Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SICOFITALL. Show SICOFITALL's posts

    Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    First off Im not saying they werent a good team. Second Im not doing this because Im a bitter Pats fan, not at all. Every year when a team or teams, like the Colts, Pats, Saints, Broncos, etc. get to a point were their 10-0, 13-0, this annoying, disgruntled, and I say overrated team, mostly represented by Mec. Morris appears, to hang on, grasping n clutching to their only claim to fame like Spencer n Hedi. What a loser this guy is, anyway, we have to suffer through his 70's style raps, his rants that they were the first n only team so far to go undefeated, well I say, who cares! When me n my friends have a convo. about the greatest players, greatest teams, as Im sure you guys do too. When we have this discussion, say about greatest players, Mec. Morris isnt even in the ballpark of greatest backs. Not even close, nowhere near the top 25-30. Greatest rec.'s , Paul Warfields name is brought up. This is a guy who never had more than 52 catches, and top 1000yrds only once. He had over 10 td's 3 times, and to be fair, as Im sure most of you will bring up this wasnt exactly a passing era. Ok decent point, but I judge great a great player, and great teams by how they did in their time, team n indv. stats, how they would have done ,say 15-20yrs before their time and 15-20yrs after they played. Say around the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. And of coarse and maybe most important "the eye test". Plain n simple can they play. I dont think any of those guys including Csonka, who was prob. their best player. IMHO just dont think those guys (team as well as indv.) could hang w/ the greats. Different era, different players in terms of speed n size, but, to judge a team or a single player you have to compare them at some point in the discussion to other teams n players. Here are a couple of more  statisics that I think are interesting and may shed some light on how good they really were. First and maybe most important they only beat TWO, count them TWO TEAMS, who had winning records. And those teams were both 8-6, the Giants and the Chiefs. They beat 8 teams w/ 5 or less loss' on the schedule and two that were 7-7. Im sorry but that just doesnt impress me at all. It matters who U beat. Something I just cant get over, not to mention the talent level of those teams. Going into the 07' season how many SB contenders did the Pats walk through, people were talking about the Cowboys, Eagles, Colts, Ravens, Steelers, even the Bengals as possible teams that could get to the big game. Again the talent level of those teams as well as the other 's the Pats beat cant be compared to the ones the Fins beat, not even close! Another thing is the QB play Griese is always talked about, but he didnt start that season, Earl Morrall did. He had 1360yrds(lol) and a 55% completion rating, how many rec. today are going to finish w/ over 1300yrds this year, 5-6?  Morrall also had 11 td's w/ 7 picks. Griese had 636yrds, 54% comp. rating and 4 td's w/ 4 picks. Thats a joke! And their "no-name defense" which gets brought up as one their strong points, yea they finished w/ no sacks. Yes no sacks and 21 int's. Now can U imagine that team facing a Manning, Brady, Montana, Favre, Elway, or Young? Yea they went undefeated, but it matters who in beat if ,U want to be compared w/ the greats, and they beat no-one. Ok give it to me, agree/disagree, hate/love it? Happy Holidays, GO PATS!!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from cousteau. Show cousteau's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    First off Im not saying they werent a good team. Second Im not doing this because Im a bitter Pats fan, not at all. Every year when a team or teams, like the Colts, Pats, Saints, Broncos, etc. get to a point were their 10-0, 13-0, this annoying, disgruntled, and I say overrated team, mostly represented by Mec. Morris appears, to hang on, grasping n clutching to their only claim to fame like Spencer n Hedi. What a loser this guy is, anyway, we have to suffer through his 70's style raps, his rants that they were the first n only team so far to go undefeated, well I say, who cares! When me n my friends have a convo. about the greatest players, greatest teams, as Im sure