Actually they Dolphins played a 14 game regular season and 3 games in the playoffs. (Their streak went to 19 and was snapped in the the third game the next year)

 

 

BTW, thanks for the Dolphin support LBC.

 

Personally, cannot stand the Dolphins.:lol:

It's sounding more and more like the 72 Dolphins were simply the best of a bad group. Still, undefeated is undefeated.

 

 

I'm not sure you can say that at all. How bad was the NFL in '72?

 

Well in terms of teams played by the Dolphins two teams: the NY Jets and the Minnesota Vikings finished .500 and may have had winning records if the Dolphins weren't on their schedules.

 

In the AFC title game they beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh when the Steelers had Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Greenwood, and Jack Ham.

 

They almost shut out (see Garo Yeprimian) the NFC Champion Washington Redskins in the Super Bowl and shut down Larry Brown the NFC rushing champ.

 

 

Most "all time great teams" have a run and you judge them based upon how they do in that "run." The Dolphins came back the next year, went 12-2 and decimated the NFL Playoffs with victories over:

Cincinatti 34-16

Oakland 27-10

Minnesota 24-7

 

That wasn't chopped liver in those games either as they were all division champs.

 

I know a nerve has been struck on me and I'll back off now, I promise. :lol:

 

However the fact remains that the Dolphins were one of the Leagues best teams over a span from 1971 to 1974.

This is the best team in the NFL in the last 10 years - perhaps the best since the glory days of the 49ers. I think if they want to go 16-0, they will go 16-0.

 

 

I would definitely agree with that.

 

In fact I would go on to say that this New England run (or dynasty if you prefer) is one of the greatest of all time.

 

Since the 60's I would say these are in the conversation:

 

'60's Green Bay Packers

'71-'74 Miami Dolphins

'71-'79 Dallas Cowboys

'74-'79 Pittsburgh Steelers

'81-'89 San Fran 49's

'92-'95 Dallas Cowboys

'00's New England

 

 

There were individual years that were great by the '85 Bears, '94 49's, '86 Giants but none of these resulted in repeated Super Bowls.

 

However the fact remains that the Dolphins were one of the Leagues best teams over a span from 1971 to 1974.

 

No argument from me on that. I just don't think that they played the schedule that the Pats will this year especially when you consider they had to go on the road to 2 teams that are SB contenders.

No argument from me on that. I just don't think that they played the schedule that the Pats will this year especially when you consider they had to go on the road to 2 teams that are SB contenders.

 

 

I concur. I think the way the NFL schedules now makes it harder for any team to be undefeated. Today's NFL makes the best teams from last year play the best teams from the year before. In '72 there was no such creature.

Personally, cannot stand the Dolphins.:lol:

 

 

You are such a KILL JOY!!!!!:lol:

I was watchin around the horn today, and a great point was brought up. How can Barry Bonds get an asterick next to his homerun ball never being found guilty of knowingly taking steroids, but the Patriots get away free with nothing being caught red handed cheating?

 

Because the guy that bought the HR ball is the one putting the asterick on it...it's his ball and he can do whatever he wants with it. It's MLB's decision whether they wants to obtain it and put it in the HOF after he puts the asterick on it. So, MLB isn't putting the asterick on the ball in this situation, which makes comparing these two situations apples and oranges, IMO.

Shula and his boys are way to serious about possibly sharing that record, they won't have to worry, NE will lose a game, sooner or later they will have to rely on someone other than Brady and his Wr's to win a game.

 

The bad news for the rest of the league is that they are a complete team, so if that happens, they have people who can step up and get the job done.

 

The Patriots will lose a game...but it won't happen until sometime after February 2008.

That '72 Dolphins team is one of the big reasons I've been a lifelong Dolphins fan. I too don't like what Shula said (though I give leadway to the all time winningest coach in NFL history).

 

But before we besmudge what the Fins did in '72 let's look at the WHOLE record and story.

 

Did they play only 2 winning teams in '72. That might be right. They played in a very weak AFC East that had a beaten up Namath and OJ at the peak of his career. Still, they did beat the Cowboys that year and Vikings when they were starting their stranglehold on the NFC Central.

 

In the playoffs the Dolphins beat the Browns and then had to go to 3 Rivers and beat the Steelers who were beginning their run of glory. (Immaculate reception was the week before)

 

I would like to add one other thing. The Dolphins did this after Hall of Famer QB Bob Griese went down in the fourth game of the season with a broken leg. He did not return until the AFC title game vs. Pittsburgh. So Miami went 11-0 with a back up (Earl Morrall) the whole way. Could New England do that without Brady? Could the Niners without Montana, Steelers without Bradshaw?

