Debate?

[THUMPER]

I agree with you about the Browns, the Packers, and the Bears. Those were all very good teams.

I continue to disagree with you about the Dolphins. They were not the "exact" same team in '72 as '71 - not only did they jiggle some personnel, but some young bucks in '71 grew up and became seasoned vets during '72. It is problematic to criticize them for their schedule since they didn't choose it and couldn't change it. And they won every single game by an average of 15 points a game. They were rarely challenged at all and had no "off" games.

The Dolphins only played 2 teams with winning records that year and both were barely over .500 at 8-6. They had the easiest opponents of any of the teams I mentioned by a very wide margin.

They also had tough games against the 7-7 Vikings 16-14, the 4-9-1 Bills 24-23, and the 7-7 Jets 28-24. They had to come from behind to beat the Vikings & Jets and only a missed FG by the Bills kept them from losing to them.

That 15-point margin was built up by a couple of blowout wins over the sorry Patriots(52-0), Oilers(34-13), & Colts-twice(23-0 & 16-0). None of those teams won more than 5 ames that year.

In short, the '72 Dolphins had the easiest record and were the least dominant of any of the teams on my list.

As for your claim that the '72 Cowboys would have beaten the Dolphins, well, the Cowboys had their chance. Instead of beating the Dolphins, the Cowboys were soundly trounced from the playoffs 26-3. I won't mention who beat them. But to say the Cowboys would have won if they had a chance ignores the historical fact that the Cowboys did have a chance.

Obviously this is mere conjecture on my part but I still believe it to be true. We matched up very well with the Dolphins but not as well with the Commanders.

 

[ZeroClub]

The 1972 Dolphins?

Heck, even the Dolphins don't agree with that. ... They (Shula, several players, media who covered them) say the 1973 Dolphins team was better than 1972's.

 

[Hostile]

1985 Bears was the most impressive team I ever saw. 2007 Patriots had their chance to be but 19 and d'oh.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

The Dolphins only played 2 teams with winning records that year and both were barely over .500 at 8-6. They had the easiest opponents of any of the teams I mentioned by a very wide margin.

They also had tough games against the 7-7 Vikings 16-14, the 4-9-1 Bills 24-23, and the 7-7 Jets 28-24. They had to come from behind to beat the Vikings & Jets and only a missed FG by the Bills kept them from losing to them.

That 15-point margin was built up by a couple of blowout wins over the sorry Patriots(52-0), Oilers(34-13), & Colts-twice(23-0 & 16-0). None of those teams won more than 5 ames that year.

In short, the '72 Dolphins had the easiest record and were the least dominant of any of the teams on my list.



Obviously this is mere conjecture on my part but I still believe it to be true. We matched up very well with the Dolphins but not as well with the Commanders.

The '92 Cowboys played a weak Rams team and lost. The '72 Dolphins may have played weak teams but they won every time. Therein lies a difference.

 

[DallasEast]

• 1985 Chicago Bears
• 1992 Dallas Cowboys
• 1972 Miami Dolphins
• 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers

The Bears dominated both the regular season and playoffs. Even their close loss to the Dolphins was one of the legendary games of the 1980's.

The Cowboys. 'nuff said.

The Dolphins went undefeated, but played two fewer games than the two teams above them. Those two missing games could have been two wins, two losses or a split. No one will ever know.

The '78 Cowboys should have beaten the '78 Steelers. That alone places them at the bottom of the list.

 

[Four]

the buffalo teams of the early 90s coulda given all but the cowboys a run for their money. No way those other teams coulda kept up or slowed them down enough

 

[links18]

Umm, the 2007 Cheatriots by a mile.

 

[joseephuss]

The early 70s Dolphins were some good teams. They made it to 3 straight Superbowls winning two. I just don't put that much into making it undefeated. It is quite an accomplishment, but not the be all end all. It is more impressive that they had staying power by going to 3 straight SBs. Of course the one they lost was to the Cowboys.