you guys do too. When we have this discussion, say about greatest players, Mec. Morris isnt even in the ballpark of greatest backs. Not even close, nowhere near the top 25-30. Greatest rec.'s , Paul Warfields name is brought up. This is a guy who never had more than 52 catches, and top 1000yrds only once. He had over 10 td's 3 times, and to be fair, as Im sure most of you will bring up this wasnt exactly a passing era. Ok decent point, but I judge great a great player, and great teams by how they did in their time, team n indv. stats, how they would have done ,say 15-20yrs before their time and 15-20yrs after they played. Say around the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. And of coarse and maybe most important "the eye test". Plain n simple can they play. I dont think any of those guys including Csonka, who was prob. their best player. IMHO just dont think those guys (team as well as indv.) could hang w/ the greats. Different era, different players in terms of speed n size, but, to judge a team or a single player you have to compare them at some point in the discussion to other teams n players. Here are a couple of more  statisics that I think are interesting and may shed some light on how good they really were. First and maybe most important they only beat TWO, count them TWO TEAMS , who had winning records. And those teams were both 8-6, the Giants and the Chiefs. They beat 8 teams w/ 5 or less loss' on the schedule and two that were 7-7. Im sorry but that just doesnt impress me at all. It matters who U beat. Something I just cant get over, not to mention the talent level of those teams. Going into the 07' season how many SB contenders did the Pats walk through, people were talking about the Cowboys, Eagles, Colts, Ravens, Steelers, even the Bengals as possible teams that could get to the big game. Again the talent level of those teams as well as the other 's the Pats beat cant be compared to the ones the Fins beat, not even close! Another thing is the QB play Griese is always talked about, but he didnt start that season, Earl Morrall did. He had 1360yrds(lol) and a 55% completion rating, how many rec. today are going to finish w/ over 1300yrds this year, 5-6?  Morrall also had 11 td's w/ 7 picks. Griese had 636yrds, 54% comp. rating and 4 td's w/ 4 picks. Thats a joke! And their "no-name defense" which gets brought up as one their strong points, yea they finished w/ no sacks. Yes no sacks and 21 int's. Now can U imagine that team facing a Manning, Brady, Montana, Favre, Elway, or Young? Yea they went undefeated, but it matters who in beat if ,U want to be compared w/ the greats, and they beat no-one. Ok give it to me, agree/disagree, hate/love it? Happy Holidays, GO PATS!!!
    Posted by SICOFITALL
    ....blah blah blah. You say at first that you think they were a good team, then you completely dismantle them with all your little talking points. Face it..you ARE a bitter Patriot fan who still can't face the fact that Morris, Czonka, Griese, et al won all their games thru 14 regular season and then the post season. Your T-shirt toting "Undefeated" team choked it away in the big game so all the shirts went overseas to underpriveledged kids in countries that couldn't care less about football. If it was your team that won during that era, they's still be the best thing in the history of the world!! But since they didn't you cling to the glory of the wins in '07 but can't face the one loss..the biggest one in the biggest game.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SICOFITALL. Show SICOFITALL's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In light of the B.S. that is going on in other post about facts n research, ive done mine and am comfortable w/ my post. I cant respond for most of the night cause I have work n a life, but will be back on later tonight, cause I dont have that great of one(lol). Happy Friday! GO PATS!!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    I think it's important to point out that the NFL is a young sport.  I know football goes back a while but unlike baseball it wasn't as popular and didn't attract premier athletes back in the 30's and 40's.  After it gained popularity it when through some rules renovations that changed the game.  So comparisons are difficult because it's likely neither could compete under a different set of rules. 