 

If you want proof this team was no fluke look at the years around the record.

 

*The Dolphins were the first team to go to 3 straight Super Bowls. (winning 2 in a row)

*Miami went 32-2 over 2 years (1972 and 1973) winning the titles. No one else has ever done that.

*When the Miami playoff run ended (8-1 from '71-'73) in '74 it took a last second heave by Ken Stabler (while being tackled) to a double covered Clarance Davis to end the run (at Oakland). The next year Csonka, Kiick, and Warfield were gone to the WFL.

 

Was Shula wrong? Yes. Is he bitter? Why? It might be that no one respects his work or what the Dolphins did. He is the all-time winningest coach but few speak of him with Chuck Noll, Bill Walsh, or even the Tuna. He went to 6 Super Bowls as a coach (2-4) and won with power running ('70's Dolphins) and big passing (Marino's teams) but nobody looks at the Dolphin franchise with the same glory as others.

 

Okay, my rant is done. Good luck to the Pats because they are awesome and if they go perfect, they've earned it. Just like the '72 team did.

 

One final rant. How is this different than all the Trinity supporters I heard when Boyle was so close to their 50 game winning streak? It's human nature folks.

 

It depends on whether this happened in the years when Steve Young was Montana's backup. :lol:

 

In fairness to this argument, losing a QB in today's NFL and in the 70's are a bit different. First, the passing game wasn't nearly as advanced and precise in that era...most good teams were strong run first teams (like the Dolphins). Second, it was more common for teams to have better quality backups at that time...now with the salary cap and the talent spread over 32 teams, it's more difficult. In today's NFL, QB's are asked to do more, IMO, due to the spread offenses and superior athleticism across the board on defenses, that force teams to be able to spread things out and find openings...the days are gone when you can just line up and run the ball over and over...I mean, just look at how prevalent FB's were in the running game in the 70's compared to now.

 

All that said, I'm not trying to discount the '72 Dolphins...they are undoubtedly one of the all-time great teams. And going undefeated against any NFL schedule is an impressive feat. Period. To try and discount it by questioning their schedule is absurd. For one reason, regardless of the regular season, they had to beat the best to win the Super Bowl. Also, the 2007 Patriots are benefitting from a pretty weak schedule...that's a huge reason why I think they're going to run the table. The caught San Diego at a great time...Indy, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and NYGiants...that's pretty much it...their entire 16-game schedule isn't exactly murderer's row. Will that make an undefeated season by them any less impressive? Hardly. This is still the NFL...only one team has ever done it. That speaks volumes about the difficulty of the accomplishment.

 

I think for a team to do it, certain things have to fall perfectly into place...like they are for New England...a manageable schedule, a great team, a super talented roster, great coaching, a special group of players with veteran leadership that can handle the pressure, keep their focus and motivation...I really think all those things are in place for the Patriots. And the odds are still against them to run the table...it's just so hard to do. To bring your best, and if not your best something good enough to win, every single game of the season...that's why a weaker schedule is important. If the Patriots had to play a brutal schedule, I think the talk of them running the table would be a little more tempered.

Personally, cannot stand the Dolphins.:lol:

 

I actually really like the Dolphins. When they started their run was right at the time I started following the NFL and they were the marquee team. Since I played offensive line Larry Little and Bob Kuechenberg(sp?) were favorites. I just never thought about the schedule they went thru. Even if their schedule was a little weak, they played who they had to and won them all.

It depends on whether this happened in the years when Steve Young was Montana's backup. :lol:

 

In fairness to this argument, losing a QB in today's NFL and in the 70's are a bit different. First, the passing game wasn't nearly as advanced and precise in that era...most good teams were strong run first teams (like the Dolphins). Second, it was more common for teams to have better quality backups at that time...now with the salary cap and the talent spread over 32 teams, it's more difficult. In today's NFL, QB's are asked to do more, IMO, due to the spread offenses and superior athleticism across the board on defenses, that force teams to be able to spread things out and find openings...the days are gone when you can just line up and run the ball over and over...I mean, just look at how prevalent FB's were in the running game in the 70's compared to now.

 

All that said, I'm not trying to discount the '72 Dolphins...they are undoubtedly one of the all-time great teams. And going undefeated against any NFL schedule is an impressive feat. Period. To try and discount it by questioning their schedule is absurd. For one reason, regardless of the regular season, they had to beat the best to win the Super Bowl. Also, the 2007 Patriots are benefitting from a pretty weak schedule...that's a huge reason why I think they're going to run the table. The caught San Diego at a great time...Indy, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and NYGiants...that's pretty much it...their entire 16-game schedule isn't exactly murderer's row. Will that make an undefeated season by them any less impressive? Hardly. This is still the NFL...only one team has ever done it. That speaks volumes about the difficulty of the accomplishment.

