Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
JimmyHendricks

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

Recommended Posts

I will go with a dark horse pick that was mentioned briefly in this thread: 1984 49ers. This is a team that went 15-1, lost their only game by 3 points (to the Steelers) and had a differential of +248. People wax poetic about the 89 Niners but they lost 1 more game and the differential was +189.

 

So why do I say the 84 Niners over the 85 Bears? Both teams had the same record, Bears did have a slightly better differential (+258), but take a look at who the Niners beat in the Super Bowl compared to the Bears. The Niners assraped Dan Marino and the Dolphins by 22 points (Dolphins were 14-2 that year, +215...awesome runner up). The Bears beat up one of the lamest, shittiest teams ever to stink up a Super Bowl in the 85 Patriots.

 

And bear in mind the one team that beat the Bears in 85 were the Dolphins, so who is to say they might not have had a shot if that was the Super Bowl matchup?

 

The 1991 Redskins are unjustly forgotten but the sad reality is....they didn't really have anybody that is considered an all time great. Until this year they had no HOF guys on that team (Monk and Green got in). They were awesome but when you compare all time teams can you seriously take a team with Mark Rypien over a team with Montana?

 

Anyway here is one thing no one really mentions about the 72 Dolphins: They didn't play anybody! They had a regular season schedule about like the Seahawks did this year, playing only TWO teams with winning records the whole year (Giants and Chiefs were 8-6, hardly world beaters). In the playoffs they beat the Browns by 6, Steelers by 4, Redskins by 7 in the SB. Not exactly an amazing run. If the 72 Dolphins had played a tougher schedule then there's no way they would go undefeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...)

 

This is why I debated putting that squad in my top 5. Looking at it, the Niners have a lot of teams that could be considered some of the best teams in history.

 

And why am I not surprised Cabbageboy would try to find a way to devalue the 85 Bears' run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 1991 Redskins are unjustly forgotten but the sad reality is....they didn't really have anybody that is considered an all time great. Until this year they had no HOF guys on that team (Monk and Green got in). They were awesome but when you compare all time teams can you seriously take a team with Mark Rypien over a team with Montana?

 

I'd say that at least two of the Hogs are HOFers eventually.....Russ Grimm should be going in soon, and maybe Jacoby or Lachey, hell even Mark May. Brian Michell also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

And, they were 17-2. I know it's hard to accept their greatness, but as a man once said, "Whether you like or you don't like it, you better learn to love it, cause it's the best thing going today." Bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

And, they were 17-2. I know it's hard to accept their greatness, but as a man once said, "Whether you like or you don't like it, you better learn to love it, cause it's the best thing going today." Bitch.

17-2 isn't a show of greatness, especially when you only beat Philly by 3 points. Most Pats team have a lack of true post-season dominance, but that's to be expceted... bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of post season dominance??

 

SuperBowl winners in 2001, 2003, and 2004.

 

In 2005 they were young and hurt and they still went to the 2nd round when any other team would have failed to make the playoffs, let alone advance. They lost to Denver, in Denver. In 2006, they were in a similar situation and yet they went to the AFC Championship. This year, they ran out of gas, caved under the enormous pressure of a possible congressional investigation, perfection, and a good Giants team. They are the only team to go 16-0 in the regular season and to be 18-0 going into the SuperBowl. If they are losers, than what does that say about every other NFL team? But, anyone who wants to shit on the Patriots is only shitting on themselves. They are the team of the decade and I challenge anybody to name another team in the NFL who have been as dominant as the Pats have been year after year on a consistant basis. Between 2003 and 2004 they rattled off, what, 20, 21, 22 wins in a row? A lot better than the Lions.

 

The answer to the to threads question is: The 2008-2009 Patriots. We'll see who gets the last laugh.

 

End of thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is challenging that the Pats will be considered the team of this decade. We're talking about the best single-season team of all time and arguing that it's not the '05 Pats. As for the '07 Pats, what they did is truly impressive, but the consensus here seems that a team needs to win the Super Bowl to be part of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lack of post season dominance??

 

SuperBowl winners in 2001, 2003, and 2004.

 

Thanks for proving how retarded you are.

 

Best 1-Season Team, you jackass. Patriots are a damn fine team, but they aren't close to one of the Best 1 Season teams because they never dominate in the Post-Season. They actually get WEAKER in the Post-Season, if you look at the stats.

 

In 2005 they were young and hurt and they still went to the 2nd round when any other team would have failed to make the playoffs, let alone advance. They lost to Denver, in Denver. In 2006, they were in a similar situation and yet they went to the AFC Championship.

 

I'm not even sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand besides you feel you have to justify their losses to yourself. I'm sorry that you're that insecure, but that's not the topic of discussion.

 

This year, they ran out of gas, caved under the enormous pressure of a possible congressional investigation, perfection, and a good Giants team. They are the only team to go 16-0 in the regular season and to be 18-0 going into the SuperBowl.