    I would also say that with the popularity the NFL attracted in the 60's and 70's ultimately leads to premier athletes that focus on football as a sport and career.  Just like track racers get better every year and high jumpers etc, it is safe to assume that the football players of this generation are better than those of past generations.  Wouldn't a modern sprinter defeat one from the 70's?  Track can easily be measured by the time but football is more difficult. 

    I'm going to put up something from cold hard football facts website showing my point about the rules.  And yes, I think the 72 dolphins are overrated.

     Dead Ball Era – The period in NFL history (1966-77) that was ruled by low scores and stifling defensive play. Many of the most famous defenses of modern NFL history – Pittsburgh's Steel Curtain, Dallas' Doomsday Defense, Minnesota's Purple People Eaters and the Rams' Fearsome Foursome – all played in the Dead Ball Era. The Dead Ball Era reached its oppressive peak in its final year: the 1977 season featured both the stingiest scoring defense and most inept scoring offense in modern NFL history. See also, Live Ball Era.

    Live Ball Era – The period in NFL history (1978-present) marked by rule changes and other efforts to open up the pace of scoring. The league-manufactured Live Ball Era was necessitated by the increasing inability of offenses to score points in the previous decade, a period known as the Dead Ball Era. The Live Ball Era has been marked by inflated offensive statistics, particularly in the passing game
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    Give credit where credit is due. 
    Griese went on to become a broadcaster who says things like..."If they can score more points than their opponent, they'll win the game."
    Csonka went on to participate in the most famous fumble in history.
    Morris went on to lead the league in idiocy.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    Sorry, I know you didn't want to hear about rules changes.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pflaherty10. Show pflaherty10's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    I too think the '72 are/were overrated.  I also like the fact that I don't hear anything from them right now, since the Pats went 18-0 before, yes, the dreaded catch.  The Pats pretty much took the wind from their sails and the whole champagne toast thing they did or let the whole country know about when the '86 Bears lost to the Fins on MNF to keep them from being 14-0.  Since then, for 22 years it was all we heard every week around week 11, 12, 13 when a team was un-defeated.  However since the Pats went 16-0 in the reg season, you don't/won't hear from them.  They have no claim to the most wins in a regular season and the most consecutive wins in a season as their mark was only 17 and the Pats, as said above had 18.  So all they have left is a perfect season, which by all standards, as mentioned below was a sub-par competitive season for the league overall in '72.  However if, dare I say, the Saints win tomorrow night, there will have been 3 teams to go 14-0 in a regular season in the last 3 years, when it took 35 years for it to happen again. For me, what the Colts and Saints have done this season was like what Barry did with 73 homers.  When Mac hit 70 in 98 (unaware of PED in baseball), I was like, "no way I'll see that again in my lifetime." since it took 37 years to break the previous record of 61 and about the same to break the record of 60 before that and sure enough a few years later I was like, "no way, 73..." and then the spit hit the fan in baseball, but I digress.

    Granted here in this case with the Saints and Colts, there is no PED issue/edge, just two teams putting a whooping on the league.  My point is, it further diminishes the '72 Fins accomplishments.  Two in one season to go 14-0 is just mind-boggling...would love to see both in the Bowl at 18-0, wouldn't that be something...knocking on wood...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SICOFITALL. Show SICOFITALL's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    No, bringing the rule changes up is a valid point, I just dont think those guy(72 fins) could carry todays players jocks. For instance I think a guy like Bart Star, Roger Staubach, Bob Hayes, could play now, Mec. Morris couldnt make me breakfast. Now that maybe thats because Im picky about my bacon, or maybe he just sux?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    Give credit where credit is due.  Griese went on to become a broadcaster who says things like..."If they can score more points than their opponent, they'll win the game." Csonka went on to participate in the most famous fumble in history. Morris went on to lead the league in idiocy.
    Posted by Yapple

