Stupid Football Writers

[Heeko]

Today I read yet another post comparing the 1972 Miami Dolphins to the 2007 New England Patriots. It went on to say how Miami played a soft schedule and only two of the teams they played against made the playoffs. Then went on to say how New England played San Diego, Dallas, the Giants and Redskins and let's not forget the Colts. Basically it was saying Miami was bitter old men and this far, far superior New England team was so much better.

I almost gagged on this nonsense.

You can't compare the 1972 Dolphins to the 2007 Patriots. They are completely two different types of teams who played in different periods of time in the NFL. The divisions were set up differently and Miami played less games. Even the rules were different in 1972 compared to present.

I will address the soft schedule issue first. Miami played in a division with 4 other teams and played a 14 game schedule. For Miami to go undefeated they had to beat every team in that division twice. Then, every team in that division had to play each other two more times each. What's my point?

8 games of Miami's 14 game schedule was made up of division games. That hands each opponent 2 losses to start. Add that to them having to play each other 2 more times each and guess what? They are going to have losing records. Simple elimination. They play each other and someone has to lose. It's much the same way the Giants went 10-6 and Washington went 9-7 as compared to Dallas going 13-3. Does it mean Dallas didn't play anybody? No. It simply means Dallas beat them and then they had to play each other which amounted to further losses.

In 1972 the Jets went 7-7 and their only division losses were the two Miami gave them. They would have missed the second wildcard slot by one game if there was such a thing back then. There were only 3 division winners and one wildcard team. Sure the Colts went 5-9 but their division record was 4-4 and two of those losses was to Miami. The Bills went 4-9-1 but their division record was 2-6 and again, two of those were put there by Miami.

Of the 6 remaining non-division games on the 14 game schedule, Miami played two teams that made the playoffs. That's one third of their remaining schedule.

As another thought I like to remember Miami went 14-0 with a backup quarterback. Can the Patriots win without Brady? Who knows. Also between 1971 and 1974 Miami played a team that won 4 super bowls in 6 years (Pittsburgh) and another team that went to 3 superbowls in 4 years (Minnesota) Has New England played teams of this caliber?

Every team Miami played in the Super Bowl during the 70s, except Minnesota has returned to the Super Bowl and won. The longest time span being 10 years by Washington. Funny enough they beat Miami ten years later in super bowl 17. But to prove that was no fluke they went again the next season and Miami went again the season after that. It took Dallas 4 years to return to the super bowl after facing Miami and Minnesota one year.

Ok now let's look at the Patriots. Chicago in super bowl 20. It took them 21 years to get back to the super bowl. The Patriots played the Packers in super bowl 31 and the Pack returned again in super bowl 32, much like the Vikings did in super bowl 9 after playing miami.

Then the Patriots played the Rams, Panthers and Eagles all of which have never seen another super bowl since.

My point being, which team has really played nobody? Miami played legendary teams like the Steel Curtain and the real Silver and Black the most feared team in football at that time. Miami's super bowl opponents have been consistently strong teams. With the exception of Green Bay can New England say the same?

In my opinion from the early to mid 1970s the Miami Dolphins were the best team in pro football hands down. They are still the only team to win a super bowl the season after losing it and they were the first team to participate in three consecutive super bowls.

In the past seven seasons only one team has even made the playoffs after losing the super bowl (Seattle).

But I guess in the end all of this means nothing. Who's to say the 7-7 Jets of 1972 couldn't beat the 9-7 Redskins of 2007? Maybe Washington got those two extra wins only because they played two more games.

There is no fair way to compare teams of different times. Which makes the idea of comparing the 1972 Dolphins to the 2007 Patriots meaningless.

I just don't care for stupid football writers who only point out the 1972 season and fail to look at what Miami accomplished from 1971 to 1974. Even after going undefeated they lost only two games the following year and won the super bowl yet again. I think it's funny how none of the football writers have mentioned that fact.

If ignorant football writers are stupidly going to try and discredit a dynasty at least they should get the facts straight.

 

[german]

oh my God please....

you wont a nice article read this: http://www.insidebayarea.com/raiders/ci_8063515

man the pats would have nothing on the '83 LA Raiders or the '89 49ers

 

[maniactickler]

Ive never been a fan of comparing different teams from different eras, but theres no denying the god like greatness of this years Patriots!

 

[zepp3320]

the '83 Raiders were 12 - 4. They were a better team then that record suggests, but with the difficulty to compare teams of different eras I think it's tough to justify a 12 - 4 is better than an undefeated team.

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

Today I read yet another post comparing the 1972 Miami Dolphins to the 2007 New England Patriots. It went on to say how Miami played a soft schedule and only two of the teams they played against made the playoffs. Then went on to say how New England played San Diego, Dallas, the Giants and Redskins and let's not forget the Colts. Basically it was saying Miami was bitter old men and this far, far superior New England team was so much better.

I almost gagged on this nonsense.

You can't compare the 1972 Dolphins to the 2007 Patriots. They are completely two different types of teams who played in different periods of time in the NFL. The divisions were set up differently and Miami played less games. Even the rules were different in 1972 compared to present.

I will address the soft schedule issue first. Miami played in a division with 4 other teams and played a 14 game schedule. For Miami to go undefeated they had to beat every team in that division twice. Then, every team in that division had to play each other two more times each. What's my point?

