November 14, 200718 yr There have been a million comparisons and speculations....that said, I still believe the Pats will fall once or twice prior to the end of the regular season. Here is my question though? While persusing the four letter network's site, they said that Tom Brady and Co. have a chance to "share" history with the Fins.....I say that if the '07 Pats go undefeated throughout the regular season and the playoffs, they far exceed what the Fins did. What say you? With modern day salary caps, free agency, and the simple parity of professional sports, I would find their feat leaps and bounds more impressive than that of the '72 Fins.
November 14, 200718 yr I absolutely agree. For once I agree with Habib. The game has come so far since the 70's.
November 14, 200718 yr Agreed. I recall that the Fins' feat was against a less than stellar schedule as well. Ironically, they beat up on New England that year by scores of 52-0 and 37-21.
November 14, 200718 yr At least this is better than their comparison of the current Celtics and 95-96 Bulls, which is apalling. I'd say if the Pats go undefeated, they're better, and may even be better with one or two losses.
November 14, 200718 yr At least this is better than their comparison of the current Celtics and 95-96 Bulls, which is apalling. I'd say if the Pats go undefeated, they're better, and may even be better with one or two losses. You have got to be kidding...I have to read that.
November 14, 200718 yr It think the Patriots accomplishment would be better because of the difficulty that free agency creates and they'd have to win two more games. I don't know if I'd say it far surpasses the Dolphins. But, if I had to rank the two, I'd give New England the nod.
November 14, 200718 yr It think the Patriots accomplishment would be better because of the difficulty that free agency creates and they'd have to win two more games. I don't know if I'd say it far surpasses the Dolphins. But, if I had to rank the two, I'd give New England the nod. You do realize that the Dolphins dynasty came apart in '74 because three of their biggest stars jumped the NFL and went to the World Football League? That was free agency in a different form.
November 14, 200718 yr Easy to agree with this...Heck, IMHO, I believe there's at least four or five SB Champions that I would say were better than the 72 Dolphins.
November 15, 200718 yr You do realize that the Dolphins dynasty came apart in '74 because three of their biggest stars jumped the NFL and went to the World Football League? That was free agency in a different form. Things like that weren't as frequent and as much a reality as it is in today's NFL. Was there a salary cap in the 1970's? What about roster limits? Also, I feel very comfortable in saying that what happened in 1974 had absolutely no effect on the '72 Dolphins.
November 15, 200718 yr Easy to agree with this...Heck, IMHO, I believe there's at least four or five SB Champions that I would say were better than the 72 Dolphins. :thumb: That's another point I started to make...when people start discussing the greatest teams ever, the '72 Dolphins are never the first team mentioned. Usually, after they go through the usual suspects of Bears, 49ers, Steelers and Cowboys...someone will say, we can't forget the '72 Dolphins. They are the only undefeated team ever. Maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that most people feel obligated to include them in the discussion because they ran the table, but if they'd lose just one game that year, they wouldn't even be included in the discussion. That's just my feeling. But, I certainly feel that the Steelers, Bears, 49ers, and Cowboys had teams that were superior, at the least.
November 15, 200718 yr :thumb: That's another point I started to make...when people start discussing the greatest teams ever, the '72 Dolphins are never the first team mentioned. Usually, after they go through the usual suspects of Bears, 49ers, Steelers and Cowboys...someone will say, we can't forget the '72 Dolphins. They are the only undefeated team ever. Maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that most people feel obligated to include them in the discussion because they ran the table, but if they'd lose just one game that year, they wouldn't even be included in the discussion. That's just my feeling. But, I certainly feel that the Steelers, Bears, 49ers, and Cowboys had teams that were superior, at the least. You might be right. I can see that but not necessaril with the Bears. They won ONE Super Bowl. Lost in the playoffs in succeeding years and never went back again. How does that qualify? Who did they beat in '85 that was that great? They faced an cinderella New England team that had upset Miami in the AFC title game. They beat a good Rams team that rode the back of Dickerson and a good NY Giant team but all these were at home. Miami beat the Steelers at Pittsburgh for the AFC title. However I think they aren't included because their run came immediately before the Steel Curtain run. Remember there has only been the following back to back Super Bowl Champs in history: 1967 & 68 Green Bay 1972 & 73 Miami 1974 & 75 Pittsburgh 1978 & 79 Pittsburgh 1988 & 89 San Francisco 1992 & 93 Dallas 1997 & 98 Denver 2003 & 04 New England That's only 8 times in 41 seasons of the Super Bowl. Another problem is that people forget they led the league in scoring and defense in '72 as well as had 6 members who are in the hall of Fame. (Bob Griese, Larry Csonka, Larry Little, Jim Langer, Nick Bounocotti, Paul Warfield)How many do the other teams listed above or mentioned have? Green Bay: Jim Taylor, Bart Starr, Ray Nischke, Jerry Kramer, Forrest Gregg Pittsburgh: Terry Bradshaw, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Franco Harris, Joe Greene, Mel Blount (?) San Fran: Joe Montana, Jerry Rice Dallas: Emmit Smith, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin Denver: John Elway New England: ? Are they as good as this years New England? I don't know. Maybe not. Do they belong in the discussion? Yes, they do.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.