    Don't forget, Csonka also guest starred on the 6 Million Dollar Man.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SICOFITALL. Show SICOFITALL's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    Yea but, Griese's "If they can score more points than their opponent, they'll win the game" statment goes down in history w/ some of the great minds and wordsmith's ever. Kinda like George Bush's, "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done" and "I think we agree, the past is over". And who can forget "Its clearly a budget. Its got a lot of numbers in it". AAAhhh Shakesphere and Lady Gaga rolled into one. Oh la ,la la la, oh la ,la la la gaga oh la la, blah blah BAD ROMANCE! Do the words best song ever mean anything to you? Huh , Huh, yea!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Steelcurtain75. Show Steelcurtain75's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    As someone who followed NFL football back in the 60's & 70's, I have to agree that the Dolphins of 1972 are over-rated. They deserve recognition for an undefeated season (No matter who they played) but they aren't the greatest team of all time. I've said it time & time again, as good as the Steelers were from 1974 to 1979, there's no way those teams could compete with the top teams of this decade. The main thing is the size difference and the speed of todays players. There are some real old-timers who still think the best athletes of all-time were back in the first half of the 20 century. I always tell them to look at alot of the Mens Olympic records from those days, and the woman of today could equal or even beat them. As for the passing records of QB's back in the 70's, it isn't fair to compare them to the QB's of today, because back in that era, the defensive backs could play bump-n-run on the receivers, and they could do it as long as the ball wasn't in the air. Also, roughing the passer was rarely called back in those days, and these guys took alot more pounding than the QB's of today. As for Paul Warfield, his stat's may not seem impressive by todays standards, but he was one heck of a receiver. Not only did he have to face bump-n-run, but usually alot of double-coverage. Many of today's top receivers wouldn't be nearly as good if the rules were changed to allow the DB's to play bump-n-run. Wes Welker would be an exception. I don't think anything(other than an injury) could take him off his game. I think the 72 Dolphins deserve alot of credit for going undefeated, but I too am sick of Mercury Morris & the other Dolphins celebrating when an undefeated team loses a game. Records are made to be broken. Most athlete's with some 'class' and who are proud of what they accomplished, have no problem watching another athlete break their record, because they realize just how much hard work & sacrifice it takes to do it. Jim Brown recently was on hand when Lt passed him up on 'the all-time' rushing leaders chart. He had no problem congratulating LT on his accomplishments. Brown could have been so self-indulging  like Mercury Morris and claim that if he (Jim Brown) would have played 3 or more seasons(which he was totally capable of), I don't think anyone would have ever broke his records.  I know the Patriots didn't end up winning the Superbowl after their Undefeated regular season, and two playoff wins, but even as a Steeler fan, I think that Patriot team, in my opinion was the most dominating team of all-time. They not only beat the bad teams handily, they dominated most of the good teams also. If the Patriots & the Giants would have played 100 times, the Patriots would have won handily 99 times. But this is professional sports, and like they say 'On any given Sunday'. I'm glad you brought this up, because I think everyone is tired of Mercury Morris' act!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    First off Im not saying they werent a good team. Second Im not doing this because Im a bitter Pats fan, not at all. Every year when a team or teams, like the Colts, Pats, Saints, Broncos, etc. get to a point were their 10-0, 13-0, this annoying, disgruntled, and I say overrated team, mostly represented by Mec. Morris appears, to hang on, grasping n clutching to their only claim to fame like Spencer n Hedi. What a loser this guy is, anyway, we have to suffer through his 70's style raps, his rants that they were the first n only team so far to go undefeated, well I say, who cares! When me n my friends have a convo. about the greatest players, greatest teams, as Im sure you guys do too. When we have this discussion, say about greatest players, Mec. Morris isnt even in the ballpark of greatest backs. Not even close, nowhere near the top 25-30. Greatest rec.'s , Paul Warfields name is brought up. This is a guy who never had more than 52 catches, and top 1000yrds only once. He had over 10 td's 3 times, and to be fair, as Im sure most of you will bring up this wasnt exactly a passing era. Ok decent point, but I judge great a great player, and great teams by how they did in their time, team n indv. stats, how they would have done ,say 15-20yrs before their time and 15-20yrs after they played. Say around the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. And of coarse and maybe most important "the eye test". Plain n simple can they play. I dont think any of those guys including Csonka, who was prob. their best player. IMHO just dont think those guys (team as well as indv.) could hang w/ the greats. Different era, different players in terms of speed n size, but, to judge a team or a single player you have to compare them at some point in the discussion to other teams n players. Here are a couple of more  statisics that I think are interesting and may shed some light on how good they really were. First and maybe most important they only beat TWO, count them TWO TEAMS , who had winning records. And those teams were both 8-6, the Giants and the Chiefs. They beat 8 teams w/ 5 or less loss' on the schedule and two that were 7-7. Im sorry but that just doesnt impress me at all. It matters who U beat. Something I just cant get over, not to mention the talent level of those teams. Going into the 07' season how many SB contenders did the Pats walk through, people were talking about the Cowboys, Eagles, Colts, Ravens, Steelers, even the Bengals as possible teams that could get to the big game. Again the talent level of those teams as well as the other 's the Pats beat cant be compared to the ones the Fins beat, not even close! Another thing is the QB play Griese is always talked about, but he didnt start that season, Earl Morrall did. He had 1360yrds(lol) and a 55% completion rating, how many rec. today are going to finish w/ over 1300yrds this year, 5-6?  Morrall also had 11 td's w/ 7 picks. Griese had 636yrds, 54% comp. rating and 4 td's w/ 4 picks. Thats a joke! And their "no-name defense" which gets brought up as one their strong points, yea they finished w/ no sacks. Yes no sacks and 21 int's. Now can U imagine that team facing a Manning, Brady, Montana, Favre, Elway, or Young? Yea they went undefeated, but it matters who in beat if ,U want to be compared w/ the greats, and they beat no-one. Ok give it to me, agree/disagree, hate/love it? Happy Holidays, GO PATS!!!
    Posted by SICOFITALL


