Greatest team ever, Montana an the 49ers of the 80s...
Greatest team ever, Montana an the 49ers of the 80s...
I'm not so sold on the Bears hammering the Patriots. I believe they would have had to make some adjustments, quite a few to contain Brady's bunch.
While I too would take Hampton, Dent, McMichael over an ancient Strahan, inconsistent Unemyora and Tuck, the way they liked to bring Duerson and/or Fencik so close to the line would have ben suicide. Ryan wasn't ever satisfied with just pressure, he wanted jail break assaults. While I can easily see Brady getting planted here and there, I can also see Welker catching 15 passes and running away from Singletary, Wilson and Marshall. Adjust to that and then you have Moss running 10 yards ahead of the nondescript corners Chicago had. For all of their ferocious run-support and vicious hitting, Fencik was flat-out slow and Duerson covered as well as say, Roy Williams.
That Monday night game against Miami featured a lot of tipped passes and ridiculous good fortune for the Dolphins, but the fact reamins that they were successful because they struck quickly against a weak secondary that had the safeties in tight.
Yes, in one game that year a talented front four manhandled the Pats line but that was far from the norm. The thing is, many teams tried that and any number of exotic blitzes and it didn't work. Chicago plyed two teams all that season that tried the quick drop and throw approach: SF who they roughed up and Miami who they didn't. There is the other side of the ball, too. I wonder how well Jimmy Mac would have done against that zone. The Bears ran an awful lot of seam patterns...would've been interesting.
I would favor the Bears, as I would against most teams I've seen a lot of, but I don't see THAT Patriots team, THAT season getting rolled over. It's sort of a styles make fights thing. You want to march the late seventies Steelers out there, then the Pats could be in deep water, although I think Brady would have moments against that zone. The problem is the other side of the ball again. I can't imagine the Pats even slowing them down, no matter how many picks Bradshaw threw.
And don't give me that last gane stuff, Hawk. LOL. By that criteria, the 72 Dolphins beat the Patriots, too and I know you and Sharkey don't believe that for one second. Absolutely positively giving you a buzz this weekend. I'm going to be up north the 2nd week of January. Maybe we can try getting Frenchie and the Canuck together and have those long-delayed beverages.
Originally Posted by Sharkey
Why did the Bears lose to the '85 Dolphins?
see you trying to position your 15-1 98' Vikings into this conversation Husk.
Not happening! HA!
My 2001 Rams are STILL my favorite team ever and going into the SB with the Pats, I was ready to Position them to enter discussions about the All Time Great teams.
Buuuuut.... They didn't close the show. They got upset by a field goal as time expired to a team they were better than. And when You don't do as such, Winning it all, you effectively remove yourself from such talks of greatness.
For ALL the Patriots bluster and run up the score blow outs, they could NOT close the show and win the big one.
I think you need SOME sort of hard line to seperate the Great teams from the "could have been contenders".
Winning the whole ball of wax, IMO is that Line.
"18 wins and 1 GIANT loss."
That is not the stuff of Greatness.
You hate the Pats, we get it.
Best night for night they can compete with any team that every played on thier best night. that means they are a all-time great team.
The Giants in my opinion had the greatest Playoff run of any team in the history of sports. Dallas on the road, Packers on the road, 18-0 Pats.
Landford did not win the big one, nor did Burley, yet we can argue the are p4p greater than Champions who are considered all-time greats as well.
Although still true.
I DO despise the Patroiots and RELISHED in the Giants beating them in the Super Bowl. A WONDERFUL Come-Uppance for a despicably arrogant franchise.
I thought my analogy as it applied to MY favorite team, the 2001 Rams would have made clear that the rules that I beleive should be applied to "Great" teams, applies to EVERY team, not just those who I like and dislike. Go back and read was was being written about that team going into the Superbowl and how that team was "going" to be remembered.