I think Chicago had a fine team in 1985, but where was their staying power? That was their only SB appearance. Each season brings about some changes in a team, but for the most part the nucleus of any team remains in tact even in this present era of the NFL. It was even more true in 1985 yet Chicago could not make a return trip to the SB. It is similar to the Ravens of 2000. Essentially the same team never made a return trip to the big game.

Dallas has had three different great eras of teams. There was the late 60s-early 70s teams, the late 70s-early 80s teams and the early 90s teams. Look at the rosters of the Dallas squads that won SB VI and SBXII and you will see very few guys on both rosters. They really were two different teams and that is why I see them as two different eras. Both Dallas eras made it to multiple NFC championship games and had two SB appearances winning one. The early 90s version is perhaps their most successful period and I would put them up against anyone.

San Francisco is similar to Dallas. They had the early 80s version and the late 80s-early 90s version. There was a lot of turn over between their first SB win and the latter victories. Their late 80s-early 90s version was probably the better all around teams. To me they are up there with Dallas of the early 90s.

Pittsburgh of the 70s is also up there with Dallas of the 90s and SanFran(80s-90s). All three of those squads are better than the Dolphins of the 70s, in my opinion. Chicago 85 is not even close to those squads. I even put the Commanders of the 80s ahead of Chicago. They had more staying power and played in the much tougher division. The NFC North of the 80s was not very good and a huge step down from the NFC East of the 80s.

 

[links18]

The early 70s Dolphins were some good teams. They made it to 3 straight Superbowls winning two. I just don't put that much into making it undefeated. It is quite an accomplishment, but not the be all end all. It is more impressive that they had staying power by going to 3 straight SBs. Of course the one they lost was to the Cowboys.

I think Chicago had a fine team in 1985, but where was their staying power? That was their only SB appearance. Each season brings about some changes in a team, but for the most part the nucleus of any team remains in tact even in this present era of the NFL. It was even more true in 1985 yet Chicago could not make a return trip to the SB. It is similar to the Ravens of 2000. Essentially the same team never made a return trip to the big game.

Dallas has had three different great eras of teams. There was the late 60s-early 70s teams, the late 70s-early 80s teams and the early 90s teams. Look at the rosters of the Dallas squads that won SB VI and SBXII and you will see very few guys on both rosters. They really were two different teams and that is why I see them as two different eras. Both Dallas eras made it to multiple NFC championship games and had two SB appearances winning one. The early 90s version is perhaps their most successful period and I would put them up against anyone.

San Francisco is similar to Dallas. They had the early 80s version and the late 80s-early 90s version. There was a lot of turn over between their first SB win and the latter victories. Their late 80s-early 90s version was probably the better all around teams. To me they are up there with Dallas of the early 90s.

Pittsburgh of the 70s is also up there with Dallas of the 90s and SanFran(80s-90s). All three of those squads are better than the Dolphins of the 70s, in my opinion. Chicago 85 is not even close to those squads. I even put the Commanders of the 80s ahead of Chicago. They had more staying power and played in the much tougher division. The NFC North of the 80s was not very good and a huge step down from the NFC East of the 80s.

Well argued. The late 80s/early 90s Bills were also very good for a long time, even if inferior to the NFC teams.

 

[THUMPER]

The early 70s Dolphins were some good teams. They made it to 3 straight Superbowls winning two. I just don't put that much into making it undefeated. It is quite an accomplishment, but not the be all end all. It is more impressive that they had staying power by going to 3 straight SBs. Of course the one they lost was to the Cowboys.

I think Chicago had a fine team in 1985, but where was their staying power? That was their only SB appearance. Each season brings about some changes in a team, but for the most part the nucleus of any team remains in tact even in this present era of the NFL. It was even more true in 1985 yet Chicago could not make a return trip to the SB. It is similar to the Ravens of 2000. Essentially the same team never made a return trip to the big game.