    Regardless, they will still be noted for their undefeated regular season AND winning SB in same season.....until someone else does it.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tojo. Show tojo's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    I agree as well.  The Dolphins played exactly 0 playoff teams in the regular season.  They get credit for beating the Steelers and Redskins in the playoffs but didnt have to win rematches.

    Personally I think the 03 Pats had the greatest run.  15 straight wins after a 2-2 start.  Beating 5 playoff teams in the regular season, 3 of those finishing as elite 12-4 teams.  The Pats then beat 2 of those same 12-4 teams again in the playoffs.  And of course, 1 of those teams was the Colts, also one of the best teams of the decade.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hoochiemgg. Show hoochiemgg's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    I can't stand the Dolphins or their fans and especially can't stand their whole champagne thing when the last undefeated team each year finally loses. Imagine, hoisting a glass because another team falls short. That said, the Dolphins went to three strait superbowls 71,72 and 73 and won two of them. Morris went to the pro bowl each year and was a huge part of their success especially in the playoffs. Had Samual made that interception or had the helmet catch not happened we wouldn't have to hear it anymore. But, like Dent's home run, we gotta take the good with the terrible. I like the fact that were not doormats anymore and we had and quite possibly are still in the midst of a great run.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    Yea but, Griese's "If they can score more points than their opponent, they'll win the game" statment goes down in history w/ some of the great minds and wordsmith's ever. Kinda like George Bush's, "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done" and "I think we agree, the past is over". And who can forget "Its clearly a budget. Its got a lot of numbers in it". AAAhhh Shakesphere and Lady Gaga rolled into one. Oh la ,la la la, oh la ,la la la gaga oh la la, blah blah BAD ROMANCE! Do the words best song ever mean anything to you? Huh , Huh, yea!
    Posted by SICOFITALL


    Also, like Obamarama's great "It's like that in 52 states". Or, his rtax cheating Treasury Secretay's "We misguessed wrong".   Right?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Caesar1177. Show Caesar1177's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    The 2009 Cleveland Browns would destroy the 72 Dolphins
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    ~The Better overall athlete in a far more prevelant and successful NFL, as well as The mountain of Rule Changes aside, NOONE's even mentioning the following: Salary Cap Ceiling, Roster Limitations, Free Agency of Players/Personell, and Revenue Sharing between Franchises.  THAT 2 Teams this year can go undefeated (1 by being excellent, 1 by being...umm, Less Good, but definately SMART *wink-wink, nudge-nudge...FLAG) With these League checks and balances in place in order to affect greater equality of winning by franchises, is absurd...  These 2 teams alone would topple most dynasties of decade's past, Let alone the cr^ddy '72 Dolphins, who barely managed to beat a pathetic schedule of cr%ppy teams in a weak league year that didn't have any rules in place curtailing long-term seasonal and even yearly success over other clubs... 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from krismk. Show krismk's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    I hate chipping at marble statues.  I love what the Pats have accomplished, casting a shadow on the Dolphins for a 10 years, but the Dolphins WERE the dawn of the NFL...when TV took over our lives for sports.  The 50's and 60's probably had more people attend games in person or listen on the radio.