Along with my Rams from 2001, and the aforementioned 1998 Vikings, other DOMINANT regular season teams were on the verge of being remembered as very special and great teams, such as the 87' SF Niners who were 13-2 and destroying everyone until they got upset in NFC Divisional game by the Vikings. Add in the 1990 Niners, and the 74' Raiders. Throw in the 73 and 75 Vikings (sorry to pile on here Husk).
THE bottom line here about GREAT teams: It's a world of difference to lose a game in Novemeber or December, than it is to lose a game in January or February.
WHEN you lose and WHEN you win, is what will seperate the Great teams from the rest.
And if we circle back to the Phins in 72, it certainly helps when you factor in the quality of the teams you build that over all record on as well.
I'm not being biased here what so ever. The Rules I am lying down apply to EVERY Team that has ever played the game.
Oh and re the analogy you are making about Langford and Burley not winning the Big One? There is also a world of difference when you are not given the opportunity to win the big one, with that of playing in the big one and failing.
Last edited by hawk5ins; 12-10-2009 at 12:34 PM.
Husker made the points better than I did.
Hawk, hating a team as you, blunts clear focus of see how great they are. If you are saying that the 2007 Patriots are not an all-time great team because they lost the superbowl, I disagree.
The Bowl matters alot, but because they lost I feel you should not totally disguard them a almost great team. What they accomplished in the regular season has only been done once. By a team that they would MollyWop.
2007 Patriots cannot be excluded. One year p4p. I have not seen a better team, Superbowl loss, whatever.
the fact that I place these SAME guidelines on MY OWN team and stating that the 2001 Rams eliminated themselves from entering into the discussion of Great teams clearly illustrates that I am not allowing bias to enter into my evaluations.
I've never allowed dislikes and likes to cloud my views of fighters I despise or don't care for (Tyson, Pedroza, Gomez, Mayweather, Jones), so it should come as no shock that I don't do this in other sports.
Bottom Line: If you are presented with the Opportunity to win It ALL, be it the 2001 Rams, the 2007 Patriots, The 2005 Colts, the 1998 Vikings, 1987 49ers or whatever team you care to mention and you DON'T do so.........then NO, you are NOT going to be considered one of the greatest teams ever.
And to CONSIDER one of these teams As belonging along side the All Time Great Championship NFL squads, flies in the face of all logic and respect for a TRUE champion.
Last edited by hawk5ins; 12-10-2009 at 02:28 PM.
Because Dan Marino and the Fins were good, and that week, better than the Bears.Originally Posted by JLP 6
I don't recall that being for the title.
Is this going to be the strategy for discussions of all types moving forward?
Okay, hawk, then the Cowboys of the 70s that lost it all those times were not great, by your logic that you have to win the last game. You seem to say the 85 Bears were so great for that one season (I agree), but then say the 72 and 73 Dolphins weren't better than the 70s Cowboys because the boys went to the SB more times. Which is it? Can you have one great season like the Bears and be the greatest (that team from that one year may well be the greatest ever), just as the 72 and 73 Dolphins that existed at that time might be amongst the greatest ever, or is it 'Oh, the Bears weren't that great because the 49ers went to (and won) the SB more times.' Yes the boys beat the phins in 71, but, the phins won the next two sbs, and the boys were beaten by teams the phins beat in the playoffs and sb. The 72 Dolphins defense was amongst the greatest of all time, holding opponents to the fewest points of any team in the league, and they only allowed the Redskins 7 points in the superbowl, and the vikings the following sb - only 7 points yet again! You have a defense like that, and you are trouble for anyone. That was the magic of the 85 bears too! It was so damn difficult to score on them. I'm not saying who was better, I'm saying they were all great teams, and that the Dolphins deserve to be in the discussion just as much as any of the others. They were all great. And greatness can be established by one team in one year (Bears), or by one team over several years (49ers). And some in two consecutive years like the Dolphins, etc. But they do deserve to be in the conversation.
Last edited by apollack; 12-10-2009 at 01:39 PM.
claim that the 1978 Cowboys were one of the Greatest individual teams of all Time? Or the 1975 Cowboys? or the 1970 Cowboys?