Dallas has had three different great eras of teams. There was the late 60s-early 70s teams, the late 70s-early 80s teams and the early 90s teams. Look at the rosters of the Dallas squads that won SB VI and SBXII and you will see very few guys on both rosters. They really were two different teams and that is why I see them as two different eras. Both Dallas eras made it to multiple NFC championship games and had two SB appearances winning one. The early 90s version is perhaps their most successful period and I would put them up against anyone.

San Francisco is similar to Dallas. They had the early 80s version and the late 80s-early 90s version. There was a lot of turn over between their first SB win and the latter victories. Their late 80s-early 90s version was probably the better all around teams. To me they are up there with Dallas of the early 90s.

Pittsburgh of the 70s is also up there with Dallas of the 90s and SanFran(80s-90s). All three of those squads are better than the Dolphins of the 70s, in my opinion. Chicago 85 is not even close to those squads. I even put the Commanders of the 80s ahead of Chicago. They had more staying power and played in the much tougher division. The NFC North of the 80s was not very good and a huge step down from the NFC East of the 80s.

Very good points J.

It looks like you are thinking more about dynasties than about one-year wonders.

The great dynasties were:

30s-40s Bears
late 40s-mid 50s Browns
early-mid 60s Packers
mid 60s-mid 80s Cowboys
70s Stealers
80s-early 90s 49ERs
early 90s Cowboys
00s Patriots


You could add mini-dynasties like:
late 30s-early 40s Packers
mid 50s Lions
late 50s Colts
early 70s Dolphins
early 80s Raiders
mid 80s Commanders
late 80s Giants
early 90s Bills
late 90s Broncos
late 00s Stealers

 

[CATCH17]

So the best record of all time makes you the best team of all time?

I call BS.

 

[UnoDallas]

The Cowboys did beat up on the Bills in the Super Bowl but, then again, so did everyone at that time.

what with records like these

90 13-3
91 13-3
92 11-5
93 12-4

go to four straight SB's one of the best teams not to win a SB

 

[DallasEast]

So the best record of all time makes you the best team of all time?

I call BS.

Add the fact that the 'best record' was attained during a 14-game regular season.

 

[DallasEast]

what with records

90 13-3
91 13-3
92 11-5
93 12-4

four straight SB one of the best teams not to win a SB

Sammy Baugh is so enamored with his team's 37-24 victory over Buffalo that he has forgotten that 'everyone beating up the Bills' includes the Giants--who, by the way, was a Scott Norwood wide right field goal attempt from losing the Super Bowl.

 

[LeonDixson]

******! the skins fan agrred with me :

That should tell you something about your opinion. There's still time to change it.

 

[bbgun]

Were it not for free agency, the cap, and Jimmy's departure, we could have been the equal of those 1970s Steeler teams.

 

[LeonDixson]

Were it not for free agency, the cap, and Jimmy's departure, we could have been the equal of those 1970s Steeler teams.

Better. I truly believe we would have 4 SBs in a row under Jimmy, and maybe a 5th one. Although, free agency and salary cap was hitting us pretty hard by then.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

Sammy Baugh is so enamored with his team's 37-24 victory over Buffalo that he has forgotten that 'everyone beating up the Bills' includes the Giants--who, by the way, was a Scott Norwood wide right field goal attempt from losing the Super Bowl.

Nope. Everyone remembers "wide right." But everyone also remembers the times that the Bills made it to the big dance and got spanked.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

Add the fact that the 'best record' was attained during a 14-game regular season.

And...?

Since the Fins could not play 16 in the regular season, it would be unfair to penalize them. Know one knows whether they would have lost the two extra games....or won them.

Further, the Fins were still the only NFL team to go undefeated through 14 games.

But fine, leave the Fins out of it. The '92 Cowboys didn't even have the best record in the NFC. The '92 Cowboys were crushed by the Eagles 31-7. The '92 Cowboys lost to a 6-10 Rams team. Therefore, even if the '72 Dolphins are not the best team of all time, the '92 Cowboys definitely are not, either.

 

[PBJTime]

Here is my well thought out position in this debate.

'92 Cowboys

(No bias)

/thread

:starspin