5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

This article is about as accurate as it gets and I think we as Patriots fans feel the same way on all accounts - A fairly short article but a good read

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...re_better.html

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

There's more than just the five reasons they mentioned, but those do speak for themselves.

I do think the "greatest of all time" mantle is up for debate, but any way you slice it the '72 Dolphins are not in the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

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.

Still, Brady is a better QB than Griese was, but don't underestimate how good Griese was in that system.

The Patriots win that game IMO, but I also think that the Dolphins were the better balanced team. When I use the word I don't mean it the way that writer used it (to indicate versatile.) The Dolphins had the league's best offense, defense and special teams. So that team had balance.

Also, they played a different style back then. They ran the ball a lot and were very effective at it. They had great versatility in the running game because they could throw Czonka at you to soften you up, and the Morris and Kick could do what somebody like Faulk can do. But they ran the ball a lot and it's debatable as to how effective that would be in a head-to-head match with the Pats. If things went their way we know it would mean that they could control the football and the tempo of the game.

But I doubt that any defense could handle what we've assembled on offense right now. In the end I don't see the Pats losing a game to anybody. But the Pats do give up points recenntly, and if they were to face a Joe Montana in a modern offense, well, you do the math. It's a shootout and the outcome would be in doubt at times. This is assuming that Montana's offense got updated, etc. Great players are just great players. There's no need to doubt that they could play in another era. They would need to get updated though. That updating thing is the only way that comparing the teams would be possible.

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

I'm tired of hearing this idiocy again and again. The Patriots played pretty much every good team in the league this year except Green Bay.

It's a stupid thing to continue saying, and if you bring it up you're making yourself look like a fool.

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

Well you do have to consider that if the Patriots were in the AFC South it would have been MUCH MORE difficult to have gone 19-0 -
In fact you may say it may have been doubtful - Indy twice and Jax twice plus an improving Texans and Titans would have been much harder to sweep the division

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

Sure, you can say that. But having six "easy" wins did not make it any easier to win the other 18 games, many of which were against extremely high quality opponents. Every team has cupcakes on their schedule, ours just happened to come in the division. None of the NFC East teams were easy outs this year, the Chargers and Colts speak for themselves, and the AFC North featured the Steelers and Browns. Not to mention the Ravens who, despite slipping, were a year removed from being the 2 seed in the AFC.

The Bengals were the only non-division game on the schedule that fit the traditional definition of a "cupcake"

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

There are only four teams per division, not five. So if the Pats were in the south, they wouldn't have to play one of those teams anyway.

The Colts played seven games versus playoff teams. If they hadn't thrown that game to the Titans at the end of the season, they would have played five playoff teams. The Pats played six playoff teams, and would have played seven if the Colts hadn't deliberately lost to the Titans.

So what's your point?

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

Earl Moral was the QB back in 1972, Griese was injured that year.

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

I don't understand this idea of adjusting teams from the past to compare them to the present. We are comparing this team to other teams from the past, not with past teams if they were to play in the present. One of the reasons why the Patriots are the best team ever is because they are bigger, faster, and smarter players than their counter-parts of the past.

Re: 5 Reasons why the 2007 Patriots are better than the 1972 Dolphins
 

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.