Becuase if I have, please point it out to me.
You brought team of the Decade.
A Team of the Decade is based on what one franchise accomplishes during and entire decade.
In the 1970's, the Dallas Cowboys accomplished MORE than the Dolphins of the 1970's.
Don't cloud this.
Are you now changing this to a SINGLE greatest team of a particular Decade? IE the best Team of the 70's being, say, the 1978 Steelers?
Becuase if THAT is the case, then I would select the 74 and 75 Steelers, 76 Raiders, 77 Cowboys, 78 and 79 Steelers as ALL being a better team of the 70's than the 72 Dolphins.
To look at the 80's, I may very well say that the 85 Bears was individually the Greatest Single Team of that decade, but that the Niners and their 3 Super Bowls were the TEAM of the decade.
I have absolutely NO Idea how talking about Team of a Decade could have become confusing here.
And as it pertains to the 70's, Miami finishes 3rd behind Pitt and Dallas.
If you want to choose but ONE tiebreaker to push one team ahead of the other given that both won 2 SB's in the 70's, than choose the most obvious one: The Cowboys BEAT the Dolphins for one of their Super Bowls.
Okay, new scenario. One which could actually take place. Would you call the 07 Pats one of the greatest ever if they hadn't gone for the undefeated record, "threw" the last game or two and rested the players, not tried so hard against the Giants and showed them what they had in that last game, so that they could save up and give it their all in the SB, then beaten them then instead of the last game of the reg season?
Should the Colts and Saints, in the same situation, rest up, maybe give away a game or two and make sure they win the SB rather than drain themselves giving it everything to go undefeated? I think Dungy a few years ago had a great record with the Colts, undefeated or only one loss, but then rested his guys at the end and took a couple losses, and some were debating whether they would be rusty, etc., but he was justified when they won the SB against the Bears. So, what should the Pats have done? What should the Saints and Colts do this year?
One who looks back on the 2001-2002 Super Bowl and what if's it to death.
A game the Rams were favored to win by 2 td's. That the Rams lost by a fg as time expired.
What if Kurt Warner takes the Sack and doesn't throw one up to get picked off by Ty Law and run in for a TD?
What if either or both Torry Holt and Ricky Proehl don't Fumble on Key plays that led to points for the Patriots?
What if JR Redmon was correctly ruled as being tackled in bounds on the Patriots final drive that led to a FG? A ruling that would have forced the Patriots who had No TO's, to play for OT.
You need to look at the "What DID happens" and not the "What If's".
What If's will drive you crazy.
Just ask Husker about What If's and Gary Anderson.
And as an aside as it relates to your question: The Patriots had NO significant injuries going into the playoffs and the team was plenty rested as it had two weeks off from the Final game agianst the Giants before their first playoff game agianst the Jags and then another two weeks off following the win over the Chargers in the AFC championship to the loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl.
Conversely, it was the Giants who were carrying in some nagging injuries into the playoffs and into the Super Bowl.
The 2007 Patriots one thier best night could beat or compete with any team in the history of the NFL.
Agree or disagree, this is my point. I had nothing further to add to the discussion, if you two don't give yeah or nay to this line of thought.
You don't have to agree, but this is my only point, and this is where I start my reasoning on who is one of the greatest teams of all-time.
Last edited by JLP 6; 12-10-2009 at 04:09 PM.
I guess no one here can argue with my point that my 2001 Rams on thier absolute best form, could compete and in fact Defeat Any team in History.
Husk, You too can make this same arguement about your 98' Vikings.
Obviously this doesn't at ALL dilute the All time Great talent pool.
Hawk, just because the Dolphins lost to the Cowboys the year before they won back to back bowls doesn't mean anything. Teams are different from year to year. The Dolphins that existed in 72 and 73 were at their peak. For example, the vaunted '85 Bears lost to the 49ers in the 84 Conference finals 23-0. By that logic, the 85 Bears weren't as good as the 49ers. But the fact is that the 85 Bears were fantastic, and better than the 84 Bears.
