Would a 15-0 record with Brady rival the 72 Dolphins?

[Off The Grid]

Personally, I think if we finish 18-1 this team should be considered better than the 1972 Dolphins. What are your thoughts?

You serious? Who gives a Rat's Ass about the Fish??

You think that those Chumps hold some kind of Standard that we should aspire to? Pathetic.

The Patriots have fielded at least 2 Championship Teams already that were better than those Clowns.

The 1972 Fish road an outrageously weak Schedule and were Light Years short of the kind of Dominance that truly great Champions have displayed many times since then.

Nobody'd even remember those Clowns if it wasn't for that statistical anomaly.

 

[wpdougie2180]

Why do we do this to ourselves? Remember in 2009 when the Colts took out Peyton Manning with a lead against the Jets. The jets came back and won to give the Colts their only loss of the season (well, until they lost to the Saints in the Super Bowl). If they did beat the Saints would you have held their 18-1 record as better than the Dolphins? I should think not.

That Colts team lost (gave away) their last 2 regular season games before losing to the Saints in the Super Bowl

 

[supafly]

In whose eyes? That's the million dollar question. In "our" eyes, of course Brady going 15-0 would rival the '72 Dolphins. Actually, most of us have already felt that was accomplished back in 2007 when the team here started 18-0, which is something that was never seen by the '72 Dolphins.

In everyone else's eyes? Not a chance in hell...and that's perfectly okay with me. I don't give a rat's ass about how many losses we have if the season ends in a SB victory.

 

[pwes]

Really couldn't care less about the 72 dolphins. A better question would be how would it rank among our own Superbowl wins. But this is really putting the cart before the horse.

 

[PF_SU]

The 1972 Dolphins are the most overrated team in history (I think when the America's Game series was launched they put them at #1). Their regular season schedule was soft as a cupcake. They only played two teams with a record above .500 and these two teams were 8-6 and none of them made the playoffs. By comparison the 2007 Patriots played six teams that won more than 10 games. And likewise six teams that made the playoffs. To top it off, they played the 5-0 Cowboys in Dallas and the 7-0 Colts in Indianapolis (and when the Steelers came into town they were 9-3 before the loss in New England sent them into a downward spiral losing four of their last five games, including the Wild Card against Jacksonville).

 

[Danger Zone]

I do think that 15-1 will get much of the media talking about the unbeaten season that could have been. Its a talking point I don't see them being able to resist it.

 

[mosi]

No. The Patriots won 22 straight games in 2003 and 2004. That is close enough for me.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Undefeated is undefeated. It takes a unique combination of a very good team and a little bit of luck, but it's still "undefeated."
But.
That 18--1 wouldn't mean that this Patriots team isn't better than that 14--0 Dolphins team.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I do think that 15-1 will get much of the media talking about the unbeaten season that could have been. Its a talking point I don't see them being able to resist it.

But, in the end, it's still "coulda, shoulda, woulda."
All I care about is the Drive for Five.

 

[GaryfromTO]

who cares. Let the Dolphins and their fans continue to dine out on their one moment of glory until the maggots finish off Shula's ass.

I'll take the Patriots post season record and Lombardi trophies over Dolphin's ancient history any day of the week.

 

[mosi]

Undefeated is undefeated. It takes a unique combination of a very good team and a little bit of luck, but it's still "undefeated."
But.
That 18--1 wouldn't mean that this Patriots team isn't better than that 14--0 Dolphins team.

Agree. I think the 2007, 2004 or 2003 Pats team would mop the floor with that Dolphooons team.

 

[MassPats38]

People confuse the distinction of undefeated/perfect season with the best/most dominant team ever. They are not the same.

The 1972 Dolphins would likely not do well against many other champions. It was impressive that they beat the Steelers away for the AFC Championship. They played teams with an aggregate winning percentage of .397 and only two ended up with winning records (8-6) in a shorter 14 game season. The scheduling was different, so they were not matched against playoff teams as a playoff team from the year prior (how many playoff teams did the 2007 Pats whup?). Even with a cupcake schedule, there were only a handful of truly dominant wins.

The undefeated season is impressive, but it is not synonymous with most dominant/best ever. That accomplishment requires skill, but is also a factor of scheduling, opponent health, your team's health and good old-fashioned luck. Winning 3 games against quality opponents is a far cry from having to beat 7 or 8 quality opponents. That is like saying Larry Holmes was the best heavyweight ever because he went 48-0 in an era considered weak in boxing history. Ali may have lost some fights, but the level of competition made him that much better in winning titles, and nobody would seriously contend Holmes was better than an Ali in the prime of his career.

 

[Off The Grid]

01 ~ Asinine Premise for a Thread.

02 ~ But great Responses.

 

[PF_SU]

(how many playoff teams did the 2007 Pats whup?)

San Diego Chargers (11-5): 38-14
Dallas Cowboys (13-3): 48-27 (away)
Washington Redskins (9-7): 52-7
Indianapolis Colts (13-3): 24-20 (away)
Pittsburgh Steelers (10-6): 34-13
New York Giants (10-6): 38-35 (away)

In addition they played the 10-6 Browns that missed the playoffs on the tie-breaker and beat them 34-17.

 

[brdmaverick]

That Colts team lost (gave away) their last 2 regular season games before losing to the Saints in the Super Bowl

I guess I forgot about that second loss but the point still stands. I think the OP is saying that 'giving away a game' is not REALLY losing just as in our case losing with a third string QB is not really losing. I don't agree though as I think there is something specially about being undefeated. As someone else mentioned, it doens't mean the Dolphins are the best team ever, but I'll admit it is special to have an undefeated season.

Last year we were sitting at 8-0 at this time. WHile I would obviously rather be 8-0, the one nice thing about 7-1 is that at least the team doesn't have to deal with "UNDEFEATED" talk......well, at least until this thread started.

 

[ALP]

so the pats wouldn't be undefeated in 2016...but BRADY would be... and at 15-0 it would be more impressive than fins at 14-0