 

They weren't playing good in the post-season anyways. Look at their other two games before all this stuff, and they weren't playing good, either. They waltzed into this game and got beaten by a team they didn't expect.

 

If they are losers, than what does that say about every other NFL team?

 

Besides the fact that they didn't beat every team in the NFL... not much? It's not like we judged the OMG 21 WIN STREAK PATRIOTS by their loss to the lowly Dolphins.

 

And I never called them losers, you did.

 

But, anyone who wants to shit on the Patriots is only shitting on themselves.

 

I'm not shitting on the Pats, you're just too busy giving them a nice cock-rubbing. I know you can't open your eyes right now because you might be blinded by their "mighty man-spray", but you're going to have to look at the facts eventually.

 

They are the team of the decade and I challenge anybody to name another team in the NFL who have been as dominant as the Pats have been year after year on a consistant basis.

 

Again, they aren't dominant. They are consistent. And, to take that challenge...

 

Green Bay of the 60s

Pittsburgh during the 70s

San Fransisco of the 80s

 

Off the top of my head, and those shouldn't even be disputable, as they all have more championships. The Packers are probably teh most dominant dynasty the NFL ever had with 5 Championships in 6 years back in the 60's.

 

Between 2003 and 2004 they rattled off, what, 20, 21, 22 wins in a row?

 

21 in a row, but does that matter? We've seen a team go 18-0 in one season and then lose the final game. They never dominate in the Post-Season. Their total championship difference, combined from those three years they won? 218-151. That's not dominant. Look at the teams being discussed here, and they are literally getting the difference you have there in ONE season. It's not even comparable. The fact that the Patriots have never won a Super Bowl by more than 3 points should show that fact.

 

A lot better than the Lions.

 

I'm not a Lions fan, though. Suppose you saw I lived in Michigan and tried to get in a shot. Try better next time, fanboy.

 

The answer to the to threads question is: The 2008-2009 Patriots. We'll see who gets the last laugh.

 

Indeed. I mean, Belichek might be suspended for the entirety of that season, according to ESPN. That'd show us, right?

 

Face the facts: The Patriots had the biggest possible (To quote Bill Simmons) "Eff You!" season already. They don't have a reason to have that sort of "motivation" again. They have a bunch of guys who are up for Free Agency, and their defense is getting older, and older, and older... Yeah. I'm sure that'll improve their play. They'll be just as good as they normally are, and just as consistent. But let's face facts: They are dominant in the regular season, but much more human in the post-season. Their points differential and every one of their Super Bowl wins shows that off.

 

... Wait, are you Bill Simmons?

 

End of thread.

No, I believe it's just beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blue Man Czech
This year, they ran out of gas, caved under the enormous pressure of a possible congressional investigation, perfection, and a good Giants team.

In that order. Fuck Justin Tuck, the Giants won because Arlen Specter loomed over the Pats

 

 

 

 

LIKE A SPECTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, to back up a bit. In no way was I trying to devalue the 1985 Bears. They had no control over the weak AFC and who they played in the Super Bowl, but I bet they wanted a rematch with Miami so they could avenge that lone defeat. Instead they got a lame Pats team.

 

I will give the 85 Bears this over the 84 Niners: Their 2 playoff opponents were a bit tougher. The Giants and Rams in 85 were a little better than the Giants and Bears from 84.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This year, they ran out of gas, caved under the enormous pressure of a possible congressional investigation, perfection, and a good Giants team.

In that order. Fuck Justin Tuck, the Giants won because Arlen Specter loomed over the Pats

 

 

 

 

LIKE A SPECTER

 

0MG I H4V3 B3N PWN3D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This year, they ran out of gas, caved under the enormous pressure of a possible congressional investigation, perfection, and a good Giants team.

In that order. Fuck Justin Tuck, the Giants won because Arlen Specter loomed over the Pats

 

 

 

 

LIKE A SPECTER

 

Hey, he might be right. When I see pictures like this, I think to myself "Spygate was in the back of Brady's mind. That's why they blew it."

 

04superbowl_slide07.jpg

 

04superbowl_slide10.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
majormayhem makes me ashamed to be a Patriots fan and a resident of the State of Maine. The guy is one of the worst new posters we've had in a while.

 

 

You should be ashamed to be from the State of Maine simply because you're a resident of the State of Maine.

 

 

By the way, I'm the rookie poster of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X

Wrestling is so 2002. The hell's wrong with this douche.