BTW, the 72 Dolphins not only led the league in defense, allowing the fewest points of any team, but also led the league in offense, scoring more than any team. And in the SB, they led 14-0 until 2:07 left in the 4th quarter, when a Miami field goal attempt was blocked and run back for a touchdown by the Redskins. That was Washington's only score. They never scored against the Miami defense.
Last edited by apollack; 12-11-2009 at 11:10 PM.
What Happened to this line of thinking Adam?
"The 72 Dolphins beat teams like:
Kansas City (superbowl 4 champions)
Minnesota (nfc’s superbowl 4 reps and would go on to play in SB 8)
NY Jets (superbowl 3 champs)
Baltimore (superbowl 5 champs)
Pittsburgh (who would go on to win superbowl 9, after the Dolphins’ two year run)"
And yet when I say that the Cowboys beat the Phins in the Superbowl (71'), you come back with this:
"Hawk, just because the Dolphins lost to the Cowboys the year before they won back to back bowls doesn't mean anything. Teams are different from year to year."
You might want to review your OWN previous positions before you respond to one of MY posts that just may very well be adopting your own previously stated rationale.
Good comeback. I'll give you that one. I basically made that argument simply to counter your argument that they beat a bunch of bums, but my point was that although some of those teams didn't have dominating years, they were veterans of the game and Miami could have lost one game along the way, but didn't.
But the bottom line is they beat who was put in front of them, including the best in the league in the playoffs, and they had the best offense and defense in the league that year. The Redskins beat the Cowboys and Packers in the playoffs.
Miami had a horrid record before Shula took over, and each year they got a little better until they finally won it all two years in a row. Again, I'm not saying they were the best ever, but they deserve to be in the discussion. I just feel that you are short-changing them, is all.
One other thing to consider, Miami won most of their games in 72 with their back-up quarterback. Griese was their number one guy, but got injured early in the season, so Morrell took over. Again, amazing that they still did what they did with a back-up. Great team.
Redskins had the NFC's best record at 13-3. They advanced to the Super Bowl without allowing a touchdown in either their 16-3 playoff win over the Green Bay Packers or their 26-3 NFC Championship Game victory over the Cowboys. They allowed two touchdowns to Miami. Redskins had NFL MVP Larry Brown. QB Kilmer had the most touchdowns of any QB that season and the league leading QB rating. Miami intercepted him three times, I believe. Miami beat a darn good team and didn't allow them to score on offense.
Again, Miami was 15-2 in 73-74, with a much tougher schedule than the previous year. They beat MN Vikings in SB, who were 14-2 coming into the bowl. MN QB Fran Tarkenton. In playoffs, MN beat Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys. In SB, once again Miami was dominant, leading 24-0 heading into the 4th quarter, giving up only 7 points.
Also first team to play in three consecutive SBs, winning two.
32-2 record over two years.
They weren't the same after that for several reasons. The '74 season was marred by injuries to Csonka and their offensive linemen, defense was hurt by departure of defensive coordinator Bill Arnsparger to become the New York Giants head coach. The Dolphins still finished 11-3 but lost a dramatic playoff game to the Oakland Raiders. In 1975, Csonka, Kiick, and Warfield left to join the World Football League. The Dolphins would not win another playoff game until 1982.
Last edited by apollack; 12-12-2009 at 01:01 AM.
YOU Introduced resumes of the teams the 72 Dolphins beat to make your case for them.
The ONLY thing I had said about Miami prior to your Post listing what teams they had beaten, was This:
"BTW, I am pulling for Manning a the Colts to keep the Phins annual bottle of champagne on ice."
AFTER you listed SB "pedigrees" of the teams the Phins beat, I referenced the won loss record of each team, during this season.
This did NOT go down the other way around.