    After looking at a sunny South Florida dawn, who could not love a dark, starry  December sky with snow-geysers in the stands?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    No one is calling the '72 Dolphins the best football team of all time, but they are still the ONLY undefeated Super Bowl champion.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from oggieman. Show oggieman's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    First off Im not saying they werent a good team. Second Im not doing this because Im a bitter Pats fan, not at all. Every year when a team or teams, like the Colts, Pats, Saints, Broncos, etc. get to a point were their 10-0, 13-0, this annoying, disgruntled, and I say overrated team, mostly represented by Mec. Morris appears, to hang on, grasping n clutching to their only claim to fame like Spencer n Hedi. What a loser this guy is, anyway, we have to suffer through his 70's style raps, his rants that they were the first n only team so far to go undefeated, well I say, who cares! When me n my friends have a convo. about the greatest players, greatest teams, as Im sure you guys do too. When we have this discussion, say about greatest players, Mec. Morris isnt even in the ballpark of greatest backs. Not even close, nowhere near the top 25-30. Greatest rec.'s , Paul Warfields name is brought up. This is a guy who never had more than 52 catches, and top 1000yrds only once. He had over 10 td's 3 times, and to be fair, as Im sure most of you will bring up this wasnt exactly a passing era. Ok decent point, but I judge great a great player, and great teams by how they did in their time, team n indv. stats, how they would have done ,say 15-20yrs before their time and 15-20yrs after they played. Say around the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. And of coarse and maybe most important "the eye test". Plain n simple can they play. I dont think any of those guys including Csonka, who was prob. their best player. IMHO just dont think those guys (team as well as indv.) could hang w/ the greats. Different era, different players in terms of speed n size, but, to judge a team or a single player you have to compare them at some point in the discussion to other teams n players. Here are a couple of more  statisics that I think are interesting and may shed some light on how good they really were. First and maybe most important they only beat TWO, count them TWO TEAMS , who had winning records. And those teams were both 8-6, the Giants and the Chiefs. They beat 8 teams w/ 5 or less loss' on the schedule and two that were 7-7. Im sorry but that just doesnt impress me at all. It matters who U beat. Something I just cant get over, not to mention the talent level of those teams. Going into the 07' season how many SB contenders did the Pats walk through, people were talking about the Cowboys, Eagles, Colts, Ravens, Steelers, even the Bengals as possible teams that could get to the big game. Again the talent level of those teams as well as the other 's the Pats beat cant be compared to the ones the Fins beat, not even close! Another thing is the QB play Griese is always talked about, but he didnt start that season, Earl Morrall did. He had 1360yrds(lol) and a 55% completion rating, how many rec. today are going to finish w/ over 1300yrds this year, 5-6?  Morrall also had 11 td's w/ 7 picks. Griese had 636yrds, 54% comp. rating and 4 td's w/ 4 picks. Thats a joke! And their "no-name defense" which gets brought up as one their strong points, yea they finished w/ no sacks. Yes no sacks and 21 int's. Now can U imagine that team facing a Manning, Brady, Montana, Favre, Elway, or Young? Yea they went undefeated, but it matters who in beat if ,U want to be compared w/ the greats, and they beat no-one. Ok give it to me, agree/disagree, hate/love it? Happy Holidays, GO PATS!!!
    Posted by SICOFITALL


    Sure, this post had nothing to do with you being a pats fan. LMAO.

    You can go on and on about this and that, but the fact remains that the 72 Dolphins are the only team to win every game, plus the playoffs and they also won the Super Bowl.  I don't know how anyone can argue with a straight face against that being a "great" team or saying that team was somehow "overrated"...except for the fact that you are jealous that your team couldn't finish the job. 

    I am not a flame thrower and I have never posted anything remotely disrespectful  about the Pats or their fans.  And everythign I have posted here has shown respect for the Patriots and what they accomplished and hope that one day my team can knock the pats down from their division dominance.  But this type of talk is just nonsense born out of jealousy. 

    You want to say that they weren't the best in history?  Fine. I agree with you.  The 73 Dolphins were actually better than the 72 dolphins; and there are some other teams including your '07 team that can make their case too.   But to say the 72 dolphins were "good" and not "great" when they did something no other team has done?  You're just jealous--plain and simple.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    In Response to Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED : Sure, this post had nothing to do with you being a pats fan. LMAO. You can go on and on about this and that, but the fact remains that the 72 Dolphins are the only team to win every game, plus the playoffs and they also won the Super Bowl.  I don't know anyone can argue against that being a "great" team or saying that team was somehow "overrated"...except for the fact that you are jealous that your team couldn't finish the job.  I am not a flame thrower and I have never posted anything remotely disrespectful  about the Pats or their fans.  And everythign I have posted here has shown respect for the Patriots and what they accomplished and hope that one day my team can knock the pats down from their division dominance.  But this type of talk is just nonsense born out of jealousy.  You want to say that they weren't the best in history?  Fine.  But to say they were "good" and not "great" when they did something no other team has done?  You're just jealous--plain and simple.
    Posted by oggieman