 

I think for a team to do it, certain things have to fall perfectly into place...like they are for New England...a manageable schedule, a great team, a super talented roster, great coaching, a special group of players with veteran leadership that can handle the pressure, keep their focus and motivation...I really think all those things are in place for the Patriots. And the odds are still against them to run the table...it's just so hard to do. To bring your best, and if not your best something good enough to win, every single game of the season...that's why a weaker schedule is important. If the Patriots had to play a brutal schedule, I think the talk of them running the table would be a little more tempered.

 

First of all, great response. :thumb:

 

I highlighted the passing game part because two things happened that changed the game in that era. When the '72 Dolphins played the pass interference rules were different. You could chuck a guy all the way down the field until the ball was thrown. That kind of rule would slow even Moss and TO down.

 

The offensive idea of holding was changed some years later when a lineman or blocker could extend his hands some. In that era to even extend them was sometimes called a penalty.

 

Also the hash marks were changed and opened up the game much more to pass routes. I'm not saying passing hadn't developed much but that was because of the rules in place made it less attractive to have a wide open passing attack. That's what makes me look at a Paul Warfield, Lance Alworth and those guys with amazement at what they did do when the rules were really stacked against them.

First of all, great response. :thumb:

 

I highlighted the passing game part because two things happened that changed the game in that era. When the '72 Dolphins played the pass interference rules were different. You could chuck a guy all the way down the field until the ball was thrown. That kind of rule would slow even Moss and TO down.

 

The offensive idea of holding was changed some years later when a lineman or blocker could extend his hands some. In that era to even extend them was sometimes called a penalty.

 

Also the hash marks were changed and opened up the game much more to pass routes. I'm not saying passing hadn't developed much but that was because of the rules in place made it less attractive to have a wide open passing attack. That's what makes me look at a Paul Warfield, Lance Alworth and those guys with amazement at what they did do when the rules were really stacked against them.

 

:thumb:

 

It's pretty much impossible, IMO, to compare teams from different eras because of how much the game has changed over the years. I think you have to look at how they did against their contemporaries...for example, it irritates me to no end when people say, "Could the 2006 Indianapolis Colts beat a Steel Curtain team?"

 

And then they start talking about how the Colts O-line would outweigh the Steelers by an average of 50 pounds, and how the Steelers never faced an offense as advanced as Peyton's Colts...no kidding. Players today are bigger, faster, more athletic, and the game has evolved and become much more specialized, intricate, complex...so if you try to compare them in that regard then certainly the old time teams would be at a disadvantage. I prefer to hypothetically base it on how they stacked up against their peers. Forget about whether the Steelers wouldn't have an answer for the spread...just consider how strong their defense was in that era.

 

Anyway, that's just a rant...

 

The '72 Dolphins were a great team. I don't think they're the best ever, but they certainly belong in the discussion.

I think that the Patriots will lose at least once, if not twice in the regular season. Probably the former instead of the latter.

Patriots will lose to the STEELERS and maybe the Bills or NYG and they will lose in the playoffs to the Colts. Best team in 10 years I don't see it all they have is a bunch of old guys you take Moss out of the game and put Brady on his back you beat them!! Moss will get jacked by the STEELERS.

Sick of hearing about the Patriots are the best team ever get for real.

I hope you're right, and I hope they're both against the Steelers, one in the regular season, and one in the playoffs.

Has anyone else seen the pic of Belijerk and Dungy "shaking hands" on the cover of USAToday sports section? I'll try to find it and post it. Coach Hoodie is a jerk to opposing coaches, especially his former assts. How soon he forgets he was the leader of the wonderful Brownies in the not too distant past. Maybe he just acts that way because he's gonna have to split half his $ with the former Mrs. Hoodie.

 

:thumb:Well said by the good doc . This is comng from a non Steeler fan so it cannot be said that Steelers Fans are ganging up on Coach "Belicheat". The man is a complete Jerk to the press, other coaches and other teams players. They very well could go unbeaten but I honestly look for the Steelers or the NY Giants to get them, possibly both. I certaily hope so and more. Should they have a complete collapse then it couldn't happen to a nicer guy in Belicheat.

 

"Should the Pats go unbeatean then "Belijerk" coud be known as the asterik* coach of the NFL and join MLB's Balco Barry in that fame"

 

On another note and something to think about..........just look at how well C. Weis is doing now days at N.D. w/o the extra........ "help" :eek::sssh: .