Well, maybe it was someone else. I scanned through a lot of posts before writing what I did. Anyway, the argument needed to be made because that is clearly a weakness of the 72 record - quality of opposition - but I still think beating a bunch of experienced .500 teams is meritorious when you have fewer teams, a higher concentration of talent, hence not as many dominant records, and it is still better to beat a .500 team than a bunch of teams today that have horrid losing records, and Miami still had to prove they were the real deal by beating the best in the NFL in the playoffs. It would be like criticizing Boise State for a weak schedule, but then if they beat Alabama, I'd say they really were that darn good. By winning it all Miami proved themselves, and unlike Boise, they didn't pick their schedule, I don't think. Like I said, they still had the #1 offense and #1 defense in the NFL, which is saying something, regardless of opposition, if you are doing that over the course of an entire season against professionals, and proving your class over the course of two seasons and having an impenetrable defense in two superbowls in a row. Anyway, we are probably beating a dead horse here. But I suspect I have brought Miami's esteem up more than you have brought it down.
A couple of quick points as I take a much needed break from what is apparently endless assignments for school. (If you're over forty and think getting a degree in a field you know jackshit about is a good idea, it's not. I'd have been happier removling my testicles with a dull potato peeler)
1. Hawk, Gary Anderson is far from the goat in my book. That falls squarely on the fat shoulders of Dennis "Big Game" Green. His decision to kneel on the ball with just under a minute before halftime, the Vikings at about their 35 and Randy freaking Moss split wide was just one of the many jaw-dropping and bonehead calls he made in that game. I hope that moronic slob is now choking on a double-glazed doughnut as he puts smiley face stickers on kids entering Wal-mart.
2. I know where you're coming from with the SB champions but I'm not sold on that theory at all. Let's take the '78 Cowboys or even that Elway team that beat the Dirty Birds who upended the Vikings; the Niners squad that hung 55 points on the scoreboard. For quality of competition in the big game, they had none. None. That has to factor in somewhere. Not saying this detracts from their greatness, it doesn't, but I'm not sold a slew of other teams couldn't have done the same thing. Therefore, beating someone who had no business being there in the first place makes a team great? Automatically?
3. For the sake of discussion especially, I don't see how teams like the 2007 Pats, the 2001 Rams, hell, the 1990 Eagles are automatically excluded from entry. There is no one that can make me believe the '90 Eagles, for example, wouldn't have slaughtered some of Elway's early SB teams, that embarrssing Giants squad "led" by Kerry Collins or the '85 Pats. And probably quite a few others. It would have been criminal. (For the record, THAT defense was the most frightening I've ever seen and that inludes the 70's Steelers, '85 Bears and anyone else you want to trot out there)
4. Out of curiosity, do you separate QB's by the same criteria? That one just makes my head hurt. As out-of-his-mind great as Phil Simms was in the 22 of 25 game, who ya got? Him or the very comparable Arche manning who never even sniffed the postseason? Is Trent Dilfer or Doug Williams, who have rings, better than Dan Marino who does not?
Ultimately, I guess I just can't rule out teams who were superb for 16, 17, 18 weeks because of one game. Now if the Giants had beaten the Pats 62-10 or the Pats had crushed the Rams 56-0, well then I think you take pause and maybe re-evaluate. Just my opinion.
1-I'm not looking at the comp for JUST the SB. Looking beyond that and into the Regular season as well as Playoffs.
2-Great teams win the games that matter.
Sorry but looking great in the regular season and then laying an egg in the playoffs or SB is what seperates that team from being Great.
We talk about GREAT teams and we have a couple entries in the discussion who couldn't even WIN the whole thing? Really?
Then why not just include every team in the discussion? Why even think of a team as great?
And the definition of greatness: When you are in a Position to win the big games and Win the Super Bowl or end of season championship, you come through.
Now as far as individual players go, many who were great were never in the position to win it all. So I wont' dq them from being great if they were never on a team that couldn't compete.
