Actually, the main core of players were already on the team. God Shula molded them all together and made winners out of them.
The hall of fame has nothing to do with them being un-defeated. There's many great players that never get in the hall. Like Keuch for instance. (sorry if I spelled that wrong) Didn't we have this conversation a long time ago?
doesnt matter the schedule. plenty of teams throughout the yrs. have had easy and EASIER schedules then the 72 phins. and have never gone undefeated. If ur giving props to the Pats and '07 go be a pats fan and join their forums it blows my mind that your talkin **** about our teams HISTORICAL history and comparing them to the pats
Correct me, but I know of Griese, Buonticonti, Larry Little, Jim Langer, Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield. Of course one of the ways you get into the Hall of Fame is by winning championships. Kenny Anderson has better numbers than Bob Griese, but Griese is in and Anderson isn't. Tthe 1970s Dolphins' Hall of Famers are (if they'll forgive the disrespect) for the most part second-tier by that institution's standards. Comparing them with the Steelers of the same era, I suspect most people would rate Mike Wagner ahead of Jim Langer, Jack Lambert ahead of Nick Buonticonti, Terry Bradshaw (in his good years) ahead of Bob Griese, Franco Harris ahead of Csonka. Warfield made the Hall for his years at Cleveland as much for his years at Miami. I'm not sure any of the hall of famers from that team were unquestionably the best at their position in any year (except for Little). Compare that with Marino or Dwight Stephenson. What really stands out to me about the early 70s Dolphins was what an incredible team they were. The whole was much more than the sum of its parts.
Thank you for the insight. I took issue with "off-beat players," because to me, many of those players had very good talent (which can be evidenced by HOF inductees). Perhaps I mistook what was meant by off-beat, but when I hear that I think not very good.
Actually I wasn't even the first to bring up the patriots, and didn't compare them until someone else brought it up. Plenty of people also recognize that the 07 patriots were one of the best teams in league history, and have quite possibly the most explosive offense ever. That doesn't mean people who have those opinions are not fans of their respective teams.
To be honest, I am more impressed by the 1973 Phins than the '72 edition. They lost twice, but they had a much tougher schedule. The Bills went 9-5 (Simpson's 2000-yard season), Miami also had to play the Cowboys and Steelers in the regular season. They lost to the Raiders, but avenged that in the AFC championship. What really impressed me about the '73 team was the way they cruised in the playoffs. They scored a TD in their opening drive in each game. Of course I am prejudiced: Super Bowl VIII is the first game I can really remember. It's not the '72 team's fault about their schedule, of course. The Chiefs, Vikings and Colts had all been playoff teams in 1971, but had bad years in 1972.
No other team has made it through the regular season and postseason without a loss, which happened to result in 17-0-0 for the 72 Fins. There has been another 17-0-0 team since 72.
My bad. They weren't called "off beat players". On something I watched a while back about the history of the Dolphins, they called them rag tag players that Shula got into shape to be super bowl winners and of course the perfect season. It wasn't meant as a dis. It was more on the line of the talent Shula had and the players he worked with, the situation he came into, and how he handled the players.