 

Oh, and to further up my post regarding the thread title, I don't think going 14-0 regular season (17-0) over all is that great, since there have been 22 other teams that have matched or beat that win total for the regular season, regardless of the number that's in the loss column. The thing to look at as well is the fact that we have no way of proving that the `72 Dolphins, with an additional 2 games in the regular season, would've won or lost those games. Statistically speaking, they weren't all that great, nor did they really play a tough schedule. Pittsburgh in 2004, for example, did the same thing that Miami did, with a 14 game winning streak in the regular season (finishing 15-1, then losing in the AFC Title Game to the Pats).

 

Here's where I got those stats, btw: http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/gameswon

 

I don't think it's been updated to reflect the season, but what's impressive to note is that the Pats tied their own NFL record for most consecutive wins by virtue of their 18 game winning streak. 19 must be the magic number or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 1991 Redskins are unjustly forgotten but the sad reality is....they didn't really have anybody that is considered an all time great. Until this year they had no HOF guys on that team (Monk and Green got in). They were awesome but when you compare all time teams can you seriously take a team with Mark Rypien over a team with Montana?

 

I hate to go to bat for them, but shouldn't this make it more impressive in a way? Monk should have been in a long time ago, but the NFL likes to dick around with receivers sometimes...

 

Now let me get back to the original point, guys who aren't big major stars or HOF guys coming together to have a run like they did is incredible. Think of the D they had... mainly just some role players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blue Man Czech

The '72 Dolphins finished with a zero in their loss column. Fuck everything else and give them the credit they deserve, for Christ's sake. Yardage, points, differential, strength of schedule, who GIVES a fuck? What is this, the college game? You can't qualify a perfect championship season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The '72 Dolphins finished with a zero in their loss column. Fuck everything else and give them the credit they deserve, for Christ's sake. Yardage, points, differential, strength of schedule, who GIVES a fuck? What is this, the college game? You can't qualify a perfect championship season.

 

BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IT'S LIKE THEY "BACKED INTO" THE PERFECT SEASON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blue Man Czech

Look, you can fuss over statistics to rank the 18-1s, I mean, I do, but its wins and losses above all else. They won every game they played. What more can you ask of them?

 

THE '72 DOLPHINS HATE HERE IS ALMOST AS BAD AS THE PATRIOTS HATE HERE. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X
The '72 Dolphins finished with a zero in their loss column. Fuck everything else and give them the credit they deserve, for Christ's sake. Yardage, points, differential, strength of schedule, who GIVES a fuck? What is this, the college game? You can't qualify a perfect championship season.

 

No, on the other hand, fuck those selfish pricks celebrating some irrelevant bullshit they did 35 years ago. 22 other teams have finished with 14 wins. There's no way to prove that the Dolphins would've won two additional games on their schedule, get to the Super Bowl AND win it. The NFL switched from a 14 game to a 16 game season in 1978, only six years after the Dolphins accomplished their "feat". Is it any coincidence that all 22 of the other teams (except for Frankford in 1926- which would've ALSO made them an undefeated team!) who finished with 14 wins or more in the regular season did that during that time period? Going 16-0 is a much more impressive feat, only done ONCE and they couldn't finish the job.

 

It's not even the statistics I'm fussing over, it's the win-loss column and the fact that 14-0 became irrelevant in 1978, when there became two more games to play in the regular season. I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend about that, it is a valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blue Man Czech

It doesn't matter what they would've done with two extra games. We're dealing in hypotheticals, and that's stupid. They won all their games. Nobody else won all their games. Other teams won MORE games, but nobody else won ALL their games. That's not irrelevant at all. They did something nobody else has ever done, or will ever do, in professional sports. I'll oblige them every celebration they want.

 

As an aside, if you read up on Mercury Morris, he's actually a really bright guy. I know we've been conditioned by the Connecticut-based sports media to write him off as an irrelevant cokehead, but the legal work he's done to keep the league on its toes is, if nothing else, admirable. He really got it together, and is probably working harder for retired players' rights than that charlatan Ditka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X
It doesn't matter what they would've done with two extra games. We're dealing in hypotheticals, and that's stupid. They won all their games. Nobody else won all their games. Other teams won MORE games, but nobody else won ALL their games. That's not irrelevant at all. They did something nobody else has ever done, or will ever do, in professional sports. I'll oblige them every celebration they want.

Fine, if you feel that way, but I think it's far more stupid to celebrate a 14 win season from 35 years ago when it's been done many, many other times. I suppose it's how you look at it, I guess, but conversely, it makes you wonder how many of those 14 win teams that won championships (or even 15 win teams like the 84 Niners and 85 Bears) would've accomplished the exact same thing those Dolphins did given the 14 game schedule instead of the 16 game one. I'm betting on the probability being pretty high there, and so that's why I don't think the `72 Dolphins aren't that great of a team.

 

Oh, and I like Mercury Morris, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, he irritates me. But he's made good points before. In particular, I remember him calling out ESPN for doing those stupid skits with the ghosts of Super Bowls future, past, present, and talking about how they would match up and always beat the legendary teams that they were put up against.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×