8 games of Miami's 14 game schedule was made up of division games. That hands each opponent 2 losses to start. Add that to them having to play each other 2 more times each and guess what? They are going to have losing records. Simple elimination. They play each other and someone has to lose. It's much the same way the Giants went 10-6 and Washington went 9-7 as compared to Dallas going 13-3. Does it mean Dallas didn't play anybody? No. It simply means Dallas beat them and then they had to play each other which amounted to further losses.

In 1972 the Jets went 7-7 and their only division losses were the two Miami gave them. They would have missed the second wildcard slot by one game if there was such a thing back then. There were only 3 division winners and one wildcard team. Sure the Colts went 5-9 but their division record was 4-4 and two of those losses was to Miami. The Bills went 4-9-1 but their division record was 2-6 and again, two of those were put there by Miami.

Of the 6 remaining non-division games on the 14 game schedule, Miami played two teams that made the playoffs. That's one third of their remaining schedule.

As another thought I like to remember Miami went 14-0 with a backup quarterback. Can the Patriots win without Brady? Who knows. Also between 1971 and 1974 Miami played a team that won 4 super bowls in 6 years (Pittsburgh) and another team that went to 3 superbowls in 4 years (Minnesota) Has New England played teams of this caliber?

Every team Miami played in the Super Bowl during the 70s, except Minnesota has returned to the Super Bowl and won. The longest time span being 10 years by Washington. Funny enough they beat Miami ten years later in super bowl 17. But to prove that was no fluke they went again the next season and Miami went again the season after that. It took Dallas 4 years to return to the super bowl after facing Miami and Minnesota one year.

Ok now let's look at the Patriots. Chicago in super bowl 20. It took them 21 years to get back to the super bowl. The Patriots played the Packers in super bowl 31 and the Pack returned again in super bowl 32, much like the Vikings did in super bowl 9 after playing miami.

Then the Patriots played the Rams, Panthers and Eagles all of which have never seen another super bowl since.

My point being, which team has really played nobody? Miami played legendary teams like the Steel Curtain and the real Silver and Black the most feared team in football at that time. Miami's super bowl opponents have been consistently strong teams. With the exception of Green Bay can New England say the same?

In my opinion from the early to mid 1970s the Miami Dolphins were the best team in pro football hands down. They are still the only team to win a super bowl the season after losing it and they were the first team to participate in three consecutive super bowls.

In the past seven seasons only one team has even made the playoffs after losing the super bowl (Seattle).

But I guess in the end all of this means nothing. Who's to say the 7-7 Jets of 1972 couldn't beat the 9-7 Redskins of 2007? Maybe Washington got those two extra wins only because they played two more games.

There is no fair way to compare teams of different times. Which makes the idea of comparing the 1972 Dolphins to the 2007 Patriots meaningless.

I just don't care for stupid football writers who only point out the 1972 season and fail to look at what Miami accomplished from 1971 to 1974. Even after going undefeated they lost only two games the following year and won the super bowl yet again. I think it's funny how none of the football writers have mentioned that fact.

If ignorant football writers are stupidly going to try and discredit a dynasty at least they should get the facts straight.

Let me tell you it is hard for me as a Jets fan to give the Dolphins credit for much of anything. But Heeko, you are right on target with your post. The Dolphins teams of the 70's were stuff of legends. The facts that you brought up were well researched. A great job by you. You are right, you really can't compare era's. The game was played differently back in the 70's than it is now. Also the rules were different too!!! You know back then, you were actually allowed to hit a quarterback. Now you breathe the same air Tom Brady does and they are calling you for a 15 yard penalty.

Just based on rules alone you can't compare the era's. But 14 game schedules versus 16 game schedules and 8 divisional games versus 6 divisional games. But as Heeko said also, you have to throw in 4 playoff teams in each conference as oppose to 6 playoff teams in each conference. No such thing as a bye week back then during the season or during the playoffs. Also, no replays back then. Would the Patriots be where they are had it not been for the replay and the " Tuck Rule " ??? Also throw into it, expansion of both the leagues and the rosters. Once upon a time the roster ( least in 1972 ) were of 45 players. There are 6 more teams in the mix that were not there in 1972. That means that in 35 years we have added over almost 600 players to the game. Can we factually say these players are better than what played back in 1972 or can we say the league is a bit diluted today because of expansion as opposed to the what we watched back in 1972???

In closing, to argue or compare teams in different era's in ludicrious. Can we safely say that the Dolphins were one of the great teams of their era??? Absolutely. Can we safely say that the Patriots of today are one of the great teams of their era??? Absolutely. Can we say that the Patriots are better than the Dolphins of the 1970's or the Steelers of the 70's or the 49ers of the 80's or the Cowboys of the 1990's??? No, we can't. The way the game evolves and changes we just can't make those comparisons.

Great post Heeko!!!

 

[Knox The Hatter]

I still believe that if Miami had played Pittsburgh or Oakland around week four of that year, they'd have been tripped up.

The two above-.500 teams they beat that regular season- Giants, and Chiefs- were no great shakes.

They went in and won in the postseason. As a champion should. But yes, they did have an unconscionably soft schedule for a defending conference champion.

I'd like to see New England do it. It's something very, very special...

 

[Ray<3tiklishft]

One other thing as well, TF4F, the Dolphins themselves were an expansion team in 1966. The organization built a winner from the ground up in a few short seasons.