blah blah.

 

Its the same idiots who would have said Brady "found a way to get it done". 99% of American sports journlists are so bad and so results orianted they dont deserve to speak and pollute my ears anymore.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but the 2007 Pats are fairly or unfairly going to be remember in the same light as the 98 Vikings. A team that was on the proverbial doorstep to greatness only not to get the job. I don't think its fair to the 85 Bears, 84 Niners of 91 Skins to even compare them to the Pats because simply because the Pats didn't win the Super Bowl. In the NFL, you are only great when you win a championship.

I agree. I'd say that a team is only great when it wins a championship in every league. That's why nobody remembers the 2001 Mariners. These Patriots are just like the '98 Vikings.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

God damm people like around the Horn are dumb shits just coz NE lost one match (which they would have won if not for the greatest catch of all time) they say they wont be remebered blah blah.

 

Its the same idiots who would have said Brady "found a way to get it done". 99% of American sports journlists are so bad and so results orianted they dont deserve to speak and pollute my ears anymore.

 

Why is that idiotic? The Pats didn't win the big game. Period. 18-1 doesn't matter when you have nothing to show for it. You can't compare teams that are considered the greatest of all time (that have won the Super Bowl), with the team that came up short. Sorry.

[Ripper 0]

The Quaterback is probably the most dangerous and exposed position in football. There is no other position in football that leaves you suspectible to any type of hit or punishment. So the rules on the QB are understandable.

 

Oh get outta here its the most dangerous exposed position. You have some pocket presense and a offensive line, there is no way it is more dangers or exposed than reciever or running back.

 

Going for the knees isn't or shouldn't be apart of football. Its cheap and its dirty.

 

And legal if you play any other position. Yes, you can tackle a running back below the knees. Annoucers will say "Good job cutting his legs from under him" when it happens. If a blitz is coming and a running back goes low, they will say "good job taking out that line backer" You go for a sack and duck under a blocker and catch a QB's legs and you just murdered a baby or something.

 

The rules on the receivers are understandable as well. Is it fair that a corner could (and for a long time) basically hit a receiver at the line?

 

YES. Its is fair. because a reciever can hit a corner back all the way up the field. the whole play if they want to. Its foot ball. You don't want to get hit, come off the ball and get away from the corner. If they miss the hit, then you are walking down the sideline.

 

Yes, football is a tough sport. Yes, injuries do and will happen. Shit happens all the time. But the league has to at least protect its players from dirty plays and cheap shots. So excuse me if I don't want to see today's crop of NFL players barely able to walk after they retire.

 

I didn't say anything about dirty plays or cheap shots. Hitting the QB does not make you dirty. If you are low to the ground then his ass should be hit low. if he kinda ducks, I don't like seeing fines come a week later. Then if you hit him in the middle of his chest make sure you turned your head to the side or it is spearing and you are fined again. I am talking about having to throttle down on a player because the league loves its offensive guys and want to treat them like gold. If you don't want to be hit hard, move. If you don't want to see recivers getting killed out there, stop lofting the ball over the middle or leading them into a big hit. All the changes to the game have effected the defense in football. Because offense is more exciting they change to the rules to stop dominant defenses from being around.

 

And its a load of babying crap. Play two hand touch if you want it to be all pussified.

[Kinetic 0]

This year's New England team will be remembered, by virtue of having posted the only 16-0 regular season record in NFL history. Beyond that, their legacy is as the best single-season team to not win a championship.

[Ripper 0]

They are the best team to not win the Superbowl.

 

Of course they will be remembered

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

God damm people like around the Horn are dumb shits just coz NE lost one match (which they would have won if not for the greatest catch of all time) they say they wont be remebered blah blah.

 

Its the same idiots who would have said Brady "found a way to get it done". 99% of American sports journlists are so bad and so results orianted they dont deserve to speak and pollute my ears anymore.

 

Why is that idiotic? The Pats didn't win the big game. Period. 18-1 doesn't matter when you have nothing to show for it. You can't compare teams that are considered the greatest of all time (that have won the Super Bowl), with the team that came up short. Sorry.

 

They are the new Baltimore Colts. They won three championships including Super Bowl V and they are remembered more for that one loss to the Jets than anything else they ever did. Like the Patriots, had the Colts won they would probably have been called the greatest team of all-time. At least to that point anyways.

[Nightwing 0]

2004 Patriots, let's not forget about them.

 

Why would they even be included? They only beat Philly by three points in the end, and their playoff score differential is only 85-51. That's hardly epic. Their regular season was good, but Pittsburgh's was better, and while they had the best points differential they were only a few points better than the Colts in that category. By the very fact that they won their Super Bowl by 3 Points dictates that they shouldn't be in this discussion.

 

Edit: As to how the Patriots will be remembered, they'll be the Russians to Giants 1980's USA Hockey Team: The big, bad favorite that gets taken down by the spunky underdogs.