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.