Likewise, winning games is a TEAM thing. That is why I'm talking abou the greatness of TEAMS, not individuals. A Single player can only do so much. So there is indeed a difference here.
And No. I don't think Phil Simms of 86 was greater than Dan Marino from 84', simply because The GIANTS as a TEAM won the Superbowl that year and the Phins as a TEAM, did not in 84'. The 86 Giants were better than the 84 Dolphins. One TEAM was greater than the Other Team.
And of course comparing CAREERS of Marino and Simms, I don't think I need to say to much on the obviousness of that.
Hail to the bloodly Redskins! We should be on a four game win streak. Shusiam(sp)
Bring me the Giants and Dallas baby! I can live with 7-9, especially if Dallas and the Giants don't make the playoffs.
See Dallas pulling the upset over NO this week.
Two snake bitten, bitter losses by the Cowboys and two skin of the teeth wins by NO.....I see more desperation by Dallas in the matchup.
Although Wade Phillips couldn't inspire ANTHING to get "up" for anything, I readily acknowledge.
Indy looked like they were on the verge of an embarrassing collapse in the 2nd half with Denver. Nice to see them pull up their britches and get the scoring drive they needed to end the bloodletting.
How about my Rams? I had them on course for a 4 win season this year, which would have been an improvement from last years 2 win season. I think the win over Detriot is the only one we get.
And I'll say it agian: When Steven Jackson started out this season Hot, THAT was the time to pull off a monster trade that YES would have submarined the season but if we could have packed in a bunch of picks...well lets face it. By the Time this team digs it's way out of the hole it's in, Jackson will be past his best playing days. Getting rid of him when he was healthy and productive WAS the only option we had.
To see that opportunity fade away.....ugh.
Oh well. Go Rams!
brad in indy here; I'd say it depends on the team; that being said, the word seems to be out here that Caldwell will mirror Dungy and start resting people now.Originally Posted by apollack
It's killed the Colts in the past and it may wreck them this year. Their offense is a machine that needs to keep rolling and not get rusty. Their defense is an improving work in progress that needs to keep clicking.
They've got @ Jacksonville this Thursday IMO the only real 'loseable' game, then Jets @ home and @Buffalo...go with the starters, heck they may put the game(s) away early.
But it looks like Manning, Adiai, Wayne, Clark, Freeney, Mathias, etc...etc...etc...with spend most of the next three weeks on the bench working cryptoquips & crossword puzzles. As the top seed they'll get a buy week anyway! A possible undefeated season seems like nothing more than a back-burner afterthought at this point. The Colts already have had their bad karma of injuries this year in spades; that injury bug has left them and went elsewhere.
I say Indy should keep that pedal to the metal!!!
Colts vs Saints. somebodies "O" must go.
That would be a nice superbowl.
Hawk: I'd prefer Penelope Cruz, for obvious reasons, but spending a few days debating with you about anything and everything would be a blast, too. Good stuff and I breathed a sigh of relief when you brought up individual players. It almost literally makes me sick when I hear the opposite of what you stated. Like the years of nonsense about Peyton Manning needing a trophy to validate his career. Unless I'm mistaken, his name STILL ain't on one.
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from as I expressed earlier and you did nothing but solidify your argument with that last post, but....
By that same reasoning, the '72 Dolphins are "Greater" than every Super Bowl loser in history. Every last one. Reid's Eagles with T.O., Holgrem's Packers, the two Cowboys teams that lost to Noll's Steelers, all of Levy's Bills teams.
I guess what I place a lot of weight on is all the things that go into a team winning it all, other than being great. There's some good fortune involved, key injuries need to be avoided, a favorable schedule helps, etc., etc.
One of the reasons the Super Bowl has a tendency to be a blowout (although that trend seems to be going away) is that the two BEST teams aren't always in it. For example, while I think the '85 Bears would have exacted their revenge on Miami in SBXX, the Phins damn sure wouldn't have been throttled quite to the extent that the Patriots were.