    Oggie, I bet the Phins Sunday and they covered.That was a good comeback. I can't believe fisher didn't use any timeouts at the end of the game to try and get the ball back. The Titans deserved to lose for that one.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from oggieman. Show oggieman's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED : Oggie, I bet the Phins Sunday and they covered.That was a good comeback. I can't believe fisher didn't use any timeouts at the end of the game to try and get the ball back. The Titans deserved to lose for that one.
    Posted by ewhite1065


    Well, the fins deserved to lose for all those turnovers. 

    Although as I have stated here before I don't like to complain about the officiating, there were two outrageous calls in overtime that killed the fish.

    But hope is far from lost...I love their chances to come to Foxboro as the 6th seed for a rubber match. That's my prediction. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    In Response to Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED : Sure, this post had nothing to do with you being a pats fan. LMAO. You can go on and on about this and that, but the fact remains that the 72 Dolphins are the only team to win every game, plus the playoffs and they also won the Super Bowl.  I don't know how anyone can argue with a straight face against that being a "great" team or saying that team was somehow "overrated"...except for the fact that you are jealous that your team couldn't finish the job.  I am not a flame thrower and I have never posted anything remotely disrespectful  about the Pats or their fans.  And everythign I have posted here has shown respect for the Patriots and what they accomplished and hope that one day my team can knock the pats down from their division dominance.  But this type of talk is just nonsense born out of jealousy.  You want to say that they weren't the best in history?  Fine.  But to say they were "good" and not "great" when they did something no other team has done?  You're just jealous--plain and simple.
    Posted by oggieman


    Admittedly oggie from a Pat's Fan perspective, I (I'm sure like most) weren't too pleased with Mercury Morris's loud-mouth remarks on the Patriots, Cheating, and how There should be an asterik next to our record upon and IF we did in fact go undefeated and won the SB (I DO believe Shula himself expressed similiar sentiments upon NOT accepting N.E.'s potentially undefeated season that year before backstepping in a pc retraction), BUT IF You are to somehow say that in some way clouds our overall sentiments regarding The '72 Miami Dolphins, well...You'd in all probability be correct.

    Yet in all seriousness oggieman, It really was a different era...  It was a time before The NFL trully exploded in popularity creating far better athletes/personell, a time before The Salary Cap, before Roster Limits, before revenue sharing between richer franchises who could throw enormous sums towards training, coaching, facilities, and all else, AND especially before the vast Free Agency movement of Players and Personell, Not to mention that The '72 'fins DID barely get many mediocre teams during Regular Season play. 

    However, Does it matter How Much They won by and DID the Fins MAKE their schedule?  In the end, No and No Way...They Won.  BUT are the '72 Dolphins the very Best EVER?  Imho, no way...They were great though.  See, ALL People, Places and Things HAVE to be viewed through the Historical Context by which They were a part of at a given time, including the 1972 Miami Dolphins.  SO, DID They beat the very best that particular time had to offer...Yup.  Were They great then?  Yes sir...but IF You are to say that Our judgement's clouded BY being holders of the closest near perfect regular and postseason and By being long-time division rivals...well, that's just crazy talk 8^)
         
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Physics. Show Physics's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED : Admittedly oggie from a Pat's Fan perspective, I (I'm sure like most) weren't too pleased with Mercury Morris's loud-mouth remarks on the Patriots, Cheating, and how There should be an asterik next to our record upon and IF we did in fact go undefeated and won the SB (I DO believe Shula himself expressed similiar sentiments upon NOT accepting N.E.'s potentially undefeated season that year before backstepping in a pc retraction), BUT IF You are to somehow say that in some way clouds our overall sentiments regarding The '72 Miami Dolphins, well...You'd in all probability be correct. Yet in all seriousness oggieman, It really was a different era...  It was a time before The NFL trully exploded in popularity creating far better athletes/personell, a time before The Salary Cap, before Roster Limits, before revenue sharing between richer franchises who could throw enormous sums towards training, coaching, facilities, and all else, AND especially before the vast Free Agency movement of Players and Personell, Not to mention that The '72 'fins DID barely get many mediocre teams during Regular Season play.  However, Does it matter How Much They won by and DID the Fins MAKE their schedule?  In the end, No and No Way...They Won.  BUT are the '72 Dolphins the very Best EVER?  Imho, no way...They were great though.  See, ALL People, Places and Things HAVE to be viewed through the Historical Context by which They were a part of at a given time, including the 1972 Miami Dolphins.  SO, DID They beat the very best that particular time had to offer...Yup.  Were They great then?  Yes sir...but IF You are to say that Our judgement's clouded BY being holders of the closest near perfect regular and postseason and By being long-time division rivals...well, that's just crazy talk 8^)      
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium



    I think the point is that if the Pats could go 18-0, I do think there will be another team that will get close again as the Colts have this year. It is tough, no doubt, in part because it has a lot to do with potentially taking the best shot from another team when your team isn't having a great day... I mean, look at the NBA and see all the teams that are around 20-4 right now... seems like great teams in any sport will always be close to pulling off ong win streaks... just timing...

    As for the NFL, the faster turning point may be the loss of a salary cap.. I suppose if that happens, you may see that whole undefeated thing go out the window when a few big market teams really just need to pull off a few key wins and then outclass some smaler market clubs... I think one thing the Pats did show is that you don't have to *not* go for the undefeated season.. I think the Colts have a good shot in part because they really can't 'take it easy' against the Jets... someone will get hurt... If they get to 15-0, you know they'll try for 16-0.  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from oggieman. Show oggieman's posts

    Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED

    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED:
    In Response to Re: Why I think the 72' Fins are OVERRATED : Admittedly oggie from a Pat's Fan perspective, I (I'm sure like most) weren't too pleased with Mercury Morris's loud-mouth remarks on the Patriots, Cheating, and how There should be an asterik next to our record upon and IF we did in fact go undefeated and won the SB (I DO believe Shula himself expressed similiar sentiments upon NOT accepting N.E.'s potentially undefeated season that year before backstepping in a pc retraction), BUT IF You are to somehow say that in some way clouds our overall sentiments regarding The '72 Miami Dolphins, well...You'd in all probability be correct. Yet in all seriousness oggieman, It really was a different era...  It was a time before The NFL trully exploded in popularity creating far better athletes/personell, a time before The Salary Cap, before Roster Limits, before revenue sharing between richer franchises who could throw enormous sums towards training, coaching, facilities, and all else, AND especially before the vast Free Agency movement of Players and Personell, Not to mention that The '72 'fins DID barely get many mediocre teams during Regular Season play.  However, Does it matter How Much They won by and DID the Fins MAKE their schedule?  In the end, No and No Way...They Won.  BUT are the '72 Dolphins the very Best EVER?  Imho, no way...They were great though.  See, ALL People, Places and Things HAVE to be viewed through the Historical Context by which They were a part of at a given time, including the 1972 Miami Dolphins.  SO, DID They beat the very best that particular time had to offer...Yup.  Were They great then?  Yes sir...but IF You are to say that Our judgement's clouded BY being holders of the closest near perfect regular and postseason and By being long-time division rivals...well, that's just crazy talk 8^)      
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium



    Laz...

    First, I am not going to defend Mercury Morris in anyway.

    Second, I never said the 72 fins were the "greatest ever".  In fact, I did say that they were not even as good as the 73 dolphins...and that many teams including your '07 team could make a strong case.  

    But any suggestion that they were just a "good" team, and not a "great" team, as this "sico..." (or is it really Psycho?) poster that started this thread said, is ridiculous.

    And as for Sico's analysis of the 72 Dolphins players and saying they didn't have great players, well let's assume for the moment that he was right.  That would make the case even stronger to say the 72 Dolphins were a great "team" because they did go undefeated.  Of course, what this guy who seems to have just jumped on the Patriot bandwagon last week, despite being old enough to claim knowledge of the 72 Fins, fails to recognize is that the "good" but not "great" '72 Dolphins team has 6 players in the hall of fame--plus their coach.  
    I got the '07 Patriots down for 2 hall of famers (moss and Brady) plus their coach...anyone I am missing?
      
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share