5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

jscout · 01-31-2008, 12:45 PM

I only need one reason...18-0 (soon to be 19-0).

***Deus Irae*** · 01-31-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATRIOTSFANINPA

My point is is that it does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that it would be a much tougher task to beat Indy,Jax and tennessee all twice in this season compared to a pathetic Buffalo,Jets and Dolphins,While we definately could have won all 6 games against those teams in the south it would have been VERY hard to sweep all 6

Just be glad we are 18-0 and be glad we are in the AFC East which does help that record and made those 6 games easier than being in any other division.

In 1972, the Dolphins were unbeaten. In 1972, the AFC East was the weakest, or arguably, the weakest, division in the NFL. The AFC East was a 5 team division and the 4 other teams combined to win only 19 games. The next lowest win total for any division's lowest 4 teams was 23.

The AFC Central division had teams with records of 11-3, 10-4 and 8-6, as did the NFC East. Had Miami been in either of those division, you could have been basically applying your "While we definately could have won all 6 games against those teams in the south it would have been VERY hard to sweep all 6" theory in '72.

***NEPatriot*** · 01-31-2008, 01:29 PM

there is no real comparision between pats and dolphin. Pats is better than dolphin.

Fixit · 01-31-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrontSeven

It's an interesting read but one thing I think all these writers and fans need to realize that is in comparing eras you have to adjust. You have to bring the past teams into the present, and that means they change to reflect today's standards for size, speed, athleticism, complexity, etc. In other words make it an even and fair comparison.

This a completely fallacious argument that so many people fall into. It's already a fair comparison. We wouldn't compare Asafa Powell to Jesse Owens and say that we have to adjust the argument to make Owens faster. If both were in their primes, Powell would smoke Owens. By the same token, today's NFL teams would destroy the teams from the 70's.

Being bigger, faster, and stronger is part of being a better athlete and team. The only way to judge a team's performance is against its contemporaries, who we already know are operating on the same level. Judging on that basis, the Pats (should they win the SB) would have accomplished something never done before, and they've set a barrel full of records along the way, against much tougher competition.

Fixit · 01-31-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHoss67

Ummmmm... If the 2007 Pats played the '72 Dolphins, Randy Moss would need maybe 5 steps off the line to run by their defensive backs...

The Pats offensivel ine would DOMINATE the Dolphins defensive line... They would pound them into the ground because they're so much bigger and stronger.

Vince Wilfork would need to be triple teamed just to keep him out of the backfield. There were no 300 pounders in '72... Guys like Richard Seymour would dominate. Rodney Harrison might kill somebody.

The Pats OL would have about 2-3 inches and 40-50 lbs. on the Dolphins DL... The Pats DL would have about 2-3 inches and 40-50 lbs. on the Dolphins OL...

There's not even any comparison. Any team now would destroy any team from 1972. The players are just physically bigger, faster, stronger, and better.

Exactly. The next step in the argument is, "Well, if they had the same training/nutrition/performance enhancers they'd be as good."

The answer to that is, "Maybe." Given that hypothetical, some of them might have been good enough to play in today's NFL. Many others wouldn't ever make a team.

sieglo · 01-31-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATRIOTSFANINPA

My point is is that it does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that it would be a much tougher task to beat Indy,Jax and tennessee all twice in this season compared to a pathetic Buffalo,Jets and Dolphins,While we definately could have won all 6 games against those teams in the south it would have been VERY hard to sweep all 6

Just be glad we are 18-0 and be glad we are in the AFC East which does help that record and made those 6 games easier than being in any other division.

And my point is what difference does it make? The Colts played seven games against playoff caliber teams, plus nine games against ****ty teams. The Pats played six against playoff teams and ten against ****ty teams. What difference does it make it the teams were in the same division or not? A game is a game. If the Colts hadn't rolled over on the Titans, the Pats would have played MORE games against playoff teams than the Colts.

bishbash · 01-31-2008, 08:23 PM

Ah, something from AssClown Media. Sort of a spam version of wikipedia where the author's get paid for every "hit" on thier article. I've seen "authors" spamming other boards w/ that site.

Hamtown · 01-31-2008, 08:27 PM

I have 5 reasons.
BRADY
MOSS
BRUSCHI
HARRISONand
BELICHICK
etc, etc, etc!

GO PATS!

***SoCal Pmen*** · 01-31-2008, 09:37 PM

There is no comparison. The 72 dolphins are not even in the top 5 greatest teams. There's a better comparison against the '85 Bears, 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers and 90's Cowboys.