I know what you're thinking, they should have just beat New England in Miami for the AFC title, but since they didn't, they need not apply. LOL.
Better yet, how's this: in a way I award bonus points for winning it all, I think you have to, regardless of all other factors. I also believe a team like the Steelers that won 4 of 6 (and avoiding injuries might've made it 5) gets more bonus points than one-shot wonders like Tampa, Baltimore, and yes, the '85 Bears.
That said, I don't think Coughlin's Giants are one of the greatest teams ever anymore than I think the '78 Cowboys were not. And I'm not for just tossing every team into the pot, but there are exceptions I feel who deserve to be in the discussion. That's all I'm saying.
Agree. I too think the 18-1 Patriots were a fantastic all time great team despite losing the SB by 3 points. If the Pats and the Giants play three games I think the Pats win 2 of 3. But unfortunately that one came in the SB. It happens. But then, GREAT teams usually find a way to win the big one, which is what I think Hawk meant.
However, what I learned from tennis is just because you beat Steffi Graf doesn't make you Steffi Graf. Yeah you might beat her in a grand slam final here and there, but over the course of time, she's going to win 20 and you'll just have a handful. The greats can get beat by other really good teams, but over time, the greats win most of the big ones. That's what we see from teams like the 70s Steelers, 80s 49ers, and 2000s Patriots. here and there they are going to get beat in the playoffs, but in general, they find a way to get to the top.
What you are doing is morphing the Franchise over a Decade, with an individual team argument. The Lines are getting blurred here, I think intentionally, in an effort to exscuse the 18-1 Patriots not winning it all. IE, Don't look at it as an individual season. Group that season in with the decade of the 2000's. And that makes it ok that they lost the SB.
If we are looking at that Individual season...no it doesn't.
Not once have I argued that the Patriots of the 2000's were NOT the team of the decade. Based on their success that decade they indeed were. I actually thought Pittsburgh was going to push them for that honor but this season they fell on their face.
Husk, I think you are tiptoeing around your position on the 72 Dolphins. And the more I read your posts here, the more I think we share the same view on them.
Understand, all I said is that BECAUSE they were undefeated, I understand why they are included into the conversation of the greatest teams ever. But that does not mean that I view them as one of the greatest teams ever.
In the 70's alone, I think that 72 Dolphins among Super Bowl winning teams, was only the 7th best team of the decade, behind all 4 Pitt Super Bowl winning teams, the 77 Cowboys and the 76 Raiders. As a Franchise, I place Miami 3rd behind the Steelers and Cowboys of the 70's, for reasons I have stated earlier.
You KNOW me. I haven't boxed myself in in this discussion, where I have to place a team I don't think is as great as some would have them, above other teams that didn't win it all, based on the parameters and rules I have set forth.
Wording is everything. I UNDERSTAND why the 72 Dolphins are in the greatness conversation. It does NOT mean I agree with it.
Let clarify this even further and come full circle and make this conversation about MY Rams, as I usually do: I think the 2001 Rams that lost in the Super Bowl were a Better team than the 2001 Patriots, who they did beat in the regular season, IN New England. Heck, I think the 2001 Rams that DIDN'T win Super Bowl, was a Better team than the Rams that DID win it all in 1999.
BUT, I don't think my 2001 Rams belong in the conversation of the Greatest Teams ever, becuase NO, they did not win it all. And NO, I don't think my 1999 Rams belong in the conversation either. Becuase quite frankly, I don't think they were as good as the team that lost in the big game two years later.
Extrapolate all of this and apply it to 72' Dolphins and you will get a clearer picture as to where I see that individual team as compared to other Super Bowl winning teams AND teams that didn't win it all. Again, I UNDERSTAND why they are in the conversation (they went undefeated). But it isn't necessarily a view that I, myself, hold.
Oh as an aside: Way to lay an egg last night Arizona. I blame Sharks for the Jinx.
Last edited by hawk5ins; 12-15-2009 at 09:22 AM.